Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests

(SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by Keith_w   » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:47 pm

Keith_w
Commodore

Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Randomiser wrote:
n7axw wrote:I'm wondering if Dreadnought had any of those wire wound cannon that Seamount and Housmyn developed at Merlin's suggestion.

If so, that could turn out to be a useful bit of tech that would be within Dohlar's ability to copy...

Don


Actually, Merlin seems to be more concerned about the technology transfer impact of the loss of the cannon and their carriages than of the armour
'Dynnys Zhwaigair was about to have six-inch rifled guns on Mahndrayan carriages to examine. God only knew where that was likely to lead!' HFQ p492 Kindle edition

Which doesn't seem to have been commented on. I have lost track. Can anyone remind me what a Mandrayn Carriage is and whether the Temple Boys are likely to be able to reproduce it?


I haven't looked it up but I think they are the ones with oil-based shock absorbers, similar to the ones in your car, but bigger, much, much bigger.
--
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by Jonathan_S   » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:02 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

runsforcelery wrote:Oh, and on another point that someone else made about making this passage in the dark.

Given the width of the passage — which they knew from their first trip through it on their way to the target — and the fact that they had no clue the shoal existed, there was no reason why they shouldn't have made the passage in darkness. They'd been through the very same waters once already without encountering the shoal. They weren't on exactly the same track on their way home — again, these are sailing ships, not steamers, and they navigate by the Mark One Eyeball, not GPS, radar, or sonar — but they knew they were in safe water. They were wrong about that, but to the extent that any professional mariner is going to take anything for granted about a particular passage, they had pretty fair grounds for believing it would be as safe to sail through Egg Drop Pass in darkness as in daylight.

It could even be argued (although, admittedly, it wasn't part of my own thinking when I wrote this scene) that they encountered the shoal because in the darkness they were giving Egg Drop Island a wider berth than they'd given it on their way south precisely to give themselves a wider safety margin from the land features they knew about. That is, they stayed farther off Egg Drop Island, which moved them deeper into the channel, which is why they hit the shoal in the first place. As I say, I didn't think about that at the time (because, frankly, this was all a non-issue for me, given what I knew about the information available to the characters), but I could probably deploy that argument ex post facto if I wanted to.

There really wasn't any need for it though, because it's very seldom been the practice of any merchant or naval skipper to say "Oh, my. This channel in front of me is only 25 miles wide. I'd better anchor until daylight before I enter it." And, for what it's worth, the actual channel between Beggar Island and Egg Drop Island is (just coincidentally) 25.85 miles across, and Shingle Shoal lies roughly 15 miles from Beggar Island and just under 10 miles from Egg Drop Island. In other words, it's not quite smack in the middle of an otherwise deep water channel that's the next best thing to 30 miles across. That being so, I don't see any reason for a squadron commander — especially a squadron commander who didn't know Shingle Shoal even existed — to consider for a moment not making the transit as expeditiously as possible, especially when he already knew he might have to fight his way through a pursuing fleet along his voyage home.
Another argument against anchoring for the night (if one were needed) is that the ships finally had good wind and were making progress out of enemy territory. Anchoring for the night would mean giving up that known-good wind in the hopes that there's still favorable (or any) wind come daylight. (And nobody on that mission had access to SNARCs or Owl's weather forecasting so it'd be totally up to luck)

It would seem, especially on a mission already bedeviled by unfavorable winds, that it would be deeply questionable to add that kind of risk just to mitigate the risk of a night transit of a wide and previously traveled passage. Doubly so when your likely pursuers include ships that don't rely on the wind to nearly the same extent that you do.
Getting yourself becalmed in front that that passage with screw galleys coming up would be, ... unpleasant.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:01 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

JeffEngel wrote:Specialized dredging equipment may do wonders, but squadrons don't routinely sail with that.

They've got explosive shells and bags for prepping gunpowder. I doubt they had much specialized underwater demolition gear for the exercise. (Although it would have been mighty handy for blowing locks on the canals to stop the screw-galleys, too, if they'd been in time.) Underwater explosions near a ship, even an armored one, will be mighty dangerous - heck, if they weren't, the spar torpedo would be a non-threat.
Following this thought off on a tangent I'm wondering a few things.

