OT: Speachless (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


adarbrauner -> OT: Speachless (12/5/2019 5:55:07 PM)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=605849892923661&set=pcb.605850559590261&type=3&theater




Yaab -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/5/2019 6:11:43 PM)

Scratch one forehead!

Seems like ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) is finally realeasing 3D models. To war!




adarbrauner -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/5/2019 6:16:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Seems like ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) is finally realeasing 3D models. To war!


??????

ONI??




Yaab -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/5/2019 6:37:43 PM)

Yep, ONI.

https://maritime.org/doc/id/oni208j-japan-merchant-ships/




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/5/2019 7:02:43 PM)

WOW!




Major Shane -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 12:05:00 AM)

Can anyone tell me what the bars with chains hanging down from them are for? They are near the bow of the ship.




geofflambert -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 12:17:48 AM)

Are you talking about the ladders?




geofflambert -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 12:31:28 AM)

The lines I think are for men who can go up and down faster with just their arms and hands.

[image]local://upfiles/37002/C104F6BADC994CAF844A47066FAEADFE.jpg[/image]




Major Shane -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 12:58:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The lines I think are for men who can go up and down faster with just their arms and hands.

[image]local://upfiles/37002/C104F6BADC994CAF844A47066FAEADFE.jpg[/image]


Ok, so I'm an Army guy. What's the purpose of the bar/spar, that the ropes and ladders are attached too?




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 12:58:37 AM)

If I recall correctly the chain hanging down was to attach the sea painter of the small boat that was attempting to "land" there. But I could be wrong. There is an old navy saying of grappling the chains when in a small boat coming along side a larger craft....IIRC.




Ian R -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 12:59:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Yep, ONI.

https://maritime.org/doc/id/oni208j-japan-merchant-ships/



The font/layout used in those reminds me of the period Jane's books. Probably not a coincidence.




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 1:03:18 AM)

If you notice that the boom has fore and aft lines that would swing the boom along side of the ship. This would then bring the small boat alongside once "chained on" and the ladder would be "inside" the small boat but also alongside of the battleship. The crew of the small boat would then simple climb up and step aboard. Simple. Why the model maker decided to deploy this device rather than have it stowed is an unknown!




Zorch -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 1:09:31 AM)

Are you sure the chains aren't for anti-torpedo nets? They were an unsuccessful way of protecting BBs from torpedoes. Most nations removed them after Jutland, when damaged nets fouled one ship's propeller.




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 1:14:16 AM)

Yes I'm sure, those were a different form of netting and were still in use during WW2. In fact, there was talk of getting the US BBs netting for Pearl, but they never got around to it come December 1941.... If you look at photos of those chains stowed, you will see there is a vast difference between those and what you see here, which is for small boat hookup. Also, as an aside, those chains were deployed alone the waterline, not alone the deckline.




Major Shane -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 1:26:23 AM)

Thanks Dr. Hal. Learned something new tonight. I couldn't figure what it's tactical use was and you clearly helped me understand it wasn't for fighting purposes.




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 2:57:42 AM)

Well Shane I certainly can see why you might not "see" it as it's a very unusual feature of older warships. I'm not sure why the model builder included it deployed but then again, we all have our quirks! But it's a beautiful representation.... Come to think of it, when I was on the CGN and the CV both ships had a similar contraption but I only saw it deployed once while the CV I was on was in Singapore.... anchored off shore. Hal




spence -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 4:06:40 AM)

She sure ain't going to make 30 kts with that crusty bottom.

Nice touch on a model though.




obvert -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/6/2019 9:48:28 AM)

Nice build. Here are some more by Kostas Katseas, probably my favourite model maker for this period (or any). Same kind of detail but often even down to 1/700, plus amazingly accurate water using cast resin.

Here is a Nagato underway and a Fuso in a great SE Asian island nook using the chains mentioned above with small boasts attached.

