What was the alfa really like? - Page 7

Kapitan · 08-28-05, 02:27 PM

i shall re look on the al'fa but when i said about the akula it was definatly crush depth akula is good but not that good so yeah 675 is crush depth sometimes i do say max depth it means the same to me

Caseck · 08-28-05, 05:15 PM

Just to throw fuel on the fire here, I'd like to take this in a completely different direction.

Instead of debating sources, ALL OF WHICH are questionable... None of you argue that ANY of these sources are foolproof, so why spend time debating it? We're only arguing from ignorance, because WE DON'T KNOW which are correct!

Why not instead, based on the tonnage of the ships involved, determine how thick the pressure hulls are, and then based on simple physics, and the metals involved, determine the depth at which said metals of given thickness would bend to a given tolerance?

This seems more logical than spending all this time debating over the whole CLOUD of questionable sources, and would give a one-size fits all solution to this problem.

Kapitan · 08-28-05, 05:18 PM

fas (federation of american scientists) global security and many of these sources do that for us

Zarlock · 08-29-05, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caseck

Why not instead, based on the tonnage of the ships involved, determine how thick the pressure hulls are, and then based on simple physics, and the metals involved, determine the depth at which said metals of given thickness would bend to a given tolerance?

As Kapitain said, FAS.org and others are mostly doing exactly that.
They too, though, have the problem, that their calculations are based on estimates (you would be hard-pressed to tell the exact specific weight of the specific alloy a certain submarine hull is made of, not to mention all the stuff within that hull).
It all ends in much educated guessing, and little factual knowledge.

Regards,

Robert

08-28-05, 02:27 PM	#91
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,130 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	i shall re look on the al'fa but when i said about the akula it was definatly crush depth akula is good but not that good so yeah 675 is crush depth sometimes i do say max depth it means the same to me __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

08-28-05, 05:18 PM	#93
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,130 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	fas (federation of american scientists) global security and many of these sources do that for us __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

08-28-05, 05:15 PM	#92
Caseck Torpedoman Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: CONUS Posts: 116 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	Just to throw fuel on the fire here, I'd like to take this in a completely different direction. Instead of debating sources, ALL OF WHICH are questionable... None of you argue that ANY of these sources are foolproof, so why spend time debating it? We're only arguing from ignorance, because WE DON'T KNOW which are correct! Why not instead, based on the tonnage of the ships involved, determine how thick the pressure hulls are, and then based on simple physics, and the metals involved, determine the depth at which said metals of given thickness would bend to a given tolerance? This seems more logical than spending all this time debating over the whole CLOUD of questionable sources, and would give a one-size fits all solution to this problem.