[Post Reply] [*]  Page 9 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page « 17 8 9 10 11 12 »
Author Message
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 22nd, 2018, 11:42 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8809
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Re: 1947A Jager - sure, correct it. I simply followed your captions on the drawings. :-P

Update (27 October) - France uploaded (mostly by Garlicdesign and Novice)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 31st, 2018, 10:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8809
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Another thing for consideration: Auxiliary Cruisers - where to put them?
With Cruisers? With Naval Auxiliaries? (in both cases as a "(modified)" entry)
or maybe don't enter them separately at all, just keep them together with their "original" category (as merchants) - that last being IMHO least reasonable.
(Personally I'd be with including them with Naval Auxiliaries, but I can see the negative sides of such choice)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 31st, 2018, 10:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3996
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
I think they should be treated as Auxiliaries, as their name suggest (Auxiliary cruiser).

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 1st, 2018, 9:08 am
Offline
Posts: 6103
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
That's a tricky choice. CAM ships are listed under aviation ships.
Technically an auxiliary cruiser is a convoy escort.

How are we classifying commerce raiders as they are pretty similar apart from the name and role?

I wouldn't complain if they were listed as naval auxiliaries as they are often flagged under naval ensigns. But I would be open to cruiser too given their roles.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 1st, 2018, 8:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8809
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Thanks for the opinions!
By "Auxliary Cruisers" I meant both ships such as RN's convoy escorts and Germany's hilfskreuzer commerce raiders. In some languages they fall under same term, btw.
It seems that treating them as Naval Auxiliaries is most widely accepted (between the three of us ;) ) option, so let it be. :)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 2nd, 2018, 1:04 am
Offline
Posts: 4965
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
I'm no expert here so won't offer up an opinion -- whatever you guys arrive at has my blessing ;)

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 4th, 2018, 11:45 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8809
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
The Italy has been uploaded. (as much as we were able to)
Of course any additions and constructive criticism is always welcome.

One thing needs to be mentioned in regards to this folder - presence of multi-ship files. While several of them can be found also in different countries, the Italy has most of them. These are files where several small craft are combined on single template, unfortunately sometimes without full description (making it extremely difficult to split them into separate files, except if done by the Artist himself, who should know what he draw ;) ).

Therefore a kind of circumvention had to be applied, by creating "general descriptive names".
These are:

CLASS: auxiliary craft of the Azienda del Consorzio Trasporti Veneziano (ACTV)
SHIP/DRAWING: auxiliary craft of the Azienda del Consorzio Trasporti Veneziano (ACTV)

CLASS: ACTV motoscafi
SHIP/DRAWING: ACTV motoscafi

CLASS: ACTV Vaporetti
SHIP/DRAWING: ACTV Vaporetti
SHIP/DRAWING: ACTV Vaporetti prototypes

CLASS: various SAR boats of Italian uniformed services
SHIP/DRAWING: various SAR boats of Guardia Costiera

CLASS: various patrol boats of Italian uniformed services
SHIP/DRAWING: various patrol boats of Arma dei Carabinieri
SHIP/DRAWING: various patrol boats of Corpo Forestale Dello Stato
SHIP/DRAWING: various patrol boats of Guardia Costiera
SHIP/DRAWING: various patrol boats of Guardia di Finanza
SHIP/DRAWING: various patrol boats of Polizia di Stato

Of course comments or suggestions about this arrangement are also very welcome.

And finally one thing - more like a mini-rant - as that's something that has been decided upon during previous Upload and I'm not going to force my way. I only wanted to say, that I don't like putting ships like helicopter cruisers or helicopter destroyers in the Aviation Ship category (instead of cruisers and destroyers respectively - despite LHA's and LHD's being with Amphibious Warfare), which IMHO should be only for seaplane tenders, catapult ships and the like. But that's just me. :P

I'm also - but that's not a part of that mini-rant, just a general remark - having second thoughts about having Coastal Defence Ships (ironclads, monitors, 19th-century style gunboats) together with fast attack craft in the Coastal Warfare (which therefore becomes rather unbalanced category ;) ). Personally I'd be happier with having Coastal Warfare for the FAC's and moving the ironclads and the like to separate TYPE.
Also - something that TimothyC also suggested in the beginning - I wouldn't have anything against splitting tugs into separate TYPE.
And - if such topics are being started - Hood suggested liquidating Torpedo Boats (the 19th/early 20th century pre-destroyers) as separate TYPE and merging them with Destroyers (he also remarked in PM that existence of separate Frigate and Corvette types is also somewhat imperfect).
If we were to do so - and I would be not enthusiastic, but fairly ok with that - I'd suggest perhaps replacing Battleships, Battlecruisers and - if it were to be - the (tentative) Coastal Defence Ships (if they were to be split from Coastal Warfare) with single Capital Ships category (though I agree that name isn't perfect).
(But I'd be also extremely happy if that discussion wasn't limited only to Hood, Novice and me, with Colosseum remarking that He'd accept anything Messrs H., N. and me would agree to ;) )

P.S. Regarding the SUB-TYPE entry - generally it's optional and quite often omitted entirely (see battlecruisers, for example) - but for Battleships and Cruisers I'd always fill it (like: "Pre-dreadnought", "Turret Ironclad", "Protected Cruiser", "Guided Missile Cruiser" etc.).

