To sum up where this discussion has currently progressed, we have three principle ship type options that have been suggested: medium transport, large destroyer, or cruiser Each has had the following points indicated: medium transport 1. Simple and easy to build 2. Not universally suitable between both big and small gun 3. Can use standard servos 4. Some were built in large numbers so large quantities in play would not be as disproportional as a unique ship 5. Candidate vessels: T2 tanker, Liberty Ship, Mehoshi Maru, Type C2 hull large destroyer 1. Small (limited internal volume/displacement) 2. Lightly armed (simple gun system) 3. Costly due to need for lightweight component selection 4. Vulnerable in combat 5. Candidates: Mogador class, Tashkent class cruiser 1. Relatively easy to equip (forgiving with regards to weight and component packaging) 2. Moderately large (more usable hull volume) 3. More complex due to heavier armament than a destroyer or transport 4. Can use standard servos 5. Cost due to more cannons than a destroyer or medium transport (how does this compare to the cost of compact components for a destroyer?) 6. Candidates: Duca d'Aosta, Emile Bertin, Kirov, Capitani Romani, Mogami If a cruiser is to be the choice, in the spirit of maintaining the intention of simplicity (and thus ease of construction and reliability) I think we should keep with something that is 1.5 or 2 units for fast gun.
How 'bout a Kormoran? Simple enough lines, big enough to be fairly forgiving, decent armament in Big Gun, but I don't know how commerce raiders work in Fast Gun. Two props but one rudder, not overly complex. Just a thought. Cheers,
Wreno, you must have read my mind. Kormoran was formerly a freighter, so if there are more than one on the pond, and only some are armed, which one do you attack?. Will the "freighter" you attack suddenly start shooting back? If you're in a scenario where only convoy runs score points, attacking an armed Kormorant would be a fruitless exercise, pointswise?
Webwookie, that's an excellent summary you've written. By far the best option would be an armed transport or raider/q-ship. The only problem with that plan is that major Fast Gun rulesets do not permit them in most battles. I'd be willing to bet that that problem can be overcome with enough pressure from the membership. But their simple hull shape, displacement, and ease of arming make the armed transport the best option, in my opinion. I think the next-best option is a large destroyer. Yes, building a stable and reliable destroyer is hard, especially for a rookie who is doing all the component selection and guts layout work by himself. But if we have some of the best and brightest brains on this forum help out in the design process, we could make building the ship so easy that anyone who can hold a screwdriver and follow directions could put it together. You know, "cut here, glue there, this part goes in that location to help this thingy do that" etc. After we design the first, bb-armed ship, we could follow up with a torpedo-armed version, and/or bb gun destroyers for other nations. The third option, building a nice big cruiser, is my least favorite option. Not only is a cruiser bigger and more expensive than a destroyer, it is also significantly better armed. On the Big Gun side of things, it's very tempting to try and cram in more gear and guns than you actually can, which results in an unreliable and ineffective ship. I'm not sure how that works on the Fast Gun side of things, but I'm pretty sure a similar symptom may appear. My other concern is that by creating a mass-produced cruiser that is well-armed and reliable, we may be creating a monster. I will be the first to admit that my experience skippering the Spahkreuzer was a humbling one. In Spahkreuzer's first three battles, it sank 10 ships, including at least 5 veteran battleships, and only got sunk twice in return. That ship, in concert with two other heavily armed torpedo-cruisers, dramatically shifted the balance of power on the pond, and many of the other members were disgruntled (understatement) by its effect. I significantly toned down my aggressive actions after that, and when I sold it I made sure the buyer was not quite the bloodthirsty maniac that I was. But my point is that we could potentially unleash something similar on a much larger scale. And yes, some of the ships mentioned in the cruiser list have the potential to be far more deadly than my Spahkreuzer ever was, especially in packs. PS: Gascan, who ever said that the Mogami was Axis only? I seem to remember that Japan was Allied during WWI...
I was able to pack that list of components into my first destroyer, a Gearing class ship. Was it easy? No. Was it stable? Nowhere nearly as stable as I would have liked. In fact, I believe anybody who saw it would wholeheartedly agree with you and say that it did roll badly. Could it fight but not upset the overall balance of the pond? IMO, yes. Was it a good ship? It got me on the water but forced me to pick and choose when and where I engaged. My construction techniques were far from perfect (the hull suffered from severe amounts of rot, the bilge keels broke off, the stuffing tubes leaked, it was slower than necessary, etc.) but it ran and worked, until the rot compromised the struture to the point that a fall off my workbench imploded the hull. With a collaborative effort between a group of us here, I'm certain we could come up with a simple, reliable, and reasonably buildable destroyer, regardless of the results any of us have had as individuals.
What about the Dutch "flotilla leader" Tromp? She's a bit slow for a big gun torp cruiser (32 knots) but has a little more weight to play with, 1.5 units, 6 X 5.9 inch guns. Some of the WW1 light cruisers such as the HMS Caroline might be worth looking at too. Most are a bit slow for big gun (29 knots or so) but are small and should be maneuverable enough that the BBs will have a hard time killing them. They have more weight then a WW2 destroyer which would make construction a bit easier. Kotori brings up an excellent point about doing a torpedo crusier for rookies. Creating a monster isn't the point of the excercise, and everything I've heard about the torp cruisers in big gun indicates to me they need to be beat senseless with the nerfbat as it is.
