Isambard Kingdom Brunel

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Bob

Sorry I should have said that the 50ft draft would be its loaded depth as it is expected that the fort would add water ballast when it arrived on site to aid stability whilst firing the main weapons.

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

At 50ft draught there would not be many places it could approach inshore which would leave it exposed to the elements as it could not take advantage of sheltered water.

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hello Colin

If this thing had ever been built and used it would have been unable to seek shelter anywhere else than its home port simply because it would have been blockading and bombarding the nearest safe haven.

The basic engineering calculations suggest that it would have had the mass to be very stable in anything up to a force 9 and its covered top construction would have shrugged off any waves that broke over its freeboard.

The machine should not be confused with a ship as in really heavy weather it could simply find shallow water and ground itself whilst the storm raged and then pump out its tanks and float away again.

As a desktop exercise George is doing some basic drawings and sections to show the construction and when I get a copy I will post them so everyone can have a look.

Paul

George is doing some basic drawings

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Paul,

The power of the sea is not to be underestimated. Tons of water being hurled on board can break up the strongest metal based structures as damage to North Atlantic liners demonstrates.

Finding suitable shallow water is not always easy in an emergency as it may be studded with sharp rocks which will pierce the hull. In really heavy weather it could be difficult to make headway to a suitable location to sit out the storm.

As you will appreciate, I'm playing Devil's advocate here, it's certainly an interesting debate.

The British and French did construct floating batteries for the Crimean war although they were generally sort of ship shaped and towed into position.

Colin

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

A chap called J P Holland invented a submarine in 1875 and was quite successful

It was coal fired for surface working and battery powered for under water. It had two torpedo's and a surface gun

So not much scope left for Isambard, but I'm sure he would have trumped it?……But how?

Bob

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

I suppose the biggest problem with an 800 foot diamter ship would be the sheer inconvenience of it!

It would have to be a warship. No good for cargo as it couldn't even get in most docks and loading and discharging would be virtually impossible with normal dockside cranes etc as they couldn't reach far enough into it! Couldn't drydock it very easily either. Not even much good as a warship after about 1914. Just like a gigantic floating bullseye, even a WWI aircraft could hardly miss it by just simply lobbing a bomb out, roughly aimed at the centre!

When I look at Brunel's GREAT BRITAIN, it appears to be just a conventionally shaped wooden hull built much larger and of iron. The engineering fete as far as I am concerned is the machinery that went inside it – that really was something! Same with the GREAT EASTERN, I find that ship very ugly, but again, a marvel of engineering and undoubtedly would have been a most impressive sight. Still would be an impressive sight today, for that matter.

Bob

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

I believe a multi billionaire is actually building a replica Titanic!………Can't wait to see this!

It's not impossible therefore, for a similar type of person to build a replica Great Eastern?

That would be absolutely breathtaking and awesome!

If only

Bob

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Bob,

I believe the replica TITANIC will just "fizzle out" and we will never hear any more about it.

Really, it would be far more sensible to build another GREAT EASTERN, but it would have to have modern engines, of course. Rules & regs would probably not allow anyone to shovel coal into the furnaces in the conditions that must have been prevelant aboard.

My reason for believing a replica of GREAT EASTERN would be more sensible is that she was the only one – nothing else remotely resembled her. There were a number of four-funnelled passenger liners and TITANIC was really nothing out of the ordinary – only remembered because of her tragic end!

I would be reluctant to sail aboard a replica TITANIC (even if I could afford it), but would jump at the chance to sail aboard a replica GREAT EASTERN, or even a replica GREAT BRITAIN!

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Bob (Wilson)

I'm sorry Bob but I think that you have misunderstood the concept of this hypothetical 800ft diameter machine as it would not have been a ship, it would simply have been a self powered floating gun platform that could have been deployed offshore from any coastal city and its only function would have been blockade and bombardment.

In movement and positioning it would have had more in common with a modern oil rig than a warship.

Its design and intended use would have been a natural progression from the Solent sea forts and the oversize engineering of its construction would have been an atypical Brunel design.

I hope this helps explain the concept.

Paul

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

I have to agree with Bob Wilson…….The Titanic rebuild simply pales in the shadow of Great Eastern!

What a mind boggling opportunity and a real National Treasure!

Let's hear your comments too, Paul?

Bob

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Paul,

I doubt it would be very successful even as a floating gun platform! Too much of a sitting duck!

Putting it aground in bad weather would be asking for trouble. Things that normally float don't like not being afloat It would be pounding up and down with heavy seas breaking over it and would probably go to pieces very quickly, especially if the odd rock or two went through the bottom!

I am sure it must have been considered in times gone by and rejected as "not fit for purpose." But I know virtually nothing about warships or fighting machines, so perhaps shouldn't comment. But, as you say, I was mistaking it for a ship!

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Bob & Bob

The building of a replica Titanic is a simple money making project as many people will pay huge amounts to sail in her and I imagine the ship would be marketed as the very best in service and luxury.

As an example of a design being way ahead of its time the GE is legendary but to build another one would just be a waste of time and materials after all who apart from enthusiasts would want to sail in her.

Paul

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Bob (Wilson)

I would agree with you that in modern times and the advent of air power and better understanding of ballistics the floating sea fort would be a sitting duck but at the time of its theoretical design such a massive machine would have been invulnerable to anything except close attack.

