|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 18, 2015 1:37:06 GMT
Are they claiming corsets alone, or women's clothing in general?
One of those off the top of my head thoughts, but didn't the old style skirts use steel hoops to give them their shape?
Btw, WW1 battleships were somewhat smaller than their World War 2 counterparts*. Figure around 25-27,000 tons unloaded displacement, which covers the King George V** and Queen Elizabeth Class class ships of the Royal Navy. Not that it makes any major difference to the busting of the idea.
(*That is ships that were build before and during WW1 and those ships built for and during WW2. Many WW1 ships saw service in WW2 as well, HMS Hood being a prime example - Although she was a Battlecruiser not a Battleship and launched in 1918)
(**There were two King George classes. The first took part in WW1, the other was a much larger class that saw action in WW2.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 18, 2015 1:40:35 GMT
Are they claiming corsets alone, or women's clothing in general? One of those off the top of my head thoughts, but didn't the old style skirts use steel hoops to give them their shape? Btw, WW1 battleships were somewhat smaller than their World War 2 counterparts*. Figure around 25-27,000 tons unloaded displacement, which covers the King George V** and Queen Elizabeth Class class ships of the Royal Navy. Not that it makes any major difference to the busting of the idea. (*That is ships that were build before and during WW1 and those ships built for and during WW2. Many WW1 ships saw service in WW2 as well, HMS Hood being a prime example - Although she was a Battlecruiser not a Battleship and launched in 1918) (**There were two King George classes. The first took part in WW1, the other was a much larger class that saw action in WW2.) woops - I was thinking it was a WWII time period.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 18, 2015 13:36:10 GMT
Are they claiming corsets alone, or women's clothing in general? One of those off the top of my head thoughts, but didn't the old style skirts use steel hoops to give them their shape? Btw, WW1 battleships were somewhat smaller than their World War 2 counterparts*. Figure around 25-27,000 tons unloaded displacement, which covers the King George V** and Queen Elizabeth Class class ships of the Royal Navy. Not that it makes any major difference to the busting of the idea. (*That is ships that were build before and during WW1 and those ships built for and during WW2. Many WW1 ships saw service in WW2 as well, HMS Hood being a prime example - Although she was a Battlecruiser not a Battleship and launched in 1918) (**There were two King George classes. The first took part in WW1, the other was a much larger class that saw action in WW2.) woops - I was thinking it was a WWII time period. I suspect that most people wouldn't realize that there was any difference in displacement between Battleships that took part in the two world wars. Part of this is probably due to the changes made to the designs being more or less unnoticeable to the casual viewer, which at best would look cosmetic rather than giving any real idea of scale. I'm also unsure if there are any pictures of WW1 Battleships next to WW2 Battleships, or at least ones that clearly show the difference in size. (Which given that a lot of the weight increase would have been due to thicker armor and larger guns might not be all that noticeable anyway.) Off the top of my head I *think* that Battleships of WW1 topped out at some 28,000 tons (give or take). Those ships build in the interwar period when the Washington Naval Treaty was in effect were limited to 35,000 tons. Those that were built after the Treaty was abandoned seem to have been in the 40-45,000 ton range. One of the problems with listed displacement is that it isn't always clear if this is the loaded or unloaded weight of the ship. That is if the displacement weight was calculated with or without fuel, ammunition and provisions for the crew. The original King George V class for example displaced 27,500 tons unloaded but some 32,000 tons when fully loaded with stores. The second King George V class has a listed displacement of around 42,000 tons, but it isn't clear if this included stores or not. In the latter case this is because the terms of the Washington Treaty were not, originally, all that clearly spelled out in regards to if the limit on displacement should be the displacement on launch or the displacement when in service. So all the signatories tended to use this to their advantage by bending the rules to a greater or lesser extent. I think that the Royal Navy calculated displacement for the interwar ships including fuel but not other stores. If they were still doing this at the time the second King George V class was designed then the actual listed displacement of the class would have been closer to some 38-39,000 tons rather than the 42,000 given. Of course even the 'dry' weight of a ship included all the equipment installed in the hull, from the engines and guns to the electrical systems. So the weight of the hull on its own (and hence how much metal you needed to build the ship, as these were components that were not as far as I know manufactured in dockyards) is going to be considerably less. I *think* that for a WW1/2 era warship the hull and its armor was usually around 1/3rd of the overall displacement for the most heavily armored ships, and more usually a bit less than this. So a rough estimate would be that for the largest WW1 era ships of some 28,000 tons displacement the hull itself would only displace some 9000 tons, lets assume 10,000 tons to account for framing. Let us also assume that the steel used in corsets and the like at the same period was somewhat thicker than what is available today, so each corset contained half a pound of metal. That would mean around 11,210,762 corsets for one ship from a (rough estimate) population of 50 million women in the US. (Less, actually, since not all of them would have or could afford steel corsets). Or 2.24 corsets from every woman. Then again, the weight of the hull included the armored hull itself and it is possible, if not probable, that the steel used in corsets wouldn't have been suitable for armor but instead was used purely for the frame. Going off my (very rough and almost certainly incorrect guestimate above) that would only be some 10% of the mass of the overall hull with the armor in place. If that was what the claim was referring to, something that could technically be considered building a Battleship if somewhat misleading, then it would actually be a valid claim. (Note; My maths skills died on me during the writing of this post. But the point is that if we are looking purely at the hull and/or framing rather than the whole ship you'd need a hell of a lot less than 25-28,000 tons of steel to make a Battleship)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 18, 2015 14:23:55 GMT
you're right on that - we don't know if they were only counting a specific portion of the ship when they made the claim.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 19, 2015 13:01:25 GMT
Clunk.
