Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Are The Strongest And Weakest Ships Built?  
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3650 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

I was wondering, what do think is the strongest and weakest types of ships built?


For me.

Strongest:

Battleships

Aircraft Carriers

Ocean Liners

Weakest:

Cruise Ships

Tankers

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Cruise Ships

Cruise ships have a lot of windows and glass a rouge wave can do damage and the water can make its way in, rough sea conditions often move tables and chairs around a room injuring passengers.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Tankers

All the mass really makes them susceptible to hogging and sagging in rough seas as much of a loaded tanker is below the water line.


Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Battleships
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Aircraft Carriers

They are made for the high seas and having few windows and watertight doors helps.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5933 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
For me.

Strongest:

ICE Breakers, especially the Russian atomic powered ones.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinegkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24938 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5931 times:

Strongest: Titanic
Weakest: Titanic

...



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Some of the weakest ships as to build were some of the 'liberty ships' of the USA during WW II. Mainly for cargo use, but also to transport troops and for limited battle use, these ships were very famous for the quick build times, using prefabricated sections, extensive welding instead of rivets, with final assembly from keel to flotable in as little as less than 5 days. Earlier versions were designed to only really last about 5 years. They were also infamous with a relatively small number of them breaking apart in rough seas vs. that other ships at the time.

The quality of metal, cold weather stress in use in the North Atlantic, the techniques of manufacturing, engineering flaws, overloading along with a huge need for many such ships quickly and cheaply, since many were also lost to enemy led to a combination of decisions that caused their higher that desirable loss rates. Many had to be modified and many were scrapped over time as they had these flaws. Some were retained after WW II for military use, speciality use but most became the backbone of post-WWII shipping companies in Europe and elsewhere.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2446 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5806 times:

IMO, the U.S. Coast Guards self righting lifeboat is a tough one.

http://www.uscg.mil/d11/stahumboldtbay/img/Humboldt_bar.jpg



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5796 times:

Do you include submarines in the definition of ships? Would these not need to be fairly strong to withstand water pressure when submerged? Serious question, because I genuinely do not know. I haven't studied it at all and I know that shipwrecks can lie under the ocean for many years relatively intact but they are not moving through water. So are submarines subject to greater pressure and would their construction need to make them "stronger"?

Over to the engineers...


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21480 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5777 times:

Among the toughest surface ships would be SAR cruisers as they are being used in the North Sea:

Seenotrettungskreuzer – Wikipedia

They are specifically designed to operate under conditions where other ships get into trouble.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5764 times:

Some of the strongest ships would have to be ice breakers, platform supply vessels and standby vessesls. However any flaw in the design and you strong vessel could end up a lemon. In the case of standby vessels they can't leave there position watever the weather, they have to ride out whatever hits them, these are very strongly built ships.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 2):
ICE Breakers, especially the Russian atomic powered ones.

What's interesting about these vessels is that they can't operate anywhere other than in the artic, if they go south, they overheat. A new class of atomic powered ice breakers is currently being designed.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 1):
Cruise ships have a lot of windows and glass a rouge wave can do damage and the water can make its way in, rough sea conditions often move tables and chairs around a room injuring passengers.

Lot's of windows doesn't make them weak.


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3956 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5757 times:

Fram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram

 


User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5752 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
What's interesting about these vessels is that they can't operate anywhere other than in the arctic, if they go south, they overheat.

Sorry but I don't understand this. Are you saying only that they can not make the journey from the Arctic Ocean through warmer waters to the Antarctic, or that they can't operate in the Antarctic Circle?


User currently offlinehka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5751 times:

I know jack about sea vessels (other than I would rather stay off of them). I would think the Soviet Typhoon and Alfa class submarines would be some pretty tough customers. The Typhoon is the biggest sub and the Alfa was the fastest with it's titanium hull.

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5700 times:

Quoting Quokka (Reply 10):
Are you saying only that they can not make the journey from the Arctic Ocean through warmer waters to the Antarctic, or that they can't operate in the Antarctic Circle?

These ships must cruise in cold water to cool their reactors, so they cannot pass through the tropics to undertake voyages in the Southern hemisphere.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5598 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
Lot's of windows doesn't make them weak.

It does not make them weak but more vulnerable to damage in rough seas as water may punch through windows in the lower section of the superstructure. The hull if fine.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
Some of the weakest ships as to build were some of the 'liberty ships'...

Very interesting summary. Thanks!


