Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 4  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 17th, 2015, 9:02 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9049
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
the cartoonish look can be solved by adjusting the shadings, at the moment they are either to dark or to light.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 3:20 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
heuhen wrote:
the cartoonish look can be solved by adjusting the shadings, at the moment they are either to dark or to light.
[ img ]

How is that? Better or worse?
ezgo394 wrote:
You've got a good grasp of the style, but the designs are too... Well, as JSB said, cartoonish, as well as too perfect. Each design looks just like the last, with the size really being the only thing that changes. I would strongly recommend to look at the way American ships were designed at this time, understand why they were designed as such, and accept the flaws that these designs had (such as the low freeboard and horrible sea handling characteristics).
But the whole point of the AU experiment is to try to imagine a rather different outcome.

I expect that I need to pay attention to such things as American lack of experience with large steel ship construction, as well as their inexperience with the mistakes the Europeans made in the 1870s and 1880s.

But I have my reasons for proposing the ships I propose.

Inspiration comes from history, doesn't it?

[ img ]

[ img ]

It just misses being an all big gun ship, doesn't it? 1890 and the Germans were so close.

If the Americans are buying into German ideas about naval artillery, then they will be looking at SMS Brandenburg.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kilomuse
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 7:20 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: August 6th, 2010, 4:07 am
Location: California
It's a nice design, but like Heuhen said, the shading is a bit heavy. Try using shades of gray that aren't so much darker or lighter than your base color. Try to avoid using double black lines as well, like on the funnel and anchors. This is a very nice design though. I love warships of this period and the American bow ornament is a nice touch. :)

_________________
Republic of Lisenia AU - In progress
Republic of Lisenia in FD Scale - In progress


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Skyder2598
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 7:57 am
Offline
Posts: 516
Joined: April 29th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Location: Germany
What program did you use for drawing?
If you use MS Paint go for +-15 brightness of your highlights/ shades. ;-)

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 3:48 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
[ img ]

Here we go with the USS Vermont again.

There are some subtle changes.

Until I can get some feedback on this latest experiment in shading, I want to talk about why the list of designs look so similar to each other.

I'm going for a national shipbuilding style that feels "American".

If I noticed one thing about American ships, they all tend to have an 'anonymous look' from class to class.

If you look at British cruisers or pre-dreadnoughts from the era, they tend to stand apart from each other with noticeable idiosyncratic differences. Even British ships built for Japan tend to be individualistic. And the French even more so!

But when you compare American cruisers or gunboats or their battleships, they tend to a sameness in look in the RTL. They mark differences from class to class with superstructure and masts, but the parts tend to be very similar. You don't see turret idiosyncrasies, gun-house differences or hull form differentiation until the first USS Iowa, and even then you are headed into the "standard battleship" era.

I know the historic reasons for that American idiosyncrasy and saw no reason to give it up in an AU, especially as it is the Albany and Albuquerque fictional protected cruiser classes that should lead to the Vermont and her sisters via the SMS Brandenburg.

If you are trying to catch up with the big boys you tend to go from what you find that works for you. From the Matsushima to the Mikasa for Japan for example. From French idiosyncrasy to a British pattern that is more same than even the British were wont to build.

Expect the Americans to have more sameness in their ships than foreign navies. They find a hull form and stick to it (Spruance, Ticonderoga, Arleigh Burke classes. Every aircraft carrier since Forrestal.).

They find a standard weapon layout and stick with it. (Mark 41 VLS, the battleship triple gun deckhouse and barbette despite the mutual interference in flight salvo problem.)

It's traditional with them to be ultra-conservative in design. They are cautious.

Not willing to be too British.

But they will pounce on a new idea and wring it out in their "conservative way".