Displacement of FRESH water and SALT water.... It would, at the same mass, be a different plimsole line wouldnt it?...
It kinda makes sense when my Dad said they had to alter the ballast when his ships went thorough a fresh-water canal (Suez/panama/...) I never got that before now. I thought they just held more ballast at sea to help stabilise the thing?... Well, if you learn something new every day....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 19, 2015 15:21:27 GMT
Clunk.Displacement of FRESH water and SALT water.... It would, at the same mass, be a different plimsole line wouldnt it?... It kinda makes sense when my Dad said they had to alter the ballast when his ships went thorough a fresh-water canal (Suez/panama/...) I never got that before now. I thought they just held more ballast at sea to help stabilise the thing?... Well, if you learn something new every day.... now you can take the rest of the day off. I call that particular category of learning "stuff you had no reason to think about before now"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 20, 2015 9:18:59 GMT
Clunk.Displacement of FRESH water and SALT water.... It would, at the same mass, be a different plimsole line wouldnt it?... It kinda makes sense when my Dad said they had to alter the ballast when his ships went thorough a fresh-water canal (Suez/panama/...) I never got that before now. I thought they just held more ballast at sea to help stabilise the thing?... Well, if you learn something new every day.... now you can take the rest of the day off. I call that particular category of learning "stuff you had no reason to think about before now" I used to build RIB's, and we went through all the stuff that may change everything between Fresh and Salt water, inducing the possibility of the salt attacking the Gel-Coat, and damage cause by beaching and the internal Fibreglass being attacked by salt water, yet we never ever discussed salt water being heavier than fresh, and how displacement may be altered by changes. We decided to add a aluminium rubbing strip along the keel of any dive support or rescue boat the client stated was liable to be beached "In a hurry" or collide with underwater scenery to help out there.... And added a drain-plug to help empty the craft of any water that had sneaked in. Never EVER follow a RIB closely when its being towed home, the water coming out splashes around a lot when its on the trailer. Byt Yeah, I never thought about it because I never had reason to... that I knew about?... So question, per ton to the gallon, what do you reckon the difference is?... I say that because our heaviest craft was a couple of tons, and I would love to be able to work out what the difference in height out of the water would be. Just for the knowing. Is it a few gallons, or a lot more, or hardly worth the knowing (Unless you just like to know...)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 20, 2015 14:39:08 GMT
now you can take the rest of the day off. I call that particular category of learning "stuff you had no reason to think about before now" I used to build RIB's, and we went through all the stuff that may change everything between Fresh and Salt water, inducing the possibility of the salt attacking the Gel-Coat, and damage cause by beaching and the internal Fibreglass being attacked by salt water, yet we never ever discussed salt water being heavier than fresh, and how displacement may be altered by changes. We decided to add a aluminium rubbing strip along the keel of any dive support or rescue boat the client stated was liable to be beached "In a hurry" or collide with underwater scenery to help out there.... And added a drain-plug to help empty the craft of any water that had sneaked in. Never EVER follow a RIB closely when its being towed home, the water coming out splashes around a lot when its on the trailer. Byt Yeah, I never thought about it because I never had reason to... that I knew about?... So question, per ton to the gallon, what do you reckon the difference is?... I say that because our heaviest craft was a couple of tons, and I would love to be able to work out what the difference in height out of the water would be. Just for the knowing. Is it a few gallons, or a lot more, or hardly worth the knowing (Unless you just like to know...) fresh water is about 8.34 pounds per gallon. (1 liter weighs 1kg; yay metric) sea water is about 8.56 pounds per gallon. (1 liter weighs 1025.18 grams; so much for metric) so at 4000#, the boat would displace about 480 gallons of fresh water, or 467 gallons of sea water. - probably not much difference in height.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 20, 2015 17:36:49 GMT
It would depend on the overall size and weight of the ship. I'd image that the main problem ships would have in the difference in displacement is that this would also be a change in the ships draft. An unwary Captain who forgets this could easily end up grounding himself on a sandbank he thought he could pass over if trying to sail up a river from the sea.
