Talk:Project Habakkuk

Alternative fiction claim

The ship is a fairly popular subject in alternative history fiction.

Can this be substantiated? Does "fairly popular" mean 10 mentions, or 100? Or, as I suppose is more likely, 5? Tempshill 23:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I know that the July 1951 issue of Discovery magazine on Habbakuk mentioned that it was very similar to Oceania's Floating Fortress in George Orwell's 1984.--YoungFreud 19:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A modern Habbakuk

Why not make it today if it's unsinkable? It would be superior to existing carrier designs. -- (unsigned)

I think that the big problem is that there's a lot of basic research still required on making and managing a vehicle this big out of a material which has properties as unusual as ice. It's certainly a feasible proposition. It's just that there are still too many unknowns (which implies cost overruns). During wartime cost may be no object but the peacetime military has to be more circumspect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the big problem is that while ice can't sink, damage could still shift the balance of the ship and make it list, roll or break apart. With modern ground-piercing bombs, an iceberg carrier would be nothing more than a gigantic coffin. Hrimfaxi 08:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, come on now. Show me a ship for which that isn't true. Damage can shift the balance of any type of ship and make it list, roll or break apart. Likewise any ship when badly enough damaged becomes a gigantic coffin. The point about the iceberg ship is that it is cheap enough to be made so large that it would take much more damage to turn it into a coffin than it would for other ships. In effect you would need to use expensive ground-piercing bombs or nukes on a 3 mile long iceberg ship rather than the relatively cheap weapons which can take out a modern aircraft carrier. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, it would still be vastly easier to sink. Ice breaks apart and shatters, especially when laid over pipes that can flex as an iceberg carrier would have. Strong impacts would quickly seperate large chunks of material from the pipes under them, and that would not happen to a steel-hulled ship of equal size, or even much smaller size.

You're trying to compare a normal-sized conventional warship to a multi-million ton iceberg ship, which is silly: it's like comparing a riverline patrol boat to a battleship. Compared to even a multi-hundred-thousand-ton conventional ship, the iceberg carrier would be horrifically vulnerable to damage and easy to render inoperable. It would also require constant power to maintain its very existence because ice tends to melt, and a ship that melts every time there's a power failure is hardly dependable or useful. Hrimfaxi 06:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ummm... Pykrete doesn't break apart or shatter like ice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.189.133 (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now taken this whole disputed bit out. Lacking any sort of citations, it appears to be speculation and thus a potential violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Can anyone point out sources for where an actual analysis of a Habbakuk ship's battleworthiness can be found that indicates how easy (or hard) it is to mission-kill or whatever? Bryan 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored it. Ice's basic properties aren't hugely affected by the addition of wood pulp [see the criticism link, final one on the page], therefore we can state accurately that pykrete also cracks and shatters when subjected to high-energy impacts, and will shear off metal pipes if the pipes themselves flex.

This is no more speculation than the claims of Habbakuk's unsinkability, and can be tested by taking a hammer and chisel and a block of ice or pykrete, then hitting it a few times, then repeating the same with a steel plate. It's simply the known properties of the materials, and pykrete won't magically become tougher than steel just because a ship is made out of it. Hrimfaxi 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you need to read Wikipedia:No original research. We can't state such things, we can only state that other people have stated such things. I'm in the process of adding a criticism section based on the reference you indicated. I think you should also read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, since you seem to be employing edit warring in this dispute and that's not a good way to convince anyone of your correctness. Bryan 07:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, takes two for an edit war. And last I checked I have exactly three reverts down, so reminding me of a rule I'm following is kinda unnecessary.

There is no original research whatsoever here: the ship is made of a material with known properties, therefore it will act in a given way due to those properties. There's nothing about that that makes it a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation,' it's simply a statement of Pykrete's basic properties with respect to the common myth that Habbakuk being unsinkable [due to natural buoyancy] means it would be invincible. This mistake is very common [it's even present on this talk page], and it's worth noting that just because an iceberg carrier would remain afloat regardless of damage, it wouldn't necessarily be in one piece or operable, and the construction material is weaker than steel; Habbakuk would only have been tough because of the enormous amount of material it would have used.