1) (Succumbing to a tendency to play Monday Morning Quarterback) How vulnerable would the lightly constructed hulls of the screw galleys be to nearby underwater explosions? And would the high capacity shells carried by Charis's late model muzzle loaders fuse and explode effectively when they hit (or preferably shortly after they hit) water?
Could their gallons attempt to drive off, disable, or sink screw galley through mining effect by firing at the water near them - rather than trying to pierce their armor prow?

2) How improved in the underwater protection on the new King Haarahld class battleships? Was there enough foresight (or maybe more pertinently; a reasonable excuse) to slip in a real anti-torpedo defense. (Especially given that those were notoriously flawed in coal powered battleships due to the competing demand for reasonable passage of coal to the boilers)

3) What has the COGA or it secular allies been working on for improved harbor defense? Contact mines? Command detonated mines? Just improved coast artillery?
Implausibly exotic would be developing something like Louis Brennan's cable-powered guided torpedo. It would fall within Langhorns prohibitions, but it's complicated enough that odds are only Merlin and Owl could design it in a timely manner, and they and Charis likely don't have any compelling reason to radically advance underwater munitions.


Which is too bad in a way because those are impressive mechanical designs that few people seem to know about. But were good enough the UK's Royal Navy adopted them for harbor defense in the 1880 and used them as such for over 15 years. There was no engine or battery onboard to drive the torpedo. Instead there were two spooled cables of very thin steel wire. When launched a shore station pulled in the wire and it's cable spools were mechanically linked to couterrotating propellers. Additionally the two spools were linked into a differential type gearing such that altering their relative rates of unspooling would alter the rudder angle. So the shore station both powered and guided the torpedo (a small indicator mast stuck above the water that could be used to track the torpedo and thus steer it into its target). Their range was limited based on the length of cable you could effectively use, but within that range of several thousand yards they evolved to make up to 27 knots.
Even with only a black powder contact warhead such a mechanical marvel could devastate the submerged wooden hull of any angle gun ship or iron clad; and might well endanger a 1st generation steel warship. If the COGA cracked or stole the recipe for dynamite it'd get even more dangerous.
But still, despite my enthusiasm for this device I'd expect that what we might more reasonable see in the way of underwater threats would be moored or floating mines of one kind or another.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by evilauthor   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:05 am

evilauthor
Captain of the List

Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:51 pm

n7axw wrote:Somebody more tech oriented than I would have to answer this, but I do recall a quite a bit of discussion in previous books about the difficulties experienced in developing gun carriages.

My hunch would be that Dohlar could reproduce them.

Don


Actually, ANY kind of piston based recoil absorption system that lets you bolt the gun to the deck (as opposed to sliding back on wheels) would probably be an advance over what Dohlar has.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by JeffEngel   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:31 am

JeffEngel
Admiral

Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:06 pm

evilauthor wrote:
n7axw wrote:Somebody more tech oriented than I would have to answer this, but I do recall a quite a bit of discussion in previous books about the difficulties experienced in developing gun carriages.

My hunch would be that Dohlar could reproduce them.

Don


Actually, ANY kind of piston based recoil absorption system that lets you bolt the gun to the deck (as opposed to sliding back on wheels) would probably be an advance over what Dohlar has.

Agreed. But it's another bunch of tricks to impose on Dohlaran manufacturing, another bunch of tricks that would have to pass Clyntahn, another bunch of tricks that would make him more suspicious of Dohlaran and Chihirite tech wizards, and another cause for those tech wizards and their patrons to be worried about and even resentful toward the Inquisition.

Innovation poisons the Temple side as a Temple side.

Technically, it's likely a lot easier for them and a lot more useful than the armor.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by JeffEngel   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:53 am

JeffEngel
Admiral

Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:06 pm

Jonathan_S wrote:
JeffEngel wrote:Specialized dredging equipment may do wonders, but squadrons don't routinely sail with that.

They've got explosive shells and bags for prepping gunpowder. I doubt they had much specialized underwater demolition gear for the exercise. (Although it would have been mighty handy for blowing locks on the canals to stop the screw-galleys, too, if they'd been in time.) Underwater explosions near a ship, even an armored one, will be mighty dangerous - heck, if they weren't, the spar torpedo would be a non-threat.
Following this thought off on a tangent I'm wondering a few things.

