Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 19  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 519 »
Author Message
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 5th, 2017, 12:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
[ img ]

[ img ]

Updated the SMS Derfflinger conversions.


Last edited by Tobius on July 7th, 2017, 9:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 5th, 2017, 12:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
acelanceloet wrote: *
Tobius, first of all, a few remarks
- as far as I know, nor the USN, nor any other western nation, used the frigate designation in 1927
- Nothing about this ship matches the shape, weapons or even role of any ship called frigate
- The weapons look extremely small
- the mast looks extremely large
- the crane looks too modern
- the anchor looks too ancient
- I doubt there is much sense in a 4 propeller ship of this size
- the crane looks oversized
- the funnels look oversized

In short, I would recommend, before posting the textual description, maybe look at the design again, and make certain this is what you wanted to post? Right now it looks like a beginner level ship, somebody who knows nothing about how shipbucket style, ships or their history work. Nothing wrong with that level of skill and knowledge if you are new here, but you have drawn plenty of ships now, so I've come to expect something a bit better by now :P
Thanks for the feedback. It is appreciated. Comments and remediations in order.

a. The term "frigate" was revived, revised. redefined reintroduced early in the RTL WW II, 1940 by the British RN to designate ASW/AAA vessels above the corvette size but below the battle destroyer size. In 1927, as far as I know, there were no such things as aircraft carrier bodyguard ships designed for the purpose anywhere. After 1935, this changes as the role of the aircraft carrier becomes somewhat better understood as an independent striking arm. The US would begin work on those types of large escorts in the form of the light cruiser/destroyer leaders of the Atlanta/Juneau cruiser classes around 1937 to replace and augment the Omaha scout cruisers they use for that purpose. Now I take some liberties here but the same role was sort of defacto what the Omaha class scout cruisers were pressed into during the Fleet-exs of the 1930s. This was logical as those scout cruisers were the only large practical ships in numbers the USN had with the physical engine plants that could keep pace with the RTL Lexingtons. The RTL USN was always historically a bit short of "light cruisers" and scouts. The Lexingtons were supposed to be battlecruisers and used as fleet scouts. The Omahas were actually designed to run with them as bodyguards. Aircraft carrier conversions did not change the situations RTL as it turned out at all. As at Midway and during the Solomon Islands campaigns the aircraft carrier bodyguard role for the Atlantas was clearly the way they were slso supposed to be used, not as conventional light gun cruisers. In British RN terms, this is similar to the way the Didos should have been used. Such a specialized purely escort role and mission is recognized today in European navies for such ships. These are called either air defense or anti-submarine "frigates". So, why not use the specialized term for the specialized role? Destroyer escort for a ship this large seems ridiculous.

b. In the 19th (1860s to 1870s) century a single deck armored or protected sail/steam hybrid was referred to as a "steam frigate" in the United States Navy. This was the largest ship class in her service. The term "cruiser" was a British import term the USN adopted. Since the British defined what a warship was and other navies followed that custom, it is RTL accurate to say that the term frigate fell out of American use. Some South American navies did not follow the custom.

c. You mean the main armament? Will look at the issue.

d. Not happy with the mast, so I agree.

e. The Omahas used a four screw arrangement. Similar length and size hull. Why reinvent the wheel I thought? Besides, as I will discuss with the oversized funnels, the four shaft arrangement might make sense when I discuss the diesel-electric engines involved.

f. Crane is an articulated arm crane. It is "modern" but when I considered possible models and the actual reach it needed to pluck a huge seaplane out of the water (10 tonnes?) I was sort of stuck with an articulated extendable arm crane. The WW II US cranes will not work as they at fantail and not amidships cranes and do not have an extender capability aside from the elbow hinge.