I have to admit that I would have reservations about any of the WWI cruisers that have a significant number of casements; it's more complexity in construction. Does anybody already have good quality plans of any of these suggested designs who can create 2D digital counterparts for our purposes here?
I think most of the light cruisers carried guns bolted to the deck. The armored cruisers tended to have a lot of casemates, but are far too slow for big gun use. Here is a link to a site showing the HMS Caroline: http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/light-cruiser/hms-Caroline.html The other light cruisers are listed there as well. Caroline has a fairly simple hull shape, simple superstructure, only 2 6" guns (not much temptation to arm them all for big gun I'd think, and 4 torpedo tubes should a captain in big gun desire to mount them. She's got about twice the displacement of a Gearing to work with, but is limited to only 29 knots. For a rookie, I'd think that the extra displacement to play with would be worth the price in speed.
Taubman's has plans for the HMS Ceres, which is similar to Caroline. SMS Emden (drawbacks are small guns (4.1") and some what tricky hull shape) and HIJMS Yubari might be an option too. Could be a touch on the small side. But you could get away with one drive motor on it as it has 3 shafts.
I can't believe I forgot about the Yubari. I think she might be a winner. I really like the 3 shaft designs, because even with a single rudder they should have decent maneuverability, and respectable speed. Heavy weight as per the MWC shiplist is 4.63 pounds and 1.5 units. She carried 6 5.5" guns, but there shouldn't be much temptation to try and arm them all for big gun, and has torp tubes for those captains who eventually decide to go for torpedo cruisers. With nearly a full pound more displacement then a Gearing, and 35 knots on a single powered shaft, I think Yubari may just represent the best value in making a ship viable for multi-formats.
Based only upon photos I found online, I believe the Yubari is a good choice in the spirit of what we are seeking to accomplish. It doesn't singlehandedly change the tide of battle, it has a gun and a pump for fast gun, it has room for growth in big gun (but not too powerfully armed), it can run on a minimum of running gear, the hull appears simple enough, it's faster than battleships, small enough for kids to handle out of the water, and it's easier to build than a destroyer. Mike5334 and Katori87, what are your thoughts? I'd like to see some comments from a couple other people on the choice before we lock-in our decision but I think we have a winner here. Here's a link to a 1/700 scale static model of the ship: Visit this site a 1/200 model: Visit this site Visit this site and a couple of drawings: Visit this site Visit this site Visit this site
I think the Emile -Berta at 40 kts or the capatini romanie would fill the bill as an oversized destroyer. Fast and lightly armed they could get out of any trouble they couldnt handle.SEcond choice would be an armed q ship as i previously stated,especially for big gun 6 or 8 torps and 4 to 6 6inch guns
I should add that it appears many of the small detail items on the deck are essentially rectangular in shape and the turrets have simple geometry, both pluses for a first-time builder. Other than the funnel, all of the superstructure looks as if it wouldn't be too difficult to build. Now I have to ask, who has plans of her? What I dislike about both the Emile Bertin and the Capitani Romani is that they have an even number of props. Although it probably doesn't seem to be a big issue for those of use with a couple builds behind us, I believe the availability of a single center prop is better for a rookie builder. To my knowledge, nobody already commercially offers a hull or kit of the Yubari which avoids placing this project in competition with the few vendors catering to the hobby.
I got my Yubari plans from Pacific Front hobbies. They are in 1:200 but it is not to hard to scale them up.
Yubari is actually pretty good. It's a very solid ship, and very cool-looking. But when I look at the MWC shiplist, the Tashkent has more displacement. Their dimensions are similar: Yubari 478x40 vs Tashkent 459x45 Tashkent is about 1" shorter and almost 1/2" wider. And the Tashkent looks pretty cool with its aerodynamic superstructure and swept-back funnels. The Emile Bertin and Capitani Romani are also wonderful "oversized destroyers." They do have the potential to become monsters, but as long as we limit any Big Gun torpedo upgrades to two torpedoes per side, there shouldn't be a problem. Another benefit to the Romani is that it has a flush deck, which simplifies wooden construction dramatically. Personally, I would prefer to have two shafts over one. It means we can use two high-efficiency motors for propulsion, rather than one high-powered one. Sure it's a bit trickier than one shaft, but not by much. And by using two high-efficiency motors instead of one high-powered one, we can use smaller, lighter batteries that will help improve stability.
Kotori87, given a choice between Yubari, Tashkent, Emile Bertin, Capitani Romani, which do you personally think would be our best choice? --edit-- I don't know anybody else's thoughts on the topic at this point, but I think we've narrowed things down quite well to a short list and we might as well pick one from what we have. I'd rather that we get started on something rather than sit here any longer debating which of these similar paths to follow during our free time outside of work and/or school. In the end, I'm comfortable with whichever vessel the majority of those of us committed to involvement decide to do.
I think either Yubari or Capitani Romani. Leaning towards the former since the latter might cut into BC's business. Considering how helpful they are I would not want to do that.
I'd say that the extra displacement of the Tashkent would probably be handy, as both shafts could still be driven on a single motor. I'd stay away from French ships for the simple fact they are French. A lot of guys are turned off by all things French, and it would really stink for you guys to commit so much effort to this project and have the new guy say "well, that's all well and good, but I am not building a French ship." may not be fair, but a lot of guys simply don't like anything French.