Paul

I am really enjoying this discussion and I am glad that other people are getting involved as these days its not often that I get to use the old grey matter.

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

If the 800 ft dia craft had egg box construction, it would be almost if not impossible to sink?

Refresh my memory, why is it circular and not square?

Anybody know how long a football pitch is?……Then we can get things in perspective!

On reflection, I think Paul is correct…….The Titanic, if built would be very popular, but not many people would be impressed by an ugly ship?

Apart from us three!……and Mark Horton!

Bob

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I still can't see how the proposed floating fort could ever have been a practical proposition. With a diameter of 800 feet and a draught of 50 fee it would have displaced well over 200,000 tons. Being circular it would have no directional stability when being towed and after six months the buildup of weed and crustaceans on the hull would vastly increase it's resistance to being moved. And you couldn't clean off the fouling as there would be no dry docking facilities for something like that.

If by some chance you did manage to get it moving the likelihood would be that the war would be over before it arrived!

And then where would you park it when not in use? At 800 feet in diameter you couldn't even get it through many harbour entrances and if you did then it would almost certainly run aground as few harbours have a depth of 50 feet.

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Good Morning Colin

Its 50ft displacement would only come into effect when the fort was positioned and ballast added to make the machine more stable, when being moved or at its home port it would have drawn approx 25ft.

If such a machine had been constructed then it would have been built in a dry dock behind a coffer dam and the dry dock would have been built in a semi circle and deep enough to moor the monster when not being used.

It would have been the ultimate weapon (deterrent) of its time and its arrival offshore would certainly end any conflict. Just imagine it being deployed against the French and blockading one of the channel ports.

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Certainly the RN was preoccupied with blockading enemy (aka French!) ports in those days but say you towed your fort across to Cherbourg and sat it outside the breakwater there. Surely it would be vulnerable to guns mounted on the heights above the town and possibly be unable to reply as large guns in those days were not capable of very high elevations. It has been demonstrated time and again that all other things being equal, land mounted guns have the advantage over ship mounted ones.

Colin

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

They could even floated a balloon over it and dropped a bomb in the middle! Despite its size, it would certainly not be unsinkable because it would be stuffed full of high explosive powder for all the guns. One red hot shot from a clifftop gun and it would be "boomsville!"

Bob

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Paul,

The same applies to TITANIC. Before the film, not all that many young people had even heard about it – "just another boat!"

If they did build a replica that was exact, it would probably sink "financially" as quick as the real one did. Reason being, that not many people these days would care to pay huge sums to travel in such discomfort. Not all that many cabins had bathrooms even in 1st class, and none in 2nd class & steerage. If they put luxury cabins inside it, it wouldn't be a relica anyway. They couldn't even make it look the same on the outside because it would have to have lots of orange coloured lifeboats

At best, it would be "similar," to the original, but I will be very surprised if it ever gets built!

The modern passenger would not even like the public rooms!

Time will tell.

I hope they do build it just out of sheer curiosity.

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

It is to be assumed that Brunel, as in all things that he did, would have thought about all aspects of the proposed machine and all of the problems that it would have faced and then designed the machine to suit.

Therefore we have to assume that Brunel would have the designed the main armament to be fully functional well beyond the reach of shore batteries.

We also have to assume that Brunel would have a design solution to deal with plunging shells, probably with some form of composite armour made from layers of iron, oak and ceramics all of which were well known to Brunel.

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I don't think you can assume everything Paul, even Brunel couldn't circumvent the laws of physics! For example, at that time armourers were in very intense competition to design bigger and more powerful guns soth the chances of him pulling a rabbit out of the hat and going one better by several degrees of magnitude would seem to be rather remote. The man was certainly an engineering genius but he wasn't a miracle worker and made plenty of mistakes.

Colin

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

I would agree with Colin. He was exceptional with engines, but not really very original with ships. The hull of GREAT EASTERN was particularly unshapely (and rolled like a pig, by all reports) and, as I have said before, the hull of GREAT BRITAIN was just a bigger version of the commonplace, but made of iron! Did he ever show warlike tendencies? They even had huge problems launching GREAT EASTERN on account of the size. My mind is "unclouded by fact" on this issue, but from my observations (that don't go very deep) all his projects seemed to be concerned with peaceable activities – bridges – merchant ships – tunnels engines! Again I must stress, I don't really know – did he ever dabble with "engines of war" whether afloat or ashore?

Bob

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

Bob

Why do you say, Brunel was exceptional with engines?

The GE engines were made by Boulton and Watt…….So what engines are you referring to?

Since Brunel had strong French connections, it would seem improper for him to be dabbling with machines of war?

Bob

[Andy HustlerParticipant @andyhustler32076]

On a completely different slant but keeping with brunels fantastic engineering skills do you think he could have built a tunnel under the english channel , i mean napolean had that idea back in the 1800's so why not brunel ??? Just a thought or even a submarine , now theres a thought for you !!!

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Bob,

Just assumed that as he was a renowned engineer that he designed the engines! But, as I said, my mind is unclouded by by fact on the subject! Perhaps he was just good at tunnels & bridges, but I did hear that one tunnel caved in, but again, maybe I got it wrong.

I really don't know much about him other than the odd programme on TV!

Bob

[Author]

Posts