Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

A Destroyer
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4688		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  Kattsun [ November 18th, 2013, 6:48 am ]
Post subject:  A Destroyer
This isn't a Brooke, it's completely different.

[ img ]

General purpose anti-submarine/anti-air/anti-surface warfare destroyer.

I took some parts from the parts sheets I'm not sure how to credit them, and I borrowed a colour palette from another forum member I'm not sure how to credit that, either. Sonar dome was from someone, but everything else is scratch save for parts sheet kitbash.

Weapons on top from L-R:

- AS565 Panther with Mk 46 LWT
- Robot 17
- RUR-5 ASROC
- Mk 46 LWT
- RIM-55 Typhon MR
- RGM-84 Harpoon
Author:  Rodondo [ November 18th, 2013, 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
You don't need to credit anything from part sheets but I'd recommend out lining your missiles in black, they don't have to be at exact scale as the ship is, I cant comment on the rest of the ship, though you might want to reduce the size of your bridge windows and add an anchor ;) But its looking quite good. Again, post WWII ships aren't my area so I'll leave that to someone who is more experienced than I.
Author:  Kattsun [ November 18th, 2013, 8:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
I was too lazy to draw an anchor, and it wasn't very good, so it's on the other side.

re missiles: The exaggerated scale makes me cry. I could make them darker, I suppose.
Author:  acelanceloet [ November 18th, 2013, 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
oversized weapons is just per shipbucket standard. while they look less accurate, right now unless you look really closely you cannot really see what type of missiles you have. that is the reason why we oversize missiles in shipbucket. also, everything solid should be outlined in black, and that counts for missiles too.
for the same reason we use standardized rails, as these obscure many of the details of this vessel.
the bow shading shows an shape this ship does not have. also, if you use it on the bow, you should use the same style on the stern and midship too.
the shading of overhangs in the superstructure is not sb standard.

anyways, now the design itself.
- the ASROC launcher has an less then ideal arc of fire, the forward arc (which the sonar sees) cannot be fired upon because the superstructure is in the way.
- the director for the Mk 13 is on the wrong side of the ship. again, the primary arc of the director and that of the launcher are exactly opposite
- your funnel shows an steam drive, but the propeller and drive shaft are taken from an (old drawing of) the perry class. this is an gas turbine driven ship and thus has at least for the propeller different requirements.
- it looks like your liferafts will end up on the walkway when released.
- that lowered helideck.... I see abselutely no reason why you would lower that half a meter or so. it removes headroom underneath it and has no benefit from being a tad lower.
- I see no doors to reload your TT. it is also positioned pretty far from the hangar, I think just too far to share the torpedo magazine
- the Mk 13 is most of the time placed on a small foot instead of directly on the deck, see for example the perry class. on a deck with sheer in it, like the one you have it on now, this is even required.
- even if your anchor is on the other side, you still need a winch on the deck. also, most ships have 2 anchor, most of the time an bow anchor and one at one side of the ship.
- the size of this ship counts as destroyer escort or frigate, I think. the weapons too.

other then the comments mentioned above, the drawing looks pretty good and it is good to see someone using the correct and latest parts for the systems on the ship.
Author:  Kattsun [ November 18th, 2013, 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
My preferences for shading and rails are an aesthetic choice, and since this isn't going to be shared on the main site I felt it reasonable to use whichever I preferred. Moreover, the rails seem to be significantly safer as there is not a +30cm gap between the floor and the sea. The shading under the overhangs makes it seem less flat, too.

1) ASROC is for emergencies for when SVTT would take too long to respond, it also doesn't have the reloading mechanism. The helicopters are the primary ASW weapon.

2) Swap gun director and SPG-51, and TAK120 and Mark 112?

3) I wasn't aware the hull or propeller were at all specific, I assumed they were simply generic parts. Do you have a link to ones for steam propellers?

4) The liferafts are probably thrown down before being inflated.

5) It appeared to be this way on the Brooke, although that may have just been an access walkway not an actual lowering.