g. Anchor is same as mast. I wanted a Cramp and Sons "feel". I missed here. A Spanish American war/WW I model does not apparently work.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 5th, 2017, 4:07 pm
Offline
Posts: 5124
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact: Website
The "frigate" drawing you posted earlier is the same size as the FLETCHER class destroyers (and also the pre-war destroyer leaders). I won't comment on the drawing quality as you seem to have developed your own sort of "style" that seems to suit your ideas but the ship seems unrealistic at best. The funnels are massive (they are larger than the funnels on the BALTIMORE class cruisers and about the same width as the funnels on the NORTHAMPTON and PORTLAND class cruisers...), the main guns seem very small and the mast structure doesn't look sturdy at all. I would encourage you to examine some of the existing USN drawings in the archive to see how to best represent a tripod mast above the pilothouse.
Quote:
So, why not use the specialized term for the specialized role? Destroyer escort for a ship this large seems ridiculous.
You're right, this ship is the size of a destroyer with a superstructure that could fit on a cruiser. It just doesn't make sense. If you're looking for an example of a small coastal ASW patrol ship smaller than a DD, look at the TACOMA class patrol frigates or the ERIE class patrol gunboats (ERIE is probably more appropriate for the time period).
Quote:
e. The Omahas used a four screw arrangement. Similar length and size hull. Why reinvent the wheel I thought? Besides, as I will discuss with the oversized funnels, the four shaft arrangement might make sense when I discuss the diesel-electric engines involved.
That isn't true at all, the OMAHA class cruisers are much longer and finer in hull form than your ship. The ERIE class gunboats are what you should be aiming for and they only have two screws.
Quote:
f. Crane is an articulated arm crane. It is "modern" but when I considered possible models and the actual reach it needed to pluck a huge seaplane out of the water (10 tonnes?) I was sort of stuck with an articulated extendable arm crane. The WW II US cranes will not work as they at fantail and not amidships cranes and do not have an extender capability aside from the elbow hinge.
This is an outright falsehood; ALL of the pre-war American cruisers had amidships floatplane handling facilities, most with cranes designed to handle both heavy boats and floatplanes. Your floatplane looks to be the size of the usual SOC Seagull, OS2U Kingfisher, or SC Seahawks operated by the USN during the war, so I see no reason why you'd need an extra strong crane arm. The stern cranes used on the wartime units would also work as they were used both for handling boats and seaplanes...
Quote:
g. Anchor is same as mast. I wanted a Cramp and Sons "feel". I missed here. A Spanish American war/WW I model does not apparently work.
I am not sure what "Cramp and Sons feel" means but there is no way such an antiquated sea anchor mechanism would even be contemplated by any navy past 1910. Use the normal anchors provided on every parts sheet and stop trying to be different just for the sake of being different.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 5th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1315
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Hi Tobius:

