Galaxy Class Capability

[m52nickerson]

Keywords in your post "purpose built science vessel".

Seeing as your objecting to people wanting purpose built warships I fail to see your point.

I never said I objected to pure warships, I object to people who think you can't have a multi-role vessel.

[Atekimogus]

Poor analogy. Even if a tank's entire ammunition supply went up, it's nowhere near powerful enough to vapourise the entire vehicle. The GCS fuel supply is. The only way to save the ship if the pod containment fields fail is to get the antimatter well away from the ship, and the systems designed to do so are far too dependant on computer control.

Well, give me a better analogy when discussing a purly imaginary starship. The principle seems to be roughly the same otherwise why SHOULD you place explosive stuff almost outside the hull.

Titanic, fair enough - she was a passenger ship, not a warship, and her loss was more due to the weather conditions and inexperienced lookouts than design.
Hood was simply unlucky that a shell struck a small patch of upeer belt armour that allowed it a clear path to the magazine.
Bismarck's loss was due to bad design - her rudders were horrendously vulnerable to damage.

Are you saying that any other ship would have fared better than the Bismarck if hit in the same spot? Now I have read books about that incidence but nowhere have I heard that the rudder-design of the Bismarck was a failure but simply that the torpedo hit was at least as unlucky as the magazine hit which destroyed the Hood. If you have more detailed information I'd be happy to hear about it

[m52nickerson]

Hood was simply unlucky that a shell struck a small patch of upeer belt armour that allowed it a clear path to the magazine.
Bismarck's loss was due to bad design - her rudders were horrendously vulnerable to damage.

Are you saying that any other ship would have fared better than the Bismarck if hit in the same spot? Now I have read books about that incidence but nowhere have I heard that the rudder-design of the Bismarck was a failure but simply that the torpedo hit was at least as unlucky as the magazine hit which destroyed the Hood. If you have more detailed information I'd be happy to hear about it

Hood - hit in a weak spot, lucky hit

Bismarck - in in a weak spot, poor design

[Atekimogus]

Hood - hit in a weak spot, lucky hit

Bismarck - in in a weak spot, poor design

Ah, I see I see...... .

That could also apply to the sovereign class who was just unlucky always having to deal with super aliens and therefore loosing whereas the galaxys who had to deal with super aliens and were loosing where poorly designed, right?

[Captain Seafort]

Well, give me a better analogy when discussing a purly imaginary starship. The principle seems to be roughly the same otherwise why SHOULD you place explosive stuff almost outside the hull.

There's no RL equivalent that would exactly match, but the closest would be the magazines of heavy warships - if they blow up, the ship sinks, with heavy loss of life. Therefore you need to protect them.

Of course, antimatter is like nothing we use to produce energy today - if a shell gets dropped, it's highly unlikely to spontaneously explode. Antimatter will, and far more violently, so you need to be able to either guarantee that power to the pods will never fail, or you need to be able to get rid of the things in a hurry. This is where the GCS design fails - even when a ship has suffered no physical damage whatsoever, or only minor damage far away from the antimatter pods, the ejection system has failed (Yamato, Cause and Effect, Generations). If all the evidence we had of the ship suffering catastrophic damage was the Odyssey, we could have chalked it up to massive structural damage physically jamming the pods in place or some such. It's because numerous other ships have been lost or nearly lost to similar failures that people tend to be less than chartiable towards the design.

Are you saying that any other ship would have fared better than the Bismarck if hit in the same spot? Now I have read books about that incidence but nowhere have I heard that the rudder-design of the Bismarck was a failure but simply that the torpedo hit was at least as unlucky as the magazine hit which destroyed the Hood. If you have more detailed information I'd be happy to hear about it

Not any other ship - most WW2 German capital ships had the same design flaw. The gist of it is that the torpedo didn't hit the rudder, but the hull immediately above, causing it to collapse onto the rudders while the helm was over to try and comb the tracks of Swordfish torpedoes. The rudder was jammed, and prevented the ship from manoeuvering, forcing her to put her nose into the wind - straight towards KGV and Rodney.

Almost indentical damage was suffered by Prinz Eugen and Lutzow during the war strongly suggesting that the problem was one of German heavy warship design, rather than simply bad luck, and may have been partially due to the arrangement of the unarmoured stern structure and the armoured steering gear compartment.

Source

[Kevsha]

well ignoring my opinions of the galaxy class as oou (i live in my own little universe anyway) the rest of my arguements were IU.

compare the picture of the damage to the diagram. the hull ruptures extend beyond the ventral phaser array, the m/am pods are not too far behind that and we have no idea how far the internal damage went since its not armoured then i imagine it would be akin to the dropping a gredage in a tank. the outside may be ok, but the inside is fragged.... and even if the pods werent brached then i imagine an impact like that would have at the very least disrupted power in that area causing a loss of containment.

