Talk:Project Habakkuk

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alternative fiction claim

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Try This Documentary Lads 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, "GOHQ" was a typo, and should have read "COHQ". Salmanazar (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOHQ? And date? 

message: 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 MythSearchertalk  09:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  melting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Radio Program on topic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Data missing