P.P.S. If we reach any conclusions regarding things above, I'm perfectly happy to do all the related work, just please, People, show some interest in how the time and effort is being spent for Your benefit and give some feedback/opinions (not by writing "oh thanks", but by genuine constructive criticism and opinions). ;P

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 6th, 2018, 4:00 pm
Offline
Posts: 6103
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
eswube wrote: *
And finally one thing - more like a mini-rant - as that's something that has been decided upon during previous Upload and I'm not going to force my way. I only wanted to say, that I don't like putting ships like helicopter cruisers or helicopter destroyers in the Aviation Ship category (instead of cruisers and destroyers respectively - despite LHA's and LHD's being with Amphibious Warfare), which IMHO should be only for seaplane tenders, catapult ships and the like. But that's just me. :P

I'm also - but that's not a part of that mini-rant, just a general remark - having second thoughts about having Coastal Defence Ships (ironclads, monitors, 19th-century style gunboats) together with fast attack craft in the Coastal Warfare (which therefore becomes rather unbalanced category ;) ). Personally I'd be happier with having Coastal Warfare for the FAC's and moving the ironclads and the like to separate TYPE.
Also - something that TimothyC also suggested in the beginning - I wouldn't have anything against splitting tugs into separate TYPE.
And - if such topics are being started - Hood suggested liquidating Torpedo Boats (the 19th/early 20th century pre-destroyers) as separate TYPE and merging them with Destroyers (he also remarked in PM that existence of separate Frigate and Corvette types is also somewhat imperfect).
If we were to do so - and I would be not enthusiastic, but fairly ok with that - I'd suggest perhaps replacing Battleships, Battlecruisers and - if it were to be - the (tentative) Coastal Defence Ships (if they were to be split from Coastal Warfare) with single Capital Ships category (though I agree that name isn't perfect).
(But I'd be also extremely happy if that discussion wasn't limited only to Hood, Novice and me, with Colosseum remarking that He'd accept anything Messrs H., N. and me would agree to ;) )

P.S. Regarding the SUB-TYPE entry - generally it's optional and quite often omitted entirely (see battlecruisers, for example) - but for Battleships and Cruisers I'd always fill it (like: "Pre-dreadnought", "Turret Ironclad", "Protected Cruiser", "Guided Missile Cruiser" etc.).

P.P.S. If we reach any conclusions regarding things above, I'm perfectly happy to do all the related work, just please, People, show some interest in how the time and effort is being spent for Your benefit and give some feedback/opinions (not by writing "oh thanks", but by genuine constructive criticism and opinions). ;P
I agree that aviation ships should not include destroyers or frigates (e.g. Japanese Shriane class). One thing that should be decided though is where hybrid ships should go, especially the never-were projects (e.g. hybrid cruisers, battleships and those 1980s aviation cruisers which were DDGs with flattop decks stuck on). They seem to blur the primary role.

I've always said, even on the last upload, that MTBs, MGBs and FACs should of had a separate 'Fast Craft' TYPE to leave Coastal Warfare for the bigger stuff.

Torpedo Boat merged with Destroyer makes some sense, especially if fast craft are together.

Yes, for pre-1945 the roles of Sloop, Frigate and Corvette overlap and different navies used different classifications. My idea was to merge these under an 'Escort' TYPE.

As eswube says though, it does need wider comment on these kinds of proposals.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 10th, 2018, 11:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 4965
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Sorry have not responded - was away for 10 days for my honeymoon ;)

Don't be afraid to break out new types. If you think it's best to include a new type for "Ironclad Warships", just create a new type. I do not agree about removing the battleship and carrier types and replacing them with "capital ship" -- then we're getting away from the obvious types MOST people know and understand and into the aspergers' level. ;)

No issue with splitting Tugs into their own type.

No issue with removing "Torpedo Boat" and merging those early guys into the DD category either.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: November 11th, 2018, 5:04 pm
Offline
Posts: 969
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
Congrats, Ian.

Great work on the restoration, guys!

_________________
USS WASP CV-7 History


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 9 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 17 8 9 10 11 12 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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


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