The pods being close to the hull mades sound sense to me. easy to eject in an emergency and right next to the warp core. its obviusly not a design flawof the galaxy class as they have similar placement on the sov. they have to go somewhere. if you lose containment and they are in the middle of the ship then what? flush it out a long tube in the ship? well if you lost containment i would imaging the ship is under some kind of distress and having to rely on a another containment system to flush it out seems foolish. and besides then you need to transport it via another tube to the warp core and have yet another containment field.

had the E-E been struck by an attack ship in a vital spot its possible she could have been lost as well though we'll never really know that for sure.

In universe the Galaxy class save for its initial technical problems seems like it was a good design and follows the normal design/progression of starfleet's ships.

[Captain Seafort]

Hood - hit in a weak spot, lucky hit

Bismarck - in in a weak spot, poor design

Hood's weak spot was a patch of upper belt of a few hundred square feet, after which the projectile would have had to get close enoughto the magazine to do serious damage (which would require it surviving through the belt without being decapped or deflected) and then its explosion would have to set off the cordite (in most cases of damage to magazines, even when a round exploded inside the magazine, the ship survived either through none, or only partial combustion).

In Bismarck, the entire stern of the ship was a weak point, and German ships had a track record of suffering exactly that type of damage, which indicates that the design was the source of the problem, rather than the ship being a victim of circumstance.

[Deepcrush]

Hood - hit in a weak spot, lucky hit

The Hood was a Cruiser going against a Battleship. Hardly a fair match up. You might as well start crying about how the E-D would win against the E-C. Fucking duh... The fact that the crew of Hood was able to get as close as they did and even more so too open fire in return is a testiment to the crew of the Hood. Has nothing to do with design.

Bismarck - in in a weak spot, poor design

A. Bismarck wasn't able to affect repairs at sea. Thats a problem.
B. Bismarck's AA systems weren't able to properly track the Swordfish TBs. Its a battleship, not a destroyer. It's lack of cover was the fault of the fleet, not so much the ships design. Seeing how it was remarked later an easy fix of turning a dial.
C. Bismarck was against an entire fleet, who the fuck thinks that's working out to be a even judgement?

Titanic - bad luck blah blah blah.

Low grade steel was used in the outer hull combined with the low temp made very brittle.
The flood control system was shit! I'd rather have a frenchman cover me. The inner flood walls were marked at water level. I guess they thought that water can't go above that if THEY'RE FLOODING. The Captain was at all ahead full in a place where they knew there was trouble. So, he was a piece of shit. Bad design, bad captain, bad crew and bad foresight.

You get just about everything bad that can be bad on this fat lady.

[m52nickerson]

Exactly, both the Hood and the Bismarck's destructions were more due to situation then design failure.

[Atekimogus]

In Bismarck, the entire stern of the ship was a weak point, and German ships had a track record of suffering exactly that type of damage, which indicates that the design was the source of the problem, rather than the ship being a victim of circumstance.

First I would like to thank you for providing your source, it was an interesting read. To be fair the article says it is "indicated" that there was a structural problem but that is not necessarily proof but since the germans seemed to have done something about it within one year this may be an indication that there was a problem.

BUT to say that german ships had a track record for suffering exactly that type of damage is a bit of an exaggeration imho since this is the very first article I read were the possibility of a design flaw is even mentioned. Also this "flaw" was fatal to only one ship so it seems it was not that big of a deal, the lack of air support, fleet support...well support on the whole was probably the more pressing concern.

On the whole it seems to me that you could say exactly the same about every tank destroyed ever because their armor was not thick enough. Design flaw?

Back to star trek. During the whole Dominion War we see Akiras, Excelsiors, Defiants, Mirandas (Intrepids? not sure here), Bird of Preys, Vorchas, Warbirds destroyed in various battles (No galaxys). Are they also all flawed designs? Is the only claim for the perceived weakness of the whole class two to three warp core incidents which in universe happened a few years ago? (If you permit me a more personal inquiry I would be interested in which DS9 area ship you think is not a complete failure e.g. what is a more sucessful design and why?)

[m52nickerson]

I would tend to think than most ship, no matter how well designed, might have problems with their rudders if a torpedo hits in close proximity of them. Maybe that is just me?

[Mikey]

It's actually easier if you read what Seafort wrote. Of course any ship will have a problem steering if you blow up its rudder. Apparently, there was an issue with the way the stern was built around the rudder, causing it to be more vulnerable to fatal damage.

[Captain Seafort]

The Hood was a Cruiser going against a Battleship.

