Author Topic: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise (Read 231700 times)

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #480 on:** 17 February 2019, 08:33:36 »

Quote from: I am Belch II on 17 February 2019, 08:15:26

I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.

In warmer water. Generally shallower waters.

marauder648 · « **Reply #481 on:** 17 February 2019, 12:50:37 »

Quote

Canon de 27cm Mle 1870

Used in battleships and coast defenses c.1870~1918.
274mm caliber 216kg shells, 434m/s muzzle velocity giving it an estimated 300mm of penetration in wrought iron armor at combat range, breech-loading single shot.

Picture taken c.1885 by Gustave Bourgain onboard a Colbert-class French ironclad, below the center battery.

Note the boarding weapons on racks on the left side of the picture, including cutlasses and Lefaucheux Mle1858 revolvers. The Colbert-class ironclads were also armed with, beside a variety of other naval guns, more than a dozen Hotchkiss 37mm revolving cannons, four 356mm torpedo tubes and a ram.

Wrangler · « **Reply #482 on:** 17 February 2019, 14:51:50 »

That must been alot noise going down there...has anything like those ships been used before they were obsoleted?

marauder648 · « **Reply #483 on:** 17 February 2019, 15:01:26 »

The closest you'd get would be the Battle of Lissa which had Ironclads in it and the bombardment of Alexandria by the RN.

Oh and the various engagements off South America between Ironclads and steam warships.

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #484 on:** 17 February 2019, 19:01:21 »

Oh yeah the meat of the Ironclad Age action after the American War of Secession was in around South America.

truetanker · « **Reply #485 on:** 17 February 2019, 19:39:51 »

Whish we had a TRO of possible Ironclad designs... or more water-based vessels to use in BT for our maps and such...

I mean a Monitor armed with twin LGR would be nice, or even a LB-X version... hell I'd settle for a SRT fast boat akin to the PT's of WWII other than the Sea Skimmer.

Something like a true naval battle with armed support ship construction.

I've played a few custom non-games where a Monitor vs. Monitor battle happened, we even modified them. I ran 3x SRM-6 /and a SRT-6 in place of a single 185 mm ChemJet Gun AC/20. Cool part was I won an argument that it was a Demolisher turret on top... which allowed me to just use any of the official Demolisher variants, as long as the tonnage was the same ( 28 + Ammo ).

> CSS Neuse, located in Kinston North Carolina, has a floating working replica of the Ironclad, Neuse II. For tours and such... <

She's aged well... for being buried underwater for more than a century, raised in '63.

TT

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #486 on:** 17 February 2019, 23:17:10 »

Quote from: truetanker on 17 February 2019, 19:39:51

Whish we had a TRO of possible Ironclad designs... or more water-based vessels to use in BT for our maps and such...

I mean a Monitor armed with twin LGR would be nice, or even a LB-X version... hell I'd settle for a SRT fast boat akin to the PT's of WWII other than the Sea Skimmer.

Something like a true naval battle with armed support ship construction.

I've played a few custom non-games where a Monitor vs. Monitor battle happened, we even modified them. I ran 3x SRM-6 /and a SRT-6 in place of a single 185 mm ChemJet Gun AC/20. Cool part was I won an argument that it was a Demolisher turret on top... which allowed me to just use any of the official Demolisher variants, as long as the tonnage was the same ( 28 + Ammo ).

> CSS Neuse, located in Kinston North Carolina, has a floating working replica of the Ironclad, Neuse II. For tours and such... <

She's aged well... for being buried underwater for more than a century, raised in '63.

TT

I found just in the TRO Fluff you could do up a number of interesting variants; single AC/20, dual AC/10s, triple AC/5s

truetanker · « **Reply #487 on:** 18 February 2019, 00:24:51 »

Oh I know... A4, that Gauss variant, MRM anyone?

Hell, I got away in a game with a Monitor IIC... >:D 3-SRM-2s, twin LB-20's, twin cMPLs AND 6 cMGs!, Upped the armor to FF and dropped some to compensate for the MG ammo... even got CASE for it for free! >:D

Ran a pair against some hovers and medium weight mechs on a mostly swampland...

TT

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #488 on:** 18 February 2019, 00:39:34 »

Maybe discussions about custom Battletech units can be done on the appropriate fan creation section?

truetanker · « **Reply #489 on:** 18 February 2019, 01:18:02 »

True my bad...

Have a Cookieship!

Order up a Bro'dside!

Pun intended...

TT

Feenix74 · « **Reply #490 on:** 18 February 2019, 03:36:23 »

Mate, you cannot have your cake and eat it too . . .

Kidd · « **Reply #491 on:** 18 February 2019, 03:59:44 »

That's an adorable set of Minions but a shockingly bad ship

Feenix74 · « **Reply #492 on:** 18 February 2019, 04:07:58 »

Is this better?

Want to know more?

Nightlord01 · « **Reply #493 on:** 18 February 2019, 07:30:21 »

Quote from: I am Belch II on 17 February 2019, 08:15:26

I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.

Not enough O2 in the water. The microbes that like wood struggle to gain a foothold when the water is cold and oxygen depleted.

If she was raised she'd rot away fairly swiftly, as that wood is infused with seawater, but being in the cold and dark, she's probably going to stay fairly clean for a while yet.