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 7:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
with all due respect, but you have uniformed things that do not work that way.

hulls are complex. a ships hull changes depending on the size, the speed, the weight and the spread of the equipment. the development of hull shapes in the era we were speaking about here was not terribly fast, but it was still ongoing. while you might not see differences in hull form yourself, I can assure you in this era between every class there will be.
the superstructure might have been similar, but at the same time IIRC the different yards got the freedom that ships of the same class were distuingishable from each other.
the USN ship development showed more similar shapes due to the fact that this navy was build up relatively fast. they went from nothing to an battleship navy in IIRC about 20 years. things that would not have to be re-engineered were not done so, so parts that were scalable were scaled. this allows for these similar design 'looks'.
in short, do not forget there are reasons why these ships were similar, something I feel you are ignoring.

when we look at the looks of history after the era you look at, you miss the point entirely as well.
the standard battleships were IIRC mainly standardised in arnament and speed (fleet speed), while the rest was often changed.

and then you look at the modern ships. the spruance is just because it was an big line of fleet destroyers. something similar to the fletchers or the gearings of earlier years. the ticonderoga was meant to be the missile version of the spruance, which was incorporated in the design from the beginning. the burke is developed the way it is because that makes the cost easier to bear. the aircraft carriers have developed the superstructure and hull quite a bit from the forrestal on (especially the different requirements of nukes), they look similar because the flight deck layout.

talking about cautious, the british are often worse with conservatism and caution (that is the reason british systems tend to be heavier and bulkier then comparable US systems) the dutch are a lot less cautious, because they build in smaller (4 ship) series, in which there is room for modification and errors. the uniformity of the USN in later years is thus mostly because of the large series of ships. of course, I simplify things here but try to look a bit more at the why (why do they look similar) and not just at the facts. (they do look similar)

note also that you have had some feedback on your shading ;)

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 9:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
With all due respect, the Spruance class hulls are lineally descended from the Atlantas and Juneaus of WW II, via way of the Leahys. That should tell you something about what I know about the American navy was and what it is.

As for hull forms, take a good close look at the USS Nevada (Foreriver Shipbuilding) and the USS Pennsylvania. (Newport News.) Radically different power-plants and internal subdivision, but same general hull form and superstructure layout. You'll find more differences among the Washington treaty cruisers or within the same classes of WW I British battleships.

Musical lifts (changing the aircraft elevators and where the island goes) has been a bit of a process, but since the oil-fired John F. Kennedy forward, that hull shape for nuclear powered carriers has been rather frozen because of the way the hull supports the flight deck as much as the weight of the massive nuclear reactors and the need for work volume in the integral hanger. Speed is just an added bonus.

edit:

Upon reflection I must apologize. I should not be irritated by helpful comments proffered. But again I should know my own navy's history and technology, shouldn't I? Especially since I've studied it.

For example, the statement:
Quote:
talking about cautious, the british are often worse with conservatism and caution (that is the reason british systems tend to be heavier and bulkier then comparable US systems)


Up until about the mid 1920s, that is not true. The exact opposite as regards propulsion and armament is the truth. American engines and artillery were more overbuilt and somewhat more primitive than their British opposites. Once the Americans developed higher working pressure boilers and leak proof steam turbine casings and they matched British manufacturing standards for gearing did the lighter American marine engines appear. Lightweight American naval guns began in the mid-30s; although I grant you American gunmakers were better at their metallurgic craft than their British opposites in the Gilded age. Why that is so has something to do with the way the guns were made.

As for modern systems, British naval missiles are often derided as primitive, but they most certainly had the edge on the American navy throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. It was only with the USN's successful T-series missiles and radar systems that supported them that the British were finally eclipsed on the SAM front, but that was more due to the disastrous Sea Slug system than anything else.

[quote[the dutch are a lot less cautious, because they build in smaller (4 ship) series, in which there is room for modification and errors.[/quote]

Couldn't it be that the Dutch could draw on three successful naval traditions and established tech bases to avoid costly mistakes? Germany, Great Britain and after WW II, the United States? That's apparently not boldness in this age of steel navies and tight budgets, that's just Dutch common sense.
Quote:
the uniformity of the USN in later years is thus mostly because of the large series of ships. of course, I simplify things here but try to look a bit more at the why (why do they look similar) and not just at the facts. (they do look similar)


If you look at the series of American destroyers up to the Washington naval treaty, you will usually see the same general characteristics of flush deck hull, Atlantic bow and a certain top-heaviness countered by ballast because the destroyers needed deck space, speed and long range. That is as you said, not a historic accident, but an American uniform requirement, but it does not explain why in their many limited 1930s series runs like the Mahans, stepped forecastle break hulls pop up and are tried out, are used in the Gridleys and Bagleys all the way to the Benhams and then suddenly you see the Americans revert to the flush deck Atlantic bow the minute they can get away from the naval limitation treaties that compelled them to make these uncharacteristic for them European type destroyers? Weight savings forced by treaty, not different more efficient hull forms drove those clunker 1930s designs.