Just one remark about the anchor. I don´t know what is the Cramp and Sons feel, but an anchor without stock with its lifting gear was available since the 1880s (but it only was standard at least in the RN since 1903). An anchor of this type is space saving, an important consideration in an already congested place like the bow of a warship. Cheers.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 5th, 2017, 5:21 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7295
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Tobius wrote: *
a. The term "frigate" was revived, revised. redefined reintroduced early in the RTL WW II, 1940 by the British RN to designate ASW/AAA vessels above the corvette size but below the battle destroyer size. In 1927, as far as I know, there were no such things as aircraft carrier bodyguard ships designed for the purpose anywhere. After 1935, this changes as the role of the aircraft carrier becomes somewhat better understood as an independent striking arm. The US would begin work on those types of large escorts in the form of the light cruiser/destroyer leaders of the Atlanta/Juneau cruiser classes around 1937 to replace and augment the Omaha scout cruisers they use for that purpose. Now I take some liberties here but the same role was sort of defacto what the Omaha class scout cruisers were pressed into during the Fleet-exs of the 1930s. This was logical as those scout cruisers were the only large practical ships in numbers the USN had with the physical engine plants that could keep pace with the RTL Lexingtons. The RTL USN was always historically a bit short of "light cruisers" and scouts. The Lexingtons were supposed to be battlecruisers and used as fleet scouts. The Omahas were actually designed to run with them as bodyguards. Aircraft carrier conversions did not change the situations RTL as it turned out at all. As at Midway and during the Solomon Islands campaigns the aircraft carrier bodyguard role for the Atlantas was clearly the way they were slso supposed to be used, not as conventional light gun cruisers. In British RN terms, this is similar to the way the Didos should have been used. Such a specialized purely escort role and mission is recognized today in European navies for such ships. These are called either air defense or anti-submarine "frigates". So, why not use the specialized term for the specialized role? Destroyer escort for a ship this large seems ridiculous.
The role is however not really specialised. The role you describe falls into the heavy destroyer category, the role pretty close to the main armament you seem to have fitted. Destroyer leader or light cruiser both works too, such as used for the Dutch Tromp class, although that does not really fit carrier escort. Do note that the role of 'destroyer escorts' was not at all to escort warships, this was a task of destroyers ;)
Tobius wrote: *
b. In the 19th (1860s to 1870s) century a single deck armored or protected sail/steam hybrid was referred to as a "steam frigate" in the United States Navy. This was the largest ship class in her service. The term "cruiser" was a British import term the USN adopted. Since the British defined what a warship was and other navies followed that custom, it is RTL accurate to say that the term frigate fell out of American use. Some South American navies did not follow the custom.
It is some time ago since I read Friedman's US cruisers, but I think it disagrees on you about why the USN ships were called 'cruisers'. In addition, while it might very well be possible one of the worlds navies would call cruisers frigates, what point does it serve here, apart from confusing people? I mean, we could be calling battleships manowars, and frigates dungcarts or whatever, it changes nothing about what they are, it just confuses what you are trying to say.
Tobius wrote: *
c. You mean the main armament? Will look at the issue.
yes. the turrets seem too low to allow for the guns to be elevated and for crews to be inside the turrets.
Tobius wrote: *
e. The Omahas used a four screw arrangement. Similar length and size hull. Why reinvent the wheel I thought? Besides, as I will discuss with the oversized funnels, the four shaft arrangement might make sense when I discuss the diesel-electric engines involved.
The Omaha class was a ship of 50 meters more length, and very fast and narrow. Since longer ship go faster easier, and your design is an escort for fast ships, your ship will be at least as narrow, which means your displacement is likely to be closer to 2500-3000 tons then the 7000 tons of the Omaha (and that is corrected for the rather high draft you seem to have, otherwise it would be 2000-2500 tons) This would, as Colo suggested, put you close to an fletcher class destroyer.
Do note that diesel powerplants (and diesel electric as well) tend to have funnels less then a quarter of the size of that of an steam plant, not 4 times the size, as you seem to have here. I look forward to an explanation for the multiple shaft diesel-electric drive, as I can think of no good reason for such an arrangement at all.
Tobius wrote: *
f. Crane is an articulated arm crane. It is "modern" but when I considered possible models and the actual reach it needed to pluck a huge seaplane out of the water (10 tonnes?) I was sort of stuck with an articulated extendable arm crane. The WW II US cranes will not work as they at fantail and not amidships cranes and do not have an extender capability aside from the elbow hinge.
While there were not too many free-standing midship cranes IIRC, mast mounted derricks are the solution you are looking for here. The crane design you have used here requires quite a few hydraulics to work, something not commonly (if at all) used at the time for purposes like these.
Tobius wrote: *
g. Anchor is same as mast. I wanted a Cramp and Sons "feel". I missed here. A Spanish American war/WW I model does not apparently work.
As (war) ships got bigger and heavier, better anchor designs were developed to allow smaller and lighter anchors to anchor better and to be lifted easier. Nobody would use the older models once the new ones were available, they were easier to build, more effective and easier to integrate in the ship design. These anchors look at least 50 years out of place.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 5th, 2017, 7:51 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
acelanceloet wrote: *
Tobius wrote: *
a. The term "frigate" was revived, revised. redefined reintroduced early in the RTL WW II, 1940 by the British RN snip
The role is however not really specialised. The role you describe falls into the heavy destroyer category, the role pretty close to the main armament you seem to have fitted. Destroyer leader or light cruiser both works too, such as used for the Dutch Tromp class, although that does not really fit carrier escort. Do note that the role of 'destroyer escorts' was not at all to escort warships, this was a task of destroyers ;)
Well argued. Let me point out what I failed to emphasize.

The role of an aircraft carrier bodyguard ship (and that is what the Atlanta/Juneau classes were) is to supply air defense (and ASW support) that a fleet destroyer could not.
Tobius wrote: *
b. In the 19th (1860s to 1870s) century a single deck armored or protected sail/steam hybrid was referred to as a "steam frigate" in the United States Navy. This was the largest ship class in her service. The term "cruiser" was a British import term the USN adopted. Since the British defined what a warship was and other navies followed that custom, it is RTL accurate to say that the term frigate fell out of American use. Some South American navies did not follow the custom.
Quote:
It is some time ago since I read Friedman's US cruisers, but I think it disagrees on you about why the USN ships were called 'cruisers'. In addition, while it might very well be possible one of the worlds navies would call cruisers frigates, what point does it serve here, apart from confusing people? I mean, we could be calling battleships manowars, and frigates dungcarts or whatever, it changes nothing about what they are, it just confuses what you are trying to say.