Kostas Katseas blog



[image]local://upfiles/37283/D4E0EE8FAD6440E785D55F21E68AE243.jpg[/image]




Major Shane -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/7/2019 2:25:59 PM)

Thank you for sharing.I understand now how and why the books were used. I am amazed at the skills of this model builder.




fcooke -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/7/2019 10:10:42 PM)

I don't she could ever do 30 kts....even without the crusty bottom. Spectacular model.




NigelKentarus -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/9/2019 2:44:11 AM)

It's a boat boom, it's used when a ship is at anchor, usually for an extended period. The boat boom is swung out and secured in place. The ship's boats (ours was a motor whale boat) would then be able to tie up to the lines hanging down and the boats crew would climb up and down the bos'n ladders. That way you wouldn't have to keep bringing the ship's boats aboard after each use. They could remain in the water until needed. We use to use them in liberty ports to ferry the crew back and forth, etc.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/9/2019 3:04:58 AM)

Pagoda masts are the epitome of cool [8D]





Yaab -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/10/2019 12:20:21 PM)

Is IJN BB Fuso overloaded in the diorama with the subs? She looks as if she were sinking.




BBfanboy -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/10/2019 6:41:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Is IJN BB Fuso overloaded in the diorama with the subs? She looks as if she were sinking.

That may be accurate. From the time they were designed in the 1920s a lot of weight was added in AA guns, aircraft equipment like catapults and hangars and of course that enormous pagoda superstructure. I recall reading that many IJN ships were poor sea boats because of low freeboard and heavy tophamper.




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/10/2019 8:16:10 PM)

One has only to look at pictures of HMS Hood from 1919 and then to 1939 and see that additions deepened draft.




Yaab -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/10/2019 8:28:47 PM)

Actually, the pagodas had to have rather cramped stairways, didn't they?




Zorch -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/10/2019 10:21:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One has only to look at pictures of HMS Hood from 1919 and then to 1939 and see that additions deepened draft.

Many BBs removed single purpose secondary armament as weight compensation for everything added in wartime, such as AA guns. Not sure if Hood got to that point before she was sunk.




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/10/2019 10:49:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One has only to look at pictures of HMS Hood from 1919 and then to 1939 and see that additions deepened draft.

Many BBs removed single purpose secondary armament as weight compensation for everything added in wartime, such as AA guns. Not sure if Hood got to that point before she was sunk.

Yes Hood had her 5.5 inch secondary battery fully removed in 1940. However additional armor and anti-torpedo bulges along with AA guns added to her displacement (alone with restoration of a number of armor bulkheads) all of which added a few thousand tons which made her aft decks VERY wet in any weather. She was LONG overdue for a major engine and armor refit (1941?) but as we all know, she never lived that long. As designed she was supposed to reach 32 knots, however due to lessons learned at Jutland her displacement was increased even BEFORE she was launched which slowed her (engines were NOT redesigned). By the time she was hit by Bismark it was suggested that she could only do a little over 26 knots but records seem to be conflicting. Certainly she could not reach 30 knots.




fcooke -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/11/2019 12:38:23 AM)

ok - see not reaching 32, but only 26 seems a bit much.....




dr.hal -> RE: OT: Speachless (12/11/2019 12:54:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ok - see not reaching 32, but only 26 seems a bit much.....

I'll look into it, but I did read that her last trials she went to 26.4.... but like most things I could be wrong. Yet, like my own time in the navy, in trials you try to do things under "perfect" conditions so if 26.4 was tops for her on trials, then it might be less under "normal" conditions but slightly more under wartime conditions (27.5?)! Clearly she was in engine room trouble... the moment she got underway until she docked it's my understanding the crew was on "water hours" and for those readers that didn't serve on ships of World War 2 style (let alone World War 1) it means that your fresh water condensers only put out enough potable water to feed the boilers and to drink.... NOT to wash. Hood's steam system was in bad shape mainly due to lack of yard time to put it right (and steam pressure equates in large part to HP which directly impacts speed, along with other factors such as the condition of the hull bottom, etc.). The war came a few years early for Hood, as her "extensive" overhaul was postponed and postponed until the battle with the Bismark but it beyond reach.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02