Casemate / Stringers Rule Discussion

One thing I'd like clarification on regarding the new casement rules: Since the "Weather Deck / Casement Deck" changes, does that mean the casements for Baden (previously considered superstructure, and inset 1/2" from side of hull) are now considered as and SCORED AS hull for hits? If the answer is "no", then there is no reason for Spudsy to have to cut windows in that beautiful casement deck he's making me. If the answer is "yes".... please let me know who originated that rule change so I can express my appreciation properly when I see him on the water.

 

How are you gaining a stringer? Baden has always had an armor belt, and if the casemates are no longer considered superstructure then you are gaining a significant amount of penetrable area--above and below the old deck rim!

 

I agree with Hovey. I have battled my Baden at regionals and Nats with the new legal cut-outs and let me tell you all I do is patch patch patch. I believe I have more penetrable area on my ship than any other ship in my class but havent verified it. If you like to patch and sheet casements, which by the way get almost completely shot out every sortie, then its a good rule for you. I dont think its a good rule for the Baden and would rather have no casements at all frankly. I get NO combat advantage from casements which I believe is the main basis for having the casements cut out in the first place, the 'unfair' advantage that the casements offer.

They threw all casement ships into the same pot regardless of their locations or style of construction. They wanted to 'fix' the Nagato and took the opportunity to add the other ships as riders.. in my opinion. The group would of course pass the rule as many folks felt the Nagato had to be fixed and that it was too hard. So the whole deal passed largely on the back of the Nagato. I based this on the many many hours of conversations I have had about it. In the end the casement modifications to the Baden and Konig did not affect it sink-ability at all but strictly increased the chance to score points with above's.

Overall I think most captains feel this is a fair rule, largely due to the fact that the 'fair' shifted to them. A 'fair' rule would have been one which suited both opposing sides, a compromise. I believe a rule like this, that merely moves the 'fairness' from one opposing side to another does not create fairness but rather animosity.

I would rather have just started with 500 points in damage (more then ever scored in a battle on my casements) so I didn't have to take 30-45 minutes patching and repairing casements between every battle.

I was also upset that there was no grand-father clause OR time allowance to get this done. It was 'as soon as it passed we are tossing out chits!! For some folks it was a major undertaking that required a great deal of modification to my ship.. AND I am NOT a woodworker. It took weeks and weeks to get it figured out and cut out. In the end I think I cut out too much but will have to fix it with a new casement deck.

I have no idea what a middle ground would be.. I would have to take a lot of time to research it. Overall I feel that ships in the same class should be able to compete evenly. Overall I believe the rules lately have been slowly eroding what few advantages casements ships have to the point that we will have absolutely no advantages from casements at all but still be required to run at 28 seconds.

From the beginning of the hobby, even before I learned about anything, I never thought that casements above the hull should be cut-out. On the VDT, the only hull I had at the time, there were casements below the gunwale and to me that was part of the hull and should be cut-out. As it had no superstructure to speak off there was no controversial decks to think about. When I got the Baden, long before any discussion was brought up to me, it made sense that the forecastle deck shouldn't be cut-out as it was above the gunwhale, it was inset back from the gunwale and as I saw it had nothing to do with the hull at all. This is in stark contrast to other ships that have the casement decks built into the hull therefore being below the gunwale. The warspite does have a mix with casements on the hull and inset casements near the A and B turret. The warspite is a good example of why different construction types should be taken into account. If the warspite had a second casement deck inset above the gunwale, keeping its existing casements, I would not expect that captain to cut them out even though they were casements. I always felt that the casement issue was clear cut .. if its below the gunwale its part of the hull, it gives an unfair combat advantage, and should be cut out. If its above the gunwale, it would of course be inset otherwise it would be below the gunwale, then it would be a super structure deck on any ship.

I am so glad I didn't have a casement in the crows nest .....

Overall I like the variety of the ships and how they are constructed. I don't feel we should pass rules like this which is an attempt to covert a ship, which has advantages and disadvantages, and chip away at the advantages until its reduced to the same set of traits as a ship on the opposing fleet. They are not supposed the be the same ships which is where the uniqueness of the hobby comes from. Casement ships were always tough to hit but due to slow speed, smaller size, and low hull volume make them relatively easy for an experienced battler to sink. There are a few notable exceptions to that like good deck seal and titan pumps but generally they go down fairly fast.