1) (Succumbing to a tendency to play Monday Morning Quarterback) How vulnerable would the lightly constructed hulls of the screw galleys be to nearby underwater explosions? And would the high capacity shells carried by Charis's late model muzzle loaders fuse and explode effectively when they hit (or preferably shortly after they hit) water?
I think they have to hope for the best with such near-misses rather than rely on such performance or even aim for it and design for it.

Could their gallons attempt to drive off, disable, or sink screw galley through mining effect by firing at the water near them - rather than trying to pierce their armor prow?
That's likely asking a lot more aiming than is practical under the circumstances.

2) How improved in the underwater protection on the new King Haarahld class battleships? Was there enough foresight (or maybe more pertinently; a reasonable excuse) to slip in a real anti-torpedo defense. (Especially given that those were notoriously flawed in coal powered battleships due to the competing demand for reasonable passage of coal to the boilers)
I've been wondering more about whether or not or how they're giving thought to torpedo-boat destroyers. Mind you, that's going to be a response to effective torpedo delivery systems, which haven't come up yet and aren't likely to originate with the Temple side soon or easily.

The Temple could use automotive torpedoes and mines so much more, because they're hopelessly outclassed in the armor and gunnery fields, but the technical requirements for really good torpedoes are so far beyond them and the conceptual leaps aren't encouraged in their background. So-so torpedo delivery systems are another thing - the spar torpedo is already one such, and a Turtle- or Hunley-style submarine is one they could probably try. In any such case though, they'd need still or very slow targets near their harbors. Maneuvering and close night watches can provide a lot of protection that way before making demands on the design and construction.

3) What has the COGA or it secular allies been working on for improved harbor defense? Contact mines? Command detonated mines? Just improved coast artillery?
Screw galleys, really, as the primary tool, along with the spar torpedo. Mines do not seem to have emerged yet, but they're plausible in the future, when there is one. Improved coastal artillery is up there, but there are serious questions about how well it is going to be able to do against armored ships with long-range, fast-firing guns: the Temple harbor guns are getting huge, but that's so much time, metal, and expense there won't be many of them (and they suck resources away from naval and field gunnery), and they are very slow-firing still.
Implausibly exotic would be developing something like Louis Brennan's cable-powered guided torpedo. It would fall within Langhorns prohibitions, but it's complicated enough that odds are only Merlin and Owl could design it in a timely manner, and they and Charis likely don't have any compelling reason to radically advance underwater munitions.
And compelling reason not to expose the Temple to that kind of idea, yes. It's a risk in being too forward with anti-torpedo/mine techniques too - you don't want to suggest to the enemy the things you're worried about!

Which is too bad in a way because those are impressive mechanical designs that few people seem to know about. But were good enough the UK's Royal Navy adopted them for harbor defense in the 1880 and used them as such for over 15 years. There was no engine or battery onboard to drive the torpedo. Instead there were two spooled cables of very thin steel wire. When launched a shore station pulled in the wire and it's cable spools were mechanically linked to couterrotating propellers. Additionally the two spools were linked into a differential type gearing such that altering their relative rates of unspooling would alter the rudder angle. So the shore station both powered and guided the torpedo (a small indicator mast stuck above the water that could be used to track the torpedo and thus steer it into its target). Their range was limited based on the length of cable you could effectively use, but within that range of several thousand yards they evolved to make up to 27 knots.
Even with only a black powder contact warhead such a mechanical marvel could devastate the submerged wooden hull of any angle gun ship or iron clad; and might well endanger a 1st generation steel warship. If the COGA cracked or stole the recipe for dynamite it'd get even more dangerous.
But still, despite my enthusiasm for this device I'd expect that what we might more reasonable see in the way of underwater threats would be moored or floating mines of one kind or another.

Me too. The explosive raft expedient is already a primitive ancestor of that idea; heck, you could count a fireship as a much earlier one. I suspect those mines are going to see first use, not defending harbors, but frustrating the use of the ironclads on the rivers and canals.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:10 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

JeffEngel wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:Implausibly exotic would be developing something like Louis Brennan's cable-powered guided torpedo.[snip]
But still, despite my enthusiasm for this device I'd expect that what we might more reasonable see in the way of underwater threats would be moored or floating mines of one kind or another.

