Shipbucket

actually, that hull shape would make you run into problems. your shading also does not really represent it as such. may I represent taking a look here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632 ... le%203.png
as for why you would run into problems.
- the boat you linked has a draft which is about the same size as your beam. that means that the draft of your vessels with such a hull shape would need to be 3 times what you have now to have those guns on board.
- boilers take quite a lot of your in-hull volume. however, in this hull shape they could not go all the way to the lower decks (as the hull has a bit of a V shape at the bottom and is round higher up) meaning you have the boilers starting about 2-3 meters above the keel. this means more weight up top and thus less stability (which you can best increase by adding to the beam)
- if you look at the hull of that small boat, you see how high the bow and stern go up. this shows what kind of waves that hull can expect when sailing....... the bow is quite round, as the hull is not made for relatively high speeds (it is actually a hull very close to that of sailing ships) so the bow wave will be large.
- note that on the small boat on the picture, the hull is actually not stern heavy, there is only a big keel which holds the rudder and propeller, which adds very little to the volume but protects these 2 parts.

in other words, have you any grounded reason why you think this is a suitable hull shape for ships like this? because the ones I can think of all go back to the sailing ships.
what? area rule? the area rule is a rule about an object going near supersonic speeds, something you are not going to do with an boat! (especially since the speed of sound in water is actually higher IIRC) I am talking about stability.
actually, the reverse. in steep gradients the part that comes first will hit first. in a shallow one, the deepest point will hit first. the line between those 2 is the angle of the keel: if the keel is more horizontal then the gradient the most forward part will hit first, if it is more vertical then the bottom gradient the deepest part will hit first.
of course, monitors were not meant to be oceangoing ships. IIRC they did a few ocean crossings with them, after the addition of breastwork to keep waves from going over the deck! however, the problem is that your ships would have been expensive, even when called monitors.

if I were you, I'd look into the wonderful world of ship stability before drawing all your ships and finding out they would float..... upside down. (which is the impression I get from your last 2 drawings as well)

_________________
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

Wasn't the low freeboard found on monitors mostly a result of the low draught requirements? The USS Monitor was designed to operate on rivers and estuaries that hadn't been dredged and without the aid of navigational markers after all.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Fishing boat?
Do you mean taking the Vee out and bulging the hull amidships?
With a lot of parasitic drag implied from the bows on. More about that factor (thanks for pointing that mistake out to me.) when we discuss aircraft below.
Okay.
Topheavy sailing ships which needed deep keels, if I am following you properly.
what? area rule? the area rule is a rule about an object going near supersonic speeds, something you are not going to do with an boat! (especially since the speed of sound in water is actually higher IIRC) I am talking about stability.[/quote]
actually, the reverse. in steep gradients the part that comes first will hit first. in a shallow one, the deepest point will hit first. the line between those 2 is the angle of the keel: if the keel is more horizontal then the gradient the most forward part will hit first, if it is more vertical then the bottom gradient the deepest part will hit first.[/quote]

Wouldn't that depend on the angle of difference in the two slopes?
of course, monitors were not meant to be oceangoing ships. IIRC they did a few ocean crossings with them, after the addition of breastwork to keep waves from going over the deck! however, the problem is that your ships would have been expensive, even when called monitors. [/quote]

It was those ocean crossings where the sinkings occurred.

The reason the monitors were expensive for the Americans to build has more to do with the half decade or more lag in their technology viv a vis the Europeans (specifically France and Britain who were in an arms race of sorts at the time. The Americans started and stopped work on Amphitrite and her sisters about a half dozen times. Shipyards went bankrupt on canceled contracts or revised requirements. Every time the Americans thought they had a handle on the problems, the British or the French or they, themselves, would invent something new that caused a work stoppage until they either incorporated the new idea or tech and revised the ships accordingly.

An example of this backwardness is the question of naval artillery. Many US ships still used brown and black powders when the French and British moved to nitrocellulose propellants. You can see it in the short caliber guns and larger bores the Americans were using compared to their European counterparts. Breech design was another issue. And then there were the gun houses and barbettes, ammunition stowage and hoists, rammers, the slue and elevate gears, etc. Just in those areas alone, when you look at ships like the Texas and the Indiana, you realize that those vessels actually look primitive or somewhat behind their British and French opposites. It's not until the turn of the century until the Americans finally catch up.
Topheavy?

Revisions.



