"King Haarahld VI"-class, paint art

pokermind wrote:Found this cut away drawing of a 16" turret on Iowa Class BBs that shows how little of the length in in the turret or behind the splinter shield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun#mediaviewer/File:Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg you can look at lager view and it's a good render Using the old hash marks on paper method looks like a third of the gun is in the turret, and two thirds outside Note the shock absorbing cylinders that allow gun to recoil are top mounted so gun can be raised to a high angle after loading by lowering the breach.

Poker

Poker, I don't think he's far out at all on the indicated barrel lengths. Maybe a little, but not much. I'm using the standard US practice in which the barrel length includes the breech. Therefore a 10" 40 cal is 400 inches (33' 4") including breech, and it looks to me like (allowing for the portion behind the shield) he's about right on that. Hard to tell from the image on my laptop, but overall, pretty darned close, I'd say.

runsforcelery wrote:
[snip quote]

Poker, I don't think he's far out at all on the indicated barrel lengths. Maybe a little, but not much. I'm using the standard US practice in which the barrel length includes the breech. Therefore a 10" 40 cal is 400 inches (33' 4") including breech, and it looks to me like (allowing for the portion behind the shield) he's about right on that. Hard to tell from the image on my laptop, but overall, pretty darned close, I'd say.

On guns what is the maximum elevation like say 45 degrees and how much recoil for each gun, that will determine the height of the gun above the deck IE (Sine (angle) x (length recoil + length end of breach to trunnion at rest)) + distance from trunnion to bottom of recoil rail gives the trunnion height above deck

Dilandu, RFC Thanks for this thread.

mh1 wrote:Dilandu, RFC Thanks for this thread.

Indeed, many thanks for the illustrations and for fueling an interesting exchange on the arcana of ship design.

I do miss the black hull and red strands above and below the guns/gun ports of the broadside.

Because my Latin was learnt many decades ago and I've forgotten most it!
Cheers
John
PS: Churchill was correct - why would anyone want to say 'Oh table'?

Boronian wrote:

John Prigent wrote:numquam est utilis auctor conquiritis - sciat quod scripsit.

Cheers
John

Did you want to use "utilis est" as it is useful to? Then it should be "utile", as "it" is neuter, and be constructed with infinitive hence "conquirere". I suppose "auctor" is the object to "conquirere" therefore it should be "auctorem" as conquirere uses the accusative.
I wonder why the subjuntive in "sciat".

runsforcelery wrote:They aren't thinking in terms of hits that take out the mast, and even if that happens, they aren't thinking in terms of long range gunnery. If they were going to be fighting peer warships, that would be a factor. They aren't, so it isn't.

When a ship captain who is still trying to adjust to the transition to galleon from oars -- the oars that God doubtless intended -- encounters a King Haraald, thinking may not be highest on his list of priorities, unless he is really, really good.

BobG wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Well, there she is: "King Haarahld VI", fast battleship/superiority demonstrator as i could describe her.

One thing seems clear to me from seeing this: it will scare the hell out of any non-Charisian naval personnel. Even those who saw the ironclad river barges (and survived) will find this a different and even more scary ship.

I'll be curious to see how many of the CoGA ships continue to attack when they are brought under accurate fire at several thousand yards.

-- Bob G

Looks VERY much like the RFS "Danton" class. (Obsolete when designed and launched)

lyonheart wrote:Hi Dilandu,

Are you seriously suggesting 25 pounder smooth-bores have the same range as rifled 8"or 10" guns?
***SNIP***
L

Dilandu wrote:
I really doubt that any CoGA ships would be operationg outside coastal waters against that ships. They would attack at night, or in straits and gulfs, were the space is limited. So, the range advantage of KH would be more or less theoretical, than the effect of 8-inch shells on unarmored wooden ships.

Lyonheart, I think what Dilandu means is that any conventional galleon is going to stay in coastal waters once the KHVIIs deploy. Therefore, any engagements are likely going to be at shorter range than they would be on the open ocean. He isn't trying to claim the 25 pound smoothbores can match the range of the 8" and 10" rifles. He is saying that under these conditions the range advantage is not going to be as important as it would be under different circumstances.

Henry Brown wrote:
Lyonheart, I think what Dilandu means is that any conventional galleon is going to stay in coastal waters once the KHVIIs deploy. Therefore, any engagements are likely going to be at shorter range than they would be on the open ocean. He isn't trying to claim the 25 pound smoothbores can match the range of the 8" and 10" rifles. He is saying that under these conditions the range advantage is not going to be as important as it would be under different circumstances.

To make that assertion the galleon must accept battle close to shore where the play of wind and wave present complicated and dangerous problems. Getting caught on a lee shore is just the least of the possible problems.

The KHVII can stay in deeper waters and shoot the poor galleon trying to survive by navigating a very limited set of manouver options which are obvious to everyone in the encounter. That sort to tactic is one of desperation and would result only in increasing the number of shells used to destroy the galleon. It would add nothing to the galleons ability to actually land solid shot on the KHVII's armour.

PeterZ wrote:

Henry Brown wrote:
Lyonheart, I think what Dilandu means is that any conventional galleon is going to stay in coastal waters once the KHVIIs deploy. Therefore, any engagements are likely going to be at shorter range than they would be on the open ocean. He isn't trying to claim the 25 pound smoothbores can match the range of the 8" and 10" rifles. He is saying that under these conditions the range advantage is not going to be as important as it would be under different circumstances.

To make that assertion the galleon must accept battle close to shore where the play of wind and wave present complicated and dangerous problems. Getting caught on a lee shore is just the least of the possible problems.

The KHVII can stay in deeper waters and shoot the poor galleon trying to survive by navigating a very limited set of manouver options which are obvious to everyone in the encounter. That sort to tactic is one of desperation and would result only in increasing the number of shells used to destroy the galleon. It would add nothing to the galleons ability to actually land solid shot on the KHVII's armour.

I didn't say I thought it was a winning strategy. For that matter, offhand, I can't think of ANY conditions where a wooden galleon with muzzleloading cannons could successfully engage something like a KHVII. It just seemed to me like earlier in the thread Lyonheart had misinterpreted something Dilandu posted. I was merely pointing that out.