[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Dreadnoughtus weight calculation



Yes. It is more "Ye Olde English" [sensu RenFaire speak]), not "Old English"

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tholtz@umd.edu   Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216                        
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Fax: 301-314-9661               

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address:        Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                        Department of Geology
                        Building 237, Room 1117
                        University of Maryland
                        College Park, MD 20742 USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Roland Sookias
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 5:08 PM
> To: Dinosaur Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Dreadnoughtus weight calculation
> 
> I'm not going to comment on anything helpful or biological here, but I feel 
> it must be mentioned (as I was infuriated by it) that
the
> etymology section erroneously also states that the word "Dreadnought" (or 
> perhaps the words "dread" and "nought", depending
> how you read it) is from Old English.
> 
> Whilst the precursors of these words existed (as "adrædan" and "nawiht") in 
> Old English (a language which was replaced by Middle
> English around 1100), "dread" and "nought" as spelt today were first used in 
> Middle English, and obviously both words continue to
be
> used in Modern English (with quite a different pronunciation), though use of 
> "nought" for "nothing" has stopped.
> Thus at the earliest it could be called Middle English, and Early Modern or 
> archaic Modern English (depending when this usage of
> "nought" became entirely poetic) would probably be more like it.
> 
> On 8 September 2014 16:00, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Oops. Wrong subject line.
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From:  <GSP1954@aol.com>
> > Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:50 AM
> > Subject: Please forward this to dinolist too
> > To: bcreisler@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 9/7/14 2:23:16 AM, tijawi@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > << I found GSP's post very interesting.  However, it is worth noting
> >
> > that, from a historical perspective, the name _Dreadnoughtus_ is
> >
> > perhaps more appropriate than GSP made out. The archetypal dreadnought
> >
> > (HMS Dreadnought, launched 1906) was a product of the naval arms race
> >
> > between Great Britain and Germany prior to World War I.  The
> >
> > Dreadnought was part of a broader British strategy of deterrence - the
> >
> > importance of having a large, powerful and technologically advanced
> >
> > fleet to reinforce Great Britain's superiority at sea, rather than
> >
> > deploying warships as a decisive military force.  Under First Sea Lord
> >
> > Fisher, the role of the British war fleet was intended to be mostly
> >
> > defensive - to protect the homeland; guard the British Empire's
> >
> > strategic ports; and enforce a naval blockade against Germany should
> >
> > war break out.  As it turned out, the greatest sea-born threat to
> >
> > Great Britain during World War I turned out to be German U-Boats and
> >
> > their unrestricted warfare against enemy and neutral shipping.  It was
> >
> > this that ultimately helped draw the United States into World War I.
> > >>
> >
> > The above analysis is correct. And I am not particualrly opposed to
> > applying dreadnought to sauropod names. It was the way in which
> > Lacovara et al did so, incl in PR in the science media, that is not in
> > accord with history.
> > Had
> > I reviewed the paper I would have done something about that. And the
> > mass estimates.
> >
> > In a message dated 9/7/14 3:42:44 PM, design@starfleetgames.com writes:
> >
> > << Everybody had battleships before 1906, but they tended to have two
> > or four big guns for long-range pot-luck sniping a lot of medium-sized
> > guns to do the real dirty work up close. The term battleship had
> > actually been in use for centuries and applied to what we moderns call
> > "ships of the line".
> > Nelson called them "Line of Battle Ships" or simply "battleships."
> > There was even a wooden battleshp called Dreadnought in the 1700s.
> >
> > The continuing and steady improvement in gunnery, optics, and other
> > mechanical sciences meant that long-range gunnery had reached the
> > point that it might actually work. Several nations started building a
> > new kind of battleship, the "all-big-gun" battleship. The trick was,
> > nobody knew what one looked like because nobody had ever seen one. The
> > first to start construction was the USS South Carolina and her sister
> > the USS Michigan.
> > Everybody else was starting this new kind of ship, independenty, on
> > their own.
> > Britain, German, Italy, Russia, all had plans in hand or keels on the
> > slipway.
> >
> > The British started HMS Dreadnought somewhat later, but built it much
> > faster, so it was the first all-big-gun-battleship in service.
> > Dreadnought was a very bad design. It had all big guns, but because
> > the British couldn't figure out how to have Turret #2 shoot over
> > Turret #1, only eight of the ten cannons could shoot right or left,
> > and there was not much in the way of internal compartments (another
> > new idea) so a torpedo hit was going to be sudden death overtime. It
> > did have the new kind of modern turbine engines.
> >
> > USS Michigan came out next, and it had four double gun turrets with #2
> > shooting over #1 (on the front) and #3 shooting over #4 (on the back)
> > so with only eight guns it had the same firepower as Dreadnought (8 vs
> > 8). It had internal compartments, turbines, and was superior to
> > Dreadnought in every way, BUT, Dreadnought was first so now
> > "dreadnought" is interchangable with "battleship"
> > when it shouldn't be. HMS Dreadnought was so bad that the British
> > never sent it into battle and quickly copied Michigan. Maybe you'd
> > call it a "loss leader"
> > to "capture the brand name."
> >
> > So now we just need a dinosaur called Michigandus magnificus and we'll
> > be historically accurate. >>
> >
> > I have some disagreements with the above.
> >
> > The predreadnoughts of the late 1890s and very early 1900s generally
> > had two main battery turrets, one fore and one aft, twins mounting 4
> > guns of
> > 11 or
> > 12" bore, with a bunch of 6 or 8" guns astride the superstructure.
