Shipbucket

I didn't say gaff sails were a bad idea, just that Baltic style ones were.

_________________
“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.

You might also consider a center-battery ship, which was common to the time period. You could mount fewer, but heavier guns and they'd be much drier.

_________________
Redhorse

Current Projects:
Republic of Texas Navy
FD Scale F-14s

Thanks for the input guys.
@Thiel: I'm not fully tracking. What is a Baltic Style Gaff?
@Redhorse: I hadn't thought of that (despite looking through your AU for inspiration). I will defineately incorperate that into some of the next ships.
I am currently working on a battleship that's a bit earlier, and it is (gasp) barque rigged. Also, I'm definately going to start organizing this thread more chronologically

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

This is the S/V Albanus from Åland. She's a classic example of the Baltic Gaff rig.

As you can see the angle between the gaff (The upper of the two booms that carry the sail) and the boom isn't all that large. You'll also note the complete lack of reefing lines in the main sail and the gaff sheets. (I'm pretty sure that isn't the correct name, but it describes the function)

Here she is with her sails furled. As you can see her gaffs stays up there.
Like all things in life this particular rig has its advantages and disadvantages. The most obvious advantage is that the sails can be set with small crew and it can be done faster than other gaff rigs. Unfortunately it also means she can't reef her sails or strike down the topmast.

Compare it to the Jens Krogh, a classic North Sea or Atlantic Gaff rig.


Unlike the Albanus she strikes everything down on deck and her sails can be reefed, a lot. This means she can handle much rougher weather, but it also means that she requires more crew, and setting and taking the gaff sails takes longer and is in general a more involved affair.
However, since your ship is a naval vessel, crew isn't going to be a problem, but staying on station in shitty weather is.

_________________
“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.

Ahh. Thank's Thiel.

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

I used Google books to find free copies of old Jane's All the Worlds Fighting Ships and Brassey's Naval Annuals. The free out-of-print copies have plenty of inspiring concepts.

_________________
Redhorse

Current Projects:
Republic of Texas Navy
FD Scale F-14s

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

Looks interesting, but rather like a torpedo-armed gunboat than a destroyer of the era. They were proportionately more sleek (and by 1915 usually longer).

note that the Norwegian torpedo destroyer of Sleipner class(1940) wasn't that much bigger

Sleipner was some 15 meters longer (more or less), had less draught and completely different underwater aft.

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... eipner.png

I guess that size and age-wise that would be rather more comparable:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 0A-III.png