This rule is a successful attempt to turn our hobby into Nascar much like the COTF concept. Some guys want all the ships to be the same .. which in our hobby is ridiculous.

The ships should retain all of their unique traits with their inherent advantages and disadvantages. Should I propose a rule to make an NC 28 seconds because my ship is 28? Its not fair that I cant run the NC down on the pond right? That would be a ridiculous rule.....

 

Tug, that proves my point completely. However in the case of the Baden the entire casement deck is above the weather-deck and gunwale. For the purposes of the casement rule the weather deck was defined as the upper-most deck, which is not the same on every ship. So effectively the weather deck was moved up one level making the casement deck below the weather deck and establishing the forecastle deck edge as the gunwale. This was a manipulation of the ship to fit the rule to make the casements penetrable. Overall I think it defeated the spirit of the overall casement rule which was the unfair advantage of casements and the amount of hard area they provided in the hull / penetrable battling surface. Not all ships were built this way nor would be affected and several ships had a combination of the two.

So I agree with you and the above listed rule completely.

 

Then they can chit me at every battle. I'll be damned if I'm going to resheet my ABOVE THE HULL LINE (aka Superstructure) casements every battle. I could see their arguement for something like Von der Tann, which has a whole mess of casements clearly below the deck edge. But I'm sorry, if you can walk in front of the casement without falling into the sea, that is superstructure, not hull.

 

Maybe define if a deck is a weather deck by railings at the edge of the deck? The bulge on the Nagato has no railing, except starting at a point abreast the second to the last casemate guns, an indication that it was not considered an actual deck that sailors were to use. The added bulge actually drops below the original gunwale at that point. Kongos railings start at the beginning of the step, very similar location as far as the deck construction. Everything above the weather deck is hard area anyway.

How do your drawings of other casemated ships stack up to that? Ie Baden.

Ron Hunt

 

I just looked up a few scale models of Baden and they all show railings in front of said casemates.
EDIT: A shot of a Baden scuttled which shows railings on the fwd port casemates. How far down the length they go? I don't know.
http://img8.hostingpics.net/pics/39...en_pic.jpg
Das Butts

 

Here is a good picture from Tom Tanners site that shows a stern shot of the Baden and shows the room and railing outboard the Casemates.

http://www.sms-navy.com/bb/SMS_Bayern-stern.jpg

It is clearly Superstructure

 

Need to look for pictures, not scale models. The guys who build scale models like railings to much and sometimes put them where they don't belong. I have seen a "scale" model of the Nagato with railings the whole length of the bulge. So far I haven't found a good picture but I am sure there is one out there.

Ron Hunt

 

Rob, sorry that picture is too grainy and from the wrong angle to show if the railings ran the whole length of the casemate deck.

Ron Hunt

 

LOL, need to get your eyes checked, I can see it on the Starboard side, regardless what about the fact that the cleats are on the weatherdeck outboard the Casemates?

http://www.sms-navy.com/bb/SMS_Baden-stbdmid.jpg

On ships where the Casemates were to the edge, the Cleats were in the SS which required opening a External Bulhead door and bring the line inside to anchor to a cleat.

Also notice the ladder between the 3rd and 4th casemate to this weatherdeck.......if this isn't enough proof, i don't know what would be.....

 

Found a picture of the Baden sinking in 1919 that clearly shows the railings extended the whole length of the casemates. Kind of cool because the ship is clearly not sunk, but the casemate deck is underwater with the railing sticking up. I am unsure if it actually sank after this photograph or recovered. It looks close, but the guys pumping out the ship don't seem concerned. It was probably during the gunnery testing trials.

As a side note under the older casemate rule this ship is considered sunk, since the deck is awash.

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/bayern_class.htm

About halfway down the page. Got £25 to waste?

Ron Hunt

 

There is a definite separation of the hull from the casement deck. As to the distance from the edge it is very hard to tell from the pictures. I have seen some that look like 7 feet from the outer edge of the casement to the edge of the hull at midship, based on comparing the ladder mounted to the side of the deck and the height of the sailors compared.

 

Perhaps a rule change that does not include changing the Nagato might have a chance to straighten this out. Nagato is such an actionable word to many captains... I am afraid to say it in public...