6) They probably aren't, like the Mk 112. See helicopters.

7) Alright.

8) I'll draw an anchor when I find one that makes me feel happy.

9) Gallia has a very traditional Navy. Destroyer means Motor Torpedo Boat Destroyer, and is thus the smallest escort.
Author:  acelanceloet [ November 18th, 2013, 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
you are of course free to do as you want with the shading, as long as you know it is a bit frowned upon. the railings we know of course that they are not like the real ones, but we do this to keep an reasonably clear view on what is behind (2/3s visible instead of 1/2)
the missiles though, I would really prefer if you would use the common ones. I mean, with these, I myself would almost move this to the non-shipbucket section, which it is obviously not meant to be.

1. it makes no sense using ASROC that way, because it has longer range then the SVTT. modern operations are, sorted from long range to short range:
- helicopter
- rocket stand off weapon (for example ASROC)
- torpedo tube
- ASW mortar

2. if you swap those that way, the gun has an less then optimal field of fire. the fact is, the ship is too small to have all 3 optimal, and in this case I would go for the brooke arrangement and put the Mk 13 aft.

3. well, the fact is that you have now an propeller with an adjustable blade, which is prefered for gas turbines. steam uses fixed props most of the time.
I myself draw every prop custom for ships, I should really look into it because most of the ship you can source from here are old drawings with even more inaccurate props.
propulsion trains are quite specific, because steam turbines and gas turbines are not in the same location in the ship,as steam turbines require boilers and gas turbines require intakes and uptakes. because of this, the weight distribution (and thus the hull shape) changes and the location the prop axis needs to go towards.

4. you cannot throw them down if they are blocked by an platform with railings. when the ship is listing and on fire, you don't want to require 3-4 men to throw the liferafts over the railing, that is where the racks are for.

5. the brookes appears to be that way because the railings are attached a bit lower on the hull because they can fold down. this is common on USN ships.

6. it is very weird for an ship having an hangar , TT and ASROC to be not reloadable at sea. I would prefer loosing the ASROC over having no reloads, especially because you already carry the same torpedo's for your helicopter.

9. makes sense. might even make sense in the USN setup, where I found ships like these to be called destroyer escort with ASROC and destroyer with tartar on board.

ow, btw, just looked up your account, and an definite improvement over your earlier works! keep it up ;)
Author:  Gollevainen [ November 18th, 2013, 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
If you don't drawn to SB standard, then I will instruct the moderators to move this to the Non-shipbucket section. Beginners drawing forum is still part of the Bucket and its rules and standards apply here as well as elsewhere in the sections.
Author:  erik_t [ November 18th, 2013, 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
Torpedo reloads can certainly be manhandled along the deck from the helo reload magazine, even if the path is not immediately obvious. The Perry is an obvious comparison.
Author:  Colosseum [ November 18th, 2013, 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
erik_t wrote:
Torpedo reloads can certainly be manhandled along the deck from the helo reload magazine, even if the path is not immediately obvious. The Perry is an obvious comparison.
Agreed - the SVTTs were originally mounted in the spot usually taken by Gun 52 on the Gearing and Fletcher FRAM upgrades - nowhere near the helicopter's ready storage magazine.

Not every design should be "flawless" - it makes sense that "nuclear navy" stuff isn't highly optimized.
Author:  Kattsun [ November 18th, 2013, 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Destroyer
acelanceloet wrote:
you are of course free to do as you want with the shading, as long as you know it is a bit frowned upon. the railings we know of course that they are not like the real ones, but we do this to keep an reasonably clear view on what is behind (2/3s visible instead of 1/2)
the missiles though, I would really prefer if you would use the common ones. I mean, with these, I myself would almost move this to the non-shipbucket section, which it is obviously not meant to be.

1. it makes no sense using ASROC that way, because it has longer range then the SVTT. modern operations are, sorted from long range to short range:
- helicopter
- rocket stand off weapon (for example ASROC)
- torpedo tube
- ASW mortar

2. if you swap those that way, the gun has an less then optimal field of fire. the fact is, the ship is too small to have all 3 optimal, and in this case I would go for the brooke arrangement and put the Mk 13 aft.

