[Post Reply] [*]  Page 26 of 27  [ 263 posts ]  Go to page « 123 24 25 26 27 »
Author Message
KHT
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 1st, 2017, 7:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1364
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm
I think you should work a bit with overhang shading. The drawing looks good, but it looks very flat and almost unfinished at the moment.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 1st, 2017, 7:43 pm
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
KHT wrote: *
I think you should work a bit with overhang shading. The drawing looks good, but it looks very flat and almost unfinished at the moment.
[ img ]

[ img ]

Hope that is better.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 8th, 2017, 4:07 pm
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Quote:
"Seine Majestät der König und Kaiser befiehlt dem Kommandanten des Ostasiatischen Geschwaders nach Manila aufzubrechen, um sich eine persönliche Meinung zur spanischen Situation (edit: vor Ort), zur Lage der Eingeborenen und ausländischen Aktivitäten zu bilden.

Beschützen Sie mit dem Geschwader deutsche Interessen in den w.Carolinen und Paloa Inselgruppen. Senden sie dorthin Schiffe ab sobald auch die Amerikaner dies tun."
===================================
Quote:
Transliteration

"His Majesty the King and Emperor orders the Commander of the East Asia squadron immediately to Manila, to establish (with his own eyes) a personal opinion on the Spanish situation there, to make clear sense of that situation of the indigenous and foreign activities (at that place).

Use the squadron to protect German interests in the Western Caroline Islands and Palaus Island groups. "Send your to ships off [at once] (to head off) the Americans (if necessary). Do this (at once)."
===================================
Quote:
"What the HELL are the Germans doing here with an entire squadron?"

Commodore Dewey, of the American Asiatic Squadron.
Quote:
Oh !@Q#!

Sir Edward Chichester, Ninth Baronet, C.B., Royal Navy aboard his flagship H.M.S. Immortalité.
More comments...
Quote:
"I am here by order of the Kaiser, sir!"

von Diederichs
Quote:
Merde!

Captain Jean Caveaux
Quote:
だめだ!

Watanabe, Ito
==================================================

WHAT DOES VON DIEDERICHS THINK HE IS DOING? (AU or RTL, it matters little.)

The RTL gives intriguing clues....

This "map" is the result of an AU speculation of the "what if?" that was actually going on and projects the possible fallout of an AU misunderstanding.

[ img ]

Now there are these RTL line facts:

Von Diederichs sent the Cormoran on an expedition to sniff around Subic Bay to check it out as a future naval anchorage. While there, the local Spanish garrison commander asked its captain for German assistance to evacuate Spanish noncombatants from Olangapo. Playing both sides of the fiddle, the Germans also contacted local Filipino Illustrados of the Kaitipunan. The Americans quickly learned of these events. How? Chinese-Filipinos ratted the Germans out.

German ships, instead of anchoring off Manila, like everyone else present neutral, north of the Pasig River, which seemed to be a defacto demarcation line between the Americans off Sangley Point and everyone else, cruised all around Manila Bay on various sightseeing trips. This caused Dewey no end of headaches as he sent the McCulloch and the Petrel chasing after the Germans to keep an eye on them. This is how he found out about the peculiar movements of the transport Darmstadt and the weird German activity on the Bataan peninsula. One does not generally land marines (seetruppen) and make contact with Aguinaldo north and west of Manila if one is a
"Neutral".

============================

That German problem was not Dewey's only headache.

The French and British were present and twitchy about recent problems in the Somali and Moroccan Incidents. Russia and Japan were each present in the Bay and not too keen about each other after recent diplomatic and military incidents in northeast China.

The alliance lineups were most distressing.

--France and Russia were formal allies in 1898.
--Britain and Japan were cordial to the point that they both opposed Russia.
--The Germans were "friendly" with the Spanish and talking to the Filipinos. They had recently forced the Chinese to grant them major concessions. They were the chief object of the Russo-French alliance.

Of all the powers present, the Americans were the only ones who had no partner to the dance if it all went wrong. Dewey had to break that logjam in a hurry and tilt the odds. The Germans were 40 days away from reinforcements. Japan was 10 days. Russia about the same, France was 5 days away and Britain, depending on whether or not Chichester could get the word out, might take 2 weeks, but they would be down in force that would dwarf all the other fleets combined if they had to send to India to round it all up.

