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

Re: Dreadnoughtus weight calculation

SV-POW did so last week:

On Tue, September 9, 2014 12:12 am, David Krentz wrote:
> Did Greg fire the fire shot of the post media frenzy shrink ray?
> It always tickles me that so many Dinosaur guys are also military
> hardware/history guys.  Must be something about BIG things.  Me, I?ve
> always been a WW2 tank guy.
> D
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
>> 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>

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
Fax: 301-314-9661

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
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