 

I've seen 3 Badens built for combat. I think I saw "The Other Jeff Lide's" back at NATS 02, but that's sooooo long ago. Anyhow, the three I have seen had the casement built less than 1/2" from the edge of the hull. In the old rule casements 1/2" or less from the edge of the hull were to be open. I could never understand why they were not open. Just that the hull was made like that so that's the way people built them. Same thing with Kongo hulls.
Way back when, after someone decided that counting holes in the super structure was dumb, the casement rule started. It was made so you could build a model hull out of wood. The cupolas could be solid as they are hard to sheet, there could be 1/8" on either side of the cupola to sheet up to. Why they picked 1/2" back to be solid, I still don't know.
I don't have a set of Baden prints to look at. I know one of the TX guys has a German set. It shows the casement level less than 1/2" from the side of the hull. A lot of people look at the prints and see the armor belt as the edge of the hull, it is shown as the outer most line on paper, but it's not the edge of the hull.
Right now the Baden casements need to be open. Find a better set of prints. A photo with something that can be scaled, that's pretty hard to do. If you can find the evidance that can get the rule changed.
By the way I have a Kongo, Warspite and Goben (Use to have a VDT) all got hit by the casement rule. But I'm glad it clear now. The old rule was only 1-2 sentances and could not cover the ships. Too much complaining, like this, was going on taking away from the fun of battling.

 

If the outer-most line of the hull is not the hull edge what is?

I know we have discussed this over and over... the fact that the rule was so (clear and logical??), it must be the reason the complaining hasn't stopped. In my opinion its rules like this that take the fun out of battling. I was having a tough enough time as it was.. now its way more difficult. At least other ships have casements below the weather deck to provide a reduction of penetrable area. Ships like the Baden and Konig get ZERO benefit and all of the penalty. What is fair about that? I realize that Axis guys voted for it.. yes.. from what I heard largely based on 'the Nagato is too hard'....

If the rule was really to dispel dissension then it should have addressed concerns from both sides of the issue and it didn't. Before the rule was even put on the ballot (it was in May, it may have been already I dont know) I asked that we get some guys together and discuss it. I was told no the decision had been made and it was not up for discussion. I have been trying to find out who was on the 'casement committee' and got no answer, but I believe it may have been only one person. While I appreciate everyone's work in the MWCI, is there no way that person or people could have had more help?

In addition I believe this rule goes into the Axis vs Allies territory and as long as Nats is scored as Axis vs. Allies, rules like this make a difference. If Nats was flag / no flag many of those diehard Allies might have an Axis casement ship. Would they have been so quick to vote for this rule under those circumstances? With the Nagato on the rule.. most likely yes.. if it wasn't.. well maybe not. The point is as long as a committee is formed to consider rules passed that affect one group more than another or the passing of the rule will favor one group over another.. that committee must have representatives from both sides. I don't believe an Axis captain with a French cruiser would qualify as an Allied representative any more than an Allied Captain with axis boat would qualify as an Axis battler.

 

I apologize if it seems I'm reopening a can of worms, but this rule change was clearly not well planned out. McSpuds is addressing the clarity issue with his color-coded line drawings of the ships. But the fundementals need to be revisited as well. The whole "weather deck / casement deck" definition is very weak. While it may now clear up ambiguity in a ship like Nagato, it creates ludicrous scenarios like the Baden - where something that any reasonable person would define as superstructure is now classified as hull. I would welcome the opportunity to be a part of a true COMMITTEE, made up of at least 3 members - preferrably one clearly axis, one clearly allied, and one "switch-hitter" or neutral. Despite my driving all German boats, I honestly do not have a competitive axe to grind, and consider myself fair-minded enough to be either the axis or the neutral party.

 

The edge of the armor belt that is below the deck level is not the edge of the hull. Take Warspite, If the edge of the bulge is the edge of the hull then there is a whole level that is solid, same for Texas and other ships with a big bulge.
You are correct this has been talked about over and over and over............... You and I have had this same talk, what 10 times now...
As for the committee, it started back in 99 or 00 or 01. Before I got into the hobby. It's one of those issues that was worked on for years by many people. I know at the Tangler one year all the captains sat down with ships in front of them and talked about what they thought was the correct thing to do. For the rule as it is now Tim Beckett did most of the work on it. I had input on it. I know he talked to Tyler, Ron, Lamb, Chris P, Chris A, Peter and others. I was not part of all that so I don't know who's ideas were who's. It did take Time about 2 years to get the rule together. I think he was on version 7(?) for the final one.
I don't remember the numbers from the vote, but it was not close. If you toss out the couple people who always vote no on eveything it's an even bigger gap.