6. No water belts, double hull areas, watertight compartments, or other construction advantages may be taken that are attempts to defeat the scope of construction intent. If I were a CD I know how I would rule on that!!! Keith I
I'd consider at least two worth building (though actually more are worth building IMO). The Iron Duke is a low slung ship with casements for good defense. The casements are located in just the right spots to get more down angle and the barrel closer to the water for easier belows. These qualities has made it a popular ship and one that notable Axis captains have commented in the past that they hoped the Allies would not discover and build.
Well, Actually I had noticed. I would be building the Malaya, not the Q.E. for just those reasons ssshhhhh..... Keith
They had holes to let water run through, so not water tight. However, the pumps could easily keep up wit the flow and the ship could easily float indefinitly with the first 6" of hull skin removed.
6. No water belts, double hull areas, watertight compartments, or other construction advantages may be taken that are attempts to defeat the scope of construction intent. How am I misinterpreting the rule. "Double hull" doesn't say watertight, there is a coma there. or other construction advantages may be taken that are attempts to defeat the scope of construction intent. Keith
No water belts, double hull areas, watertight compartments, or other construction advantages may be taken that are attempts to defeat the scope of construction intent. b) No interior box(es), bulkheads, or other interior construction shall subdivide the hull into separate compartments or that will affect the penetrability of the hull skin to bb entries. c) Solid material may be used as “water channeling” as long as it does not interfere with the inherent penetrability or sinkability of the ship. Water channeling may not extend above 1” below the middle of the marked waterline (or equivalent) hard area. Again, I don't care what you call it. There are at least 3 areas in the rules that could address this. If the CD wanted to stop it...... Keith
Actually, if you notice, Malaya and QE both got the same refits. It's some other members of the class that did not get the refits removing the casements. Not that I have the plans for both ships before and after...
And again, it can be just as easily argued that none of the above apply since none of them were broken. Since no minimum opening in the ribs is specified, it could be said that he complied with the rules. We could argue this forever if you like, the only real way to solve what some people perceive as a problem here is to change the rules.
Thanks Tug, Good to know before I bought the prints. Apparently the blueprints.com is a bad source. Help me out. I am looking for Bulge + Casements. Malaya was the only one that I found (on a free source) that had both casements and bulges. http://www.the-blueprints.com/bluep...281943%29/ All of the Queen Elizabeth prints that I can find show the casements removed when the bulges were added. Can you help me out with the ship and year plans that I am looking for that has both casements and bulges. Keith
That is why I put in the IF. If you all are having fun playing with unsinkable boats, more power to you. I will be very adimate that this sort of thing not be permitted at our local battlels. Just another thing where we will have to have local rules. Keith
I'm pretty sure it has been sunk. Honestly, its a big ship, there are other ways of sinking it besides putting holes in the first 6" of the bow. I think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion.
Yes, probrably, I just seem that It COULD easily be adressed with either: Section A deals specifically with making the hull able to be punctured and boat to be sunk or other construction advantages may be taken that are attempts to defeat the scope of construction intent. No real need to go any farther than that. or Solid material may be used as “water channeling” as long as it does not interfere with the inherent penetrability or sinkability of the ship The bulkhead is clearly channeling or specifically NOT channeling water. hence sinkability of said ship. Either way. To me it is a clear violation. But we were talking about elite ships in the hobby... If the successful Vanguard’s have been made "un-sinkable". I think that effectively takes them out of contention for Allied “best of class”. I don’t think it would be too hard for everyone to start copying the construction. Unsinkable boats would take a lot of the fun out of our hobby. Still waiting for someone to make a credible argument for an Allied boat as “best of class” Keith
I think if you had been around for the arguments after last years nats you'd realise it isn't that clearcut. But whatever. I think that the style/configuration of battleships available on both sides is sufficiently different that you can't so much battle the same on one side to the next, so I would argue that you can't compare them the same way. Which kind of begs the question as to whether one can come up with a best of class that people would universally agree upon.
The sillyness needs to end. The ships are not unsinkable. They at one point had what I think is a bulkhead with holes drilled in it. I think it did not need to be there and ergo should not be there. Tim's Vanguard has it removed. I have personally looked at his ship and it was not there as of mid-February 2014 when I looked. Unless I'm somehow in the pay of nefarious forces out to spoil the fun of all loyal and true boat-battlers. If I am, they're late on their check and I'm taking offers.
From my research, the Barham was the only QE class ship that did not get the second refit. During the first refit in 1922'ish, the ship got the bulges. The casement decks were never removed, though the stern casement guns were plated over. The ship also kept the original tripod foremast and superstructure, which IMO looks better than the blocky supers the other ships received. Until the last casement rule revamp, it was impossible to build a legal scaled 1941 Barham. Since it is a unique ship in the hobby, I'm in the middle of constructing one. Believe me that the casements and associated bulge/armor belt stringers were one of the most difficult builds I have done to date.
Thanks Richelieu, Dreadnought Hulls Warspite has the forward casments, but not the back. Could you give me a sourse for 144 scale prints for a post bulge Barham? I also like the tripod. Not a fan of the funky stacks. I have looked at Tugboats Malaya build. Cutting and skining looks to be within my skill set. I think I could also manage adding the back casements. thanks Keith Maxwell