As is noted in the Pykrete link, a .303 rifle bullet will penetrate 6.5 inches of the stuff, so it's hardly speculation that blowing holes in a ship made of it with much larger naval weapons would be relatively easy compared to an equally [or much less] massive conventional ship. Hrimfaxi 07:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All very well and good, but the article doesn't actually say it's "invincible" so you're arguing against a bit of a straw man. The part of NOR that I'm pointing at here is the bit about "new analysis or synthesis". Even if the properties of Pykrete are known, it's not Wikipedia's place to do an original analysis of the resilience of a ship made out of the stuff. We can only point out the results of other such analyses. What do you think of the OR-free criticism section I put together in my most recent round of content editing? Bryan 07:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It says 'unsinkable' and 'virtually impossible to sink' which for a ship is commonly regarded as invulnerability since the common usage of 'sinking' is closely tied to the destruction of a vessel. Again, people take this as meaning because Habbakuk could not be sunk it could not be destroyed, and this should be cleared up in the article: that the ship [or what's left of it] will always be afloat is factual, but the use of the loaded term 'unsinkable' without pointing out the ship could still be destroyed is unacceptable.

So let's take out the "unsinkable" lines, or at least properly cite them. I'll do that now. Bryan 08:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The edited section omits the comments about the amounts of steel the ship would have used, and that it was compared unfavourably to steel-hulled vessels made with the same amounts of material. Hrimfaxi 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The only comparison I see between the use of steel in coolant pipes and in steel hulls is one of speed ("By leaving the ice out and converting the tubing to ship's plates the whole would have been able to go four times as fast."), I don't see a quantitative comparison in that article. Could you quote what you're referring to? Bryan 08:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

'This Fantasy' section, third paragraph: 'Once again the voices of reason could be heard. "Ice has no strength, ice melts, ice is cold, the steel required to hold the ice together, to build the refrigerating plant, the propulsion machinery was far more than would be required to build conventional aircraft carriers of much more effective fighting power."' Hrimfaxi 08:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Amended. You could be doing some of this work too, you know, 3RR doesn't prevent non-revert-type editing. I'm not this article's keeper. :) Bryan 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I prefer to agree things on the talk page before I edit anything new in if there's a conflict. Hrimfaxi 01:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Habbakuk" or "Habakkuk"...

I think it's time that somebody moaned about the spelling used in the article. As far as I can tell, calling it "Project Habbakuk" is a 'webism'. No contemporaneous article that I know of used that spelling -- it only appears on that notorious cutaway drawing by some anonymous Admiralty draughtsman. Both Goodeve and Perutz, who were very familiar with the whole saga, are careful to spell it the correct way ("Habakkuk") in their articles shortly after the war.

I'd be inclined to go in and edit the article myself, except that I'm sure somebody -- who knows they know better (:-)) -- would just go in and re-edit it... It would be nice if anyone who does have documents to the contrary would report them here.

Pete Goodeve 21:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why you did the right thing bringing it up here first! Since you've got some references to contemporary documents (preferably internal ones) only one of which was mis-spelled, I for one would be quite happy for the Wikipedia article to be moved to the correct spelling. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly... (:-/) The documents I know about are not internal -- they all date from after the war -- but they're all consistent. I might try to see if the Imperial War Museum has anything. For now maybe I'll just edit the paragraph about the spelling in the article. -- Pete 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and rewrote the note on the spelling (leaving it unchanged in the rest of the article). Having also dug up Perutz's 1948 article and read it, I added a link to my summary and notes on it. -- Pete 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If everybody agrees that "Habbakuk" is a typo, then it seems to me this article should be moved to "Project Habakkuk". (Moved back, as a matter of fact--Derek Ross moved it here last year. :-)

Is 'Pete Goodeve' (128.32.198.8) any relation to Sir Charles Goodeve?

