>h7 >miss >D2 >miss >C4 >You sunk my frigate!

That's a destroyer you fucking mook.

A testiment to American engineering.

If that had been any other nations' ship, the keel would have surely broken in two and the whole thing would have sank due to inferior shipbuilding techniques used everywhere else in the world

>>31944042
That crew fought the FUCK outta that ship. 24/7 battle stations pumping and making water tight. That crew came together and fucking impressed.

>>31944092

I'm not impressed.

I want all ships to have armor and all ships to be nuclear.

Weve built ships that would only need new paint after a hit like that.

Plus, isn't a Nimitz supposed to be able to handle a hook bus sized hole beneath the waterline?

This should have been nothing for damage control.

I FEEL LIKE WE ARE DEVOLVING 0___0

>>31944469

We are the Republic before the Empire arose

>>31944469

>hook

Meant "school".


My autocorrect is fucking with me so damn much.

>>31944531

God I hate how America is right now.... Brand new houses costing hundreds of thousands and they are going to be condemned in a hundred years.. Cars used to be solid Detroit steel now they are aluminium and plastic... Navy ships can't take a single hit without being mission killed...

>>31944469

Also gliders

>>31944567
Protip: a 700lb shaped charge will fuck up any ship no matter when it's from

>>31944615

So all our troops should stop wearing body armor because AP can still fuck it?

Tanks shouldn't have armor because it can still be penetrated?

Firefighters shouldn't wear helmets because a falling I beam can crush it?

This is not sound logic

>>31944615
>implying

Battleships were built to withstand 3+ ton AP shells hitting them, its the death of American industry that allows ships today to be made from plexiglass and aluminum that can be penetrated by an RPG if it got close enough

>>31944018
Except it didn't sink

>>31944865
Troops can wear armor that can stop most threats to them

Ships can't be armored to stop most threats to them

The current state of every navy in the 21st century should tell you that, I shouldn't have to spell it out.

File: wittier-kamakazi-repairs-2.jpg (495KB, 2502x1651px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 2502x1651px

>>31944567
>Navy ships can't take a single hit without being mission killed.

>Destroyers in the past were impenetrable

>>31945236

>troops wear armor that can stop most threats to them

Except land mines, explosions, hits to the face or extremely, etc etc etc

>ships can't be armored to stop most threats to them

And a firefighters helmet won't prevent him from tripping or burning alive.

Your point?

>>31945270

Read the wiki on the Battle off Samar.

An American destroyer took hundreds of hits without sinking, including a 14 inch battleship hit.

Besides even in WW2 destroyers were not armored.

I only want a little armor.

Just a little.

>>31945317
Fucking hell, you just don't get it do you?

Armor CAN help a infantryman

Armor WON'T help a ship

Why do you think no navy armors ships? You think you're the one person in on the secret, somehow?

>>31945317
>>31944865
>The average soldier carries a rifle that fires rounds that can be stopped by a vest

>The average ship carries missiles that can punch through at least two feet of armour from fifty miles away

Gosh it's almost like speed, countermeasures and compartmentalisation has take precedence, universally across the planet as every navy independently evolved to adapt.

>>31945368

You don't get it.

I'm talking about iron class.

I'm talking about the "all or nothing" armor plan.

>>31945424

And you're not disturbed that a single missile can tear apart a ships nuclear reactor and kill the entire crew with radiation THEN cause ocean pollution?

>>31945506

>I'm talking about iron class

Autocorrect won't stop fucking me.

Should say
>I'm not talking about iron clads

>>31945506
thanks for clarifying that this was not only bait but poor bait

>>31945506
You should have kept it more subtle

>>31944567
Aluminum and plastic cars are actually structurally safer than solid steel cars. They're designed to buckle and deform rather than dump the impact energy into your spine and plaster you across the dash.

>>31946458

If I was driving a 50 year old Chevy and you hit me head on with a modern car you'd wrap around Detroit steel like you hit a telephone pole.

How is that safe?

Taking advantage of modern technology doesn't mean you have to get rid of the best things from old technology.

>>31946499


Intentional misunderstanding and falsehood. Take a physics class and start to understand car safety design.

>>31944567
I don't know anything about economics, cars, ships, or how to spell aluminum: the post

>>31946499
Yea, my car would be toast and I'd be hurt, but you'd have a severed spine from severe impact trauma, shattered ribs, internal bleeding, be unconscious and most likely just dead.

The energy of the collision HAS to go somewhere. Your car is literally taking the full brunt of my car's kinetic energy. So that momentum and energy can either be used to DEFORM your car and decelerate it slowly (relatively speaking) or massively and suddenly decelerate/accelerate your car, and by extension you, resulting in serious self-injury.

Steel is good for load-bearing in cars, not for structural safety.

>>31946531

Enjoy totalling your car every time you get a dent.

