Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

USS Wampanoag (1864)
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4599
Page 1 of 3

Author:  CraigH [ October 6th, 2013, 5:54 am ]
Post subject:  USS Wampanoag (1864)

[ img ]
USS Wampanoag (Commerce Destroyer) 1864

"The Secretary directed that four contracts be let to construct four prototypes that...“were to be built for business and not for glory. They were solely to attack the enemy’s purse, and bring him to tears of repentance in that most tender point".*

The U.S.S. Wampanoag was the most successful of the four prototypes built in this loosely designated class. Begun in 1863 these ships were completed by 1868 after the end of the U.S. Civil War.

The ships were designed specifically as commerce raiders to attack European commercial shipping in the event that the American war spread to include either England or France; each having an accute economic interest in the South. From the Union perspective, war with England in particular, seemed a very real possibility.

The major design criteria was "speed" over any other concern, firepower, then endurance. The class represented what may have been the first major warships that had steam as the primary motive force over sail. With a canoe inspired hull, and an over-sized grouping of engine and boilers the Wampanoag succeeded brilliantly; and held the title with the fastest trial speed in the world for about 20 years (at over 17 knots).

She was armed with:

Two 100-pound guns
One 60-pounder
Ten 8-inch guns
Four howitzers

These ships caused massive political infighting within the U.S. Navy pitting the leading steam designers and their followers against each other. It also set the traditional old school sailing officers against the up and coming steam engineers. The ships were to be a real world comparison of each of four engineers power plant designs, putting endless heated arguments to rest. In the end, these ships also represented some of the most expensive ships constructed to that point in time.

In the end, the Wampanoag and her sisters were all condemned by the Navy. All were scrapped, sold off, or converted. They were way ahead of their time in most respects and had no place in a peacetime, old school, and conservative navy. The two major shortcomings were long term habitability and storage for supplies, both incompatible with a long distance cruising navy.


Sources:
The Old Steam Navy, Vol. 1, Frigates, Sloops, and Gunboats 1815-1885. Donald L. Canney. Naval Institute Press. 1990
Wiki Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wampanoag_%281864%29

*
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CSI/docs/Go ... y_2Mar.pdf

As always, feel free to comment and make suggestions!

CraigH

Author:  LEUT_East [ October 6th, 2013, 7:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

That is so beautiful mate - a treasure to see. The lines of that vessel are amazing.

Author:  eswube [ October 6th, 2013, 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

Looks nice, and certainly interesting vessels, though the picture looks resized to me.

Author:  KimWerner [ October 6th, 2013, 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

I'm certainly not an expert in ships with sails, but it looks really excellent for me :D

Author:  Gollevainen [ October 6th, 2013, 9:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

Its a good drawing, but like said, your Photobucket account rezises it from the orginal size.
Also, I couldn't help detecting just bit too much gradient in your shading practices. In SB style, its kosher only to use one or maxium of two shades beside the main color. This applies to the funnel and your underwater hull.
Otherwise Its spot on drawing of an intresting ship

Author:  heuhen [ October 6th, 2013, 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

i have always used three colors under water, with one hard color for breaks... above water line it have almost every time been two colors, if there is noting majore..

Author:  CraigH [ October 6th, 2013, 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

That resizing issue with Photobucket is pissing me off. Thought I had a Q/C fix....clearly not.
I've seen some threads with several suggestions for better sites. Which has the BEST overall performance and ease of use?
[ img ]
See if this works for size (1000 x 385).
Reduced the shades to lower hull and funnels.


Color choices and why:
Shading:
Funnels: 4 colors were used because it was the least that still suggested roundness. They were looking too much like hex nuts with less, or like a flat board with chamfers on the edges. Basically the same issue I have with my monitor USS Kalamazoo.

Hull: Under water: Main color, 4 shading colors, and a dark linework color. I tried limiting myself to examples I found in accepted "Real Designs", obviously using my own color choices for a coppered bottom. I have cut it down to 3 colors plus a darker lining color.

Above water: Main color plus 3 shades used. That extra was to define deep shadow, especially at the stern. Tried it with both 1 and 2 shadows but the shaded breaks were too abrupt. I don't count extra colors for port holes, hammock netting, hardware...colors were chosen specifically to get information across to the viewer and work with the illustration's overall color pallet.

Something to consider, Sailing Ship hulls don't have many of the attachments, fins, etc. modern hulls have that define shape other than the keel and rudder hardware. 2 colors don't quite define the keelson transition or the belly so that extra color grade really helps. I can't escape that in my years of reading about the design and development of sailing ships, a huge focus has been on hull form among the experts and designers. That factors into why I spend extra effort on shading and bending SB standard practices. From what I can see, the community has a historical background in more modern vessels. The drawing rules don't quite address sail well enough. This is my humble and novice SB opinion, not an effort to start arguments or piss people off.