Me too. The explosive raft expedient is already a primitive ancestor of that idea; heck, you could count a fireship as a much earlier one. I suspect those mines are going to see first use, not defending harbors, but frustrating the use of the ironclads on the rivers and canals.

Yeah, some moored mines to back up the sunken block-ships in the canals count potentially have ruined the ironclad's day.

Actually that reminds me, I'm a little surprised that the CoGA defenders there didn't think of something along the lines of Czech hedgehogs sunk in the canal -- something to try and damage the submerged hull by collision. Without SNARC intel it's unlikely that the ironclad captains would be aware of sunken obstacles. And even if they got advanced knowledge of them, being wholly underwater and being a number of individual obstructions, I assume those'd be harder to deal with that monolithic improvised dams.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by gamarus   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:34 pm

gamarus
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:52 pm
Location: Denmark

Randomiser wrote:Actually, Merlin seems to be more concerned about the technology transfer impact of the loss of the cannon and their carriages than of the armour
'Dynnys Zhwaigair was about to have six-inch rifled guns on Mahndrayan carriages to examine. God only knew where that was likely to lead!' HFQ p492 Kindle edition

Which doesn't seem to have been commented on. I have lost track. Can anyone remind me what a Mandrayn Carriage is and whether the Temple Boys are likely to be able to reproduce it?



The Mandrayn carriage is what we would call a Marsilly carriages. Wikipedia doesn't have a page dedicated to this kind of carriage, but you can see one somewhat down on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlgren_gun

In essence: only two gun trucks in the front, it slides on the rear, thus greater friction for stopping heavier cannons. For moving it around, a single wheeled lever under the rear centre, meaning you can train (alter the angle of) the gun much easier. And finally elevating screws for elevation control.

All in all a lighter carriage that is easier and thus faster to aim than the normal carriage. And it's very easy to copy for the Temple Boys.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by Senior Chief   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:46 pm

Senior Chief
Commander

Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:02 am
Location: Bear Flag Republic

jgnfld wrote:
Expert snuggler wrote:Since nobody's suggested this it must be a stupid question.

Why not excavate around the ship to free it?

It's a huge ship and there are only so many shovels in the world, but it does have explosives on board.

Explosives are hazardous, but so are approaching enemies, and the ship was armored.


Good Lord!!! What is it with the notion that explosions can solve anything??? It's almost a cultural meme these days. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fact 1: Explosives used under hulls is the surest method known of destroying a ship. Even armored ships as you break the ship's back by creating a cavity under it.

Fact 2: While I'll defer to RFC, I doubt these ironclads are armored underneath in any case. If not, we're talking mere inches of planking.

Fact 3: Water/waterlogged mud is a quite efficient medium for transporting shock waves over short distances.

Fact 4: OTOH moving waterlogged mud any distance with explosions would be incredibly inefficient. Never heard of it even being tried, personally, except to blow small bog holes to create duck nesting habitat and even that was fraught with problems.




I was waiting for the captain to give two orders:

1) order the ships small boats to move the ships anchors out into open water and place them securely.

2) when that is done order the crew to Sally ship; running back and forth from port to starboard in order to break suction of the mud/sandbar. While this is happening hoist the anchors to pull the ship off.

I was in the navy for what seems a lifetime and a lifetime ago aboard ships ranging in size from a Minesweeper to an Aircraft carrier as well as an LA Attack submarine. The only time I had ever run aground was aboard a destroyer in well charted San Diego harbor. Ended up bending the blades on both screws.

Not my fault; if the bridge crew had listened to my navigation team in CIC the incident would never have happened. I locked up my navigation log and charts ASAP on only produced them when ordered by the court. No one was going to doctor my books or charts to protect the bridge.

Oh well my experience at running aground.
Top
Re: (SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate
Post by Michael Everett   » Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:37 pm

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2619
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

jgnfld wrote:Good Lord!!! What is it with the notion that explosions can solve anything??? It's almost a cultural meme these days. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think it may have started with the Order Of The Stick.
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero."
"And that would be wrong"

A variant can be found in Schlock Mercenary.
Maxim 44: If it will blow a hole in the ground, it will double as an entrenching tool.

Plus it always looks cool walking away from explosions in the background, although it can sometimes go wrong...
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top

Return to Safehold