I can make a mod of the casemates to leave a 2.8mm gap a few mm deep at the bottom. Then with the upper pedestal surface now a 3.2mm (1/8") stringer I will extend that stringer to the neighboring ribs as the rules allow. This should dramatically increase the hard area of the ship. Good suggestion.
Look at the baden class, same pedestal on the casement and it's been all hard on every one I've seen. Same with the SMS Scharnhorst maybe others too. That would mean it's longstanding acceptable practise and that the pedestal that the casement sits on is considered de facto part of the casement by the rules.
There is nothing in the rule that dictates that the bottom of the casement is a stringer, it is part of the casemate, however I do agree that the 1/8 hard are to each side of the cupola is not being followed here.
This is part of the problem with a national club. Rules are passed by a majority but enforced only at Nats. If I remember correctly by a post or email that one captain ran his Baden for quite a while, maybe 2 years, before cutting out the casements to the rules. On my Baden I was instructed to cut out areas that a B.B. would only pass if I flattened it in a vice, but it passed with a majority so take a good hard look at the guy standing next to you, odds are they voted for it, so ask them what they think or why they voted for it. Rules are rules and should be enforced equally and across the club so that we don’t characterize people following the rules as evil. In this case the casement has a pedestal that sits ON the deck, not part of the deck. The mere presence of balsa sheeting should not change this detail but there is another answer. If the defining characteristic of a stringer is being covered with balsa sheeting then don't sheet over the pedestal and it will not longer be misidentified as a stringer, which it is not. Like Kevin said make a rule proposal to clarify this rule and I will be happy to sign on to it. Good Luck!
I wouldn't worry about it, personally I would rather have the full casement and remove material as needed then to have to buy it and add material.
I was actually pretty careful about that. The hard areas above the pedestal to the sides of the cupola are 1/8" or slightly less.
I would not change your model if it was me and let individuals trim as needed. My view is that the pedestal is part of the case-mate but when building it I would just trim the pedestal to the same width as the 1/8 allowed area. I think that would more than satisfy the rule.
that would be hacking up the pedestal for no good reason, as well as ugly AF - better to just make the cupola span top to bottom in that case. however, if the pedestal is part of the solid casemate as you previously argued, then it is fine as is, if the pedestal is to be treated as a step in the hull/deck then it would be better to apply the stringer rules and take the increased solid area as I described above.
Remember that saying something ‘is part of the casement’ is not the same as ‘it can be hard area.’ The section says that only the cupola (which I understand to be the curved surface) and 1/8” on either side can be hard. Also the casement deck can be a stringer. I’m not sure what text you are using to say that the portion in question can be hard area of unlimited thickness Do you mean to say that the raised portion in question is part of the cupola? I would be interested to see any documentation that would support that assertion (have not researched myself).
When I had gotten my Baden, I was under the misguided idea I was good to go... After posting pics of resheeting, I was informed that I was not and pretty much decided to hack away anything that that mite remotely need to be hacked away. I decided that by the time those holes make any difference, than it would be so sunk all ready that it doesn't make any Difference. (unless you realize this is a Game Of Points) Love what you guys did Building these and love what the 2 guys did putting the Kits out there for people to buy.
The part in question is not addressed specifically. It is not a stringer for sure, but how to address it is not so clear. They are not hull features but the armored areas around the casemate cannon and the diagrams do not account for cupolas that sit on pedestals. It's a shame the rule did not fully address these issues or how to comply with the rule without altering the historical look of the ship.
While doing research for this it has become clear that the current casemate rules do not address every ship that was equipped with casemate-mounted guns. Note how every example currently in the rules has a single cross-sectional profile from the bottom of the casemate to the top. This shape is quite easy to construct, and is how most hulls, both wooden and fiberglass, are built. But if you look at actual historical photos, that simple profile isn't always correct. The Deutschlands have two different cross-sectional profiles, one profile at gun-level and above, and a second profile below gun-level. This shows up on many other designs, including the SMS Von Der Tann and HMS Iron Duke. The Von Der Tann's complex casemate design is easy to forget because the BC fiberglass hull modified the profile to a single shape for simplicity. You can see the original profile in historical photographs and plans with a quick google search, and can even see the correct profile shown (and not addressed) in Appendix A of the MWCI construction rules. VDT's historically accurate casemates are almost identical to Deutschland's casemates. HMS Iron Duke has a similar issue, with one cross-sectional profile for the casemate level and a second, smaller cutout profile for the gun and cupola itself. This is also simplified to a single shape in various fiberglass hulls. If built with historically accurate shape in accordance with current rules, the Iron Duke would end up with a significant amount of extra theoretically-penetrable area beneath the cupola itself. Note how I specified theoretically-penetrable, because said area would be far too narrow for a bb to pass through. From a legal perspective, this entire topic is clearly a complete blind spot in the current written rules. The question is, what to do about it? Should all ships be required to deviate from historical accuracy in order to comply with the current, inadequate rules? Should all ships deviating from historical accuracy be required to add this extra theoretically-penetrable area, since these non-scale modifications could result in less penetrable area? If we were robots or computers, the answer would be yes to both. Fortunately we are humans, and we can tell that both of those are ridiculous. The only reasonable solution is to recognize that the rules are inadequate, and change the rules to clarify the issue. I submit that there are, in fact, three issues to address. 1) clarify casemate construction rules to properly cover ships with multiple cross-sectional profiles, and update/correct the examples in appendix A. 2) discuss "penetrable" areas that are too small for a bb to penetrate, and give a definitive yes-or-no answer on making them solid. 3) establish a process to adjudicate future issues like this, including who has authority to make a pond-side judgement and a method to seek long-term clarification while formal rule changes are being processed.
IMHO - this is too much fire for not enough smoke. Sure, there are members who dig into the scale aspects of their ships and there are others who build to battle and simplify some of the features. So..... The above would build into the rules more points to argue over and I do not find that good. Let's battle.
I personally don't find this a constructive discussion, the casements on all boats are useless appendages. Those that install them on their boats run the risk of other members pointing and stating options, all bad. I don't think I have ever sunk a boat with a shot through that area. The only up side to having them is they look cool. I make mine out of Aluminum., they hold up well, never a hole to patch.
