Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2296		 Page 3 of 4
Author:  Novice [ December 10th, 2011, 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
Thiel wrote:
Because Deutschland carried 6 11in guns in two turrets, while Matchless carries 6 12in guns in three.
As a result the machinery spaces are 60 ft shorter.
And diesel engines take less space than steam turbines do. You nee a seperate boiler room and an engine room.
Author:  Zephyr [ December 10th, 2011, 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
I see the problem here now. Y'all are so accustomed to designing things meant to be successfull that the concept of doing a design for something intended to be the exact opposite has you confused.

This is meant to be a design of something which is over-gunned, under-armoured, cramped, short-legged because of a lack of bunkerage, and designed by a politically well connected but largely ignorant of naval reality or needs dilletante. This is SUPPOSED to be a less-than-adequate design not wanted by the owning navy, who shuffle them off as quickly as possible.

And who said that has steam turbines? Diesels are also an option for it.
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ December 10th, 2011, 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
Quote:
Back off? Why?
No offence shipmate; I'm just weening myself from being a 'compulsive comment maker'; ans that said, I like the way this is developing :)
Author:  Zephyr [ December 10th, 2011, 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
Ah, but comments are the fun part.

And a question now.... The bow shading I put on there just don't look right for some reason. Any suggestions?
Author:  Thiel [ December 10th, 2011, 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
Zephyr wrote:
And who said that has steam turbines? Diesels are also an option for it.
Your stack did. It's way too big for diesel propulsion.
Author:  Novice [ December 10th, 2011, 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
I wrote steam turbines for some reasons:
1. This was the engine of choice in the relevant time period.
2. You said it yourself - a short legged design with limited bunkerage, hence turbines. Diesel engines were considered to give long endurance in that time frame, at least in our time line.
3. The shape and look of the funnel. Size of the funnel I didn't consider. and BTW the Deutschland had quite a big funnel by themselves.
Author:  Zephyr [ December 11th, 2011, 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
OK, then, a serious question.... what should the shape of the funnel be? I just kinda picked one at random. ;)
Author:  Novice [ December 11th, 2011, 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
What engines?
If steam, than you can leave the one you've already got.
If diesel engines, than may I suggest looking at the Deutschland (Graf Spee Here for inspiration.
Author:  Zephyr [ December 11th, 2011, 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
Novice wrote:
What engines?
If steam, than you can leave the one you've already got.
If diesel engines, than may I suggest looking at the Deutschland (Graf Spee Here for inspiration.
Oh, I already know quite well what the Deutschlands look like. :) In fact, I have long had them as the follow on class to the Matchlesses, where the RN learned from all the mistakes made in the previous class and corrected them into a more usefull form as Colonial squadron flagships. (been working on the composition of my navy since '03 when I started NS, from 1885 to present. Eventually I'll extend that back to before 1800.)

EDIT
OK, I've solved that pesky "steam vs Diesel" debate....
[ img ]
:D
Author:  Novice [ December 11th, 2011, 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Matchless (UKGH AU)
The oars will wreck havock with the armour belt. I think you also need some more sails, perhaps a second mast?
Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/