Contemporary example. Russian ship class designations for their "cruisers" are roughly translated into English;

Large missile ship which equals their "battlecruiser" the Kirov class.
Medium missile ship which equals their Sovremeney class, what we would actually call a small cruiser.
Small missile ship which covers everything which western navies call a fast patrol boat up to a small frigate or ASW destroyer.

Who is to say that one different set of terms is accurate? The Russians do not use their ships our ways and they name accordingly. Their large missile ships are designed as independent deep blue sea raiders, their medium missile ships operate as pack hunters and their small missile ships carry out everything from coast guard duties to coastal defense.

Tobius wrote: *
c. You mean the main armament? Will look at the issue.
yes. the turrets seem too low to allow for the guns to be elevated and for crews to be inside the turrets.[/quote]

Semi-automatic guns. The pivot on the trunion is shown in the revision below and the intent is for the breech to descend into the well of the barbette as was done on the New Jerseys.
Tobius wrote: *
e. The Omahas used a four screw arrangement. Similar length and size hull. Why reinvent the wheel I thought? Besides, as I will discuss with the oversized funnels, the four shaft arrangement might make sense when I discuss the diesel-electric engines involved.
Quote:
The Omaha class was a ship of 50 meters more length, and very fast and narrow. Since longer ship go faster easier, and your design is an escort for fast ships, your ship will be at least as narrow, which means your displacement is likely to be closer to 2500-3000 tons then the 7000 tons of the Omaha (and that is corrected for the rather high draft you seem to have, otherwise it would be 2000-2500 tons) This would, as Colo suggested, put you close to an fletcher class destroyer.
I will correct for it.
Quote:
Do note that diesel powerplants (and diesel electric as well) tend to have funnels less then a quarter of the size of that of an steam plant, not 4 times the size, as you seem to have here. I look forward to an explanation for the multiple shaft diesel-electric drive, as I can think of no good reason for such an arrangement at all.
Redundancy for the engines. One or two diesel engine complexes as the Germans tried in the Hippers? Imagine all the unit machinery involved for the realistic American built marine diesels of the era. Those will be more reliable but of necessity because of their railroad origins be much smaller and distributed. When you trunk all those runs from six or eight complexes in six engine rooms, together, you will have a large stack. Stack scrubbers to take up giveaway smoke from such exhausts tend to be large in that era as well.
Tobius wrote: *
f. Crane is an articulated arm crane. It is "modern" but when I considered possible models and the actual reach it needed to pluck a huge seaplane out of the water (10 tonnes?) I was sort of stuck with an articulated extendable arm crane. The WW II US cranes will not work as they [are] at fantail and not amidships cranes and do not have an extender capability aside from the elbow hinge.
Quote:
While there were not too many free-standing midship cranes IIRC, mast mounted derricks are the solution you are looking for here. The crane design you have used here requires quite a few hydraulics to work, something not commonly (if at all) used at the time for purposes like these.
Boom pivots off a are less than desirable. Otherwise it defeats the whole auto-cannon AAA feature of the ship's armament astern, and compromises the very reason for the ship to exist.
Tobius wrote: *
g. Anchor is same as mast. I wanted a Cramp and Sons "feel". I missed here. A Spanish American war/WW I model does not apparently work.
Quote:
As (war) ships got bigger and heavier, better anchor designs were developed to allow smaller and lighter anchors to anchor better and to be lifted easier. Nobody would use the older models once the new ones were available, they were easier to build, more effective and easier to integrate in the ship design. These anchors look at least 50 years out of place.
Noted.

How's this?

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 6th, 2017, 3:37 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
[ img ]

Updated it.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ABetterName
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 6th, 2017, 5:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 360
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
Again your shading is quite odd, it seems to suggest that your hull is this shape:
[ img ]

Might I suggest looking at real designs before attempting shading?

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 6th, 2017, 6:15 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
It's a submarine. The shape shading has to darken sort of that way.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ABetterName
Post subject: Re: Mister Hoover's NavyPosted: July 6th, 2017, 6:30 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 360
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
I'm referring to the bow area, although the shading on the entire boat is odd.

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 19  [ 183 posts ]  Return to “Non-Shipbucket Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 519 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]