On 16May2018 1550, Richard Aiken wrote:
> So - had the British government been sneaky and foresighted enough -
> they could have ordered "tankers" which were actually unarmed (but
> armored) capital ships built to support the carraige of oil between
> Venezuela and the western U.S. The commerce would have at least
> defraying the operating costs . . . and the existence of several
> extra "not-quite-battewagons" might have given Hitler pause.
There is a world of difference between a tanker and a warship of the
same displacement. Warships are *much* more heavily built, and
*ridiculously* more compartmentalised.
--
Rupert Boleyn <
xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From what I've read, during WWII it became an article of faith that compartmentalisation is the main 'thing' as far as keeping a ship afloat is concerned. The first time I moved around below decks on a USN ship I was amazed at the number of 'doors' that had to be negotiated.
p.s. pumping capacity was also critical altho that was 'discovered' during WWI. It was dramatically increased in later builds during that period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------