Treaty has some pre-dreads I think, if that is the case maybe we should take a look at the solid-casemate effect within their group?
If casemates are to be made solid it is a huge advantage to pre dreads as most of them mounted their large secondary batteries on the main deck, which is the deck below the weather deck. Some of that solid area would be normally hard anyway as it falls in the 3/8" rim area but it would have to be extended further down to reflect the actual deck heights.
Think that's missing the point. Earlier designs had the casements / secondaries mounted along the top edge of the hull. Under the rules (old, new, and future) these are HULL. As such, the gunmount itself can be inpenetrable, but any area's between must be windowed. That is the advantage to driving a predread / dread. Low freeboard and lots of casemented guns means it's hard to punch holes (except in the bow!). Disadvantages are low speed, low unit count, and minimal reserve bouyancy. As naval designs were refined, these secondaries were discovered to be almost useless in any kind of heavy seas. So newer ships were designed with more freeboard, and the casements were moved up from the hull into the superstructure. These newer designs in our hobby have more penetrable area in the hull, but the casements, now superstructure, can be inpenatrable. As for defining hull vs super... that's what I've been posting about for the last month
Yes, I'm bringing it back up. Clarification of definitions: Hull: That portion of the ship below the lowest weather deck at any point along the length of the ship. When the lowest weather deck steps down, so does the hull, by definition. Weather Deck: Any horizontal surface of the ship that is exposed to the weather and is designed to be walked upon (i.e. "DECK") Casement: A primary or secondary gun not mounted in a turret, but instead mounted in a sponson in the side of a vertical surface (either the hull or a superstructure). To determine if the casement is hull-mounted (and thereby required to meet penetrability requirements), see definition of Hull and Weather Decks. Bulge: Anti-torpedo structures added to the outside of the ships primary hull. Despite increasing the beam of the ship, the entire bulge, including the topmost portion that may approach horizontal, is considered hull. Armor Belt: Thickened areas of hull where additional armor plate was either built in or added to the hull. If the armor belt creates a "step edge" in the sheer vertical plane of the hull, a stringer is allowed. Superstructure: Any structure on a ship on or above the lowest weather deck. CHALLENGE: I invite any who read this to point out where these clarifications need modifying or are ambiguous. CHALLENGE 2: I invite any to bring up particular ships and address how these definitions would effect them (for better or worse).
It doesn't make the casements on the HMS Erin or most British ships impenetrable, thus giving the Baden and a couple other ships a combat advantage.
Looking at a drawing of the Erin, the forward casements are pretty clearly hull, even though they're "stepped" in to allow 3 to bear forward. The difference from Baden being that the casement deck extends out to the hull edge at midships. The casements then taper inboard (aft of funnels) and become inpenetrable under any ruleset I can imagine. http://photo.starnet.ru/Thematic_Wallpapers/Korabli_i_suda/Lincory_i_linkrei/Erin/pages/Erin-15b.htm Combat advantage? So your goal is to shoot up the casement deck of the opposing ship? dang.. and all these years I thought the goal was holes to let WATER in, instead of air. Your Erin has hardened casements around each of the hull-mounted guns, but has to have windows between them (when possible). In what way is this different than under either the old or current rules, or my proposal?
When I look at the two shiips, I see the casements at the same level on both ships. The only difference is the Baden's casements happen to be set back from the outer edge of the hull at slightly less than 1/2" compared to the Erin and Iron Dukes. So why should the Baden get an exception and the Erin don't? The casements on both ships are above the stern weather deck level. As for letting in air ... heh. This is not a game of making holes to let in water. This is a game of making holes for points. Even sinks are points. I do not believe that giving a ship hard casements (and less opportunity to make points) while not giving it to other ships is fair.
... and we're back to the arbitrary 1/2". See my definitions. If you walk outboard of 'em, they're superstructure. Period. Dot. By your argument, ships with huge,extensive superstructures (WW2 QE / Warspite, etc) should be required to make them penetrable (if at any point they extend to anywhere near deck edge) for scoring purposes too. Why, not? It's an opportunity fo score points. This finally explains the bb holes at the top of my Baden's funnels. My arguement isn't that Baden, Koenig, etc should get an exception. My arguement is that the rule makes an arbitrary distinction (1/2") that doesn't make practical sense. My rule is hard & fast, simple and clear. Deck. Hull. Superstructure. All clearly and simply defined. And nothing you've said boils down to anything but "No fair, Baden wouldn't have to patch casements" or "Dem's the rules".