> > Athough the main guns were modern rifles able to fire very long
> > ranges, the fire control systems were lacking so battles were intended
> > to be at a few thousand meters, with the possibility of ramming with
> > the ram bows -- but during the Russo-Japanese war the predreadnoughts
> > sometimes banged away at one another at greater ranges. The tubby
> > batships were also slow at about 18 kts.
> >
> > Lord Fischer wanted to markedly increase the power of the battle fleet
> > while keeping costs down, and with the same number of ships. How to do
> > that?
> > Obvious. Double the broadside of heavy guns while not increasing
> > tonnage all that much (already nervous about a radical new design that
> > would obsolesce the predreadnought force, Parliament was not about to
> > pay for much bigger ships), which required getting rid of the
> > intermediate guns. There was also talk of how a large set of all heavy
> > guns would also make long range gunnery possible because their uniform
> > ballistics would allow long range over-under salvo spotting, but the
> > required technology was not yet on hand. Fisher also took the
> > opportunity to do what he liked best and increase speed to 21 kts via
> > the brand new turbines, a concept he took further with the equally big
> > battlecruisers which were not as bad as many think they were.
> >
> > The Dreadnought itself and 6 semi-sister ships had five turrets with
> > two on the wings because that allowed it in principle to fire three
> > turrets forward as the fleet charged -- ram bows generating
> > magnificent bow waves
> > -- at
> > short range directly at the enemy. In reality the blast of the side
> > turrets was so intense that they could only fire broadside, which soon
> > became a problem because only 4 turrets could engage in the preNelson
> > line of battle that the Royal Navy and everyone else readopted in the
> > late 1900s going into the Great War.
> >
> > (The Germans also initially used wing turrets, even more inefficiently
> > in their first dreadnoughts. The RN gradually and awkwardly went
> > superimposed, the Neptunes had one aft, with central turrets actually
> > meant to fire through the superstructure when needed -- kind of crazy
> > but the Invincibles did that at the Falklands to the discomfort of
> > those in the the opposite turrets.
> > They did not remount the sighting hoods on the turrets tops so upper
> > gun sets could not fire straight forward or aft over the lower turrets
> > during WW 1, but they did not care because by then the line of battler
> > was back in vogue.
> > The USN immediately went to efficient superimposed turrets as per the
> > Michigans. )
> >
> > As the war approached systems were developing to allow long range fire
> > under central control, eventually using salvo techniques especially by
> > the Brits
> > - its a very complicated story of competing systems being applied
> > semi-haphazardly to differing vessels at differing times that I have
> > never fully sorted out -- but their whimpy rangefinders reduced their
> > ability to initially find the range. Over all the gunnery was fairly
> > equal at Jutland, Beatty's battlecruisers had initial problems because
> > they were not able to conduct gunnery practise at Rosyth, and also had
> > worse back lighting conditions during the run south. By the end of the
> > war the Grand Fleet had the world's best long range systems, but the
> > problems were not really solved until high frequency, broad scan
> > phased array radars atop the main range finders allowed RN and USN
> > batships to straddle fast moving targets at ranges up the max of 20
> > plus miles (the 3 old batships with the new system immediately
> > straddled the poor Yamashiro at Suriago Straight when they opened fire
> > at 10 miles at night).
> >
> > Of course the 3 Brit batcruisers blew up at Jutland with virtually all
> > crews lost because the RN was using dangeorusly unstable cordite
> > charges (still doing that in 41 when the fast battleship she was NOT a
> > battlecruiser Hood went poof), not because of inadequate armor -- at
> > Dogger Bank, Jutland and the final battle of the Bismarck the Germans
> > were having their turrets taken out by the often heavier RN guns left
> > & right without the ships blowing up because they used a very stable
> > cordite formula that flash burned (killing all in the magazines and
> > turrets, like what happened on the Iowa in 89) rather than immediately
> > exploded. Same for the Americans, so the USS Boise took an AP round in
> > a magazine during a Solomons night battle and stayed in the action
> > with the three forward turrets burned out (that is the other reason
> > that the Arizona's exploding so quickly still has them scratching
> > their heads).
> >
> > Had the Brits who were running an oceanic empire paid proper attention
> > to their ammo, i. e. had stable cordite and AP rounds that actually
> > worked most of the time (the shells were too brittle and the primitive
> > fuses rarely worked), Jutland would have been a significant RN
> > victory, with no major Grand Fleet losses and probably 3-4 High Seas
> > Fleet batcruisers sunk. Oh well.
> >
> > It is correct that the RN, in part because of habitability issues for
> > ships sent to distant empire stations, did not pay sufficient
> > attention to underwater protection, unlike the Germans and Americans.
> > That is why the new super dreadnought Audacious sunk after hitting
> > just one mine, along with inadequate damage control early in the war,
> > and detail problems ("watertight" doors jarred open by the initial
> > shock, etc). But the similar Marlborough took a torpedo in engineering
> > at Jutland and maintained its place in the battle line (we can imagine
> > its Scotty keeping the steam up despite the pressure).
> >
> > The Dreadnought was with the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow until she was
> > assigned with ye old predreadnoughts to defend the Thames outlet. So
> > the Dreadnought herself alas missed the colossal battle of Jutland she
> > inspired. Shortly after that she rejoined the Grand Fleet -- the 6
> > other oldest dreadnoughts in Jellicoe's fleet hardly being different
> > in design. She did ram and sink a pesky sub at one point.
> >
> > As it happens I have a criticism of USN WW 2 torpedoes in the Sunday
> > Washington Post --
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/more-on-alexandrias-torpedo-factor
> > y-and-a-soviet-leader-who-did-shop-at-giant/2014/09/06/b89e43ba-3436-1
> > 1e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html
> >
> > GSPaul
> >
> >
> > </HTML>
> >