World War I was laid out, all ready to go. All it would take is a damned fool to light her off.

===========================

Von Diederichs serves a damned fool. And given his instructions, (See above.), it would be easy for him to fall into the same role. It is necessary for Dewey to make sure that does not happen.

Next up: How does Dewey in the AU prevent it? In the RTL, he plays the English card, but in the AU Chichester has his own considerable problems with his superiors and is not biting as he did in the RTL.


Last edited by Tobius on April 9th, 2017, 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 8th, 2017, 5:15 pm
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
DEWEY'S SOLUTION

A. As word of the Irene's activities in Subic Bay sort themselves into a coherent picture, Dewey is convinced that a message needs to be sent to von Diederichs, Colonel Castro, and to the Kaitipunan. American reinforcements in the RTL were a pair of monitors to tilt the gunfire odds in the American's favor and to show that the USN was prepared to hold Manila Bay against all comers. Instead of the Monterey and the Monadnock, in this AU, the Char, the Chiffin, the Cuttlefish and the Crampy, all brand new submarines, make the torturous Pacific crossing. Char draws the short straw and she proceeds to Subic Bay to show the Germans what could happen. SS Esmeralda, a commandeered Spanish intercoastal steamer with over 1400 Kaitipunan bolo men aboard about to move on Olangapo goes down in full view of the Irene and the Cormoran.

Von Diederichs receives that message loud and clear.

B. The rest of the German fleet, which concentrate off Orani where the Darmstadt (alone) in the RTL unloaded German exploratory parties in the RTL to survey the Bataan peninsula, are given an obvious Shakespeare periscope parade to make them very nervous. This has the desired effect on them. The "parade of periscopes" does not indicate that there are just two submarines cutting holes in the water. There could be a dozen "Davids" out there for all they know. Von Diederichs has no way to know how many. but he does know how effective they've been around Cuba...

C. Lake Champlain mounts a "blockade" in the de jure sense by visibly patrolling the entrance to the bay. Crampy is the hidden teeth.

D. The shot up and battle damaged Oneida is parked as a floating battery and base of fire where she can cover the Cavite navy yard. The local Filipinos who were maintaining Montojo's ragtag fleet before it was demolished, now have new pay masters who put them to work immediately repairing the holes in the Oneida's hull and who set the previously unpaid Filipino dockyard workers to repair upon the Castilla and the Reina Mercedes which are the most easily repairable scuttled hulks present. Busy hands are happy hands.

E. Diplomacy 101: The British and the Americans talk English and the Americans even sprechen sie Japanese. It is called "cutting in". Parsons, Gridley, Fiske and Reynolds do the party circuit and drink lots of brandy and saki. It will have profound effects for Mister Roosevelt's Navy in a few years.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 12th, 2017, 4:17 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4552
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Spam / personal attack posts deleted. Rundrewrun has been given an official warning. Thanks Tobius for not taking the bait.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 12th, 2017, 5:36 pm
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
I had a few thoughts in the Muscatuck thread that I posted that really belong here, both as a legitimate self criticism of what I did wrong in this AU and as a background for why it turns out this way.
Quote:
From my own research:

The big problem the pre-dreadnought designers had:

a. shock mountings.
b. propellant stowage.
c. shell stowage.

The shock mounting (recoil) problem in US ships' main battery barbette mounted guns up to and through the first world war was largely handled by a counter mass vertical weight system that was built into the main gun cradles and formed the front face of the rotating barbette. As the barrel recoiled on its slide, it raised the weight and then as it moved forward back into battery the weight fell. The gun lay problem is OBVIOUS. One does not obtain a four round per minute rate of fire with this kind of system. One does not even obtain two rounds per minute. As this was the only practical solution for shock mounting guns of 21 cm bore or larger before robust recuperators were developed around 1905, it appears at least for American tech, any claims of 30.5 cm guns firing more than every 90 seconds is simply not true. Physically impossible. Once large reliable hydraulic recuperators (from France) become practical, then (the Germans first) recuperated main armament becomes the battleship norm.

