Shipbucket

Hi, the LCVP is staying, because it's as close as I can get to an LCA of WWII vintage RN service. I think the LCVP you are pointing to is the American Higgins boat type. It's smaller, and more flexible, true, but also far less common in RN service.

This page linked too has info on the LCA, LCVP and LCM, the three main landing craft in use in this period of the war: http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/landing/landeng2.htm

Its called tradition.

And I'm not sure why my name has also been included.

I cannot think of why the LCVP mk 1 looks anything like this:
to show this: the dutch one looks like this:
also, the LCA is 2 meters shorter then the LCVP mk 1, which matters a lot on a 12m ship. simply said: stop abusing my LCVP, and draw the LCA yourself if you want to use it.

_________________
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

Nice pictures.

Nice pictures indeed. Thanks for the clarification, and rest assured I will be replacing the LCA's.

And thanks for asking so nicely.

you're welcome.

_________________
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

Portsmouth Bill- I get that it's tradition, which in and of itself is no bad thing. However traditions can be more or less forward looking, more or less defensive of earlier roles and capabilities, more or less willing to face up to failings of the past. "Tradition" is a broad catch all term for a whole clutch of assumed institutional behaviours, and I believe that some of the Royal Navy's are not good for itself or the UK. It's not the worst by a long way, and not even unique in the UK's armed forces. It is to it's detriment though, and that sometimes saddens me.

And you're listed as your Ajax and Belfast have been plundered for details (searchlights, anchors, deck fittings etc.)- I'm erring on the side of mentioning people so that where I miss use elements I get feedback, which has been very useful so far, thanks.

I suppose your navy has seen many centuries pass whilst ours has just seen it's first, Tradition can be good, it's pretty hard to make it bad

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

meeware you don't need to add credit for what are essentially part sheet items.Guns, radars, directors, aircraft ,boats etc.Only add credit if you have used significant chunks of hull or superstructure.I hope this helps.

Yes, Bombhead has it right, re various 'parts', these are generic to most drawings of similar types of warships, so no need to credit me.

And re 'tradition'; I was more refering to using ships names from the past, which all navies honour anyway: a good case in point being the retention of 'iconic' names like Ark Royal in the RN and Perth in the RAN. In this context tradition is what binds the present day navy together, by honouring the past. As to the rest, I don't expect any modern navy to be deviating from the exacting nature of the strategies and tactics inherent in modern warfare - such as running alongside and attempting to board with cutlasses in their teeth!