The drafts are deeper, the hulls are bulged and I hope that corrects the topheaviness.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot.
Drag is drag, whether plane or boat and the term 'area rule for wetted surface' applies. The difference is that in a plane, lift (vacuum generated over the top of the shape as the air flows past a more curved (camber) surface is the 'float' component, while the volume of water displaced by the air bubble in the hull is the float component for the ship. So with the ship the area rule has a constant volume cross section component for that water displacement as the major factor, while the aircraft is more concerned with pure drag caused by the slipstream. Another difference is that the ship from a gravity standpoint is a continuous supported beam, while the plane is fundamentally a single point bridge load suspended by the main wing.



Similar constant area cross section sausage segment rule, different forces and attributes ratios involved.

Civil war monitors, yes. At some point (1870?) they became regarded as coast defense ships with a need for some open ocean capability.

hope that did not sound too sounded harsh.

It was more about the oversized (IMO) boats/sloped hull that anything else specific on flags/decorations .

I like your improvements my (inexpert) comments per ship would be,

PGB 1896 - nice but why sloped from deck if not TT ? and why funnels are so close to each other ?

TBD 1896 - not really a TBD IMO to fat and slow (way to high ?) and again BR/ERs will fill most of the length if you want high speed in 1896 ?

PC 1892 - I like but would change boats/crane, make mast same hight/kit on them ?

PC 1890 - any different from 92 ? (apart from rear mast ? I prefer this to 92)

AC 1888 - like the most, but more 2nd class battleship than AC (will BR/ER fit ? for speed can they move forward a bit ?) and like the large guns but why not on larger ship as well ? (and you nee a crane for big boat that looks ugly IMO)

Thick skin. Nothing bothers me as long as there is reason behind the comment.
I figured.
Thank you.
In order.


The turtleback is a wave splasher. Those ships are just long enough to be drenched in Atlantic rollers.
The ventilator hoods under the small boats did not indicate how far back the engine rooms extend? Also the piping runs forward and is stacked close together to free up deck space.
I have too much topweight I think to raise the aft mast. The one crane serves/stows four boats and also swings aboard supplies. Cranes eat up a lot of deck space. especially when they work. If anything I may have the crane too high?
It is all guns. The Americans get decent torpedoes about that time, so the next flight of protected cruiser (1892) includes eight torpedo tubes worked in where the ammunition and the middle 6 inch gun was. They also give up some stowage and a coal bunker in the AU ship.
This is where all the mistakes are supposed to happen. The ship is too small, too much was attempted and the engines ride deep in that hull.
The intent (now) was to make it a short-ranged coast defense ship. And I agree, that with 9.4 inch (24 cm.) guns, it is a bit over-armed for the contemporary armored cruiser role.

Anyway, as long as I am still practicing....



That's supposed to be a purpose built stores ship. The AU vessel is supposed to support the Albequerques and Albanys on their overseas deployments. The Americans when they tried their hand at blockade and overseas invasions during the Spanish American War found that having a fleet of short-ranged ships meant you could be out of fuel, food, and ammunition at the most awkward times.

They solved it in the RTL by buying up every damaged and bankrupted British collier or freighter on which they could lay hands and used those as ad hoc supply ships, a fleet trains, if you will.

And that AU fleet so far;



Still no battleships, but if you notice the Albany and Albequerque just happen to have a uniform Krupp 1887 SK 15 cm/34L armament?

Can a SK 24 cm/34L armed cruiser be far behind?

I don't think you can use old coal boilers without natural draft, ie good straight funnel sucking air out due to heat rising up them. (so they have to be directly above the BRs, that have to be very large/long) To be honest all I dislike is the colour of it mostly

Continuing with my AU building and the learning curve. Three possible candidates for battleships.

The logic is that the Americans finally develop an 11 inch/34L gun of their own. They have attained a suitable 5.9 inch and 3.5 inch quick-fire gun for secondary armament.

For various and sundry reasons, (Majestic, Canopus, and Royal Sovereign classes running around loose, the Brennus, Charles Martel and Carnot aren't helping either.) the Americans go Old Ironsides on everybody and produce a quintuplet of monsters over the course of 1888 to 1898.

Anyway, the evolution of their naval AU thinking should be apparent.

Criticism is always welcome. These are learning exercises and if I can't take criticism, I've stopped learning.

Today' offerings are a revised gunboat and a couple of torpedo boat destroyers.



The feedback helps.

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).

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.