So Dave, I am just getting confused. What is the difference between the ship in the diagram's deck step and the Jean Bart's deck step up to B turret? Let alone the fact that making that whole area hard would violate rule 11 which states maximum allowable subdeck+deck thickness? If the weatherdeck is the weatherdeck, why do deck steps count? I would imagine that this works the same. The major difference between the ship in the diagram's B turret and Jean Bart's would be that the upper deck area on Jean Bart is technically part of the hull, it's shown on hull drawings, it comes all the way out to the ship's edge. On the diagram ship, the weather deck surrounds that raised superstructure area very clearly. JB the weather deck ends at frame 10 with the deck step upward, and then steps back down at frame 4 for the stern. I am not trying to argue as I am the novice here, I am just confused by the multiple interpretations I am getting about the same rule.
The rule states the uppermost deck exposed to the weather that has the forward most gun of the highest caliber mounted on the ship. This will always be the "A" turret. I can't think of any ship, except for a monitor, or smaller coastal defense ship with a single turret, or single forward turret, that may be effected differently. On your boat the "A" turret is is on the forecastle deck, rules call it weatherdeck, which is how almost every ship will be. The center section, is part of the superstructure because it is above the weatherdeck. What makes it part of the hull? Just because the superstructure goes to the gunwale? If we followed your train of thought per the rules, any ship with superstructure that is within 1/2 inch from the edge of the gunwale should be made penetrable. Many ships have the smaller caliber guns mounted on the superstructure, close to the edge of the ship. The Iowa class 5 inch mounts are on the step-up deck, and are right to the edge of the gunwale, so they would be penetrable as one example. The SD class also looks like it would be very close on the whole side of the first step up which is the superstructure. Looking at rule 14. c. Deck step says. The point on a ship where the weather deck is allowed to step down to the next lower deck, it says it can be a weatherdeck if it steps down under two reasons. Its says nothing about a deck stepping up from the weather deck, such as on your Jean Bart. I'm not trying to argue either, I'm just looking at this as a discussion of the rules is all. So far no name calling has been started, and we are having a friendly discussion is all. Per the rules, anything on, or below the weatherdeck is penetrable, above the weatherdeck is not. Your "B" turret is not the most forward gun of the highest caliber on the ship, the forward gun in the "A" turret is per the rules. Making the section penetrable will not hurt the sink-ability of the ship, but will make it easier for the opposing side to score points on your ship.
Just looked, quite a few of the British battleships superstructures also are within 1/2 inch of the gunwale, under our rules, if we step-up, that area would need to be penetrable.
My only major concern would be that on the actual ship, and the model by extension, Jean Bart/Richelieu/Dunkerque there is absolutely no horizontal deck "around" that raised area. Example: USS Alabama: You can clearly see a small deck area that continues the weather deck around the ship's 01 superstructure level. In this instance, that is definitely considered superstructure. Jean Bart. There is no horizontal deck surface that continues the weather deck aft. The weather deck ends. But the weather deck can't end, it must continue the whole length of the ship. So the weather deck would logically "step up" and become pont chateau where B turret is located. At the aft end of the ship, the deck steps back down. That raised area is even shown in the vertical hull drawings as part of the hull frames. I just want to be 100% sure, because you know how the IRC works. If Jean Bart ends up being some wunderbote (which I *extremely* doubt haha) everyone will examine it with microscopes and find all sorts of stuff to cry legality about. Doubly so if others will be building from my drawings, I want to make 110% sure that their hulls will be legal as per the rules as written 9/2018. I don't want anyone spending their time, money, and energy building off of my plans only to have their boats be "wrong".
Well as another example of what Dave is saying, look at the Suffren. The deck steps up like in Jean Bart but that is always superstructure.
Maybe I don't get it (won't be the first time). If the weather deck is above the row of portholes in the bow area, wouldn't you follow that to the stern and the back step down is the continuation of the weather deck? The topmost row of portholes would be considered superstructure?
I’d recommend focusing on what you all think the rules should be, and figuring out text that would reach that result. Generally speaking these discussions rarely result in a useful change or real resolution. Before integrating the text that was developed by the other club things were pretty simple, Jean Bart raised area was hull and the superstructure was superstructure I think it’s kind of silly that the current text in the rules could be taken to mean that portions of the ship that are clearly hull are considered superstructure. If club members that disagree about something put time in figuring out text and hashing out the counter arguments before it goes on the ballot I think the whole club would benefit a lot
I do believe that the existing rule does explain it clearly, the deck exposed to the weather with the forward most gun of the largest caliber. For some reason I am just having a major mental block with pre-merger rules stuck in my brain. I am going to build the hull as is and let the individual builders decide if they will skin that area with something penetrable or not...but an official ruling and stamp of approval would be nice so I know I'm not going to get shunned at an event.
need to put up the line drawings for this discussion. the ones I looked at show the turrets on the forecastle deck. all above is impenetrable.
Does this help any? The forward turret defines the weather deck. You just carry the line of the weather deck through the entire length of the ship. Anything above it is superstructure.
To counter the above, if you look at the ship's actual vertical frame drawing you can see that the hull extends up to pont chateau.
Yep. all above red line is impenetrable. interesting, when I typed earlier, there were no pix. messages must have crossed in the ether.
That framing doesn't matter to the rule though (and to be honest, neither should the way any particular fiberglass hull is constructed - many don't include casemates that are indeed legally part of the hull). The same way that the superstructure on the Sufferns, the Hanger & Midship superstructure on the Northhamptons, the flush super on many Japanese cruisers as well as other ships are defined by the rule to be superstructure and not hull. That's the point of using the deck containing forward most main battery as the defining characteristic. It is something simple and distinct from which to draw the line. There is language to define a downward step in the deck where the deck goes down and never returns to the original level. But there is no language that says the weather deck can ever step up from the original level. Just that anything above that level is considered superstructure. Otherwise we would need to add language that defines any structure that is flush with the hull to be considered a penetrable portion of the hull and that opens the big can of worms for all of those other ships that I mentioned.
I think if we have civil discussions, and everyone gets involved like we did this time, and when the rule is clearly stated, these discussions can be helpfully. If not why have this list? For sure we cant discuss rules on the rules list. Again, great drawing, and your decision to leave it open, and let the builder decide is a good solution. Crazy if the builder does in my opinion, but his or her choice. lol.
Yes, peaceful rules discussion is always preferred. And I do believe that we came to a conclusion, the rules as written support the weather deck at A turret level and continuing aft meaning the raised deck area is all superstructure. Build update: I have finished the final version of the drawing and procured some material. For this build I am going to use the traditional scissors+glue+scroll saw method and we will see how the hull goes together. After the first boat is done I will clean up the files with any improvements and then think about posting them here for sharing.
Apparently, some old MWC thinking snuck in when we (both clubs) adapted the hull cutting section in mass a couple of years ago. Many of the IRC never noticed it until this controversy. Whatever, it really does not make much difference. Palmer's carrier was one of the most noticeable at Nats.
I did not realize it was a controversy? As far as I knew we were just having a discussion about it. The MWC adopted it one year after many arguments over case-mates, then the IRC copied it from the MWC the following year. Its actually more fair if you think about it, it has no more penetrable space than a similar built battleship from any other country with a flush deck, equality.
like i said, not much of a problem as far as I can see. Perhaps a few less points but the ship will be sunk before any holes up there will see water. True, we at the time were conversing about hull penetrability and were corresponding with our friends in the MWC, principally Florida and the MWC proposal seemed to cover all of the bases so we adopted it hull and sinker.