Wrangler · « **Reply #494 on:** 18 February 2019, 07:51:33 »

The Mogador, this was a French Destroyer, which served during World War II.
She was lead ship of two ship series, other ship was Volta, where intended as escort / scouts for the Dunkerque-Class Battleships.
She was saw war service in 1939, where she was able to provide some escort for British forces.

She was damaged during the British's Operation Catapult, at the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir by a 15inch shell it to her stern. The attack was intended to deny Germany use of the Vicky France's navy. She was luck to survive the hit, because it detonated the ship's depth charges. She was repaired but later scuttled.

Kidd · « **Reply #495 on:** 26 February 2019, 05:19:23 »

Big Charlie is out and about, off to tour the Far East

marauder648 · « **Reply #496 on:** 26 February 2019, 07:59:31 »

I've always had a soft spot for the Dunkirque class ships, and they are one of those 'what ifs' as they were never tested in real combat, being more the subjects of a target shoot than anything.

Euphonium · « **Reply #497 on:** 26 February 2019, 11:58:57 »

I was fascinated by the idea of mounting guns in pairs within quad-turrets

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #498 on:** 26 February 2019, 12:01:43 »

Quote from: Euphonium on 26 February 2019, 11:58:57

I was fascinated by the idea of mounting guns in pairs within quad-turrets

Actually it was more about subdivising them with a central bulkhead so a hit to the turret wouldn't knocked out all of them.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #499 on:** 26 February 2019, 12:28:33 »

Quote from: HobbesHurlbut on 26 February 2019, 12:01:43

Actually it was more about subdivising them with a central bulkhead so a hit to the turret wouldn't knocked out all of them.

Except I guess a shot that disables a pair of guns would quite likely render the mechanism for turning the turret non functional so I am not sure it isn't a false economy.

At least they went with a theme and made a lot of the secondary armament quads too (or pairs of pairs).

kato · « **Reply #500 on:** 26 February 2019, 12:35:00 »

For the Quad 130mm/45 Mle 1932 (those three turrets to the stern) it was mostly about the loading system:

The turrets had one double hoist per gun (as in: it could present eight rounds to the four guns simultaneously - two types of ammunition for each gun) and the hoists and loading trays (automatic within the turret) were arranged in such a way that the hoist had to be to the side of the gun to properly load it - the guns had vertically sliding breeches. Each of the four hoist had a separate hydraulically powered arrangement that would tilt and rotate the ammunition to align it with a sideways loading tray for the gun. Hence why you needed space inbetween the two gun pairs. The job of the still-present loaders in the turret was to manually remove spent casings from the loading trays btw.

That autoloader design was "a bit" complicated and prone to failure and replaced by a new model with the Mle 1935 of the same turret, which was mounted on destroyers and designated anti-surface fire only (read: no need for loading at high elevation). In that one the two guns are still spaced apart since the new autoloader was a single central hoist between the guns - in the center of the turret ring - that pushed a four-round drum of ammo into the turret where it would rotate and tilt to align with the loading trays for the guns.

Øystein · « **Reply #501 on:** 26 February 2019, 15:57:35 »

Live-stream of the salvage operation of the KNM Helge Ingstad - it should be completed in a couple of days. Barring any rapid turn of the weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iynqr4FaJK4

marauder648 · « **Reply #502 on:** 27 February 2019, 10:38:18 »

and speaking of naval guns, someone put a really interesting post here about Civil War guns and what they could do

https://imgur.com/gallery/jxpQFC7

Kidd · « **Reply #503 on:** 27 February 2019, 11:02:05 »

Quote from: Øystein on 26 February 2019, 15:57:35

Live-stream of the salvage operation of the KNM Helge Ingstad - it should be completed in a couple of days. Barring any rapid turn of the weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iynqr4FaJK4

Damn, the wonders of technology... what else are people going to livestream next?

so far so good

chanman · « **Reply #504 on:** 27 February 2019, 15:52:40 »

Quote from: Kidd on 27 February 2019, 11:02:05

Damn, the wonders of technology... what else are people going to livestream next?

Probably the ship getting into the collision in the first place

Øystein · « **Reply #505 on:** 27 February 2019, 16:35:49 »

They are going to move the vessel about 30km to another side of the area, since it's been forecast rougher weather on friday and they have to avoid bigger waves. So they'll spend a day or so carrying the ship like that to a better anchorage and complete the operation there.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #506 on:** 27 February 2019, 17:38:17 »

I assume she is a write-off.

chanman · « **Reply #507 on:** 27 February 2019, 17:54:28 »

Quote from: Feenix74 on 27 February 2019, 17:38:17

I assume she is a write-off.

They're going to need a lot of silica gel to dry that mother out

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #508 on:** 27 February 2019, 17:58:40 »

Just pack it in rice.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #509 on:** 27 February 2019, 20:41:32 »

Quote from: Feenix74 on 27 February 2019, 17:38:17

I assume she is a write-off.

Considering she took flooding all the way into the engine room because of defective shaft seals, and that she's spent how long effectively completely submerged? The corrosion visible on the outside of the hull is going to be endemic to everything inside. If they don't send her to the breakers I'll be shocked.