I have to admit that I cheated for Mr. McKinley's Navy. I hand waved the annealing problem for really large brass cartridges for unitary rounds and declared that the Americans solved it by 1890. The Germans really wanted to solve that problem because the wedge block breech guns they adopted seem made for unitary rounds and single hoist solutions. Before 1925 when Krupp and Rheinmetall finally solved the problem, for really large bore guns (again the break seems to be 21 cm bore) the brass cartridge, once subjected to breech chamber pressures, ballooned out of round too much to reuse without mechanical reforming and a new heat treat to set the rounding (annealing). The Spanish bitterly complained, during the Spanish American War that their 14 cm and 16 cm brass cases came back from Schneider and Ansaldo out of round; and as a result, caused breech plug jams and or blew out the breech blocks of their Hontoria copies of Schneider Canet 5.5 and 6.5 inch guns rapid fire guns. I believe them. But even at that, the "German" system of that era above 15 cm bore seems to have used a three hoist system and three lines of charge feed to load a Krupp naval gun. The first unit hoisted was the bullet. This would be a cast shell, a bit further advanced than the Paixham shell of the 1840s, but really not materially that much different as a cast iron or mild steel bodied round. It was highly susceptible to shatter-gap against the new Harvey and Krupp plate steels coming into service. Then in the German system would come the first bagged charge that for the Germans was made out of a specialized wool case fabric instead of the silk that the French and the British used. There are financial, political and technological reasons why the Germans could not obtain silk, but suffice it to say, that the Germans sold their solution to second tier navies who quickly discovered that wool rots and this can degrade ammunition propellant and interact with it in dangerous ways if you are not conscientious and rotate your stocks or use them. The Germans were careful. Brazilians and Spaniards were not. It hurt them badly. But back to the German system. The first bagged charge (called the fore charge) was followed by the aft charge or the "kicker". This charge was nestled by hand into a brass button breech plate complete with a lead gas seal ring. The sequence was bullet, fore charge, aft charge, and the brass seal breech plate or ring in the loading tray, all rammed in sequence, bullet first to seat the driver bands into the lands and grooves, fore charge up against the bullet, then depending on the gun model, either the aft charge and brass button together or the aft charge and then the brass button. It was Germanically hideously complicated as a loading procedure. One is surprised at how safely and quickly the German gun crews could do it inside the cramped gunhouses of the Brandenburgs. So, when I AU had the Americans adopt this system instead of the de Bang system, I emphasized that the AU Americans would have a lot of trouble with it. Their new steel navy ships blow up and some of their Endicott forts disappear in massive explosions. They would eventually solve it by rigorously developing a native annealing technology and special brass alloys that allow them to develop cartridged naval shells up to 30 cm bore, but I essentially cheated on this assumption since RTL history does not show anyone solved it until after WW I.

So... Battleships in [this] AU I should expect to have a string of Mutsu type accidents. A lot of accidents.

Shell stowage comes in two basic how not to do it solutions. Lay the shell on its side so it can be rolled to the shell hoist, or stand it on its base. Seaman Fumbles, whether the shell is base fused (American q1898) or nose fused (most everyone else same era) will find a way to bump the fuse and activate the shell in the powder handling room. Pre-world war one, when it was by muscle and carts, stand the shell up. That is safer.

PROPELLANTS: here is where you have your USS Maine type catastrophes. Assuming that the ship has its powder stowage right next to ye olde coal bunker...

The propellants everyone uses whether bagged in silk or wool are not too stable and are heat sensitive. The US Navy was so aware of how dangerous it was, they demanded inventors create automatic magazine flooding fire alarm initiated safety systems for both the magazines and the coal bunkers. USS Maine was the result. After that the USN made daily manual inspection mandatory.

You cannot overreach the tech. AU or otherwise, expect big naval guns to take up to four minutes between shots, and smaller (6 inch bore down) quick fire guns to not exceed 6-10 shots per minute. Rapid fire guns may punch out up to 15 shells per minute, but ONLY for that first minute. They need cool-down times after of up to 15 minutes for some of the larger bore Nordenfelds. A Driggs Schroeder 6 pounder was good for 10 shots per minute for 3 minutes, but needed a similar cool-down. The Hotchkiss revolver cannon, notoriously inaccurate, was popular, because with six or ten barrels, it could sustain rapid fire for some time and was the closest thing at 15 to 21 shots a minute to an auto cannon.
Quote:
From USS Arkansas on the US shipbuilders used recuperators exclusively.

