Another rule change proposal

Discussion in 'MWC (defunct)' started by djranier, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. djranier

    djranier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Posts:
    1,756
    Don Cole has just posted this rule change proposal, and is asking for co-signers. I signed. I think he only needs 1 more to get it on the ballet for voting at Nats.
    Guys
    I need some co-signers on this, this will help get some new ships on the water.

    This rule proposal is to allow sidemounted cannons on Pre-Dreadnoughts.

    Proposer - Don Cole
    Co-signers. Rick King, Frank Falango, David Ranier

    Rule proposal - Old

    H. Warship Classes

    7. Classes 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 may have sidemounted cannons (any cannon which is angled more than 15 degrees from the longitudinal centerline of the model). Warships in these classes are allowed sidemounts as follows:
    d) Rotating turrets (turrets that traverse from one quadrant to another) are allowed on classes 4-8 provided that they do not violate the above restrictions.

    Rule Proposal - New

    H. Warship Classes

    7. Class 3 Pre-Dreadnought battleships with a beam equal to, or greater than 73 feet, and Classes 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 may have sidemounted cannons (any cannon which is angled more than 15 degrees from the longitudinal centerline of the model). Warships in these classes are allowed sidemounts as follows:
    d) Rotating turrets (turrets that traverse from one quadrant to another) are allowed on classes 3-8 provided that they do not violate the above restrictions.

    Reasoning - Some of the pre-dreds have wider beams than class 4 Dreadnoughts, and most are within 1/2 in width, so we do not see how these could cause anymore problems than some of the class 4 Dreadnoughts. The 73 ft beam was selected, so that the ships with sidemounts, match the Pre-Dreds allowed to use 3 guns, and 1/2 unit pumps.

    One of the arguements that I have heard is that they are narrow and tip to much. But as stated above some of them are actually wider that class 4 boats.
     
  2. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Would the proposed sidemounts have to be in turrets? Most allowed predreadnoughts have wing turret mounted intermediate guns except for the Deutschlands.
     
  3. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Typically the fast gun clubs require guns to be positioned in the main battery turrets. Even though the "intermediate" caliber guns were considered part of the ship's main battery, I'd imagine the letter of the law is that the guns must be mounted in the largest caliber gun turrets. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the MWC doesn't even allow you to arm the casement guns on the Scharnhorst class ACRs even though they are the same caliber gun as the turrets. That's just hearsay though, I don't know for sure.
     
  4. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Arming the wing turrets would allow the Regina Elena class to mount 3 guns. Its main armament 12" guns was 2 single mounts with 12! 8" guns in wing turrets.
     
  5. djranier

    djranier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Posts:
    1,756
    We could only arm the 2 main turrets, fore and aft.
     
  6. CaptainCook

    CaptainCook Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Posts:
    101
    I am not yet a member of MWC but I would like like to see this proposal passed. It would hopefully get more of these battleships on the water and rise their popularity. At a time when there are numerous North Carolinas, Nagatos, Houstons, Lutzows, and VDTs, it would be nice if we could get some more unusual ships built. If this proposal is passed, I would be interested in building a predread in the future.
     
  7. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Can someone post the rules results on here?
    Mikey
     
  8. SnipeHunter

    SnipeHunter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,361
    You're a few weeks early for that, dont expect anything till probably a week or so into November.
     
  9. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Ok
    Thanks for the reply.
    Mikey
     
  10. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Actually, the MWC rules specify that cannons must be mounted in the turrets or casemates that house the main guns... so if a given ship (like the Omaha CL, for example) that has its main gun mounted in casemates, that's a legal hardpoint.
     
  11. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    I don't think any of the pre-dreds had main gun armament in casements or wing turrets. It was the Dreadnaughts that started fitting one caliber guns to all turrets ... wasn't that the main dividing line between Pre-Dreadnaughts and Dreadnaughts? :)
     
  12. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    No time legal ones anyway. Some of the French battleships of the 1890's did.
     
  13. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    I saw the term semi-dreadnaught the other day while reading a book. Does anyone know what that refers to?
    Mikey
     
  14. Ragresen

    Ragresen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Posts:
    322
    Did a fast web search and here is an intresting find.

    http://www.cityofart.net/bship/nelson.htm

    http://www.cityofart.net/bship/semi_dreds.html

    From the quick Scan they were a design of around the same time Dreadnaught was being built. Sort of a Compromise to put as many big guns on board as possible.
     
  15. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,319
    They really need to think more about their web site name. City of Art, not too bad. City o Fart, not that good.
     
  16. warspiteIRC

    warspiteIRC RIP

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Posts:
    756
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    "I saw the term semi-dreadnaught the other day while reading a book. Does anyone know what that refers to?
    Mikey"

    maybe they are only semi-afraid of it.
     
  17. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Maybe it's a city of semi-farts...
     
  18. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,530
    The term "semi-dreadnought" refers to a ship that didn't quite incorporate all the improvements that HMS dreadnought did. A fine example would be IJN Satsuma. Originally planned as the first Japanese dreadnought, its design was modified when 12" gun production fell behind schedule, and a number of its planned single 12" gun turrets were replaced with twin 10" gun turrets.
     
  19. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    What is the break point with the smaller guns? Over 8" or would you say it is a mixed caliber ship conceived of after HMS Dreadnought? What brings this to mind is why is the Russian Imp. Pavel a semidreadnought with 12" and 8" guns when the USS Connecticut with 12" and 8" guns isn't considered one? This is very much OT I should think but an interesting thought problem.
     
  20. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,530
    I would say it's more of a date or an intent thing than a gun-size thing. All the ships I've seen labeled "semi-dreadnought" were built after Dreadnought was, and many of them represented an alternate evolutionary branch than dreadnought herself.