—wwoods 06:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did I ? I don't remember, <grin>. If I did then I'm sure it was based on the best evidence that I had available at the time. But if other people are more knowledgable on the topic and want to reverse my decision, I have no objection to that. After a little investigation I can find no record of this article having been moved by anyone. The article appears to have used the mis-spelling from its original creation by Danny and there's no record in the logs of my having moved it, so I plead "Not guilty" ! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I was misled by the edit history of "Project_Habakkuk"

—wwoods 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, talk about a smoking gun. Maybe I am guilty after all! Nevertheless there isn't any record in the logs. And I'm certainly quite happy to fix the spelling and move the article as suggested by Pete Goodeve (who states on his website that he is the son of Sir Charles). -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that page moves didn't show up in a page's history before the last software upgrade, so maybe that's the reason. —wwoods 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep -- I'm his son (so I've been following the topic for quite a while! (:-)) I'd be glad to see the article moved to the proper title, but I'll let you folks do that as I'm new to this game. -- Pete Goodeve 20:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh -- following some pointers, I did some further digging and found that texts from that period in the (UK) National Archives often use the 'wrong' spelling, so it's very hard to tell which was 'official'. Certainly all the just-post-war references seem to have settled on the biblical one, though. I've amended the article a bit more to reflect this. -- Pete Goodeve 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's not totally black-and-white. Well that's okay. We've now got an explanation of the inconsistencies in the article so our readers will understand what's going on. And that's an improvement over what we had before. Thanks. By the way, I would recommend that you make an account rather than just typing your name. It's no big deal if you decide not to but it just helps to avoid identify theft on the Wikipedia. At the moment anybody could write stuff and say that they were Pete Goodeve, whereas if you register an acount, at least there's a password preventing anyone else from pretending that they are you. It's a pity that this sort of thing should be necessary but that's life, I'm afraid. Anyway it's up to you. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Registering costs nothing and doesn't commit you to much. And it would, for instance, allow you to have started the article on Charles F. Goodeve, whose WWII activities certainly merit one.

For the remainder of the war the "micro-habakkuk" became the measure of unsoundness of certain inventions, the "micro-" being introduced to avoid decimals.

—wwoods 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[Implying, I suppose, that a mere 'milli-habakkuk' would have been insufficiently small... :-)]

I'm not in disagreement... I didn't bother to register because I didn't expect to be doing much editing (and it certainly extended beyond what I expected!). I think I'm satisfied for now, but if I need to get involved again I'll start up an account for sure. (And thanks for the quote from Dad, and for starting the page yourself! I see nothing that needs correction there...) -- Pete Goodeve 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For completeness, the article needs sections about his chemistry research and his post-war careers. And maybe something about his family. Richardson's biography says his wife had a Ph.D. but not that he did. Also, a picture is a nice embellishment.

—wwoods 06:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to crawl on my belly for a while... (:-/). I just got back from the UK, where I had a chance to actually browse some of the stuff in the National Archives at Kew. It turns out that the wartime documents all consistently spell it "Habbakuk", probably because Pyke himself did. I found one paper that was unsigned but probably written by him -- judging by the rather scathing comments in a memo attached to it! I've re-edited the page a bit to reflect this. I only had two afternoons there, and there was a lot to dig through, so the notes I brought back are way too brief. I did take photos of some of the project diagrams, showing a plan view of Habakuk (:-) and a cross section, but of course they're Crown Copyright, so I can't upload them! If their requested fees aren't too out of line, I'll try to put them up on my own site, and give a link. One thing clear from those diagrams and other content is that the quoted 4000x600 feet was twice the true spec, so I corrected that too. The other numbers presumably taken from Cabinet Magazine I can't comment on. I added brief references to the N.A. docs (did I do that right?); naturally I left the fuller details that I have for these out of reach, but I'll add titles in when I get a chance. Pete G. 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Was just trying to add lnks to the National Archives catalogue for the references you provided, first one (DEFE 2/1087) is OK, but the second PREM 2/216/4 is reporting as not found. However, PREM 3/216/5 (see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/quick_search.aspx?search_text=tentacle and http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=531491) seems to refer to the right sort of things. Could you clarify the reference.

