R/C Naval Combat

Ahhh.... I see. Is that AusBG rules?

If we get a bunch of GWF era ships we will have to make a change in the rules. White and buff don't exactly count as warpaint.

J.

I agree. Although my heart will break seeing the white & buff, and gold trim, get slimed with moss and algae :(


About your earlier post, Re:the French... I think Jean Bart and Richelieu definately count as wierd battleships :)

Also, James, did you spot the wording in the rules on what's allowed? Ship used must have SAILED in the period 1905-1945. If it was laid down prior to that and still in use, it's legal. So the French get some wierd BBs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tugboat

Also, James, did you spot the wording in the rules on what's allowed? Ship used must have SAILED in the period 1905-1945. If it was laid down prior to that and still in use, it's legal. So the French get some wierd BBs.

---

Well that does open things up alot. Nixes Tosa, Mackensen, Normandie, et. al. but does add a whole slew of the French predreads. With the Royal Navy that could take you WAAAAAAAAY back to ironclads. They did not get around to scrapping the really old ones until Fisher came in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tugboat

I agree. Although my heart will break seeing the white & buff, and gold trim, get slimed with moss and algae :(


About your earlier post, Re:the French... I think Jean Bart and Richelieu definately count as wierd battleships :)

---

Will order the gold leaf for my Louisiana. ;)

Jean Bart/Strasbourg are made less weird by Nelson and Rodney. If the RN can put all the guns in the front then anyone can. But they don't hold a candle to the products of the 1890's.

If we count "sailed" as floated about in the fitting out basin then Tosa and the others are back in.

I think that this issue has been around for a while but since most people are interested in the WW2 end of the spectrum it has not been much of a problem.

As far as I'm concerned, if it slid down the ways and floated on its own, it's legal. I don't expect there will be a huge rush of people building ships laid down in the 1880's-90's, though.

Indeed as long as there is water between ground and keel it has sailed.

There are only one or two who like those old boats anyway. Was looking at the rules to see how the Arkansas class monitors would work. How are we handling monitors? They don't have enough freeboard between the caprail and waterline in most cases. In some there is not enough below the waterline either. The Arkansas class should draw about 1.5" of water when built to scale, so that may not be an issue. Not sure about the curve of the hull. May not be 1" of hull side to be penetrable.

I'm thinking we may need to add a rule under construction for monitors and other similarly shallow draft ships, to the effect of "there must be at least 'X amount" of vertical penetrable area blah blah blah. Ran out of eloquent words already today :) Any suggestions on an improved wording are greatly appreciated.

I have been looking at other groups construction rules and most say the area from the caprail to 1" below the waterline must be penetrable...exceptions for bow/stern areas and around the prop and rudder shafts. I think these are good enough. Depends on the ships I guess. Monitors should be sinkable. Without having to worry about bouncing shots off the deck.

j.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tugboat

I'm thinking we may need to add a rule under construction for monitors and other similarly shallow draft ships, to the effect of "there must be at least 'X amount" of vertical penetrable area blah blah blah. Ran out of eloquent words already today :) Any suggestions on an improved wording are greatly appreciated.

---

Altho since the monitors of the day filled ballast tanks to bring the deck level with the water, that raises issues of when one is considered sunk. When the turret is submerged?

Like submarines? When they don't come up again?

[:)]

Heh. I wasn't expecting the scale models to use ballast tanks and go decks-awash... :) I figured they'd just float there.

I agree. I don't think monitors should be allowed to have the ballast tanks. They may not have enough hull to float as it is.

Will have to build one and see.

J.

Yes, that's the AusBg ruleset I'm talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tugboat

Ahhh.... I see. Is that AusBG rules?

---

A thought, if the free board is so low to the water and they might not draw enough water for the 1" rule have it so that in conjunction with the penetrable area under water, that their decks have "windows" that can be penetrated. that way they run the risk of getting swamped.

The only problem I could forsee with a penetrable deck window is the risk of ricochet off of a non penetrable area. The down angle for the firing cannon would seem to indicate a dangerous ricochet angle.

no different than the situation with subs, besides thats what the glasses are for

Good point. It is not a pressing issue to be sure.