Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 6  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 4:13 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
Thiel wrote:
Carthaginian wrote:
C.S.S. Torpedo Ram #1
1890 - the CSN's first torpedo boat destroyer, intended to be deployed against USN vessels on the Chesapeake.
The forward scuppers aren't going to work with the turtleback bow. They'd most likely be smashed in first time it took a dive.
I personally think the torpedo armament is rather heavy, at least if torpedo boats are going to be its primary target. I'd replace one set of tubes with a heavier piece of artillery. A 2-3" Quick-firer should give you an edge against Northern destroyers. And since the north still possesses the industrial edge, you're going to need it.
A breakwater abeam the conning platform would make it far easier to man the midship guns. As it is the forward gun will most likely be unworkable in even moderate seas.
A searchlight is a must, and given that the radio has yet to be invented, you might even want to include a semaphore.
Whew!
A nice, long list of what I need to start putting on ships and considering in a design- THANK YOU!

I might change the turtleback, but it seemed period appropriate, so I wanted to do it.
The forward gun is indeed a 2.75" (10-pounder), and the guns on the beams are 2.25" (5-pounder). She mounts one 10-pounder and four 5-pounders. The torpedo tubes are singles- not a very heavy torpedo armament at all. As the Union (in OTL) had no real torpedo boat fleet until the late 1890's, this ship would most likely be tasked with attacking the older, slower monitors and screw gunboats that would patrol the Bay.
The T.R. #1 is still pretty rough... a lot of work still to do as I don't know a lot about how to make such a small boat work. Thanks for the help, and any more things you can put out there is welcome.
bezobrazov wrote:
Re: you map: since I'm myself something of a CW-buff, I noticed that you didn't include West Virginia. Shouldn't this part have been relinquished back to the CSA - inspite of its overwhelmingly Unionist sentiment? Or was there some sort of monetary compensation made? Otherwise I like the idea and even have the outlines for a class of armored cruisers built along Sir Philip Watts' lines in the offing...
West Virginia, the Virginia Cape and the northern part of Missouri were both 'strategic sacrifices' for the South- they gained Kentucky's land area, and they avoided a lot of nasty fighting over the coal deposits in the area. Basically, in this timeline, the British looked around, decided what they thought both sides could do without and proposed a deal... the South took it without too much of a fight because they knew loosing British support would be fatal. A part of the deal- at Her Majesty's insistence- was a clause stating that slavery must be phased out by 1880.

I'm still working on the specifics of the treaty that will end the war, but I have the basic timeline of the war done already.
Basically- Prince Albert dies a few weeks early and is not there to temper the wrath of Victoria during the Trent Affair. Both sides get caught up in a lot of finger-pointing, and words get heated. Lincoln has the British spies shot (which he had every right to do), and Queen Victoria- half-mad with grief over Albert already- immediately calls for action 'against the murderers of two of Our brave sons' and the British Empire is at war with the United States before anyone can really stop things. Canadian forces enter through Minnesota and drive on Chicago's strategic railhead. This causes a massive realignment of Union troops in order to hold off the Canadian assault. This weakens the Union's forces in the east enough for 2nd Manassas to succeed and Confederate forces push on to Washington. Lincoln (disguised as a clean-shaven conscript) attempts to flee among the withdrawing Union army and is killed in a stroke of luck when a Confederate cavalry force turns the Union flank. Vice President Hamlin- who never bothered with those stuffy cabinet meetings anyway (historical fact)- is unaware that he is only facing about 10,000 Rebs, and a vastly superior relief force is on it's way. He surrenders mostly out of sheer shock and a healthy lack of intel.

The protected and armored cruisers are currently being revised to account for some problems that I didn't take into account originally. They are both loosely based on the Mersey class cruisers you suggest using. ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 4:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Carthaginian wrote:
Thiel wrote:
Carthaginian wrote:
C.S.S. Torpedo Ram #1
1890 - the CSN's first torpedo boat destroyer, intended to be deployed against USN vessels on the Chesapeake.
The forward scuppers aren't going to work with the turtleback bow. They'd most likely be smashed in first time it took a dive.
I personally think the torpedo armament is rather heavy, at least if torpedo boats are going to be its primary target. I'd replace one set of tubes with a heavier piece of artillery. A 2-3" Quick-firer should give you an edge against Northern destroyers. And since the north still possesses the industrial edge, you're going to need it.
A breakwater abeam the conning platform would make it far easier to man the midship guns. As it is the forward gun will most likely be unworkable in even moderate seas.
A searchlight is a must, and given that the radio has yet to be invented, you might even want to include a semaphore.
Whew!
A nice, long list of what I need to start putting on ships and considering in a design- THANK YOU!