Let's compromise... (:-)) It was actually PREM *3*/216/4. I've amended and added the titles to the references. Pete G. 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see we also seem to have one reference in a different form from the rest, I can't quite work out how to sort out as I haven't really played with the reference syntax before. David Underdown 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing I'm not sure about is the "cite" scheme that was used for the other refs. I tried to find the wiki documentation on this, but haven't tracked it down so far. Pete G. 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes for the <ref>/<references/> footnote formatting, Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations for the various {{cite}} templates embedded inside the footnotes. Bryan 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks as if there's no template really suitable for National Archives references, so I guess they can be left as they are. I see what David was saying about one ref being different -- it's direct rather than linked as a 'footnote', so the system seems to have started numbering over from 1 again. Any way to remedy this? Pete G. 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it into an unnumbered bulleted list item. Since it isn't a footnote, there's not actually any point to giving it a number - it's not referenced directly anywhere. It'd be nice to turn it into one, but I don't know what facts in the article came from that source. Bryan 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, who would have thought it? Thanks for spending part of your trip checking this out, Pete. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

'Twas something I wanted to do, never having been to the National Archives before. It's a fascinating place, set in a park and fronted by a lake. Worth a visit for anyone who needs to track down items of British history. Pete G. 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

This article could use some pics. I just finished watching a 2 hour Modern Marvels ("Ice", probably 2007) where they talked about this project, and they had some CGI floorplans, etc. Obviously, those couldn't be used here but the show producers had to have gotten them from somewhere. They also mentioned a scale model being built - there have to be photos of that somewhere. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TV Documentary

I enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy back in the 80s and although I never participated myself, I've heard our use of them(ice-bergs/packs) for target-practise for various forms of weapons including experiments in the navy helping ice-trapped shipping. Ice-packs are made of fresh-water all the more boyant in salt sea-water than the tested in the fresh-waters of the Canadian Rockies. Although I've never been involved myself, I have seen navy films and heard from colleagues just how resilient even untreated ice-bergs were to even modern munitions.

Though keep in mind that ice-shards are just as deadly as armour-splinters. Growing up, ice-fishing, learning to play hockey on ice, we and training in Northern Alberta, we know a little bit about and respect even fear ice more than most save the Inuit, maybe.

"The Sea Hunters" by naval and diving wreck historian Clive Cussler did a program on it,

http://www.shipwreckcentral.com/livedive/archives/habbakuk/#000250

complete with drawings of hangars, engines, elevators, crew quarters, victual sections even even machinery shops to do repairs to the 'vessel' and aircraft and facilities alike. I had part of it copied on tape here somewhere, but I'm pretty sure I copied over it. Now I wish I hadn't. Whether as transport ships or escorted giant carriers capable of extending even larger bomber ranges around it in ASW or anti-surface and anti-air operations, it was an interesting, though controversial idea. Who knows how effective it might've been if tested large-scale?

You could chip away at it, but to split something that gigantic in half or even a quarter, as inferred here, would take such weaponry of such power that would sink a fleet of our ships anyways. However slow, even if only set up as a relay system of 'land-based' air cover. Whether a U-boat pack or even a surface fleet, one of these things would be like a mini-island airfield more easily repairing of craters.

I'm not saying it would have been more cost effective than maintaining an equivalent number of steel aircraft carriers year after year, I don't know. Given expected surface ship escort, that could even refuel her escorts and act as its own fleet-train. Part of me finds the idea too 'comic book', but part of me, having grown up with ice much of the year, wonders.

Alberta has actually made the test lake(Pyramid Lake I think?) and experiment-remains a tourist site in the National Park. As I much prefer diving in war caribbean waters, I was interested to see the diving footage of this program and its fantastical ideas.

Our job in the RCN is like our parent RN, to provide anti-submarine duties, for the most part, in the North Atlantic and now decreasingly ice-bound Arctic waters. As part of NORAD aside from NATO, we do build weather, listening post even temporary airfield facilities on ice-packs even today. So maybe it's not as fancical as it sounds.

A friend of mine is working for middle-east even American inquiries to have Canada sell fresh-water in the form of 'sailing ice-bergs'. Who knows? I don't. Fascinating topic though, got me re-interested, thanks.

http://forum.thediveoutfitters.ca/viewtopic.php?p=45&sid=ae5fa94af92c0b9ec7f717750bdff234

AthabascaCree (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing your experience with us, AC. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Try This Documentary Lads

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/235665/2_million_ton_pykrete_aircraft_carrier_in_ww2/

Hopefully it's still active, hope it's allowed.

I think it answers alot of questions and concerns here.

This guy does alot of neat documentaries. I wonder why we never see them on TV?

I can't read the video very well, can anyone tell me what the name of the program or channel is and if we can subscribe or buy the dvd series for example?