User currently offlineShamrock137 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

Roll on / Roll off ferries seem to be particularly vulnerable in heavy seas if their is any type of failure in the bow door. Also even a small amount of water on the car deck can cause a loss of stability. The MS Estonia, a 155ft passenger ferry of this design sank less than 45 min after the bow door failed in a storm.


Time to spare? Go by air!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 12):

These ships must cruise in cold water to cool their reactors, so they cannot pass through the tropics to undertake voyages in the Southern hemisphere.

Interesting tid-bit, Rob!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5363 times:

Trying to determine what is the "strongest" ship is an impossibility; there are too many kinds of ships, each specifically designed for specific jobs.

Someone mentioned the Russian Typhoon class submarines. They are by far the largest subs ever built, and having a double titanium hull, it takes an awful lot to sink one, ( So far, no one has ever accomplished it. ) But are they the "strongest" overall ? That's a very difficult question to answer; They are designed to dive at very deep depths, but on the other hand, so are a lot of other submarines, I can tell you this; there are NO submarines, Russian, U.S., British or any other that can withstand the pressure at much more than maybe 1,500 feet. Inasmuch as there are places in the oceans that are over 30,000 ft deep, NO sub will EVER be able to dive anywhere near this deep without being crushed by the extreme pressure.

A lot of things are involved in making something "strong". Overall size has a lot to do with it, shape of hull, type of metal in hull, etc. Example; a Los Angeles class attack sub has a hull that is a perfect cylinder, with a hemispherical cap on either end. this is as strong as you can make a sub; without making it so heavy it would be useless. U.S.N. attack subs all have hulls of "around" 3" thickness; they are all able to operate at or below 1,000 ft. ( just how far below is classified )
They are also able to go quite "fast" submerged. Again, just "how fast" is classified. If you increased hull thickness to, say, 6", sure, you could dive much deeper, but the thing would be so heavy it would be much slower.

Actually, submarines have much in common with airplanes; they are all "purpose built" depending on their mission.
They are all designed to be "just strong enough", just "fast" enough, and just as safe as it is possible to make them.
( The U.S.N. is very "big" on safety, but even they have lost two SSN's so far. )

If you want to see something that is REALLY strong, ( although it is not classified as a "ship" ), the bathyscaphe "Trieste" is, to this day, the only manned vessel ever to reach the bottom of deepest place in the world's oceans. In 1960 it reached the bottom of the Mariana Trench, near Guam, a depth of 35,797 feet. the thing is essentially a 50ft long tank filled with gasoline for buoyancy, with a 7ft diameter sphere suspended beneath it for the 2 man crew. Suffice to say, spheres are VERY strong.

To make something the size of a submarine, that could withstand 35,000 feet........probably need to be 6 feet thick !
( I'm just guessing ) ( and it would probably sink under it's own weight )

A modern aircraft carrier ? A very strong ship.........just "strong enough" to accomplish it's intended purpose.

It's very safe to say, all modern submarines are very "strong" ships, but they can also ALL be lost, destroyed, sunk; either by "accident", ( U.S.S. Thresher , U.S.S. Scorpion ), and at least 3 Russian SSN's.
All modern warships are very strong, but none are "impervious" to being "lost".

BTW...........I don't know where this thing about nuclear ice-breakers being unable to operate in "warmer" waters came from ?
If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system ! The U.S. Navy has a lot of nuclear powered vessels, submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc etc, and I GUARANTEE you, any one of them is capable of going ANYPLACE in the world's oceans !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 17):
If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system !

Why? If you can use the surrounding frigid water as a heat sink, why bother with the complicated cooling system? And what sort of icebreaker would need to operate in warm climates, and there isn't a whole lot of need for the Russians to operate in Antarctica.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 17):
The U.S. Navy has a lot of nuclear powered vessels, submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc etc, and I GUARANTEE you, any one of them is capable of going ANYPLACE in the world's oceans !

As does the Soviet/Russian Navy on vessels that need to be able to go anywhere. But there isn't much reason why they should go out of their way to make sure that their icebreakers can work in the Persian Gulf. After all:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 17):
they are all "purpose built" depending on their mission.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1300 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5323 times:

Do surfboards count?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Plane_crash_into_Hudson_River_%28crop%29.jpg

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5304 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 17):
If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system

I'd say its very clever, SPECIALIST design! These ships are designed to serve the Russian north coast for as long a season as possible, a location where cold ambient water is never in short supply. The Russians have sent ice breakers to Antarctica in the past, but i have no idea if they were atomic powered.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5214 times:

Quoting Shamrock137 (Reply 15):
155ft

Actually, that's 155 metres.  

