Crude Human Starships brainbug

[Aaron]

This might be me speaking out of my ass here, but a lot of modern tanks, the Challenger II for instance, use composite armor, which seems to me to be as easily made curved as straight, or at least worth the effort when defensive capabilities is factored in.

The armour used on Western tank designs is most easily produced in flat sheets. That's why all Western tanks look like either blocks or a square with and angled front. The armour type used by the Russian designs is different but they also put considerable effort into making it curved to afford a little more protection because their tanks are something on the order of ten tonnes lighter than an equivilant Western tank. So they need that extra protection.

Western armour could be produced in curves but it would be a considerable effort and expenditure of money for a tiny bit of gain. So you see it's not as simple as you think.

[DrMckay]

On the subject of vessel design, pure functionality (purpose and usage) should be taken into account in the design-for example, a "space container ship" operating exclusively in vacuum doesn't need to be aerodynamic or aesthetically pleasing-eg- the "Colonial Movers" vessel from "Battlestar Galactica, or Serenity from Firefly, which essentially brute-forces and VTOL's it's way through the atmosphere.
Compare those with vessels designed to operate in both mediums (even functioning as consular ships,) such as Colonial One or the Olympic Carrier from Galactica. Practicality, as well as societal expectations would dictate that these vessels be somewhat aerodynamic, as well as "Pretty" (to attract paying passangers...)

Militarily speaking, there are different roles and designs within any starfleet. A desire for heavy armor/shielding will be compromised by docking bays, sensor hubs, weapon emplacements, munitions, supplies, fuel, engines, and the shield generators themselves, as will internal space, and mass. Especially on a dedicated Fighter-Carrier. Such a ship may take an entirely different shape or even design style than a border cutter, even though they are designed by the same power/gov't.

Also influencing design is the technology base of other powers. A radical new ship design may "influence" the designers of another military design board-just look at the Russian T-35 and the German Panther tanks in WWII!

[Adrian Laguna]

That is called the "CBS opening", because of its resemblance to the eyeball logo of the CBS TV station.

It originated about 1961 with the first video game "Spacewar".
Go here:
http://www.wheels.org/spacewar/creative ... rigin.html
and scroll down to figure 3.

The difference is that in Spacewar! it arose from the influence of gravity in the game. Here it comes from two ships turning to try to get behind the enemy while simultaneously preventing the enemy from getting behind them. If one ship treats it like a joust and the other turns, then the jouster will find teratons of energy shoved up its ass.

[Sea Skimmer]

Do you know anything at all about how this armour is manufactured? If you don't, then why the fuck would you say that it is just as easily made curved as straight? And don't say it's OK because you warned you might be talking out of your ass; you're not supposed to talk out of your ass, disclaimer or no disclaimer.

He’s full of shit. Quite a few kinds of special armor, including all laminate and perforated armor, can ONLY be produced in flat sheets. This is why you see no curve on the armor of the Leopard II, M1 or Challanger II

Some other kinds could be placed on curved surfaces, but would not be nearly as useful because they rely on actual movement of the armor material for full effectiveness. One of the main ways these special armors work is that they shatter or get forced into the path of the projectile, meaning that the projectile has to deal with a much greater quantity of material then a simple straight line through the armor would indicate.

In the case of Russia tanks, while the outer steel armor is curved, the special armor inside the steel is on some models arranged in a blocked stepped fashion that does not directly abut the outer armor. Those curved turrets aren’t really good for anything anymore either, since you really can’t expect to deflect a modern APFSDS round, the curvature on the latest Object 195 and Black Eagle tank turrets is believed to be greatly reduced.


A curved starship hull is good for nothing that I can see. It’s harder to build, harder to repair and it makes packaging stuff inside of it much harder, which has always been a serious disadvantage of Russian tank turrets and submarines.

[Gullible Jones]

Eh, I'll have to disagree there... A curved hull will have an easier time dealing with the pressure differential between the inside and vacuum outside.

However, if you're talking about an ISD-type affair where the stuff it's made of is ridiculously stronger than modern materials, that isn't going to matter a lot. And there's not really any reason why you can't have pressurized cylinders surrounded by flat plates of armor.

[Darth Wong]

Eh, I'll have to disagree there... A curved hull will have an easier time dealing with the pressure differential between the inside and vacuum outside.

However, if you're talking about an ISD-type affair where the stuff it's made of is ridiculously stronger than modern materials, that isn't going to matter a lot. And there's not really any reason why you can't have pressurized cylinders surrounded by flat plates of armor.

Modern materials are quite capable of dealing with 14.7 psi air pressure, and internal bracing solves that problem anyway. Your argument only holds if we're talking about a huge hollow vessel, where you want to reduce the surface area to a minimum and where the hull is so weak that it can't withstand 1 bar. That bears no resemblance to any kind of starship under discussion.