The difference in displacement is usually more important for submarines, as even a small change in displacement can mean the difference between your periscope being above the waves and most of your hull.
I would imagine that displacement listed for warships is probably the displacement in salt water, since that is where they spend their working lives, and is worked out on paper rather than being measured directly. I think that most warships that end up traversing into freshwater are usually on their way to dockyards and dry docks located up rivers. And one of the first things that is usually done before a ship gets that far is offloading the ships stores.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 21, 2015 2:17:14 GMT
Sorry I'm late, I'm on vacation this week so I had a lot to get squared away at work first. Cyber, the claim is specifically corsets. This link is pretty much representative of all the articles I've seen. The hoop skirts you're thinking of were Victorian, by the mid 1910s any needed fullness to a skirt (nowhere near as much as in the hoop skirt days) came from a petticoat with multiple rows of ruffles sewn to it. I just watched the DVRed "Blowing It Out Of The Water" episode, and the graphics team said the boat they used weighed 40,000 pounds. Since the concern was whether the muddy shoreline could support the crane moving said boat, that's probably actual weight instead of displacement. I was already "padding" the steel weight per corset figures -- I ordered a couple extra bones on general principles, and the fashion industry classes me as plus-size so a corset that fits me will have a little more to it than a "normal" size corset. The bones were supposed to flex a bit, so they probably wouldn't have been that much thicker than what I bought. But even if we round up to 8 ounces of steel per corset, that's still 80,000 corsets to build something a whole lot smaller than a WWI destroyer.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 21, 2015 7:20:06 GMT
If it was a crane, it would be "dead-weight"?.. the crane driver needs to know the weight that way. Its a live load, so he needs to work out what the weight may be if it starts to swing.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jul 22, 2015 12:21:53 GMT
I'm trying to wrap up the research for the WWI nurse's uniform I'm making for next year's CostumeCon, so I can get to work making it. Part of the research has been on what that nurse would have worn under her uniform (can't get the right lines without the right undies). I've hit several sites that claim the US banned the use of steel for corset boning and used the metal saved to build two warships, but no one's providing any documentation of that claim. Gotta admit, I'm skeptical. Not just because I've also found corset advertisements from the war years, one of which specifically claims that the US War Industries Board classed corsets as "essential". But come on -- it's a corset, not body armor. There doesn't seem to be that much steel there. (Pattern ordering will take place as soon as the tax refund shows up, and one of them will be for a reproduction 1910s corset, so I'll be able to tell you exactly how much steel would have been in that corset soon.) Got the answer; which is that basically no one in the 1940's was wearing corsets - they'd gone out of style in the 20's. My friend is a star, as she has not only provided two links that show you exactly what they would have been wearing, but they are sites where you should be able to get what you need/want. She uses those from the second link for shows; www.whatkatiedid.com/en_us/product/465/harlow-6-strap-deep-garter-beltwww.herroom.com/rago-9357-lacette-open-bottom-body-briefer.shtmlBoth would be worn with a slip over them...Makes you understand the myth about women taking forever to get changed and having larger suitcases. Presumably they needed 30 different items of underware plus instruction books for a week long trip. Antigone Mate you should have just PM'd me if you wanted a corset pattern! (Which begs the question exactly who is this thing for - or do I not want to know that? ) I have a TONE of corset patterns - just about everything from the Tudor era right up to just before WWI. Dragon is mostly right here Most women stoped using corsets once the Modern Bra was invented in the 1920's. They took a few years to become mainstream but by WWII most women had one - with exception to a few old die hard Dears like my Great Grandmother just couldn't face not wearing one. Of course once WWII started most of these women took up the bra as it was seen as more patriotic (not to mention more practical) as clothing & materials restrictions came into force.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 22, 2015 13:57:02 GMT
Dragon was right!? Do I look large, scaly and bad tempered? My friend is a professor, who does teaches makeup and costume design for stage and theater and has written on book on the topic - its not been published yet but I've been promised a copy when it is. She happened to be online when I was looking at this thread, so I was able to ask her there and then and get a reply within minutes.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 23, 2015 11:07:55 GMT
Why am I not surprised Lex has a tone or even a ton of corset patterns?... I am right?... when?... find that and stop it right now... I cant stand being right.
Well... yes. Yes you do.
I suggest that the reason the Corset stopped being popular was the lack of interest being the lack of actual corsetry... being the change bought about by austerity during the war, and then, people just changed.
The 20's bought about a change in dress, "flappers" style, Charleston and other modern dance started about then, and you couldnt do that in those old style "warship" size dresses.
