WesWorld

Need a reasonably fast small mine warfare ship to supplement or replace that collection of worn trawlers you've been using to clear mines?

Try a HEBCO Seagull!

Specs upon request.

H.

The US Mark 6 exploder used in the current US WW torpedo family was based on a German magnetic influence bottom mine the USN swept and recovered in WW I. That is a real world FACT.

[Fluff]
In WW, the British recovered it and the Americans somehow got hold of it-probably through Canada.

Charles Howard and Simon Lake know this. They expect magnetic influenced mines to become a BIG problem,[Fluff ends.]

The Seagull's hull is non-magnetic alloy.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae546.cfm

HHS-5 to be exact, 1928.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

The US Mark 6 exploder used in the current US WW torpedo family was based on a German magnetic influence bottom mine the USN swept and recovered in WW I.

It also didn't work. The only magnetic torpedo fuse that gave reasonable reliability in WWII was the Italian one.

I covered that. Install a rheostat and map the Earth's magnetic field as ralph Christie tried to do. Son of Mark VI works just fine in American torpedoes. Has since 1950. The Italians were smart, they also only had a limited geography range to fight in. No radical magnetic field variance in the Med.

Quoted

It probably requires clairvoyance to get that magnetic mines are going to become widespread, and then again only really after a decade.

The Mark VI composite exploder became the standard exploder for the US torpedo arsenal. US air dropped bottom mines as soon as they were developed [1942 or thereabouts] immediately featured a magnetic influence feature that DID work. Clairvoyance? germans started using magnetic mines against the British right off the bat.

Degaussing gear requires a emplaced grounded degaussing station. Expensive and the effect is only temporary. You never know when it will fail; until the mine goes off.

Quoted

A stainless steel boat hull is going to cost between 3 and 4 times the amount of a conventional mild steel. You'd be far better off in fitting degaussing lines instead.

CREF immediately above.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

CREF immediately above.

Boats aren't made from stainless steel. Higher nickel and chrome content will push the cost up even further.

Modern Type 209s.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
You think a little bit too modern howard.

You use the experiences of today's time for the constructions and the experience which has been made in the past.

BUT WE ARE NOW IN 1936, that means you didn't know how great the influence of something will be, or do you have a crystal ball, where you can look in the future ?

I'm not doing anything here; the USN wasn't doing or planning or ANTICIPATING in 1935. CREF history above

They chose to degause their steel-hulled minesweepers in 1939 onward, because they expected to be degaussing from their bases and harbors and that it would be good enough to handle magnetic mines. They even built a degaussing station at Pearl Harbor in 1935 in anticipation of the magnetic mine threat. They were wrong that in thinking that it would be effective enough.

Fiberglass or GRPC hulls strong enough to act as ship hulls, are recent-1958 or so. Stainless steel is available in mass quantity from 1933 onward.

Money is no object, when you are a rich navy or one with no Pacific bases.

That is how we got cheap GRPC minesweepers post-war. The Navy funded the EXPENSIVE plastics research.

H.