But even before that happened:

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-40_mk3.php
Quote:
1. The Mark 4 introduced the barbette/gunhouse style of construction to US ships and used a spring return system.

5. These turrets used the "grass-hopper" counter recoil system whereby a spring box, located under the gun pit, was connected via two heavy, pivoted arms to the gun yoke. See 10"/40 (25.4 cm) datapage for a sketch.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_10-40_mk3.php

[ img ]

Now what I find interesting is that as early as 1898, the British were installing recognizable modern hydraulic recuperators aboard the HMS Formidable and the HMS Implacable, then building. They had no end of trouble with the tech clear into WW I. The cylinders leaked, the fluids were fire hazards and so forth.

[ img ]

My guess is that the Americans were extremely conservative and stayed with mechanical rocker systems until at least the 1906 timeframe I suggested. The South Carolina may have been their first battleship class to use French style cradle mounts.
Quote:
Propellent storage,
[In 1898, the bag charges were] laid inside the brass button at the time of mounting on the feed tray or rammed separately depending on the model of the gun. You see this safety practice clear into WW II. This allows for visual inspection of the bag and last minute rejection if the gun crew notices tears, mold, crystallization or any other visible to the eye defects in the charge.
Quote:
[Combining] the fore and base charges into one case?
For mechanical handling reasons the Germans did not think so. I've seen old films of US gun crews loading old Endicott 12 in coast defense mortars (Edison filmed a practice) and [one notices], that the practices used were extremely unsafe. The speed at which the army crews were able to fire (1 shot per 15 seconds) on dry land was simply incredible, and this was all done by hand and wheeled trolley. I have seen an old film of a British gun crew load an old dreadnought style gun in a gun house and they were far slower and much more careful. Both used bag charges and the de Bang system modified by either Rogers or Wellin interrupted screw breech blocks. I (Research since I first wrote this has shown me that the Germans were as concerned about propellant burn as the French, and their parallel experiments showed that past a certain size, the propellant bag sputtered and did not burn thoroughly... Tobias) cannot say why the Germans used fore and aft charges. I [thought I did] know why those who used the de Bang system used multiple bag charges in a powder train. Controlled overpressure burn in the breech chamber and the bags were at the limit of what one average man could move by size and weight without the risk of tear or damage to the bag or the spill of highly flammable propellant in an extremely dangerous fire prone and cramped work space.
Quote:
Annealing problems


... for obvious reasons I'm not a fan of manganese in any way shape or form around a breech block. Prefer creosote sponge or LEAD, as they sensibly used in those days.
Quote:
Going back to be resized and reloaded first?
A brass case exposed to overpressure in the breech tends to balloon around the mid-body or at weak point in the case wall. This happens because the breech heats up to around softening point of brass every time the propellant burns.
Quote:
Can the case be made of a brass base obturator and thin manganese wall that would burn out leaving just the brass base to reduce the amount of space taken up by empty cases and reduces the mass of the internal ejection (heavy case vs light disk)?
Yes, but why would [one] want to do that when weight is not an issue and lead is much safer, cheaper and more plentiful for either the case or the brass base button? The lead will remain and after factory reset is reusable.
Quote:
Could the brass cases be lifted mouth up or do they need to be sideways on the lifts? If mouth up, could a ring system similar to the shells be used for storage?
This is what I assume the Americans do in my AU. The continuous step chain hoist is easier to design for a shell or bag charge on its side (US battleships in general), but for a unit round, stand it on its base. Unless the propellant is a preformed stick or molded candle (modern practice) might want to make sure the granules/pellets do not slosh and bunch up in clumps in handling. Uneven burn means two dangers: flame flash from unburnt propellant and bag silk or spot burn which torches the breech chamber walls and creates weak spots. That happens anyway, but juggling the bag charges as the stocks are rotated around to make sure the granules are evenly distributed reduces the occurrences and the dangers. With a unit round, there has to be an open the cartridge and rotate the bags inside inspection or somebody has to learn how to make a burn candle which is akin to a solid rocket mortar. In 1910, that is not going to happen. So that unit round will have to be separated, the bag charges inside rotated and those charges visually inspected.