>>31946697

Actually I'm pretty sure you'd get the worst of it.

The majority of the collision force will go to you because your fragile crumple-body car offers the path of least resistance.

>>31946590

Actually my autocorrect allows both spellings. I usually type half a word that long then let it autofill.

>>31946697
I disagree in that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with steel for crumple zones. Modern steels (TRIP, dual phase) are very ductile, and with the right geometry (thin sections) they can deform easily too.

>>31946748
not that other guy, but it's designed that way. Crumple body allows the hit to be transferred to an area that protects the driver at the cost of the car.

watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

>>31946748
>t. brainlet who never learnt any physics

>>31946880

I know that. I took two years shop class. I'm rusty as fuck though.

Also, it allows insurance companies to justify higher rates and it allows the automotive industry to sell more cars. I don't like that.

>>31946902

There's no reason why the passenger compartment can't be engineered to be just as safe.

I just don't want to total my car from bumping it.

File: e5e84389f3ae3c776eb8ca6ed92a6d3e.jpg (63KB, 423x317px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 423x317px

>>31946880
I came here to post this video.

Modern automotive design prioritizes survival and protection of the vehicle occupants over re-usability and repair costs. This is an intentional design choice and in no way due to the very real and lamentable decline of the American manufacturing sector. I have been first responder to several crashes that would have killed the occupants of the cars had it not been for these design philosophies.

>>31946748
This guy knows nothing about physics. The forces in a crash don't "follow the path of least resistance" like goddamned electricity. If you had taken a high-school level physics course, you would know about conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Both vehicles in a head-on collision have a certain amount of kinetic energy based on mass and speed. In your armor-clad 1960's car, you bounce backwards. The instantaneous reversal of your body produces traumatic effects as you tear yourself apart. In a modern car, the energy from the collision is bled off by the crumple zones. As each component is crushed, energy that would otherwise have been bouncing you backwards is spent re-arranging the physical composition of the structural components and the overall force on your body is lessened. The combination of seat belt and airbag limits how far you ragdoll and slows your deceleration, reducing force on your body and preventing trauma.

The one advantage the classic car might have is being more massive. The physics of collision favor heavier vehicles because F=MA, for constant force a car with more M will experience less A, and less A is what saves your life. Even a small difference like having a passenger in your car vs a 1-occupant car in a collision produces statistically noticeable increases in your survivability. The ideal car for surviving an impact would be very massive and have modern crumple zones.

None of which applies to the topic at hand, which is warship armor.

>>31946934
>higher rates
>sell more cars

It also saves hundreds of thousands of lives per year, so there's that.

>>31946938

>In your armor-clad 1960's car, you bounce backwards.

Im pretty sure my 2 ton car won't bounce backwards from a head on collision with a modern paper car weighing less than a ton.

Pretty sure I would not budge an inch backwards.

>>31946934
So you're an idiot then? You think 2 years of shop class is sufficient? Fuck outa here dude.... You were posting this garbage a few days ago with the same shitty arguments and you are not capable of listening to logic or reason.

>>31946957
Yes you would, or your neck would though. Almost all cars weigh more than a ton, what are you smoking man?

The weight for a new 16 Chevy Malibu is 3,388lbs.

a 16 honda accord is 3,170lbs

for a 1957 Ford Thunderbird it's 3,134

a 1968 mustang is 2,758

newer cars are bigger and designed better

>>31946957
And you're right, YOU wouldn't bounce back, you would continue heading forward while your car takes the impact and pushes the dash back into you. Do you even understand physics?
>An object in motion...

>>31947066

Oh lol

The only car I've ever owned was a Ford Escort lmao

File: plebs.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>31946957
I have a master's degree in mechanical engineering and am a licensed professional engineer. I could do the math for you at several levels, starting with basic bitch high school physics (which you really should take at some point) that uses rolling carts with weights to do elastic and non elastic collision experiments all the way up to a detailed finite element analysis of every structural member in both vehicles with predicted forces experienced at critical junctions (neck, spine, brain, heart, eyes) for the drivers of both vehicles.

But I don't want to, because that's time consuming and I have to go to work all hung over already. You could just watch the video in >>31946880 and see the real world result.

But I'm sure you, with your masterful knowledge gained from two years of shop class, have all kinds of cutting insights into design philosophy and the actuarial tables of automotive insurance agencies.

>MFW I have ten years' experience as a machinist and you brag about shop class

>>31944567
>Cars used to be solid Detroit steel now they are aluminium and plastic

you seem to be confused. when cars were made in detroit, they rusted out within 10 years and were completely used up by the time they hit 100,000 miles. now if you dont get 250,000 miles out of a car, it means you suck.

>>31945520
Why do you morons even *have* auto-correct? Learn to fucking spell, and then you wouldn't need it.

>>31947131
#rekt

>>31946499

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g