Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Lieste

Tester
  • Content Count

    741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

429 Excellent

About Lieste

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,651 profile views
  1. HE bursting outside the target should do half the maximum damage of the shell *at best*. AP bursting behind the plate should be able to burst with full effect. If Common/HE/HC have less than double the filler of SAP/APC then a functioning HE shell will do less damage than APC bursting just through the plate... The relatively thin walled shell of HE/HC will be more sensitive to failure against thick plates than APC are, and these have been known to fail structurally and not detonate fully against thick/angled plates that they *should* be able to perforate... HE will either always burst early and outside the plates doing relatively little, or will be more prone to failure by shatter if it has a delay fuse.
  2. If you are bow-on then you are not 'in' smoke, merely silhouetted against it. It comes from your funnels and streams behind you and to the downwind side.
  3. I'm a touch dubious about that reaching 30kts... But, yes, it looks more like a (slow) battleship. Only just over a 5:1 L/B, compared to over 7:1 for most of the fast battleships and 6.3:1 for the slower of this type (~27kts) This isn't balanced correctly yet, and at full power resistance and power requirement should scale more with V^(4.5-6) rather than the 3 of the cruising speed.
  4. Almost all of the battleships being shown are unworkable IRL. They have a citadel nearly the entire length of the hull, and thus cannot have a sufficient thickness to make them safe or should have such excessive weight that little is left for armament, machinery or bunkerage. Look how compact they try to keep real battleship and battlecruiser citadels by comparison.
  5. It isn't massively dissimilar to Victoria or Sans Pareil battleships of the RN. (Though they had large guns in a paired mounting in their forward barbette).
  6. Hits on the middeck may be above the top of the protected belt armour. Only a relatively small fraction of the side, near the waterline and between the forward and aft turret(s) is fully protected. In Pre-dreadnoughts the belt ends and secondary battery have extensive, but much thinner protection... but Dreadnoughts and later battleships opt for heavier citadel protection and nothing on the belt ends or superstructure (outside of conning towers, secondary barbettes and turrets and uptakes) which have at least sufficient for moderate fragment and blast protection, and may have somewhat more on the conning tower. Generally even the heaviest armour on a conning tower doesn't often permit it to continue fighting from there effectively on a direct hit, so there may not be much benefit from significant weight so high up.
  7. Definitely needed if not already fully accounted for is the weight penalty for citadel protection to be increased with additional 'protected' length - ships with turrets singly along the centreline and extending really far aft should have a thinner or much heavier citadel than something with a similar number of compact, superfiring turrets forward and aft, or superfiring forward and single aft.
  8. The 5" DP guns of the USN BB were considered much more unpleasant to be near while firing and to cause more damage to fittings than the 16" guns. Their muzzle blast was more sharp and concentrated, while the larger ordnance was a larger but more gradual push.
  9. Well. Artist's lack of knowledge or not... it is a crying shame that no one more knowledgeable caught the inappropriate detailing of the generic model - a minor change could have transformed the utility of the model by making it a frigate of 12 or 18 with 26 guns in the battery. It still wouldn't capture *every* 5th rate frigate, but it would cover around half of them, rather than almost none. As it is thousands of pounds were sunk into tooling for a model which is 'wrong', and it is one fewer 'useful' model from a fairly limited planned range. It would have been possible to have a handful of frigates styles to cover the major types - but one of those few has been wasted by inappropriate genericide.
  10. The problem isn't the amount of repair, or their number, but rather that significant repairs happen 'instantly' or at least over a brief time window, rather than requiring far more time than the damage is caused over. A shot-hole can be roughly plugged fairly quickly, a fire can be put out by cutting away burning timbers, and the application of water... but to restore structural integrity, to remove water coming in using the pumps or to step a new spar? These are time consuming activities - more the realm of hours of work than a single broadside's respite, and may even require a continuous commitment of men to serve the pumps in shifts to keep flooding at bay. The maximum recovery from repair is limited - rebuilding or replacement is needed to restore the function of damaged material to it's full 'as built' condition. And this is a task for days or weeks and the use of sheer hulks and docks.
  11. Precisely my point. "A few" heavy corvettes - a handful of 24 lb frigates downgraded to 18lb guns and a single privateer frigate as examples, compared to hundreds of 26 or 28 main battery frigates - in 8 livre, 12 livre or 18 livre. This *is* supposed to be a 24 gun battery *fifth* rate, with a sixth rate noted for a later release. I also don't see *any* 14 ordnance castle armament - for the French vessels I have listed here one 18s, mostly 16s or 12s in the upgraded state, and 6s in the original design state of earlier frigates, with a relatively large number with only 4. It is odd as it looks to be one configuration which isn't seen (often or at all), rather than something more representative of any ship.
  12. Having had a little more of a look at the Frigate hull off the sprue... I note that it is an extremely unusual configuration. 24 gun battery, with 14 ordnance on the f'clse and qtr deck. This doesn't match with many frigate types I can find (on a non trivial sampling of my data at hand I only found one example of this loading, the Venus, as re-armed in 1793). Normally the gun deck would have 26 to 28 guns, and the upper works usually (though not always) fewer. Normally larger superstructure batteries came with a larger ship and main battery. It doesn't even match any of the known configurations of oddities like HMS Surprise (ex L'Unite 1794) which had variously 24 gun 9lb, 10 gun 4lb 6 carronade 12lb, and 24 carronade 32lb, 2 gun 4lb and 10 carronade 18lb. I am a bit puzzled about what their thinking was here. It will still make up into an attractive enough model if not contemplated too hard, but it could have very easily been a lot more representative of something common, like a standard 12lb or 18lb frigate with 26 guns in it's gundeck and 12 mixed carronades and guns on the castles (after the Amazon Class for example).
  13. I have one of the frigate models (sprue only). (on October's Wargame's Illustrated). Haven't put it together yet, but it looks like it should go well enough. Details are a little coarse by model standard, but suitable for table use. I'd prefer separate yards (they are set high, rather than low for the bare yard/furled configuration, which is a common failing of amateur models) - and the sprue didn't come with the sail sheet or rigging. I can make sails and set them on the yards as is, which will eliminate that 'fault'. Not sure what I will do for Ratlines at this point.
  14. That is showing a structure on the poop deck, or roundhouse, the quarterdeck is below the rail ahead of that deck level. (see the quarter deck ports between the ratlines at the left of the image)
  15. One more detail on the Aboukir engagement. Earl St Vincent sent a squadron of 14 ships of the line, plus one frigate. This left it under command of the Earl St Vincent... and he received the 1/8th share of the prize. Nelson received his share "according to naval custom as one of the junior flag officers belonging to the fleet off Cadiz". From this it seems unlikely that he would have taken a lion's share of the prize money from Cape St Vincent, although he did acquire fame and honour. (According to Steele, the prize money went to the ships of the fleet, spread in three installments (entries 464 (1798), 1005 (1800), 1756 (1802), but presumably the largest portions in 1798/1800 as the 1802 supplement arose from the withdrawal of a Frigate's claim) Distribution noted (1756 entry) as: Captain 99/17/- Commissioner 41/7/9 Petty Officer -12/9, Able & co. -/2/1, but this may relate only to the residual paid to complete the distribution, as I obtain a Captain's share of ~£795 from the original estimate of £140,000 (less Jervis's 1/8th and divided between the 22 named ships (and then scaled accordingly Able & co would be roughly -/16/7)) "Steel's Prize Pay Lists; new series ... Corrected to the first of April, 1805", is available as a document on Google books. It might at least give an idea of the scale of payments, and how long it takes between the action and payment.
×
×
  • Create New...