Hopefully at least every three months.

Unit rounds can be insulated. and are easier to move by machines. The bag charges are somewhat safer inside brass from a spark hazard, but standing heat, moisture, and accidental tears in movement remain other hazards nonetheless. Nothing changes the dangers from nitrocellulose powders used in the period. Nothing. [One's] chief dangers remain moisture and crystallization. [One should] think about air conditioning your battleships' magazines.
Quote:
Shell storage, point up lifts work or would the shells need to be sideways lifted? A shell lift system somewhat similar to the US use of inner and outer rings on two levels?
The US used horizontal bag charge lifts and point up shell hoists to feed trays in some of their ships. With unit rounds the point up shell hoist with flipper tray would be [a preferred] choice.
Quote:
The Mutsu comment is that about shells or propellant safety, wasn't there a magazine cook off from an electrical fire?
Since the people who caused the accident died in the explosion; one can only guess. From what [one] can discern from similar debacles in British, French and American warships, the causes are most likely:

a. someone smoked in the powder room. With the IJN, do not laugh... it is possible.
b. something hydraulic caught fire.
c. Something chemical in nature was left standing to spontaneously combust. (Couple of American aircraft carriers became dockyard cases because someone did not police the rag bins.)
d. or the lighting system shorted out. Again with the IJN this is possible.
e. or a service panel shorted out and the trips did not work. See d.
Quote:
The coal bunkers if behind a separate bulk head and air-spaced from barbette, would this be enough to help prevent a coal firing ignition of propellant?
[One] tends to think not enough. Safe practices are essential and far more important, no matter what the designed layout. Coal dust in air can act like a fuel air explosive bomb. One spark or one flame point and goodbye. The Maine blew up because her bunkers were not clean, were not kept clean and the coal was mishandled. p[My opinion. Tobias] [One] could have charged Sicard with dereliction; for not making ... sure that his stokers and deck apes did their jobs to wet wipe and dry wipe the bunkers before the last coaling and to properly handle the coal transfer from deck to bunkers. thereafter. That coal can be stacked wrong and that when stacked wrong as it shuffles around as the ship pitches and rolls it can rub and sandpaper itself to generate black fog is a known hazard.

That is coal can overheat in a steel box as the box becomes an oven is inevitable. That simple cross ventilation is not enough to keep the coal dust from accumulating as black fog is a known hazard. All in 1898. Sicard screwed up and lost his ship.

At least Hiram Rickover thought so.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 15th, 2017, 11:24 am
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
ODDS and ENDS:

So far in this speculation one has refought the Spanish American War along mostly RTL lines, albeit with German and Austrian technology more than Norwegian, British or French technology on the American side of it. The variation has produced some noticeable AU drift even though the attempt was to keep that drift minimal.

As posted, the assumptions were that American artillery and small arms would be of the German pattern instead of the British or French pattern. This especially hits home as Benjamin Hotchkiss stays home and opens his factory in Hartford, Connecticut instead of St. Denis, France.

No Lieutenant Benet to fix the Austrian Obrize gas operated system for the French. That means the French de Bang system and the St. Étienne Mle 1907 instead for the French army, doesn't it? Merde.

On the naval technology front, the popularity and use of "submersible" torpedo rams" as a cheap solution to naval power projection, proves quite illusory. For another decade Congress will chase that willow of the wisp, until even the die-hard Congress cretin Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman understands that the gosh darned Yankee Navy needs some battleships and cruisers to keep Charleston, South Carolina safe. One supposes that someone explained to the Congress critter, that an eight knot sub cannot chase down and sink a sixteen knot battleship.

Nevertheless, the same Congress that was all so enthusiastic to pass three navy bills (1898, 1899, 1900) to expand the navy will return to its historical roots by 1901, especially as the army eats up a huge fraction of the military budget with ongoing fighting in Borneo, the Philippines and Cuba.

War, even small war, is expensive.

