Since we only count sink points, In any ship that is built strictly for treaty I am of the opinion that anything 1 inch above the waterline does not have to be penetrable that should fix the problem with scale casemates. I am not alone in this thinking. It would need to be a local house rule and the ship could not compete in any other format but isnt that why we do treaty anyway.
In principle, I am not opposed to what you say. If someone wanted to though, they could take a big mama like say, Lexington or Akagi and make everything above 1 inch above the waterline impenetrable AND airtight, so she wouldn't sink. On Bob's Unryu class Amagi (to distinguish it from the Akagi class carrier Amagi), I'd think that making those sponsons and supports impenetrable is no big deal. Phil has another good point though, you might want to check with one of the IRCWCC guys and get an interpretation from them as well in case you choose to run her as a convoy ship in a standard fast gun match up sometime. For Treaty battling, I doubt anyone would have a serious issue with 6 supports. Just put ribs there to minimize the impact to penetrable area, and it should be good.
Our rules require any ship built must not have positive boyancy ,so any build on the lexington that would not allow it to sink would be illegal anyway .I would think a good local rule for a treaty only ship would state cassemates and their surroundings need not be penetrable. That is how I would make it if I were King of Treatyville
Bob, Your question about sponsons on Japanese carriers is a good one. I have the same question about the area on the Yamato in the stern area where the life boats were stored. If it is not made solid my Yamato would need 3, three stingers beteen that set of ribs. Thanks,
Interesting topic here. I have not been on-line much for the last couple of weeks, and am just now trying to catch up on things. I will discuss the questions with the other founders and get back to you in the very near future. I anticipate that we will deal with this issue with a rule interpretation. Mikey
Bob- As the guy on the ground so to speak, what's your opinion of how the sponsons should be dealt with?
Bob Pottle. Since he is the one building the aircraft carrier, I am curious as to what his opinion on it is.
Strange - I posted a reply to Gettysburg on Feb. 6 but it's disappeared. My response was that many Japanese ships had those odd stern sponsons for the ship's boats but most would be contained within the 3/8" deck stringer with enough of the stringer left to support the top edge of the balsa sheeting. That's the case for the Ibuki and the much larger Amagi /Unryu. I asked how deep the sponsons for boats were on the Yamato. Bob
I think that he had to roll something back and a little of the post history was lost. It's just a guess though.
Here's a suggestion on how to deal with sponsons for ships boats that are faired into the hull as on Japanese ships, versus being simple sideways extensions of the quarterdeck plating on other ships (i.e. WWII monitors HMS Roberts and Abecrombie): 1) Sponson height less than 3/8" - no problem, they're part of the deck stringer 2) Sponson height 3/8" - there's no flat secion of deck stringer left attach the balsa sheeting for perhaps half of the length of the sponson; allow a 1/8" stringer following the curve of the sponson's lower edge and remove a similar area of solid material from the sponson. This will add very little extra impenetrable area (perhaps 1/8" x 2-3") and an equivalent small area can be removed from the sponson itself. We're talking about maybe 3/8 square inch. 3) Sponson height more than 3/8" - as in 2) allow a 1/8" stringer along the lower edge of the sponson. (I doubt any sponsons would be deeper than 1/2" except maybe on Yamato) Again remove an area from the sponson equal to any extra impenetrable area gained by it's extension below the allowed 3/8" deck stringer. Bob
I think it would be safe to say that we all want to make it easier for builders to build these ships, and keep the scale look by including the items that protrude from the hulls. We simply need to find a way in which we can cater to the builders of these unusual ships, without impacting the the overall game-play to the point where they have an un-fair advantage in sinkability (as we don't count points). So I have a couple more questions. Bob P. How wide are the sponsons, and how far above the waterline are they? Also, how many? And could you arrange your ribs along the length of the hull around the idea of making sure that you place a rib under each of the sponsons? (I think this was Mike D.'s idea). If we were to allow the entire sponson to be hard. Bob A. If you were allowed one or more additional stringers in order to maintain the scale look of the boat storage area, then how close to the waterline would the lower stringers be? And would you be willing to remove the additional hard area from the sub-deck/deck, and/or the 1"below the waterline hard area? (between the ribs that are in question)
As we are already discussing the issue of penetrable area. A couple of other thoughts have come to the surface. One concerns the casemate gun areas. The question is.. Do we need to consider allowing them to be hard in order to make these ships easier to build, considering that we do not count damage? The other issue concerns ships with unusually high freeboards like the liners, and some of the large aircraft-carriers. The question is.. Do we need to consider allowing them to make the upper portion of the hull hard? (say anything above 2" above the waterline) Or perhaps allow them to have a 1/4" stinger 2" above the waterline in order to sheet the higher hull. Also. Would this freeboard idea impact some of the current warships that are being battled already? If so. Should we limit the idea to the liners, and carriers? Mikey
I don't think we should encourage hard area. Does it hurt anything? Probably not, but I dont think we should make it easy.
The sink deck on my saratoga is the deck below the flight deck so I am 3/8 hard surface below that. I just call it sunk when the water gets to the holes.
Mikey, The sponson dimensions for the Amagi/Unryu are in my post on page 2 of this thread. Amagi's sponsons start about 5/8" above the waterline. The sponsons differ in size, shape and number between the various classes of Japanese carriers. They are always far enough apart so a rib could be run through their thickest point (i.e. the max. distance outboard of the main hull), but due to their shape would have to be solid to be sheeted without looking terrible. On the Ibuki there are 2 large sponsons to support the heaviest gun platforms, but because they're completely above the original deck line of the heavy cruiser hull penetrability isn't an issue. Bob
Bob I have discussed the sponsons with the other founders, and we have decided to allow the sponsons to be hard as long as there is a rib located behind them, and they are in the scale locations. That way the amount of extra hard area allowed will be limited. Sound alright to you? Mikey
Sounds fine except the rib should correspond to the greatest width of the sponson outward from the hull side because most are not symmetrical fore and aft. Bob