Last edited by Tobius on August 21st, 2015, 3:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
tsd715
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 20th, 2015, 9:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 165
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 5:08 pm
Location: New York, New York, USA
Tobius wrote:
[ img ]

Here we go with the USS Vermont again.

There are some subtle changes.

Until I can get some feedback on this latest experiment in shading, I want to talk about why the list of designs look so similar to each other.

I'm going for a national shipbuilding style that feels "American".

If I noticed one thing about American ships, they all tend to have an 'anonymous look' from class to class.

If you look at British cruisers or pre-dreadnoughts from the era, they tend to stand apart from each other with noticeable idiosyncratic differences. Even British ships built for Japan tend to be individualistic. And the French even more so!

But when you compare American cruisers or gunboats or their battleships, they tend to a sameness in look in the RTL. They mark differences from class to class with superstructure and masts, but the parts tend to be very similar. You don't see turret idiosyncrasies, gun-house differences or hull form differentiation until the first USS Iowa, and even then you are headed into the "standard battleship" era.

I know the historic reasons for that American idiosyncrasy and saw no reason to give it up in an AU, especially as it is the Albany and Albuquerque fictional protected cruiser classes that should lead to the Vermont and her sisters via the SMS Brandenburg.

If you are trying to catch up with the big boys you tend to go from what you find that works for you. From the Matsushima to the Mikasa for Japan for example. From French idiosyncrasy to a British pattern that is more same than even the British were wont to build.

Expect the Americans to have more sameness in their ships than foreign navies. They find a hull form and stick to it (Spruance, Ticonderoga, Arleigh Burke classes. Every aircraft carrier since Forrestal.).

They find a standard weapon layout and stick with it. (Mark 41 VLS, the battleship triple gun deckhouse and barbette despite the mutual interference in flight salvo problem.)

It's traditional with them to be ultra-conservative in design. They are cautious.

Not willing to be too British.

But they will pounce on a new idea and wring it out in their "conservative way".
I think it looks oretty good. I like the general shading pattern and style, but it does need to be toned down just a little bit. My other suggestions that I don't think anyone else has touched on would be to make the shape of the turrets less rounded and heighten the masts. I think that would help vastly in making your designs look less cartoonish. I like them though. Very original and intriguing ideas.
Best of luck,
Tsd


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 21st, 2015, 3:52 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Thank you for your suggestions. I think I let the Brandenburg influence my choice of turret shape a bit.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Notional prototype drawings. 1880 US seagoing monitor.Posted: August 25th, 2015, 1:07 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
[ img ]

Well I tried another experiment in shading and in original conception.

This time I tried for that primitive and still somewhat forward thinking look in the art concept.

I also tried for a mix of French and German influences in that I wanted a long ranged commerce raider, that would fit in with the jeune ecole school of naval warfare.

Some of the stuff that should show it is still somewhat primitive compared to the Europeans is the excessive deck clutter and less than ideal hull form. Plus the freeboard remains alarmingly low for a cruiser that size.

[ img ]

The refit after the notional AU Spanish American war is to solve topweight problems and to move the searchlights to a more useful position. Also the Americans finally get an effective torpedo of their own instead of the 45 cm (17.7") C45/91 Brotherhood type torpedo imported from Germany via Schwartzkopf. An inferior German copy of a British torpedo, the American torpedo of the era, conforms in main to what would be reasonably expected from the type---> wander of about ten meters left or right in a run of 1000 meters (Orbry gyro control) and an explosive force of about 75 kg of TNT.

[ img ]

The Wyoming revised a bit.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 4  [ 32 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


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


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