Fashion changes, and it changed then, BIG style.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 23, 2015 11:28:31 GMT
The change in women's clothing in WW1 was not down to austerity, but more likely a result of women entering the workplace and doing manual labor; such as making munitions. These were not jobs you could do in a corset, or a dress, so other clothing would have been worn out of practicality.
Even though only a small number of women would have been wearing such 'male' clothing, they would have been highly visible walking to and from work and probably wearing the same clothing when shopping and so forth. (Not many days off, and constantly tired to the point that messing around with complex dresses wouldn't be appealing).
Older kids would have seen this, and in the case of the girls that would become the 20's generation it probably influenced them into more 'masculine' fashions.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jul 24, 2015 11:56:46 GMT
Dragon was right!? Do I look large, scaly and bad tempered? My friend is a professor, who does teaches makeup and costume design for stage and theater and has written on book on the topic - its not been published yet but I've been promised a copy when it is. She happened to be online when I was looking at this thread, so I was able to ask her there and then and get a reply within minutes. Sorry Cyber! I have a cold (actually it's the tail end of the Flu) & my meds are giving me a few problems mainly causing me to have MASSIVE brain farts. I had SO much fun trying to tutor my friends 15 year old today for her Shakespeare test. Thankfully the test isn't till next week so I sent her away with a mock essay to do over the weekend. Which gives me some time to try & clear my head out.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jul 24, 2015 13:07:47 GMT
The change in women's clothing in WW1 was not down to austerity, but more likely a result of women entering the workplace and doing manual labor; such as making munitions. These were not jobs you could do in a corset, or a dress, so other clothing would have been worn out of practicality. Even though only a small number of women would have been wearing such 'male' clothing, they would have been highly visible walking to and from work and probably wearing the same clothing when shopping and so forth. (Not many days off, and constantly tired to the point that messing around with complex dresses wouldn't be appealing). Older kids would have seen this, and in the case of the girls that would become the 20's generation it probably influenced them into more 'masculine' fashions. Yes but the mainstream usage of corsets did finally die due to the austerity of WWII. The Old Guard of Upper Class & Upper Middle Class Ladies like my Great Grandmother, held on to their corsets as long as they could because they didn't want to look like boys. The corsets by then were MUCH more flexible (thank you elasticated rubber! ) & less cumbersome than the ones from previous eras. But they were still corseted undergarments & not modern looking bra's & knickers. Advertisement for 1930's CorsetsOk here's something that might help you with your search Antigone these two links will show you the basic corset shapes & how they affected the look/figures of the women who wore them. Corset Link #1 Corset Link #2Now the first two corsets are actually Tudor corsets or as they were known then stays – cause they helped things 'stay' in place . The often had a highly decorated whale bone board that fitted down the front of the garment, to help hold the woman’s let’s say ‘oranges’ in place so they couldn’t move about. (Much like underwire does today in modern bras.) The first image is of an early Tudor era corset (Something that Henry VIII’s wife’s might have worn) & the second one is a late Tudor era corset (Elizabeth I would have worn something like this towards the end of her reign). Corsets didn't change that much from one decade to another, until the Industrial Revolution took off then you'd practically get a new corset design ever 10 years thanks to rapidly changing fashions. Images of Corsets 1900 – 1919Image 1920’s corsetHere is a site you might want to look at to get patterns
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jul 24, 2015 13:16:18 GMT
Why am I not surprised Lex has a tone or even a ton of corset patterns?... ROTFLMAO! If you find that shocking then you DEFINATELY don't want to know about the rest of my wardrobe or my shoes. Actually it's not that bad Dragon I only have a few personal corsets. Mostly I use the corset patterns to make corsets for my friends (some wear them in their drag shows) & some non-friends who've seen my works & ask for one. Basically if someone wants me to make one it's a word of mouth thing I don't make them as a business endeavour though.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 24, 2015 20:01:42 GMT
Why am I not surprised Lex has a tone or even a ton of corset patterns?... ROTFLMAO! If you find that shocking then you DEFINATELY don't want to know about the rest of my wardrobe or my shoes. Actually it's not that bad Dragon I only have a few personal corsets. Mostly I use the corset patterns to make corsets for my friends (some wear them in their drag shows) & some non-friends who've seen my works & ask for one. Basically if someone wants me to make one it's a word of mouth thing I don't make them as a business endeavour though. You make corsets for drag queens and yet you were grossed out by my "there are stickier things than sticky buns in the world" comment in the ESM thread? You're a tough person to figure out! But at least you make it fun to try Especially your little cases of cerebral flatulence keep me amused
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 25, 2015 0:26:49 GMT
Of course Lex is difficult to figure out. That is what being a woman is all about... If you'll excuse me I'll be hiding, just in case.
|
|