Talk:Tumblehome

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

normal

The first part of the article is correct except for the bit about tumblehome being normal : it is in fact relatively uncommon in large vessels. The second bit about modern warship design is off the mark. Modern warships have sloped sides to reduce the amount of radar energy that will be returned from distant radar sources. (see: RCS or Radar Cross Section) The tumblehome actually reduces both the intact and damaged stability of these vessels as the waterplane is smaller than if there were no tumblehome.

I recommend removing that text. Jmvolc 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense Sentence

"Partly the tumblehome design, allows but a small amount is normal [...]" I am not a native speaker, but this passage does not sound like a grammatically correct sentence to me. What did the author want to say? 138.232.1.229 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is horrible! I've tried to clean it up... But who really knows what I means. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not just military

This isn't just military; Norwegian ship designers Ulstein are doing some very intersting things with what they call x-bow another example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.198.163 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Merimac

Is the CSS Virginia also considered tumblehome? If so, it should be listed as an example in the article. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology?

The origin of the word is not obvious, so I wonder if something might be added on that subject. The OED ("tumble, v.") doesn't really illuminate, though one historical quotation is suggestive: "1848 T. WHITE Ship Build. 39 The upper works usually incline towards the middle line, or as it is termed ‘tumble home’." JKeck (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@JKeck:Perhaps as it is hard to board and alight these ships at a quay, you will Tumblehome down the side. B137 (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tumble home" versus "tumblehome"

An insistent reference has two experts stating that the term is two words: "tumble home", not one: "tumblehome".^[1] They in turn quote the same usage in the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship (1937) (pg 436 in my 1941 reprint edition). The two-word form is in Jane's Dictionary of Naval Terms^[2]^: 274 Volume 2 of the excavation report of the Mary Rose has the "tumble home" in its glossary.^[3]^: 418 So that's two experts in one ref, plus 3 more equals 5.

Against this I can only find three usages of the single word "tumblehome". One is the widely used glossary in Steffy.^[4] Another is Prof Jonathan Adams' A Maritime Archaeology of Ships^[5]^: 179 and The language of sailing.^[6]

Clearly this is not an exhaustive study, but mention of the two versions of the term should be in the article at the very least. Any comments on the frequency of the two usages would be welcome. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Newbury, R. L.; King, John (January 1997). "ANSWERS". The Mariner's Mirror. 83 (2): 223–228. doi:10.1080/00253359.1997.10656642. ISSN 0025-3359.
^ Palmer, Joseph (1975). Jane's Dictionary of Naval Terms. London: Macdonald and Janes Limited. ISBN 0 356 08258 X.
^ Mary Rose - your noblest shippe: anatomy of a Tudor warship. Portsmouth: Mary Rose Trust. 2009. ISBN 9780954402921.
^ Steffy, J. Richard (1994). Wooden ship building and the interpretations of shipwrecks (5th printing ed.). College Station: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781603445207.
^ Adams, Jonathan (2013). A maritime archaeology of ships: innovation and social change in late medieval and early modern Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ISBN 9781782970453.
^ Mayne, Richard (2000). The language of sailing. Chicago, Ill.: Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN 978-1-579-58278-4.

[1] Newbury, R. L.; King, John (January 1997). "ANSWERS". The Mariner's Mirror. 83 (2): 223–228. doi:10.1080/00253359.1997.10656642. ISSN 0025-3359.

[Palmer_1975-2] Palmer, Joseph (1975). Jane's Dictionary of Naval Terms. London: Macdonald and Janes Limited. ISBN 0 356 08258 X.

[3] Mary Rose - your noblest shippe: anatomy of a Tudor warship. Portsmouth: Mary Rose Trust. 2009. ISBN 9780954402921.

[4] Steffy, J. Richard (1994). Wooden ship building and the interpretations of shipwrecks (5th printing ed.). College Station: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781603445207.

[Adams_2013-5] Adams, Jonathan (2013). A maritime archaeology of ships: innovation and social change in late medieval and early modern Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ISBN 9781782970453.

[Mayne_2000-6] Mayne, Richard (2000). The language of sailing. Chicago, Ill.: Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN 978-1-579-58278-4.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]