I don't have a problem cutting out hull casements, either. My Von der Tann had windows all over the place. Here's a drawing of Fuso, 1915: http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Fuso/pages/FUSO-15b.htm Clearly, the casements along the sides are hull-mounted, as they are flush with the side of the hull. Hyuga, 1918: http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Ise/pages/Hyuga-18a.htm Again, other than the aft-most gun, the casements are flush with the hull. Hiei, 1930: http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Kongo/pages/Hiei-30.htm Once again, flush. Don't see where there could be any question about the casements on any of these ships, even before the rule was changed. Now look at these: http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Bayern/pages/Baden_Bayern-16.htm http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Bayern/pages/Bayern-16d.htm The casements are set back from the hull sides. Is that outboard (planked!) area a deck? A very narrow one. I imagine nobody went out there when the ship was underway unless they had to (all these boats were notoriously "wet" forward).
Ah, but Mike, I didn't ask how it would be defined in our rules. I asked how a naval engineer would define it. Or anyone with any knowledge of ships, for that matter.
I'm no naval expert, but I've always thought the Bayern's casemates looked like superstructure. The defining criteria in my eyes is that if you draw a line along the casemates it leaves the edge of the hull (up by Anton) and never returns to the edge of the hull at any point. Another way to look at it: If you walk from the stern forward following the edge of the deck you are never forced upwards until the Anton turret. *shrug*
Totally understand that viewpoint, Jeff. Unfortunately, I never got into navel engineering so cannot make a knowledgable comment about full size ship construciton. But I do know the casement rules and that is good enough for me.
Way back when I got in the hobby I always thought the casement levels on these ships were part of the hull. To me the main deck of a ship is where the big guns sit. Anything below that level is hull. There are lots of ships that step the deck down towards that stern. You think the step should be close to the bow I think it should be close to the stern. Back when... I asked someone with a Baden why the casements got to be solid. He said because they are 1/2" back from the hull. We got out the tape and checked them. His were not 1/2" back from the hull. So I asked why do they get to be solid then, they're not 1/2" back. He didn't know, its the way the hull came and that's how everyone else did it. Back to your photos. On this one (It's a model so who knows how close to the real thing it really is): http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Bayern/pages/Baden_Bayern-16.htm The flat spot in the back right below the stern smoke stack. How close to the edge of the hull is that? Is it 6' (1/2" in our world)? To me in that model it looks less than 6', but can you really tell from a model. I think it's hull, you don't. I don't think either one of us will change the others mind. Go find some good prints that show the whole casement level is 1/2" back. You can change my mind pretty easy with that. Until then it's just opinion 1 vs opinion 2.
Hi Bob, Thanks for your thoughts. Let me see if I can address each of your points. Main deck is where the main guns (I assume that means the barbettes for the main armament) sit. You are correct from a nautical terminology standpoint. Have to be careful with the "anything below is hull", though. Many main guns were mounted on inboard deck levels where there was an outer, lower deck (such as these boats). This is especially true when you look at the main gun mounts once superfiring turrets came into use. Another pointer to look at is ships with a main-armament turret mounted centerline between the funnels. Look at this pic of Koenig: http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Koenig/pages/Koenig-14b.htm Main deck is not necessarily the lowest deck all the way aft, which is why the effort in the revamped rules to define step-decks, weather decks, etc. Aha! Going through other pics on that website, I came across this photo: http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Bayern/pages/Baden-16a.htm In it, you can see ladders leading from the upper, forecastle deck (classed as "main") down to the lower stepped deck outboard of the casements. Again, it's a damn narrow deck, and I wouldn't want to go out there in any kind of heavy seas, but..... I imagine the only time anyone ventured out onto those was during mooring / unmooring. Opinion 1 vs 2. Yup. So why is your opinion the rule? I do want to make one thing clear: I'm "stirring the pot" or "beating the dead horse" here to try and get even more clarity and uniformity into the rules, not to make anyone angry or generate any angst among those reading
No Angst here! Heh. Personally, I think the casement rule as written is clear, well defined, and can be applied to every ship with casements. The only question seems to be why certain ships need to abide by the rule. I think we all can agree that everyone does have an opinion one way or the other on the casement rule. However, interpetation and clarification of the casement rule lies with the BOD (if MWC ... no idea for IRCWCC) if I remember right (or is it the CD?). Mayhaps it would be better if the casement rule within the MWC is discussed on the MWC rules list where BOS members can see and discuss.
Again, I strongly discourage movement of discussions to closed doors and off-site locations, especially since the IRCWCC seems inclined to mimic the MWC rules on casemates and thus the discussions regarding this rule are of relevance to more than just MWC members. Why can't the BOS folk join us here in a frank and open conversation? Can non-MWC members watch the MWC mailing lists?
Hmm ... if I was a BOD member, I probably would not want to hold an public discussion on a private organization's rule. I would post the results of those discussion such as a rule clarification on a public forum such as this one. Let me clarify: If the intent of this thread is to try to prompt a change within the casement rules currently in effect in MWC and IRCWCC ... then this is the wrong place to do it. Both organizations have a specific process for getting a rule changed. If the intent of this thread is to voice displeasure or just discuss why the casement rule should not apply to certain ships, then here is the right place.
