This was mentioned on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels" last night in an episode dealing with Secret Allied Weapons of WWII. The part about some one getting shot comes from a confrence with Admiral King of the US Navy where Lord Mountbatten fires a bullet from his pistol into a block of ice, shattering it. Then he fires a shot into a block of Pykrete the bullet bounces off grazing Admiral King's leg.

Of course it did not melt!

Winnie was one cool dude!

The idea would have been good for the British, who were looking to secure the North Atlantic and the North sea, which stay very cold all year round. Wouldnt make much sense for fleets bound for the south pacific.

Problem with the design is that it is 3/4th submerged because of the ice). So you need DEEP harbors for a decent size. It wouldn't fit in any harbor, so it wouldn't have done anything to help win the war.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by CrazyOrange]

Originally posted by CrazyOrange
Problem with the design is that it is 3/4th submerged because of the ice). So you need DEEP harbors for a decent size. It wouldn't fit in any harbor, so it wouldn't have done anything to help win the war.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by CrazyOrange]

Other way around, Ice is 1/4 submerged in water, only 10 percent is submerged because of the density.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by CrazyOrange
Problem with the design is that it is 3/4th submerged because of the ice). So you need DEEP harbors for a decent size. It wouldn't fit in any harbor, so it wouldn't have done anything to help win the war.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by CrazyOrange]

Other way around, Ice is 1/4 submerged in water, only 10 percent is submerged because of the density.

Shattered OUT...

Go get an ice cube and put it in a glass of water. Only about 10 percent will remain above the water level. This remains true for iceburgs.

Really? Hmm, thought it was the other way around. No wonder I failed my density labs.:lolnot really)

Shattered OUT...

10%?... errrr..... not if it's hollow....then it's a canoe.

I still dont know how well it would have faired against naval shells, which are designed to go through the armor and then detonate. And what of torpedoes?

They strike below the water line, and with a target that big and has that much of it submerged, you cannot miss.

I still dont know how well it would have faired against naval shells, which are designed to go through the armor and then detonate. And what of torpedoes?

Would they sink an iceberg which is basicly what this is i'm sure they would do superficial damage to it but sink it with WW2 technology i find unlikely. I'm not sure we could sink it easily today to be honest.



[edit on 17-10-2005 by Teknikal]

Originally posted by CrazyOrange
Problem with the design is that it is 3/4th submerged because of the ice). So you need DEEP harbors for a decent size. It wouldn't fit in any harbor, so it wouldn't have done anything to help win the war.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by CrazyOrange]

There would be no need to enter any habors when this thing could field full sized bombers with ranges in the thousands of miles. You could always use convential ships to resupply it.

I agree with Teknikal this ship would virtually impossible to sink with weapons used in WW2 with exception of the Atom bomb and only the US had that so fat chance of that being used on it. It was going to have 50-foot-thick walls as strong as concrete. It would have effectively been a streamlined iceberg kept afloat by the buoyancy of its construction materials.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]

It's really a shame they never built it, it'd be intresting to see how it'd have turned out. But building something out of a material that needs to be constantly maintained is at least in my opinion, asking for trouble. Also, while difficult to sink, it may not have been as difficult to render useless.

Originally posted by The Amazing Phil
It's really a shame they never built it, it'd be intresting to see how it'd have turned out. But building something out of a material that needs to be constantly maintained is at least in my opinion, asking for trouble. Also, while difficult to sink, it may not have been as difficult to render useless.

With present day technology I would agree however, those were truly bad times for the British and thinking outside of the box to help protect convoys bringing supplies was paramount. So assuming the threat we were dealing with was sub based, given how hard the stuff was, and how big these ships were going to be (They planned on lots of B-17 sized A/C) it may have worked.

I saw the show on history that covered the pykrete carrier idea and I couldn't help but think if I were a german naval officer I would have a few small subs equipped with blowtorchs built to attack that think

With built in refrigeration systems I think that the Pykrete carrier would be both survivable and easy to repair. Just throw a couple of buckets of water into the shell holes and wait for it to freeze. Instant repair. The problem that I have with the whole idea is how do you propell it? With over 75% of it's mass underwater the ship would be huge. Where do you put the engines, generators and fuel tanks? Remember all of these generate heat which would make mounting them kind of tricky. Not to mention the sheer size necessary to propell this behemoth at a reasonable speed.

I was also wondering where the crew would sleep and work in a ship made of ice when you consider that it must be freezing in there literally. Would they have insulated and heated quarters or would they have to dress like they were camping on an iceberg?

Also would the aircraft and other mechanical and electrical equipment be shielded from the cold somehow?

[edit on 17-10-2005 by warpboost]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by The Amazing Phil
It's really a shame they never built it, it'd be intresting to see how it'd have turned out. But building something out of a material that needs to be constantly maintained is at least in my opinion, asking for trouble. Also, while difficult to sink, it may not have been as difficult to render useless.

With present day technology I would agree however, those were truly bad times for the British and thinking outside of the box to help protect convoys bringing supplies was paramount. So assuming the threat we were dealing with was sub based, given how hard the stuff was, and how big these ships were going to be (They planned on lots of B-17 sized A/C) it may have worked.

Maybe, although the initial mental image I had was of all the Spitfires and what not coming back to land and sliding right off of the end and into the briney... that'd have been a far cry from the heady days of Trafalgar. Thankfully we didn't need it though.