Wrong. Hood was a battleship (or "fully armoured battlecruiser" to use her official designation) going up against a battleship. Indeed,

The fact that the crew of Hood was able to get as close as they did and even more so too open fire in return is a testiment to the crew of the Hood. Has nothing to do with design.

Other than the fact before the fatal shell Hood had been hit several times, including one that started a severe fire on the shelter deck, and her combat efficiency was unimpared. Indeed at longer ranges, where the decks could be hit by plunging fire, Bismarck was more vulnerable than Hood, due to the arrangement of her armoured decks.

A. Bismarck wasn't able to affect repairs at sea. Thats a problem.

The fact that a good lump of the stern collapsed onto the rudder was a bigger problem.

B. Bismarck's AA systems weren't able to properly track the Swordfish TBs. Its a battleship, not a destroyer. It's lack of cover was the fault of the fleet, not so much the ships design. Seeing how it was remarked later an easy fix of turning a dial.

So she was vulnerable to air attack, so what? So were all warships without air cover. The bigger problem in this case was that the poor design of the stern structure allowed the torpedo hit to utterly cripple the ship. If it hadn't collapsed then they'd have been able to steer her after a fashion using the starboard rudder and the props; as it was, the best that could be done was to stick her head-to-wind, straight towards the Home Fleet.

C. Bismarck was against an entire fleet, who the f**k thinks that's working out to be a even judgement?

If it hadn't been for the crippling damage the Swordfish did the fleet would never have caught her.

The Captain was at all ahead full in a place where they knew there was trouble.

Bullshit. The nearest reported ice was several miles north of the ship's track - mainly because Smith had kept on his original course (roughly SW) far longer than usual before turning north towards New Yprk, specifically to give the ice a wide berth. If he was reckless, then so's every Captain who's ever crossed the Atlantic - maintaining full speed until ice was sighted was and remains standard practice in good weather.

As for the design, while I can't comment on the hull materials, I can tell you that the bulkheads extended well above the waterline - all the way to E deck. It's well known that Titanic would almost certainly have survived had the damage been only a few dozen feet shorter. Indeed, the damage would have been minor if it hadn't been for the angle she entered the pack ice - with the helm hard over the full force of the impact was taken by the starboard bow. It's hardly surprising she suffered such extensive damage.

[Atekimogus]

I would tend to think than most ship, no matter how well designed, might have problems with their rudders if a torpedo hits in close proximity of them. Maybe that is just me?

No, I am pretty much of the same opinion !

It's actually easier if you read what Seafort wrote. Of course any ship will have a problem steering if you blow up its rudder. Apparently, there was an issue with the way the stern was built around the rudder, causing it to be more vulnerable to fatal damage.

To be accurate, the damage surley was NOT fatal. Lacking armour and beeing suspectible to be blown up by a unlucky hit would be suspectible to fatal damage.

Beeing hunted by the british fleet while beeing unable to manouvre is just as fatal in the end but the damage per se is not the fatality. Now one can say that in the end it doesn't matter but you should ask yourself against what odds you may want to protect a ship before the design is considered a success?

Wrong. Hood was a battleship (or "fully armoured battlecruiser" to use her official designation) going up against a battleship. Indeed,

True, but to be fair she was nevertheless a dated ww1 design against one of the more modern ww2 ships.

The fact that a good lump of the stern collapsed onto the rudder was a bigger problem.

I am still not entirly convinced that the same would not have happened or could have happened with any other ship of that area. As I said this is the first and only article so far I read which suggests it could have been a design flaw. Are there any non-german ships suffering similar hits without consequences?

So she was vulnerable to air attack, so what? So were all warships without air cover.

True, but using this - resonable- point of view you could universally say that the whole battleship concept was flawed. (which seems to be the case)

[Mikey]

To be accurate, the damage surley was NOT fatal. Lacking armour and beeing suspectible to be blown up by a unlucky hit would be suspectible to fatal damage.

You misunderstand me. I wrote "fatal" in reference to the flaw of the stern superstructure being susceptible to collapsing on the rudder assembly. To be sure, the damage to the rudder assembly wasn't the coup d'grace at all.

True, but to be fair she was nevertheless a dated ww1 design against one of the more modern ww2 ships.

As was one of the most succesful (in terms of tonnage sunk and ubiquity) warships of WWII, HMS Warspite.

I am still not entirly convinced that the same would not have happened or could have happened with any other ship of that area.

No doubt it could have happened to any ship, given enough concentrated fire. However, the fact that this was more common among German ships of the period, then reduced in frequency when German engineers focused on the issue, lends credence to the idea that there was a specific problem with those earlier German designs, if not solely the Bismarck.