3. well, the fact is that you have now an propeller with an adjustable blade, which is prefered for gas turbines. steam uses fixed props most of the time.
I myself draw every prop custom for ships, I should really look into it because most of the ship you can source from here are old drawings with even more inaccurate props.
propulsion trains are quite specific, because steam turbines and gas turbines are not in the same location in the ship,as steam turbines require boilers and gas turbines require intakes and uptakes. because of this, the weight distribution (and thus the hull shape) changes and the location the prop axis needs to go towards.

4. you cannot throw them down if they are blocked by an platform with railings. when the ship is listing and on fire, you don't want to require 3-4 men to throw the liferafts over the railing, that is where the racks are for.

5. the brookes appears to be that way because the railings are attached a bit lower on the hull because they can fold down. this is common on USN ships.

6. it is very weird for an ship having an hangar , TT and ASROC to be not reloadable at sea. I would prefer loosing the ASROC over having no reloads, especially because you already carry the same torpedo's for your helicopter.

9. makes sense. might even make sense in the USN setup, where I found ships like these to be called destroyer escort with ASROC and destroyer with tartar on board.

ow, btw, just looked up your account, and an definite improvement over your earlier works! keep it up ;)
1) Yes, I just said that. A nuclear fast attack submarine could appear 15 km away from your ASW helicopter after firing a torpedo, and your only response to it would be an ASROC, as a torpedo wouldn't be fast enough nor close enough to cause the submarine to evade and snap the guidance wire. It's for terminal area defence, not general area defence. It's the surface ship analogue of Shkval, not a replacement for helicopters or SVTT.

2) Mk 13 being aft I don't think there would be enough room for a full 40 round magazine, that was my primary concern, since Brooke only had the 16 round magazine or whatever with Mk 22. Gunfire is mostly limited to shelling small targets on shore, which the gun is more than sufficient to do with its field of fire in that position. I added a step to the Mk 13, I'm not sure if the Mk 112 would need similar, but the Brooke lacked it.

3) If you can find a boiler-specific prop I would be happy, because I have no idea what to look for. Bearing in mind that the numerous steam powered ships like USS Talbot and USS Brooke on the site also have the exact same bottom hull and propeller, as well as many other warships on the site, so it's easy to assume that this is just a generic setup intended to reflect A Fighting Ship's Hull rather than a specific CPP setup.

4) It's not especially important, since if the ship gets hurt that badly there's probably no help coming in the first place. o:

Stranded in the North Atlantic during WW3 is a Bothersome Ordeal. I'd rather drown than die of dehydration and sun sickness.

5) I've looked at the reference images since and I will update this in the next revision version.

6) I'm sorry I got trolled by the lack of long-range, standoff, immediate action ASW weapons in Dangerous Waters on the Perry. You're not going to live long against fast attack nuclear submarines trying to sink your convoys bound for Western Europe to fire more than two or three ASROCs anyway. Having torpedo tubes and ASROCs is a bit of a anachronism in itself.

Besides the deck penetration in the forward area would be weird if I had a full reload for the Mk 112.

9) I was actually looking at HMS Halland.

re: improvement Thank you I guess

re: reloads There's carts in the hangar that aviation ordnance uses to shuffle to the SVTTs on deck.

Per Gollevainen's advice I have since reformed the drawing to Proper SB Standard by using the gigantic oversized missiles instead of beautiful to scale ones. I have also placed the TAK 120 on the rear where the Mk 112 was and swapped the gun director and illuminator locations. Bear in mind that the missile can be fired with its terminal seeker on to engage targets in the fore (consider it to be RIM-55 MR, upgraded with Active Skyflash seeker, like ERAM but 20 years earlier). I now have near zero ability to engage targets aft of me except at terminal ranges with DART-style subcaliber shells. I'm not sure this is superior.

[ img ]
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/