Talk:Nassau-class battleship

Design aspects

Some information from Ireland, Bernard, Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century, p. 30, ISBN 0004709977, which may make the article more comprehensive:

• length-to-breadth ration was 5.45, "comparatively stubby" (even for a battleship);
• wing turrets and trunks were very close to side, necessitating extra width; they were vulnerable and made it difficult to provide longitudinal anti-torpedo bulkheads;
• main armament squeezed into machinery spaces, but had benefit of dividing those spaces into three, increasing survivability;
• given the overall weight of the main and secondary armament (14% of total displacement), turrets had to be sited as low as possible for stability purposes; secondary armament, lower down in casemates at main deck level, were of doubtful use in a seaway;
• Nassau could fire six guns forward, six aft, and eight in broadside, the same as the (theoretical) figures for contemporary rival Dreadnought, but Nassaus required two more rifles to do so;
• armour belt was 12" only in limited area in centre.

And here is some interesting information on the roll characteristics, from Lyon, Hugh, The Encyclopedia of the World's Warships, pp. 100–01, ISBN 051722478X:

• the wide beam and heavy wing turrets gave them a large metacentric height. This ordinarily would have made them stable gun platforms, but their roll period proved to coincide with that of the average North Sea swell. The bilge keels were added to mitigate this.

Kablammo (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - this is wrong - a large metacentric height leads to a large righting force when a ship rolls, hence more violent rolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.130.171 (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't splice your comment into someone else's, please. And no, you're wrong - cruise ships have large metacentric heights for the sole purpose of reducing roll to make them more comfortable to passengers. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

metacentric height

I have doubts on this phrase

The heavy wing turrets caused the ships to have a large metacentric height, which should have made them very stable gun platforms, but their roll period proved to coincide with that of the average North Sea swell.

Stable gun platform should mean long roll period. If not so, all the following is wrong -- tell me that I am wrong on this and ignore the following.

The roll period is given by T=const*k/sqr(g*h), where k is the gyration radius (the square root of a kind of inertia momentum with respect to the axis, i.e. a measure of how much the masses are away from it) and h the metacentric height. The larger h, the smaller T. This is the opposite of the pendulum, but many people thinks incorrectly that the ship behaves as a pendulum. The long roll period should follow from the fact that the side turrets increase k. Suppongoche (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

N.B. I feel that the article metacentric height should be supplemented by an abstract stating only (but clearly) what is useful for a non-engineer.

You're correct that stability (in terms of what would make an ideal shooting platform) and metacentric height are inversely related, but the statement is more or less verbatim from the source cited in the article, which states: "...and heavy turrets near the ships' sides meant a large metacentric height. This ought to have given a steady gun platform on the North Sea, but unfortunately an oversight resulted in their period of roll coinciding with that of an average North Sea swell. This was discovered during the initial sea trials, and the class were hastily fitted with bilge keels in an attempt to eliminate this undesirable feature."

We do know that the class suffered from excessive rolling, as it's been reported in other sources as well, and from the fact that they had to be fitted with bilge keels to correct it. But you're also right that the greater weight close to the sides would increase k. Something doesn't quite add up, but I don't understand the physics well enough to figure it out. Parsecboy (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for images

Do we have sources for File:Nassau class main weapon.svg and File:SMS Westfalen midel section-EN.svg? (poke @Jimfbleak as this article is scheduled for TFA on Jan 28th) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: for comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that the uploader is still active, but I'm reasonably sure the latter is based on a drawing in Staff's book. I'll try to check it in the next day or two. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added references to both drawings. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks a lot @Parsecboy! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Poorly phrased - vessels' "careers"

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads "After entering service, the Nassau-class ships served as II Division, I Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the duration of their careers." Inanimate objects do not have careers, people do. Even American English defines the noun career as "a job for which you are trained and in which it is possible to advance during your working life, so that you get greater responsibility and earn more money" [1]. Ironically, as a verb, career can be relevant to vehicles such as ships, as it means "to move fast and without control" [ibid]. It's always difficult for a reader to trust technical material, or comprehend a complex concept presented to them, if it contains basic errors in spelling, grammar or expression. Novocastrian2303 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The usage of such terminology in relation to ships is long attested, as can be seen in this 1888 publication or this one from 1867. That you are not familiar with something doesn't mean it's wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your full reply. I apologise for not having logged on sooner, to have seen this unexpected reply. It is a pity that your best sources are more than 135 years old. Language evolves more quickly than that, even scientific understanding has changed dramatically over that period.

Good luck with your endeavours of writing articles for 21st Century online readers. That you are not familiar with modern language doesn't mean it's wrong! Novocastrian2303 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you missed the point of my reply - clearly the bigger pity in this exchange. I'll repeat it in greater length just to be clear: the point of using old sources was to demonstrate that the phrase is not a new construction, or one of my own invention. That you are not well-read enough to have encountered it previously (or, you know, know how to type "ship's career" into Google Books and select for 21st-century publications) is also a pity. Alas, I cannot do everything for you. Parsecboy (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)