I find the Brits do more unbiased programs anymore to their credit. TheBalderdasher (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

GOHQ? And date?

In the "Variants" section. Is this just a typo for COHQ, or something else? ALso, there's no date given for the start of the project - in fact, there are no dates at all in the "Initial concept" section. 86.132.139.119 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "GOHQ" was a typo, and should have read "COHQ". Salmanazar (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

shooting and ricocheting

There are two separate incidents reported here of someone shooting ice and then shooting Pykrete and it ricocheting off and hitting someone important. Both of them sound rather unlikely (surely there are standard procedures for things like this that don't endanger anyone), but the idea of there being two identical incidents of people being extremely reckless with firearms I find incredulous. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Incredible perhaps but certainly not incredulous. Only people can be be incredulous. Even so they're generally only incredulous when they find an idea incredible. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The version which has Mountbatten firing the gun appears to be apocryphal; the version for which there are references has an unnamed naval officer firing the gun and the ricochet hitting Sir Alan Brooke. Salmanazar (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Alanbrooke mention the incident in his published diaries? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion for further investigation. In the meantime, it appears that the Bernal book referenced Max Perutz's "I Wish I'd Made You Angry Earlier" so I have amended the reference in the article to reflect this and included a small quote from it. Salmanazar (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alanbrooke's diaries makes it clear that it was Dickie Mountbatten himself doing the shooting, but that no-one was injured. Mountbatten brought two blocks, one of ice and one of Pykrete. After first shooting at the ice, with a warning to beware of splinters, Mountbatten says "I shall fire at the block on the right to show you the difference". Alanbrooke then reports, "the bullet rebounded out of the block and buzzed round our legs like an angry bee." The meeting in question was in the Chateau Frontenac Hotel, Quebec, at a rather high-level summit with a US delegation. Gen. Marshall was in the room for the Pykrete demonstration. A comment on the 9th's entry suggests that the Habbakuk project were already established in Canada but that this was Alanbrooke's first encounter with it.

Alanbrooke seems generally unimpressed with Habbakuk, preferring more straightforward means of fighting a war. A quote from the start of the meeting is, "To hell with Habbakuk, we are about to have the most difficult time with our American friends and shall not have time for your ice carriers." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

References

On The History Channel in an episode of The it is stated that Geoffrey Pyke fired the revolver and the near miss ricochet resulted in Pyke being ostracized from his own project. Wclay (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

References

This is why TV isn't WP:RS. TV producers and directors _LIE_. They will even lie to their (knowledgeable and genuine) presenter, moments before they hack the script or the edit to lie, if they think (which isn't even always right) that it makes "better TV" to tell an incorrect story. This is also some meaning of "better" as a narrative that I've never really understood. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

melting

The article mentioned about completely melting in two sections(at least), the question I have, is how long did it take to melt to a point when it is no longer usable in a practical sense.(cannot support the weight of the added denser-than-water structures) Yes it melts completely in 3 years, but obviously it would have sunk much earlier than that if structure and payload was to be fixed on top of it. The completely melt time is not as important as this praticality melting time in all sense.(It takes a long time to completely melt, impressive but lacks praticality in a military project) Aren't there any sources stating a more practical, realistic melting time like "after X months it was melt to a point where it could not hold its designed payload"? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern research

Has anyone found any modern research on the subject? I'd imagine by now someone would have (at least on paper) probed the concept of nuclear power to keep the ship cooled, modern materials for the construction, and coatings to prevent the hull from coming into direct contact with water. 184.166.2.234 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

nuclear power as far as i know has not been used on a ship because 1. if the ship crashed than it would leak lots of nuclear wast into the water 2. nuclear power would be too big for the ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolandscape (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Radio Program on topic

CBC Ideas had a broadcast on this topic this last week.

See http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2014/12/26/iceberg-ship-habbakuk-2/

173.35.53.177 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Data missing

Here is a link to a german magazine article "Grotesque weapons":

• http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/groteskes-kriegsgeraet-waffen-des-wahnsinns-fotostrecke-108279.html

It includes data on the prospected size of the ship - 1200 meters long and 180 wide - that is strangely missing in this WP article. --Edoe (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)