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 20):
The Russians have sent ice breakers to Antarctica in the past, but i have no idea if they were atomic powered.

Not the nuclear powered ones. They have two types of nuclear Ice Breakers in service, 2 with shallow draft built in Finland for rivers Taimyr class and 4 operational Arktika class (6 constructed) for the Arctic.

The newest Russian Icebreakers are the conventially powered Moscow and St Petersburg built at Baltisky Shipyard in St Petersburg. I got to go onboard St Petersburg for an inspection of equipment my company supplied. These can and will also be used in the Antartic supporting Russian activities down there.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21480 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5164 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
Quoting Geezer (Reply 17):
If that really is the case with a particular Russian vessel, then it has a very poorly designed cooling system !

Why? If you can use the surrounding frigid water as a heat sink, why bother with the complicated cooling system?

The cooling systems always work with sea water in every case (even for non-nuclear propulsion). The main variables for differing sea water temperatures would be pump capacities and pipe diameters. The complexity isn't much different.

Some soviet-era technology is known for cutting corners on certain specs, but I would still be surprised if there were many if any icebreakers which would be incapable of operating in a warm climate. Possibly not at peak performance, but then again there usually isn't much ice to break in the tropics.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
And what sort of icebreaker would need to operate in warm climates, and there isn't a whole lot of need for the Russians to operate in Antarctica.

The Soviet Union and later Russia has been conducting research on Antarctica for scientific and possibly strategic reasons. Icebreakers are a necessity there.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5091 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

For me.

Strongest:

Battleships

Aircraft Carriers

Ocean Liners

Weakest:

Cruise Ships

Tankers

I would put cargo ships as being weaker than tankers... remember that most tankers are built double-hulled and somewhat strong to avoid a huge oil spill... who really cares if a cargo ship goes down.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
25 Post contains links and images KiwiRob : I learn't this from one of the designers at Baltisky, the Soviets never invisaged sending these vessels South so they didn't design the cooling syste
26 Klaus : Okay, but that's simply a matter of insufficient dimensioning – there is no inherent impossibility involved.
27 Post contains links and images sw733 : http://www.gcbr.com/port.html
28 KiwiRob : In decending order, the sailors, there families, Lloyds, the ships owners and the owners of the cargo.
29 Zkpilot : Firstly that was a rheotorical question in comparison to an oil supertanker. But yes you are right. The sailors of course have motorised lifeboats th
30 Geezer : quote= Zkpilot, reply=24 who really cares if a cargo ship goes down. My guess would be........ the crew..........
31 Post contains images PlymSpotter : There was one type of British frigate/warship which was known to be structurally very weak according to some friends who worked in Drake Yard through
32 Bongodog1964 : The type 21 frigate suffered from cracking due to its steel/aluminium construction and required reinforcing plates. The type 42 destroyer was updated
33 Post contains links JBirdAV8r : For "weak," there was always the Liberty Ship (which had a propensity for, you know, breaking in half without warning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L
34 Post contains links Schienenflieger : To second Klaus, I've got to mention our lifeboats again. In one accident in 1967, the Adolph Bermpohl tried to rescue some Dutch fisherman and appare
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are The Long Straight Lines In Canada posted Tue Mar 2 2010 04:25:43 by RootsAir
Students - What Are You Studying And Where? posted Thu Jan 14 2010 16:24:56 by Lukeyboy95
What Are The World's Navies Doing? posted Sat May 9 2009 13:13:15 by Flexo
What Are The Worst Highcoaches In Your Country? posted Sat Dec 13 2008 17:51:18 by 747400sp
So, What's With The Irish And Watersports? posted Sun Mar 9 2008 15:07:43 by Scooter01
RE: What Are The Best Sounding Transport? posted Tue Nov 6 2007 08:06:25 by Scooter01
What Are The Main Ethnic Minorities In Your Area? posted Sun Oct 21 2007 16:38:23 by Toast
What Are The Best Sounding Transport? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 23:53:30 by 747400sp
What Are The Products Of An Antimatter Fussion? posted Wed Sep 19 2007 00:45:12 by Lehpron
What's With The Irish And Watersports? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 13:14:51 by Scooter01