I might change the turtleback, but it seemed period appropriate, so I wanted to do it.
The forward gun is indeed a 2.75" (10-pounder), and the guns on the beams are 2.25" (5-pounder). She mounts one 10-pounder and four 5-pounders. The torpedo tubes are singles- not a very heavy torpedo armament at all. As the Union (in OTL) had no real torpedo boat fleet until the late 1890's, this ship would most likely be tasked with attacking the older, slower monitors and screw gunboats that would patrol the Bay.
The T.R. #1 is still pretty rough... a lot of work still to do as I don't know a lot about how to make such a small boat work. Thanks for the help, and any more things you can put out there is welcome.
Okay. I thought it was those dual wing tubes the US liked so much.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 6:33 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
The Biscayne class has been added to the mix.
Protected cruisers armed with ten 6.4" guns and able to make 18 knots, these second-class cruisers lack the punch of the British Mersey class, but are able to fire much more rapidly. All are named after barrier islands along the Confederate coast, as the purpose of both is to protect the mainland.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 6:49 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
[ img ]

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 7:30 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
OK... trying to get this all down... stern to bow, since I read left to right by habit.

1.) What do you mean 'no color or you'll need more support?'
It's a chain strung between iron bars- how can this be differently or more clearly illustrated?

2.) Yeah, the funnels need work- those are my worst items.

3.) '3 pixels wide' is the reason that this isn't in the shipbucket section.
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around a metal grate being 16" thick. ;)

4.) It's almost a Hotchkiss revolver... it's a 75 caliber Gatling gun for use against boarding attempts.
Some ships might feature a Hotchkiss, but not just yet.

5.) Yeah, I'll need capstans, mooring gear and other sundry items added in as I go, but that's not something I want to deal with ATM.
First things first- I need to get the 'big things' and then we will move on to the details like winches, capstans and cleats. ATM< I'm a bit more concerned with getting the funnels and the Gatling gun right- no offense meant.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 7:51 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Carthaginian wrote:
1.) What do you mean 'no color or you'll need more support?'
It's a chain strung between iron bars- how can this be differently or more clearly illustrated?
I was trying to point at the platform/superstructure behind it.
If it's a walkway, it'll need some support in the middle since it'll break once the crew starts stomping around up there.
If it's a superstructure it needs to be filled in with colour.

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 8:00 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
[ img ]

_________________
“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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 12:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Well, on the account of your historical AU description, I'm not sure I'd concur...I believe that the war would've been won, not in the East but in the West, by the armies of Gens Bragg and johnston, the latter a far abler and accomplished general than Bragg ever was! I'm doing an intense research for a paper on gen. johnston, and i've mused myself by thinking out an alternate way of how the war in the West would've ended. And, I did not consider the Merseys, since they were not Sir Philip Watts' creation! AlsoI very much doubt that a surging Confederacy would've made such 'strategical' sacrifices...but it's your AU, so have to respect your opinions...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 3:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
The Bisbayne class appear to have twelve 6.4-inch guns (A/Y, 6 beam mounts and 4 casemates).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: April 27th, 2011, 4:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
bezobrazov wrote:
Well, on the account of your historical AU description, I'm not sure I'd concur...I believe that the war would've been won, not in the East but in the West, by the armies of Gens Bragg and johnston, the latter a far abler and accomplished general than Bragg ever was! I'm doing an intense research for a paper on gen. johnston, and i've mused myself by thinking out an alternate way of how the war in the West would've ended. And, I did not consider the Merseys, since they were not Sir Philip Watts' creation! AlsoI very much doubt that a surging Confederacy would've made such 'strategical' sacrifices...but it's your AU, so have to respect your opinions...
Second Manassas was simply the most likely historic point for a 'quick end' as it was so close to Washington and involved a lot of independent-minded and initiative-seizing generals. The British never saw their role as more than 'accessory to revolution'- much like the French in the American Revolution, they never intended to take and hold anything but were intent on creating an environment in which the South became a thorn in the North's side and prevented them from challenging the British.

Remember also that the Confederacy had no desire to 'put one over on the North'- they just wanted shed of Washington! I personally believe that the South would have taken a conditional surrender from the North, even if it did involve trading off some land areas here and there to accomplish the greater goal of independence. After all, West Virginia was nothing in the grand scheme of things; Kentucky, on the other hand, had a strong agricultural economy. The South has plenty of coal without West Virginia, and the North would have fought hard to keep it with their greater appetite for the stuff.

Additionally, why take a region that has already proven opposed to your ideology? It'll be a constant drain on morale and resources trying to deal with the people there, a constant source of internal strife and a convenient source of or entry point for enemy agents. It's not like the South doesn't have that problem enough already- why exacerbate it?


Oh, the John Lowe is an Elswick-based design taken from the basic style of the Chinese Chih Yuan- although her hull must have been massively stressed with such a heavy armament and high speed.




Thiel,
One stack is enough, as the ship I based the John Lowe on (the Chih Yuan) has the ssimilar speed/horsepower figures and only a single stack. I didn't draw the rope ladder going from the crow's nest to the bridge as it was too detailed to get into ATM. And the smaller vents will be added when the greater form of the ship is completed; that way I'll know where I have too to put them.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 6  [ 53 posts ]  Return to “Non-Shipbucket Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


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


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