Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3864		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  JohannesHarfenist [ January 4th, 2013, 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
Hi all,

It's obviously a work in progress, but:

[ img ]

Any comments would be appreciated.

Notes:
* Displacement: 28,866 t light; 30,847 t standard; 33,280 t normal; 35,227 t full load
* Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(783.17 ft / 768.00 ft) x 95.00 ft x (31.00 / 32.35 ft)
* Armament: 3x2 380mm/45cal BL, 7x2 113mm/45cal QF HA/LA, t.b.d 40mm and 20mm guns
* Armour: Main belt 9-12", decks 4.5-6", main turrets 6-13", main barbettes 9-13"
* Machinery: 4 shafts @ 125,000 hp = 30 kts max speed, range 9,000 nm @ 15 kts
* Era approximately 1933, although this is an alternate universe ship so technology compares inexactly
* I don't know why there are more turrets aft than fore, either, but I'm keeping it that way :P
* Ship could be variously designated as battlecruiser or fast battleship (compare the Scharnhorsts)

(Edit: re-uploaded to fix image size, gosh that Photobucket resizing is annoying)
Author:  TimothyC [ January 4th, 2013, 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
Your image got rescaled down by your host. I'm not really an inter-war guy so I'll leave those comments for others.
Author:  Rodondo [ January 4th, 2013, 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
From what I can see, a few points I must raise just out of curiosity

*The fore wing turrets seem awfully close to one another
*The space between the main barbettes seems pretty narrow as well, not too much room for powerful machinery
* Also the lack of a aft superstructure mast or tripod is a bit baffling
Author:  Thiel [ January 4th, 2013, 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
Speaking of secondaries, those are 4.5" Mk Vs which were entered in 1947, 14 years later than your ship.
Author:  JohannesHarfenist [ January 4th, 2013, 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
Thanks for the feedback guys.

* Moved main battery turrets end-wards and lengthened the ship overall a little, to give more room for machinery.
* Secondary armament revised to 8x2 100mm DP guns (custom alternate universe design)
* Beefed up central superstructure
* Added aft mast

Here it is (railings etc are obviously unfinished and in need of revision):

[ img ]

One question, does it matter that the stack is so far back? I considered moving the stack forward and putting the second mast abaft it.
Author:  KHT [ January 4th, 2013, 9:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
Yes, moving the funnel forward is a good idea.

The barrels of the 100mm guns are too thick. I suggest you follow this scale:
Quote:
1 pixel (everything under 3 inch)
2 pixels (3-4.5 inch and watercooled Bofors 40mm mounts)
3 pixels (4.7-6 inch)
4 pixels (7-8 inch...)
and beyond that you should be able to use the actuall thickness of the scaled drawings, or follow the logic roughly.
Author:  Raxar [ January 4th, 2013, 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
First of all, welcome to SB. :)
That's not a bad start, but there is a long way to go.
Here's some things you should consider:
~Yes, it does matter that you put the mast abaft the stack, or more rather, move the stack forward. The stack is not just something you stick on the hull as an after thought, it has a lot of related peices and parts sitting directly underneath it, namely the boilers. Having the ductwork go straight up is the least obrusive and takes up the least amount of space, so having the funnel sit directly overtop just makes sense.
~Your main armament seems strange, especially in it's layout. Most interwar ships had 4 main turrets, (the only ones I can think of at the moment that didn't are French and had 2 quad mounts, and the Nelson Class, with all 3 turrets forward.) Anyways, none that I can think of had that particular arrangement of A, then B superfiring C. There really isn't a tactical advantage to it unless you're running away, which defeats the purpose of a mighty battleship.
~I'm not too sure on your secondaries either, but I'll leave that up to more experienced members.
~You're superstructure is a bit wonky shaped, especially around the secondary turret just below the mainmast. Keep in mind that in SB scale a deck is 15-18 or so pixels.
~You should definately turn down the shading on the underwater hull. Use 2 or at the most 3 shades.
*Edit*
You should also take a look at this thread for helpful information:
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... f=5&t=3287
Author:  JohannesHarfenist [ January 4th, 2013, 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
Raxar wrote:
First of all, welcome to SB. :)
That's not a bad start, but there is a long way to go.
Here's some things you should consider:
~Yes, it does matter that you put the mast abaft the stack, or more rather, move the stack forward. The stack is not just something you stick on the hull as an after thought, it has a lot of related peices and parts sitting directly underneath it, namely the boilers. Having the ductwork go straight up is the least obrusive and takes up the least amount of space, so having the funnel sit directly overtop just makes sense.
Yeah, I guess I have been reading too much World War I stuff and I was worried about keeping lookouts out of the smoke... of course oil-fired boilers don't make much smoke and that mast is for radars and comms anyway :) I figured it was ducted and the original sketch was meant to suggest ducting, but it's a lot easier to draw a vertical funnel in Paint.NET... I guess Hellenic League naval architects do their blueprints in such a program too :P

Quote:
~Your main armament seems strange, especially in it's layout. Most interwar ships had 4 main turrets, (the only ones I can think of at the moment that didn't are French and had 2 quad mounts, and the Nelson Class, with all 3 turrets forward.) Anyways, none that I can think of had that particular arrangement of A, then B superfiring C. There really isn't a tactical advantage to it unless you're running away, which defeats the purpose of a mighty battleship.
I agree the layout is genuinely weird. It's a Renown, but backwards. (Or like one of those lousy interwar German baltic scouting cruisers.) That's the one deliberately weird thing about the ship and I'm fairly settled on keeping it, although I appreciate it does not make a lot of tactical or mechanical sense.
Quote:
~You're superstructure is a bit wonky shaped, especially around the secondary turret just below the mainmast. Keep in mind that in SB scale a deck is 15-18 or so pixels.
Thanks, I'll re-scale the entire superstructure at 17 pixels per deck or whatever... I didn't have this info so I was just guess-timating visually.

And thanks a _LOT_ for the link to the standard newbie introduction, I see I already made a bunch of the mistakes they tried to warn me off ;)
Author:  Erusia Force [ January 4th, 2013, 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
The shading could be slightly better if left with two tones. Welcome to ship bucket :D
Author:  JohannesHarfenist [ January 5th, 2013, 1:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AU Battlecruiser Agamemnon
OK, more changes

* Additional 2x380mm turret in superfiring position forward, ship & belt lengthened accordingly
* will have to update SpringSharp file to get new displacement, probably ~36k tonnes?
* Secondary armament arrangement revised, 100mm barrels now 18x2 px
* Superstructure further enlarged, decks revised
* Stack moved forward, 2nd mast now aft of stack
* Fixed rainguards on top of stack
* Shading down to two tones

[ img ]
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/