Shipbucket

Hold on to your hats gents, I found a picture which gave correct dimensions: the cuppola was a pixel too short, the front lip goes straight down, the barrel should be longer with the bore evacuator further towards the muzzle brake. The below-deck equipment is too short! This also counts for the Mod. 0!

Update coming up soon.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

wait what? may I see the references (especially those for the belowdecks of the mod 0, as my reference was pretty good in my opinion?

EDIT: also note this thread, I had an earlier version which followed that drawing perfectly, but was ugly as hell, and an second version which was a bit less accurate on the shape but more accurate on the looks. that might be where those small differences come from, but the belowdecks at least should be correct!

_________________
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

From: 155 mm (6.1") Future Naval Gun and Alternatives



Note that that is a 52 caliber 155 mm barrel, not the 39 caliber originally proposed.

But... The below-deck mounting should be the same for all Mods, since the155 mm shells would beloaded in thesame carousel as the 114 mm shells, and it IS an official BAE rendering.

Also, Wikipedia notes that the system penetrates up to three decks. You're not getting there with your rendering.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

well, wrong.
the specification of the 155mm said that it is fitted in the same space as the 8 in. the carrousel would look nothing alike though (this image is directly below yours

the 3 decks depth is most likely including the (hoist to) the magazine. magazines are not included in the belowdeck parts as they vary between different ships. taking wikipedia as reliable source for stuff like this, is also not an good idea, I don't have to tell you that, right?

the same goes for the barrel length, the 155mm is an all new gun.
I can also proof that to you: the 8 in has an caliber of 55, the 155mm of 52. 114*55= 6270mm, 155*52= 8060mm. explains the problem, right?

_________________
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

Could that stuff in the BAE rendering be the complete mounting, e.g, belowdecks reinforcements et all, and not just ammo carousel?

And...



The Mod 1, the 155 mm/39 Third generation Maritime Fire support (TMF), and the 155 mm/52 Fourth generation Maritime Fire support (FMF)

Frankly, I've made this clear before, I don't really care what the stuff underneath the deck looks like, as long as people take into account that there IS something there when designing new ships. Ergo, in outline, the below-deck stuff as shown on theBAE rendering.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

well, it does not show the ammo hoist which is shown in my drawing. also, the reinforcements are way bigger then this, and also ship specific (as they fit into the frame distance , bulkheads and hull shape of that vessel)
that said, it would not surprise me if the diameter of both guns ready-use magazine would be the same but the depth deeper, depth is comparably unrestricted if we look into 'how much should we change a ship to fit the other gun' to the point that the difference might be only to change the maintenance platform (guns are mostly fixed at deck level and a lot less at the bottom of the RS magazine, I have even seen RS magazines 'floating in the air' with only the maintenance and load platform around 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

My thoughts. I'm inclined to trust Ace's orginal Mod 0 plan, rather than the BAE computer rendering for the 4.5in barrel, Miho's new one looks too long to me. I don't think it supports the photo evidence.

The TMF is obviously a different beast, as I had expected. From the Navweaps page its clear the carrousel is different. But I still suspect the 4.5in Mod 1 to be similar enough not to bother changing the belowdeck part. The 155mm TMF however would need a new underdeck part, the TMF is obviously different belowdecks from the 4.5in Mod 1. But since the TMF is likely to remain a never-were part I'm fairly easy on what we decide to do. As Miho says the belowdecks are for reference only as most drawings won't use them so I don't want us to spend too much time aruging over the minute details, but if the size is wrong then it should be sorted.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Actually, in regards to barrel lenght, the 4.5in /55 barrel is 6.27 meters long, or 20.6 feet, which translates to 41 pixels.

Using my tube, this extends the barrel to almost halfway the turret ring, which would seem to be correct. Any shorter isn't really realistic, especially as this doesn't take into regard the length of the muzzle brake.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

In that case it will need modifying. I think you and Ace know what you're doing so I won't interfere, whatever you guys can come up with will be good.


Ace asked me to draw a single-arm Sea Dart a few posts back. There were a couple of destroyer/ frigate designs using a Vickers-designed single-arm launcher which formed the basis of the SEADAWS 100 system for export. Unfortunately no further information has been found for this design.

What follows is my interpretation of what such a mount could look like based on the known appearance of the twin-arm system and the basic layout and workings of the loading system etc.


I offered three designs for Ace to choose from; the launchers on the left are his favoured choice with revised belowdeck parts. The other two launchers to the left are the other two choices. Everyone is free to choose which of the three look the best but all are very similar. If everyone agrees Ace's favourite is the best then I'll add it to the parts sheet. I stress its an artistic representation until such time as solid info comes our way. They are open for AU use. And as Ace says, watch the magzine layouts so you don't get them the wrong way round! (the loading tube is on the front side).

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Nice work, looks pretty plausible, which is what counts with things like these.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...