Plan "B" is the accepted coppering here at SB.
I tried it and personally, I'm not partial to it as 1) with the scale distances we are viewing these ships at, the seams would not be invisible. 2) The colors generally used don't say copper to me.

It also raises a question, should copper be bright, a brown copper patina, or a greenish patina (verdigris) in seawater?

Sails:
I think I used 3 colors on the sails. Basic fabric, basic shadow, and 2 seam colors. The outline is an additional related tan, the lightest I could use to give enough contrast to the background white and define the sail. Black was deliberately NOT used to outline the sails as to my eye, it makes those fabric clouds feel like heavy solid structures.

Rigging:
An assortment of grays and tans to create the feel of different line weights despite the pixels being about a scale 6". That's a big bloody rope! My color choices are not yet consistent as I'm still generating a personal pallet.

Author:  Novice [ October 6th, 2013, 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

Looks awesome. The second drawing is good, meaning it wasn't resized.
Your choice of three to four colors, although enhances the quality of the drawing, is not SB style. It has some likeness to Psilander's work.
You might want to consider two versions for your drawing, one with your style, and the second with SB style.

Author:  Gator_Country [ October 6th, 2013, 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

CraigH wrote:
That resizing issue with Photobucket is pissing me off. Thought I had a Q/C fix....clearly not.
I've seen some threads with several suggestions for better sites. Which has the BEST overall performance and ease of use?
See if this works for size (1000 x 385).
Reduced the shades to lower hull and funnels.


Color choices and why:
Shading:
Funnels: 4 colors were used because it was the least that still suggested roundness. They were looking too much like hex nuts with less, or like a flat board with chamfers on the edges. Basically the same issue I have with my monitor USS Kalamazoo.

Hull: Under water: Main color, 4 shading colors, and a dark linework color. I tried limiting myself to examples I found in accepted "Real Designs", obviously using my own color choices for a coppered bottom. I have cut it down to 3 colors plus a darker lining color.

Above water: Main color plus 3 shades used. That extra was to define deep shadow, especially at the stern. Tried it with both 1 and 2 shadows but the shaded breaks were too abrupt. I don't count extra colors for port holes, hammock netting, hardware...colors were chosen specifically to get information across to the viewer and work with the illustration's overall color pallet.

Something to consider, Sailing Ship hulls don't have many of the attachments, fins, etc. modern hulls have that define shape other than the keel and rudder hardware. 2 colors don't quite define the keelson transition or the belly so that extra color grade really helps. I can't escape that in my years of reading about the design and development of sailing ships, a huge focus has been on hull form among the experts and designers. That factors into why I spend extra effort on shading and bending SB standard practices. From what I can see, the community has a historical background in more modern vessels. The drawing rules don't quite address sail well enough. This is my humble and novice SB opinion, not an effort to start arguments or piss people off.

Plan "B" is the accepted coppering here at SB.
I tried it and personally, I'm not partial to it as 1) with the scale distances we are viewing these ships at, the seams would not be invisible. 2) The colors generally used don't say copper to me.

It also raises a question, should copper be bright, a brown copper patina, or a greenish patina (verdigris) in seawater?

Sails:
I think I used 3 colors on the sails. Basic fabric, basic shadow, and 2 seam colors. The outline is an additional related tan, the lightest I could use to give enough contrast to the background white and define the sail. Black was deliberately NOT used to outline the sails as to my eye, it makes those fabric clouds feel like heavy solid structures.

Rigging:
An assortment of grays and tans to create the feel of different line weights despite the pixels being about a scale 6". That's a big bloody rope! My color choices are not yet consistent as I'm still generating a personal pallet.
Leave it as is. She looks beautiful, and just because "I don't draw it that way", doesn't mean that you should change your drawing. I, for one, think that the "SB style" has gotten way too restrictive. Just my $0.02.

Author:  acelanceloet [ October 6th, 2013, 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Wampanoag (1864)

the best would be novices suggestion, which he IIRC uses on quite a few of his own ships as well: create 2 versions, one 'best looking' posted on the forum, and one 'per sb standard' posted in the upload sessions.

also, sb style has not gotten restrictive. sb style was and is very restrictive, for good reasons. even during the few years I have been here myself I have seen the style grow and evolve to the level we have now. so, it makes no sense to say it has 'gotten' restrictive, it is quite the contrary, there has been a lot of growth but that does not mean everything is allowed now. there is a lot allowed, but note that back when I joined, for example most hull shading was limited to only the double darker line at the keel.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/