Ok, one more thought and I'll let this topic go: I've heard several variations on "dem's da rules". I have not yet heard anyone actually address my point: Define clearly what it means to be superstructure vs. hull, and apply that to these (and other) ships. Not "according to these plans" or "according to this arbitrary ruling" (why 6'? Why not 25'? Or 3?). Apply common sense and clearcut definitions, then write the rules to reflect them: The following from the Nautical Dictionary: http://www.seatalk.info/ and my Bluejackets manual. Hull: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The body of a ship between the deck and the keel. The shaped structure of the bottom of a vessel that provides buoyancy and seaworthiness Deck: Any horizontal platform in a ship. Weather Deck: Any deck exposed to the elements (i.e. not enclosed). Superstructure: [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Any above deck structure[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In this museum model, you can clearly see the ladders going from the forecastle deck to the lower, outboard casement deck. http://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831461538/sizes/l/in/photostream/[/FONT] Which leads me back to my initial contention: If you can walk outboard of it without falling into the sea, then it's superstructure. The prosecution (after all, I'm not defending the current rules, so I must be the prosecution!) rests.
Sounds like a good arguement Jeff. Put it in a rule proposal and send it to the secretary for next years ballot. As for clearly defined ... it is defined in the casement rule. Using a dictionary definition doesn't even apply unless it is in a rule change proposal.
Since this thread was created out of a topic-divergent set of posts that were discussing aspects of the rule and view points on it, I would hesitate to say that the point of the thread is to prompt a change and I would probably say that the point of the thread is to simply discuss the rule. If someone decides that from that discussion they have come up with a better rule to propose they should then proceed to the specific process for their group to do so. But this is a forum, and on a forum discussion is the goal, hence we are discussing.
This is a great photo of the Baden. http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Bayern/pages/Baden-16a.htm Not only does it show a ladder but it has people on it. If your eyes are better than mine you should be able to count the rungs on the ladder. Take the "normal" spacing of the rungs on a ladder and use it to show scale. You can do the same thing with people. Now back in 1920s the average height for a German was what? 5'5"? I think we could agree those people on the ship are not over 6' tall. Turn them sideways or estimate off the ladder rungs. How far back is the casement level from the edge of the ship? I think it still looks closer than 6'. Just because you can go down there does not mean it's the main deck, for our hobby. Warspite had a railing on the front set of casements. You can't call everything from there up super structure, for our hobby. This is why the rule was writen with deffinition of terms. You can look things up in a number of places and get slightly different meanings. We use terms in our hobby to define things that are not the same in the real world. When the funnel, turret, bridge... was hit by shell fire no one yelled out "Hey that doesn't count it's above the weather deck." Weather deck is any deck exsposed to the weather, ok, but we define what the word is and how it is used in the rules. That's why it was done that way so no one can say this is how I define it and that's how I am applying it. We had a lot of that in the past and wanted it to end. Why is it 1/2" I have no idea. Why are ships rated at 23, 24, 26, 28 second speed. I don't know, someone at sometime thought it was a good way to do it. But that's what it is until it changes. I could see getting rid of the 1/2". Why on Warspite, VDT, Kongo... should there be a little area of the ship that's solid when either side is open, just cause it's past the 1/2" mark. Make it all open. I'm sure there are a few ships where a main gun barbet sits on super structure, Derflinger I think is one. But her casement level starts above our term for weather deck comes close to the outside of the ship and returns in. One of Warspites barbets is 1/2 in and 1/2 out of the higher deck level. But in our rules is partly in super structure. One of the German armored cruisers had the same size main guns in a hull casement. But that's not the level we'd start the 3/8" deck at. Another reason we added the ship diagrams, so there was no questions, no way to claim it's one way not the other. "Opinion 1 vs 2. Yup. So why is your opinion the rule?" I agree with more than 2/3 of the members in the two major clubs. I am always open to changing my mind. Several years ago I had a Warspite with more hard area than currently allowed, a lot more. Without out it getting a chit I changed it. After talking with many people about it I changed my mind and opened the ship up. If many people want to change the "German 3" then it will be done. But right now it's not that way. If you propose a rule in the MWC, make sure and point people to this thread. Or we'll have to type it all over again. My fingers can't handle it.
Hahaha I have been pushing the MWCI to use a forum for that exact reason. However 2/3 of the participants want you to have to type if over and over and over !!!! HAAHAHAHA
Hi Bob, One major weakness of the "mailing list" format that MWC uses is that it lacks the... interactive feel of a a forum. Too often on the 'lists, a subject gets brought up, a bunch of "me too's" jump in, then it gets diverted or buried & comes to nothing. A forum such as this one keeps topics (mostly!) organized and on-target. Keep in mind you don't "agree with 2/3 of the members..". You agree with 2/3 of the members who voted. And even at that, I'd bet many of the ones who voted yes either didn't fully understand or didn't fully think it through. It reads like a "let's fix the Nagato issue" that used broad strokes. Many captains would have examined how that rule would be applied to that one case and thought it good. What I've been pointing out in this thread is that the rule doesn't work as well on the classes of German ships in question. I think (with a lot more feedback, primarily from this thread) I will hammer together a further clarification of the rule. Not just tack on exceptions (that just leads to more angst when people feel others are getting a "better deal" (example: US Congress) than others. Instead, I'll try and work out a refining of the definitions and how they are applied. I like the "no more than 1/2" of horizontal stringers part of the new rules, that makes alot of sense. We'll see if I can pull something together that will work. Once I have it put together, I'll post it up here so people can try it out (see how it fits with their ships). My goal will be to use broad brush strokes and clear definitions, yet be applicable to all ships in the hobby. We'll see if I can pull it off.
I'm not part of this discussion, just an interested observer, but.... Question: are the casemented areas being discussed, generally above, level with, or below the line of any deck, which, when awash, would cause the ship in question to be declared sunk?
I'm not an Axis captain nor do I play one on TV but IMHO they should be solid on a Baden as they are above the lowest weather deck and inset from the hull sides.
