Mexican Battleship?

Walter · July 09, 2011, 02:05:44 PM

Cause the redesigned Devastation was not a Breastwork Monitor any more.

Walter · July 09, 2011, 02:13:02 PM

Reed's original design for HMS Devastation.

With this one all the main guns need to be raised.

Barnaby's modified design of HMS Devastation.

With this one the freeboard needs to be raised as the added structure raises the freeboard in that part of the ship.

Note that it says 'unarmoured structure' not 'unarmored superstructure'. With the sideview from the pic on wiki, the unarmored structure looks like an extension of the hull and not something separate on the deck that can be called 'superstructure'. The photo shows the same thing.

Carthaginian · July 09, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

And the difference between 'unarmored structure' and 'unarmored superstructure' is?
The structure which reaches the edges of the hull is not a weight-bearing part of the hull here- it is structure built atop the weight bearing structure of the hull. It is just like the first desk of the South Dakota's superstructure (where the lower 5" guns are located)... though it extend the width of the hull, it is not a part of the hull- it is simply a 'full width superstructure.'

Oh, and your picture that you posted also states 'superstructure extends to the edge of the deck.'

Walter · July 09, 2011, 02:31:21 PM

Ha! Completely missed that one. Whoops! I was too focussed on the pics themselves. ^_^;;
In that case, for a proper representation of HMS Devastation, the guns need to be raised.

I would have to mess around with SS a bit, but I think for simming, the results of those two different ways (raised freeboard and raised guns) might not be that far off. One thing's for sure, neither option is good for the ship's stability.

Carthaginian · July 09, 2011, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: Walter on July 09, 2011, 02:31:21 PMI would have to mess around with SS a bit, but I think for simming, the results of those two different ways (raised freeboard and raised guns) might not be that far off. One thing's for sure, neither option is good for the ship's stability.

ANYTHING with a full turret that is more than just a little above water level is bad for stability.
Witness the H.M.S. Captain. :-[

Tanthalas · July 09, 2011, 02:51:54 PM

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 09, 2011, 02:49:58 PM
Quote from: Walter on July 09, 2011, 02:31:21 PMI would have to mess around with SS a bit, but I think for simming, the results of those two different ways (raised freeboard and raised guns) might not be that far off. One thing's for sure, neither option is good for the ship's stability.

ANYTHING with a full turret that is more than just a little above water level is bad for stability.
Witness the H.M.S. Captain. :-[

HMS Capitan... Wonderfull ship, realy it was well till it tiped over and sunk. Glad im in the Pacific with its gentle seas.

Walter · July 09, 2011, 03:02:08 PM

QuoteWitness the H.M.S. Captain.

Witness? *looks at empty seas* Where is it?

QuoteGlad im in the Pacific with its gentle seas.

... and the occasional tropical storms and tsunamis... :)

Tanthalas · July 09, 2011, 03:05:31 PM

Quote from: Walter on July 09, 2011, 03:02:08 PM
QuoteWitness the H.M.S. Captain.
Witness? *looks at empty seas* Where is it?
QuoteGlad im in the Pacific with its gentle seas.
... and the occasional tropical storms and tsunamis... :)

shhhh this is not the fleet you are looking for *waves hand at encroching tropical storm*

Korpen · July 09, 2011, 06:00:49 PM

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 09, 2011, 02:04:47 PM
Uhm... how can the 'freeboard rise' when there are two separate decks?

Same way as in pretty much every other ship that is not flush-decked.

QuoteThe loss of HMS Captain in 1870 led to concerns about the stability of turret ships, and a committee was set up to determine whether HMS Devastation would be safe. One effect of this was to extend the armoured breastwork with unarmoured structure to the sides of the ship and carried aft to improve the stability at large angles of heel. This greatly improved the crew comfort by adding extra accommodation and especially latrines, but since it was not armoured would have been riddled in a battle reducing the stability of the vessel.

Both of these passages clearly state that the vessel's upper works are superstructure and that the guns are on the superstructure- and thus that the guns are raised rather than the fo'c'sle and stern being lowered. The entire upper works is a superstructure built upon a raft-type hull.
[/quote]
You are aware that in the context of SS the very things you marked in bold is the very thing that define freeboard? It improves accommodation space and increase seakeeping, the very things freeboard does in SS (not to mentioning trying to get SS to put belts above freeboard...).

Normally the definition of freeboard height is were the first open deck meets the sides, but that said I think that we should look at the effect to try and get the most representative simulation, rather then get hooked up on semantics.

Carthaginian · July 09, 2011, 06:44:57 PM

Quote from: Korpen on July 09, 2011, 06:00:49 PMNormally the definition of freeboard height is were the first open deck meets the sides, but that said I think that we should look at the effect to try and get the most representative simulation, rather then get hooked up on semantics.

Normally, but not in this case, huh?

Korpen, I just cited original, period drawings of the ship which contradict you, and you insist that you are still right?
I think that this discussion is over from my end. Feel free to continue it yourself. :)

Walter · July 10, 2011, 03:13:31 AM

Ok... having messed around quickly with SS, raising the freeboard has a much bigger impact on the design than raising the guns. With the raised guns design at 1.00, raising the freeboard on the same design about 8 feet in the areas that matter to replace the raised gun option resulted in a hullstrength drop of 0.23.

... At least the seakeeping improved tremendously (from 0.73 to 1.41) ;D

Tanthalas · July 10, 2011, 03:49:09 AM

.73 might not be to far off on them having done a bit of reading today ;D they were not shall we say beloved by their crews.

Walter · July 10, 2011, 08:14:43 AM

"Sailor! This ain't no frikkin' Cruise ship!" :D

Carthaginian · July 10, 2011, 10:19:08 AM

Quote from: Walter on July 10, 2011, 03:13:31 AM
Ok... having messed around quickly with SS, raising the freeboard has a much bigger impact on the design than raising the guns. With the raised guns design at 1.00, raising the freeboard on the same design about 8 feet in the areas that matter to replace the raised gun option resulted in a hullstrength drop of 0.23.

... At least the seakeeping improved tremendously (from 0.73 to 1.41) ;D

This is part of the reason that I disbelieve that the freeboard is actually raised- these ships were ABYSMAL seaboats... well, that and all the literature says that the additional structure added was not load-bearing. ;)
The ship that DF built I have no issue with- I think it's a good second class monitor for coastal work, and have several designs in the same displacement range myself (mine are barbette ships after the French pattern, though).

Walter · July 10, 2011, 10:55:39 AM

QuoteThe ship that DF built I have no issue with- I think it's a good second class monitor for coastal work, and have several designs in the same displacement range myself (mine are barbette ships after the French pattern, though).

I totally agree, but it is wrong to call it a "smaller version of the HMS Devastation". I also noticed that it uses single guns and not twin turrets, so it is even less a "smaller version of the HMS Devastation" than I thought in the beginning. :)