Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Britannian Destroyers.
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3379		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  APDAF [ August 10th, 2012, 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Britannian Destroyers.
As you may know my ship drawing skills are not the greatest and I strive to improve it so I decided to draw smaller vessel to improve my drawing skill.

So with any further ado here is the Latin class. (Place-holder name I need to think of a better one)
Yes she is heavily armed for a destroyer that is intention as she is a either a very heavy destroyer or a very light cruiser.

[ img ]

And a much older destroyer, the river class from 893AF (1913AD)

[ img ]

Here is the second batch upgrade for the river class, the upgrade was done as the commanders of the first batch reported that they where under gunned, was rather unstable. The first batch was then upgraded in 1913-14.

[ img ]
Author:  Rodondo [ August 10th, 2012, 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
*The hull form is reasonably good, though I'm not sure if you have armor on the belt.

*The superstructure and funnels and after armament is a bit cluttered, stretch it aft and you could condense some of the funnels.(they also are terribly thin, remember at speed, those things have to belch volumes of smoke and soot)

*IIRC those torpedo launchers are very wide, I'd recommend putting them between funnels
Author:  Cruel2BEkind [ August 10th, 2012, 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
Are those funnels tall enough because if the smoke goes down with the ship in speed anything upwards is going to get swallowed by that smoke... unless you are planning on not putting anything high in the whole back of the ship.
Author:  APDAF [ August 10th, 2012, 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
Rodondo wrote:
*The hull form is reasonably good, though I'm not sure if you have armor on the belt.
No, the belt is an aesthetical feature.
Rodondo wrote:
*The superstructure and funnels and after armament is a bit cluttered, stretch it aft and you could condense some of the funnels.(they also are terribly thin, remember at speed, those things have to belch volumes of smoke and soot)
Aren't most WW1-WW2 destroyers rather cluttered similarly I.e Clemson?
Rodondo wrote:
*IIRC those torpedo launchers are very wide, I'd recommend putting them between funnels
They are triples rather than quads for that reason if that is possible.
Author:  Rodondo [ August 10th, 2012, 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
APDAF wrote:
Rodondo wrote:
*The superstructure and funnels and after armament is a bit cluttered, stretch it aft and you could condense some of the funnels.(they also are terribly thin, remember at speed, those things have to belch volumes of smoke and soot)
Aren't most WW1-WW2 destroyers rather cluttered similarly I.e Clemson?
Rodondo wrote:
*IIRC those torpedo launchers are very wide, I'd recommend putting them between funnels
They are triples rather than quads for that reason if that is possible.
Look where the aft armament is though compared to yours, remember you have to fit ship's boats, searchlights and secondary armament (probably 2-4 3 pounders in this era).

Might want to make that doubles though, as triples might limit your firing arc, though I can't tell from the drawing if it might make much of a difference except that it will have a very limited arc (less than 40 degrees)
Author:  Raxar [ August 11th, 2012, 1:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
Hey! Look who took a step in the right direction!
You're doing it right, but here's some things:
~Drop the armor belt, that will make it too slow, and a DD is meant to be fast.
~What is that huge open space on the back for? you could easliy expand the superstructure back there, which would give you a lot more room and, believe it or not, more options.
~Those torpedo tubes aren't going to work, in order to accomidate them, your ship would have to have a massive beam ill suited for a DD. Go with centerline mounts instead.
~Funnels shoul definately be larger. Depending on the era, you could also trunk them into 2 or 3 funnels.
Author:  denodon [ August 11th, 2012, 2:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
I would merge the stacks into two, have a central pivoting torpedo launcher just behind the mid break, then the first funnel, the other torp launcher between the funnels and then aft of the last funnel your art main guns and a mast or support pole of some kind as the ship looks to be of the period where you'll need wireless antenna supported high on masts above the funnels to keep them clear of the soot.
Author:  klagldsf [ August 11th, 2012, 3:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
There nearly isn't enough detail.
Author:  eswube [ August 11th, 2012, 7:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
Well, well well, APDAF :ugeek:
You've finally made a ship, that while still is far from being ok, at least shows some potential towards it. :)
Listen to the advice given above.
Funnels are ineed too thin, and there is no point to have all that empty space in the aft - spread the superstructure, armament and equipment more evenly along the ships' lenght.

In a short (I guess) time in "Acelanceloet's (beginners) guide to Shipbucket" thread there should appear something useful for You in this thread (I did my part of the job, now it's up to Acelanceloet to finish and post it).
Author:  APDAF [ August 11th, 2012, 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Britannian Destroyers.
I am not quite sure what boats the ship should so I have placed a placeholder for the time being.
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/