Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 11 of 16  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page « 19 10 11 12 1316 »
Author Message
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 6:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Okay, so I taken your suggestions to heart and slept on it. I go up at 6:30 this morning and began to draw the revisions; eight hours and several cups of coffee later and I’ve completed the elevation and dorsal views for each of the for periods, 1927, 1934, 1941 and1942 instantiations.

Here they are:

1927 Starboard Elevation:

[ img ]

1927 Dorsal Elevation:

[ img ]

1934 Starboard Elevation:

[ img ]

1934 Dorsal Elevation:

[ img ]

1941 Starboard Elevation:

[ img ]

1941 Dorsal Elevation:

[ img ]

1942 Starboar Elevation:

[ img ]

1942 Dorsal Elevation:

[ img ]

Fire when ready :lol:

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 6:34 pm
Offline
Posts: 3894
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Very nice work! Will there be a 1944 or later version as well!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 6:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
emperor_andreas wrote:
Very nice work! Will there be a 1944 or later version as well!
Probably, when I get over my present shell shock Matt :lol:

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 6:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I see little to no improvement.....
what I suggested earlier was this:
[ img ]

_________________
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]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 7:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
acelanceloet wrote:
I see little to no improvement.....
what I suggested earlier was this:
[ img ]
But there already is a forward gun, the superstructure overhangs it.

[ img ]

I would move the other two guns if I could see an advantage.

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 7:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
The idea of dual purpose weapons was to remove the unhandy mix of 6"/5"/4"/3' secondary/tertiary weapons whether they be low angle or high angle. with the NH55 if you replace the triple 6" turrets with the 5"/38's and then place three more 5"/38 turrets at the boat deck level that would give you 28 barrels, the most of any US ship which would be in keeping with the US's largest BB.

The other thing I would note is the lack of any normal boats. The Captain/Admiral hate going around in rubber boats as it ruins their uniforms. Two boats of a Captains barge, and an open workboat would normally have space provided for them. The North Carolinas on completion in late 42 still showed boats aboard.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 7:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
Krakatoa wrote:
The idea of dual purpose weapons was to remove the unhandy mix of 6"/5"/4"/3' secondary/tertiary weapons whether they be low angle or high angle.
I have to agree with this, but the Colorado's did keep a mix of 5/51's in casemates and 5/38's in AA mounts. Maybe getting rid of half the 6-inch battery for more twin 5/38's might be in order?

Still, I love this design and I'm thinking the IJN won't...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 7:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Krakatoa wrote:
The idea of dual purpose weapons was to remove the unhandy mix of 6"/5"/4"/3' secondary/tertiary weapons whether they be low angle or high angle. with the NH55 if you replace the triple 6" turrets with the 5"/38's and then place three more 5"/38 turrets at the boat deck level that would give you 28 barrels, the most of any US ship which would be in keeping with the US's largest BB.

The other thing I would note is the lack of any normal boats. The Captain/Admiral hate going around in rubber boats as it ruins their uniforms. Two boats of a Captains barge, and an open workboat would normally have space provided for them. The North Carolinas on completion in late 42 still showed boats aboard.
Ah ha! :o Yah got me with the boats :shock: . . . Drat, it's back to the drawing board. :lol:

As for replacing the 6"/47s with 5"/38s,well thats what 1944 is for.;)

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I know that forward gun is there, I just moved it a bit outboard. I agree that on that gun there is little to gain there.
on your current arrangement, you have for example the following problems:
- none that can fire dead ahead
- none that can fire straigth aft.
the above because the structures afe in the way, you cannot fire a grenade just next to an superstructure either.
- 2 guns that interfere with each others firing arc on each side of the ship (the midship mountings)
- 8 5in guns with an firing arc of about 90 degrees, all pointed to the sides.

in my suggestion you have:
- 2 guns which can fire straigth aft
- 2 guns which can fire dead ahead (but not at low or very high angles)
- no 5 in guns interfering with each others firing arcs
- a slight loss of firing arc of the 2nd and 3th 6in turret counting from the bow.
- fields of fire:
* aft guns: 120+ degrees firing arc aft and to the sides
* forward guns: 90+ degrees, a bit more forward oriented (but you already implemented that in your newer version)
* midship guns: 4 turrets with 170 degrees coverage, oriented sideways.

that is the advantage :P

_________________
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]
David Latuch
Post subject: Re: What if there were no Wash.Treart: USS New Hampshire BB-Posted: July 25th, 2014, 7:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 1:02 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
acelanceloet wrote:
I know that forward gun is there, I just moved it a bit outboard. I agree that on that gun there is little to gain there.
on your current arrangement, you have for example the following problems:
- none that can fire dead ahead
- none that can fire straigth aft.[/qoute]

both the two foreward gun mounts on each side can fire straight ahead and the two after mounts can fire directly a-stern.
acelanceloet wrote:
the above because the structures afe in the way, you cannot fire a grenade just next to an superstructure either.
- 2 guns that interfere with each others firing arc on each side of the ship (the midship mountings)
- 8 5in guns with an firing arc of about 90 degrees, all pointed to the sides.
I've only shown a 45 degree to either side arch, but they can fire much more broadly.
acelanceloet wrote:
in my suggestion you have:
- 2 guns which can fire straigth aft
- 2 guns which can fire dead ahead (but not at low or very high angles)
- no 5 in guns interfering with each others firing arcs
- a slight loss of firing arc of the 2nd and 3th 6in turret counting from the bow.
- fields of fire:
* aft guns: 120+ degrees firing arc aft and to the sides
* forward guns: 90+ degrees, a bit more forward oriented (but you already implemented that in your newer version)
* midship guns: 4 turrets with 170 degrees coverage, oriented sideways.

that is the advantage :P

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 11 of 16  [ 160 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 19 10 11 12 1316 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Albert1099 and 17 guests


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


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