[Shroom Man 777]

A curved starship hull is good for nothing that I can see. It’s harder to build, harder to repair and it makes packaging stuff inside of it much harder, which has always been a serious disadvantage of Russian tank turrets and submarines.

Mmm...I'll bite. If it's such a serious disadvantage, why did the Russians keep curving their tank turrets and submarines? I mean, it's not like they're stupid or anything.

[Alex Moon]

A curved starship hull is good for nothing that I can see. It’s harder to build, harder to repair and it makes packaging stuff inside of it much harder, which has always been a serious disadvantage of Russian tank turrets and submarines.

Mmm...I'll bite. If it's such a serious disadvantage, why did the Russians keep curving their tank turrets and submarines? I mean, it's not like they're stupid or anything.

Quick answer: Beauracracy. Once they had a design, making any radical changes would involve too much of a fight.

[The Dark]

A curved starship hull is good for nothing that I can see. It’s harder to build, harder to repair and it makes packaging stuff inside of it much harder, which has always been a serious disadvantage of Russian tank turrets and submarines.

Mmm...I'll bite. If it's such a serious disadvantage, why did the Russians keep curving their tank turrets and submarines? I mean, it's not like they're stupid or anything.

Quick answer: Beauracracy. Once they had a design, making any radical changes would involve too much of a fight.

Slightly longer answer - misdirection. I have an early '80's Western analysis of Soviet doctrine, and looking at the T-64/72, the armor analysis basically says "we don't know what the fuck their 'combined armor' is, because it's not slab-sided like Western tanks." The curves and slopes (whether deliberately or inadvertently) made it harder to see what the armor scheme was.

As for submarines, a curved hull is useful for them. Saltwater's pressure is somewhere around 0.465 psi/ft. For a Delta type submarine, pressure at its maximum depth is around 491 psi, or nearly 33.5 atmospheres. The pressure for Seawolf's estimated maximum safe depth is over 50 atmospheres (and nearly 76 atmospheres for its crush depth, the point at which it will undergo catastrophic structural failure).

[Sea Skimmer]

Mmm...I'll bite. If it's such a serious disadvantage, why did the Russians keep curving their tank turrets and submarines? I mean, it's not like they're stupid or anything.

ALL submarine pressure hulls are curved; that’s an inherent problem with submarine design that will never go away. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Meanwhile the current Russian T-80 and T-72, of which the T-90 is actually a renumbered upgrade, are all 1970s tanks in basic design and layout, which is an era of about two generations of tank killing munitions’ behind what we have now. The basic idea of the curved turret goes back to the T-54 of 1947 which in turn was the result of work done on numerous tanks with differing curved turret shapes in WW2, such as the T-34/IS-2 and T-44.

The Black Eagle and Object 195 tanks, as I have already stated do have a modified turret shape reflecting the increased firepower and better ammunition designs they’ll face.

[Azron_Stoma]

Star Destroyers are not designed to fire all main weapons in a forward arc. They have to do that rediculous fan-tactic of dipping their noses to do that. It's even worse for the Venator class, which has big terraces around its guns that seem purpousefully designed to stop them being directed forwards.

Ironically, we actually see the Venators do just that in the new CG Clone Wars cartoon on a regular basis, it's not a fan-tactic anymore. I was always under the impression that the Star Destroyers like the Imperial and Victory class were designed to be battleships on top and carriers on the bottom. The whole SPHA/T cannon in the hangar bay of Venators (and possibly other classes could use them as well) also helps ventral gun coverage.

If I wanted to design a Star Destroyer for coverage, I'd probably put its heavies along the centreline, dorsal and ventral. That way they'd have 100% heavy turbolaser broadside and forward capacity (though less so in their dorsal arc, mind)

I think that would Sacrifice aft coverage too, seems more of a concentration based design rather than coverage based to me.

If I understand the weapon layout of an Acclamator correctly, 3 guns on either side of the bridge (Possibly be reconfigured to be staggered diagonally) 2 along either brim trench (Which I noticed could easily fire in the forward, dorsal or ventral arcs.), and another 1 on either side of the underbelly, gives us a fire arc capability of.

All 12 guns in the forward arc
10 guns in the dorsal arc
6 guns Ventral,
6-8 guns aft (depending on the exact location of the two underside guns)

Ironically one of, if not the most, efficient gun layout in spite of it being primarily an over sized dropship.

Replace the transport belly with a hangar ala Evillejedi's Acclamator II and the Ventral arc becomes even better due to the possibility of an SPHA/T cannon or the like, as well as the carrier factor.

When looking at the ISD cross section it really gave the appearance with the frame and internal workings that, the guns could be "slid" down to make that staggered configuration via refit without too much difficulty, Venator not so much..

[Dalton]

Almost 3 year necro. Locked.