I agree on the 'why' of the penetrability. I think ANY ship that has ANY structure (not turrets or secondaries) closer than 1/2 to the edge of the hull should have to make that area penetrable. Why does ANY ship with casements have to make them penetrable when they are above the 'hull/weather' deck? Other ships that don't have casements but rather just SS deck (closer than 1/2 inch), dont have to make them penetrable. How is that fair? I think this rule was blown up past its original intent (I wasnt there so I dont know for sure.. its just a feeling) which was ships that had claimed 'hard' area as a result of casements below the weather deck. At that point casements in any location were grouped in and it was stretched from there. My point is if the Baden had no casements built into the same second deck structure.. then they would be impenetrable. If so how fair would it be then? Just the change from flat to round causes the ship to have to make the second deck penetrable. With this being the case how can it be so important with casements? I don't know the Nagato or other ships well enough to comment but I do know the VDT which has very notorious casements below the weather-deck (main) and yes in that case it IS a combat advantage. So to make it fair.. ANY ship with with flat surfaces (what is the term??) on the SS that is less than 1/2 inch from the edge of the main weather deck should have to make that penetrable. That would be fair for ALL as either the structure is close enough to be penetrable or far enough to be ignored. Ships that have SS closer than 1/2 to the edge of the hull can't block the ability for bb's to hit the SS by placing secondaries in front of the penetrable area. I don't see anything more fair than something that is applied to ALL. J
Heh, Jad... can you imagine the howls of all those captains with extensive SS? Having to patch all that area. You still seem stuck on that darn 1/2" thing. Scrap it.. Kill it, bury it, and pour rebarred concrete over it. No more arbitrary measurement. Deck. Superstructure. Hull. Only the last of the three needs to be penetrable. Holes in anything above the lowermost deck don't count, and therefore it can be inpenetrable. Doesn't matter if it had portholes or guns in it, if it's above a deck it's superstrucure. What part of the above is unclear or would lead to misunderstandings as to build rules?
Pretty easy in most cases. Weather decks were often planked (wood). They inevitably had railings of some sort along their outboard edge. They had doors, hatches, permanent ladders /stairways or other means of access from either other decks or from within the hull or superstructure. Any of the above defines a "designed to be walked on" deck.
So, hypothetically speaking, if I could find a single solitary image showing the forward casemate deck of the VDT with a hatch leading onto it, or a permanent ladder, or a set of railings, or planking on it, then that would become the weather deck and under your proposition my casemates could be solid?
Revisited for further point: Why should QE class and many US Dreads be 26 seconds when most of the other Dreads / Superdreads are 28? Because the rules are currently written to make a division point just below that class for purposes of speed classification. Real life speed was 24kts. Bayern was 22. Is it "fair" that Bayern gets thrown in with the 18 kt South Carolinas? Again, I'm not arguing for an exception for any ship. I'm arguing for an across-the-board, non-arbitrary (half inch, pah!!) hard & fast rule that would be applied to all. And no, I have no desire to push Bayern up to 26 seconds. LOL
http://savepic.net/863447.htm You mean the two directly in the bow? Rotsa ruck finding even one. Your hypothetical is a bit weak, in that if you could find such a pic, that would mean there actually was some sort of deck there. If there was some sort of deck there, then yes, inboard of it would be superstructure. Have you heard the hypothetical "If my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle"? For Bayern class, an outboard deck extends forward of Anton turret, is planked and railed, and has a vertical ladder leading to the forecastle deck. http://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831461538/lightbox/
Fine - Lets look at the stern casemate deck on the VDT - not the most extreme casemates that lack a deck, but the ones where the hull clearly juts inwards and has a deck. I know part of this is > 1/2" inboard, but since you're proposing to do away with that, lets focus purely on whether this is deck or not and if what is above it is then superstructure. I found a picture with railings. Look, I agree with you that the rules are wonky, and I personally don't agree with them, and I approve of your attempt to find a set of rules that would be a little more logical and less 'magic numbery'. I personally think all casemate areas should be solid and points based on sinks should be counted and not holes, but thats my problem. What I do find a little bizarre though is that your litmus test would declare this section on the VDT to be superstructure. You're going to need to work on the wording very carefully or the criteria if you want to get the masses on board with this. Also, in your qualifications of a deck, do grab irons for access count as a permanent ladder? Because I see sets leading down to those aftmost casemates and their tiny little 'decks'...
Ok, lets continue this a bit further. This picture would imply that the casemates of the Derfflinger class, normally considered superstructure, would be considered hull by my understanding of your requirements. Outboard of them there is no planked deck, I see no railings, I see no hatches or permanently affixed ladders. In fact, there doesn't even appear to be _any_ flat area of consequence outboard of them to be considered a deck. That would mean the weather deck has to be one level up, making them hull, right?
Ah, never mind. I went back and re-read and saw that you defined anything above the lowest weather deck as super, so the derf-class casemates would still be SS.
Hey Nick, Derff... correct in my proposal they'd be super. Under current rules if Derff had a stepped-down stern they'd be hull. Fortunately, she doesn't so your golden. VdT stern (inset) casements. You're correct in that under my definitions, the inset area would be inpenetrable. The only change from current rules would be that the point at which the hard area starts would move aft somewhat. You're right that I need to work on definitions, as these are clearly hull mounted by any reasonable definition, yet have a deck below them. Have to "tweak" my terminology more so the "superstructure" definition doesn't throw wonky bits like this. This is exactly the type of feedback I've been begging for. THANKS!!
