casements and blisters are just a pain to skin. Veterans will forgo that and make a slab sided version but obviously it won't look as good but will battle much better.
so as built casemented guns no blister 1924 to 19 26 refit they added blisters and the casemented guns remain. am i seeing that correctly?
yes i can see the utility of that i have admit the later boats are nicer looking to me i like the changes in the supersructure and i really dont like the way she looks minus the blisters im guessing the difference in width doesnt do much because its already such a wide boat and the difference in weight carrying probably isnt necessay either
I had difficulty finding prints for the after 1924-1926 retrofits. The Barham is the only one that did not get the last retrofit that modified the superstructure. Barham has the torpedo bulges and the casement decks. You will not find the newest superstructures with casement decks on any of the ships.
yeah what i wanted was the 1926 version of the boat i just didnt know that untill i saw the image you posted the funnels were merged then and i like that look also i also like the look of the casement deck
i believe what strike has are warspite blistered and casmented qe blistered casments gone valiant as built slab sided casmented
I think more explanation is needed, OH evil one. The German High Seas Fleet generally sits considerably lower in the water (read harder to hit). In what way does a slab sided version (read higher free board) battle much better. I definitely concur that the casements are a PITA. I have given up on wining any scale awards with this thing. At this point I am just going for legal. For my effort I will get and additional stringer. Barham has 3 stringers. I see that as a battle advantage. What am I missing?
Stringers and casments have glue that holds them on and together, glue is bad (even weldwood), it is not continuous and has a issue of fracture.
i have heard some folks say bbs tend to bounce off angled surfasces on ships is that true? like if you shoot a boat head on whats the chance the bow deflects the bb vesus a long gash
Making a hull from wood is considerably more time consuming, definitely more difficult. But more satisfying to some.
i do enjoy making something from a pile of pieces but do you really think woods that much more dificult? with fiberglass hulls you have to make as many if not more cuts and it seems it would be pretty hard to fix a mistake the caprail and deck are the same construction, prop tube's ,steering tubes, rudder all the same sheeting looks the same so the difference comes down to laying the keel and ribs and filling and finishing the bottom versus cutting away all that fiberglass i think it is more dependent on the medium you are comfy with and whether your comfortable with starting from nothing and building or starting with something and cutting away untill you reach the shape you want on the other side your guaranteed a good hull shape scales are correct and on a small boat the room you save is major
There is a lot more cutting and finishing work to be done on a wood hull. All the ribs, deck and keel pieces have to be cut out and sanded to shape, you need to fill in the bottom of the hull, sand it smooth, drill holes for shafts, seal the wood properly, etc etc. It takes way more time and skill to build a proper wood hull.
i realize i havent done all that yet but so far cutting ribs was 1 hour sanded half so far 30 minites thats not the keel notches i have the rough shape cut but will sand those to fit the layout took about 2 hours i redid them 3 times and its my first time in the future i would expect 1 hour there yes you have to drill shaft holes but you have to cut them on a glass hull i would expect that to be about the same the deck has to be fit on both the filling i think balsa is the only way to go and everyone i read about that has done that say its pretty easy to fit and sand you have to seal all the wood added to the glass hull too more time im sure but harder im thinking its the same i read someone i think maxspin describing like 4 hours to cut just one side of a glass hull out and then you have to add mounts to fit all the stuff inside unless im mistaken you have to add wood to the hull to mount the internals everyone says its faster to go with a glass hull i cant dispute that my original statement was is it definitely more difficult to do wood im still not sure it is
It is more difficult maybe only by a little, but its definetly way more time consuming to do wood hulls. You probably won't understand until you've done both.
He's slow and that was an unusually thick hull. Usually once you've laid out a hull for cutting it goes pretty quickly.
Hello Guys, I have a set of plans specific to the Warspite right after the 1924-1926 retrofit that has both bulges. I would go for that one instead of the Valiant. Thank you, Stephen Strike Models