The Mannlicher clones in Navy Lee 6X60 rifles in service prove unsatisfactory. No stopping power. The Krag is retired post haste due to severe operational issues in Cuba, though it seems to stop a Filipino boloman just fine after a couple of torso hits. The Steyr pistol in 7.63x25 proves unsuitable in any theater and until Browning develops his famous .45 (11.43 mm) the Colt .45 single action service revolver makes a comeback. As for rifle replacements, it is not a question of what the army wants, but what Congress can be convinced to buy. This AU Congress as in the RTL is full of fresh faced Spanish American War veterans, some who had been on the receiving end of Spanish Mausers. The Mannlicher clones need a better bullet. Also a second source rifle, that the Congress critters know works, might be necessary in case the Springfield Arsenal screws the upgrade up. There will be an American Mauser.

The Hotchkiss seems to work just fine. The American army wants 2000 more of them during the Roosevelt administration (Teddy not Franklin), but Congress balks. The machine gun is expensive. The army obtains 700. Significantly the Hotchkiss portable is not developed from it. This will have severe repercussions in the future... for Mexico and the Germans.

The RTL American army obtained the (Driggs) Model 1906 12 cm field gun just in time for the Great Unpleasantness, but in the projected AU, as in the RTL, because of gross incompetence and rather poor decision making by the Wilson administration, this gun like the notional AU Model 1902 8 cm companion field gun, it will not be ready in quantity when needed.

WHAT WILL THE AMERICAN NAVY LOOK LIKE?

If Mahan had his way, it would be concentrated into two fleets: one for the east coast and one for the west coast; each built around a core line of a dozen or so battleships, with a supporting cast of roughly the same number of armored cruisers and about forty large ocean going torpedo boats, all of these ships to be expeditionary with the necessary colliers, stores ships and other auxiliaries as needed for the expedition, either part of the fleet or taken up from trade. He allowed that it might have a place for protected cruisers in show the flag presences and raiding, and that the nefarious diving torpedo boat might have its role to play until the fleet showed up to settle affairs with battle and blockade as was done to Spain.

What the Congress wanted was cruisers and torpedo boats; lots of torpedo boats. With idiots like Tillman running the appropriations committees, every time the navy secretary and the admiral's board troops up to the Hill to request a battleship or two in the yearly budget, they had/have to re-argue the case for heavy ships to oppose foreign enemies who clearly are after the brand new American empire. Nobody in these hearings RTL or AU says Japan, substituting Germany instead, but even Tillman has heard of Tsushima. That old fiendish South Carolina bushwhacker and racist unreconstructed Confederate understands "Yellow Peril" easily enough (to America's historic shame)and that is really how Teddy Roosevelt gets his battle-line. Mahan is mostly happy, too.

It still will be short ranged and "defensive" in appearance, but the proper lessons of speed, turning circle, and hard hitting quick fire artillery from the Spanish American War and from what horrified American naval observers see at Port Arthur and Tsushima will be incorporated into Teddy's ships. Congress will insist on size limitations, so it will not be a fleet that features a lot of main guns per ship, but enough main guns per ship to get the job done. What else will be different in the AU going forward is that the switch to heavy oil will not be eagerly pressed just yet. There will be a long argument as it was done in the days of sail, when to go all steam engine, as to when to make the switch to turbines or to heavy oil reciprocating engines. BOTH technologies (diesel versus turbine) in 1905 are still beyond American tech. Only one can be selected, and if the AU Americans guess wrong, it will be an utter disaster for them.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 19th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
[ img ]

This is an early rough in of SMS Koenig. It is very preliminary, but it gives me an idea of where it is headed, such as where the boats have to go and what kind of shading and rigging details will follow.

Comments welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 19th, 2017, 11:17 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2379
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: VIC & NSW, Australia
Unless that has a beam of 35m+ I doubt it would remain upright in a blow same for the length, for a ship that tall, should be double the length

Those ventilators and ducts block the crews servicing the fore gun on deck which is far too close to the stem and the bridge is going to have a hard time seeing forwards

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo) Willing to take requests for RL COA's, just drop me a PM

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Mister McKinley's Navy.Posted: April 19th, 2017, 11:53 pm
Offline
Posts: 510
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
I agree, but the measurements come off the SMS Uranus. The deck features come from a photograph of that rtl vessel when she was the Koenig. I was not aware that the Germans designed that flaw in when they modernized the old steam frigate.

Learned something new,


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 26 of 27  [ 263 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 123 24 25 26 27 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited