Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dan_Bickell View Post
    I'm pretty sure it was a "kitbashed" CG model, and the basis was an Iowa class circa WWII. In fact, it seems to have started out as Iowa herself, if you notice the the deck on the tower with the external ribs (unique to Iowa). They removed the structure surrounding the armored citadel (later enclosed version), scaled it down a bit, and pushed it behind the citadel to become the base for the Mark 37 director. Oddly, they chose to have the 50 state flag on top of turret 2 as on the modern Iowa. Some art director just had to change it "a little" to justify his job...
    I was going to say something like that but I have no idea what a "kitbashed CG model" is. That turret is far too large for the platform upon which it is resting. I was pretty positive that at least part of the photo was that of a Sverdlov. The stacks were the give away in my view. Like so . . .



    I don't normally extol the virtues of a potential enemy's warships, but I always thought that class had very lovely lines. More DD than CL, but a very eye catching, classic design.

    And 85 gt kid, the Russians had turrets with range finders on them. They just weren't that large.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dan_Bickell View Post
      I'm pretty sure it was a "kitbashed" CG model, and the basis was an Iowa class circa WWII. In fact, it seems to have started out as Iowa herself, if you notice the the deck on the tower with the external ribs (unique to Iowa). They removed the structure surrounding the armored citadel (later enclosed version), scaled it down a bit, and pushed it behind the citadel to become the base for the Mark 37 director. Oddly, they chose to have the 50 state flag on top of turret 2 as on the modern Iowa. Some art director just had to change it "a little" to justify his job...
      The photos shown up to this point don't even match - whatever it is (or was) was something photoshopped or contrived - certainly not an actual ship. The photo that Desertswo provided (the bow on photo) is of a heavy cruiser class, European design; her forward turrets/superstructure don't even match the one in the orig. photo, which may have never existed.

      The Sverdlov Russian heavy cruiser seems to be closest to what the actual ship photo may have been. The photo looks newer than a post WWII photo and the Svedlov's served thru the Cold War Era. Remember the movie Fire Fox with Clint Eastwood? Well, if memory serves correctly, Sverdlov or one of her sisters I believe is shown in that movie. The photo as posted does not appear to be of a modified but rather original design, ie - no missiles. And - the Russians have a penchant for scuttling and letting rust their old ships without worrying about environmental issues.
      Last edited by bbvet; 18 Oct 14,, 14:29.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bbvet View Post
        The photos shown up to this point don't even match - whatever it is (or was) was something photoshopped or contrived - certainly not an actual ship. The photo that Desertswo provided (the bow on photo) is of a heavy cruiser class, European design; her forward turrets/superstructure don't even match the one in the orig. photo, which may have never existed.
        You are partly correct. Sverdlov was based on a pre-WWII Italian design, but while a large ship, was still a CL. Biggest guns were only six inch.

        Originally posted by bbvet View Post
        The Sverdlov Russian heavy cruiser seems to be closest to what the actual ship photo may have been. The photo looks newer than a post WWII photo and the Svedlov's served thru the Cold War Era. Remember the movie Fire Fox with Clint Eastwood? Well, if memory serves correctly, Sverdlov or one of her sisters I believe is shown in that movie. The photo as posted does not appear to be of a modified but rather original design, ie - no missiles. And - the Russians have a penchant for scuttling and letting rust their old ships without worrying about environmental issues.
        If this is the scene to which you are referring, the ship in question was a US Belknap-class CG. Like so . . .



        Skip to 1:35 mark and freeze and you get, "Voila!"



        The issue was never in doubt.

        Comment


        • They face each othe, one to port and the other to starboard and yes, one fireman can handle both of them. Gets busy sometimes though. The feed water is pneumatically controlled, but has to be watched closely. Everything in the fuel side is manual. Fuel pressure and temp. And then a selection of burner tips. Six #44's burning gets about 80 rpm. That's what we run our cruises at.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SharkPilot View Post
            They face each othe, one to port and the other to starboard and yes, one fireman can handle both of them. Gets busy sometimes though. The feed water is pneumatically controlled, but has to be watched closely. Everything in the fuel side is manual. Fuel pressure and temp. And then a selection of burner tips. Six #44's burning gets about 80 rpm. That's what we run our cruises at.
            Right, that's what I mean by "side-to-side" vice "fore and aft" as is generally the case in most US warships. One other thing to understand about those boilers you operate is that they are just a bit more forgiving than the D or M type in a warship. That's because they are not "accelerated," or at least not accelerated to the degree the other two variety are. What that refers to is the angle of the tube bundle. If you look at those in Lane Victory, they are set at an angle between the steam drum on top, and the water drum (or "mud" drum as we call them in the Navy) and the water screen and water wall tube headers at the bottom, but the angle is very slight, just north of horizonal. Then look at the angle in the M and D type and you can see the angle is much closer to nearly vertical. That accelerates the nucleate boiling process. It also mean things happen faster. Sometimes too fast, and bad things can happen if people aren't on their toes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
              I was going to say something like that but I have no idea what a "kitbashed CG model" is. That turret is far too large for the platform upon which it is resting.
              "CG" as in computer generated 3D models, although after 20+ years of doing it professionally, I can tell you that the computers still don't really generate much at all. When we do hack-jobs with different models, we still call it "kitbashing", as when parts of practical (real-world plastic) scale model kits are utilized in ways they were not intended for, like making a Star Wars spaceship out of parts of various model kits for a filming miniature back in the day before CG largely took over.

              I don't know how accurate the models they used were to start with, but they were modified to suit their needs. With CG models, it is possible to do many things you can't do with practical models, like scale parts up and down, or move parts around intersecting with each other. My guess would be that some art director, with little knowledge or reverence for these ships, wanted the turret "bigger!", wanted the turret from the modern Iowa model with the flag to help convey that the United States was ancient history, but wanted the AA guns from the WWII model as well ("I think it would be just fabulous to have all those little guns from this one too!"). Then he probably didn't like the feng shui of the enclosed bridge structure, but liked the phallic nature of the exposed citadel for some reason...

              I spent most of my career in video game development (Call of Duty, anyone?), but do CG work for the military industrial complex these days, which requires total accuracy and realism. Most of the guys I work with come from the VFX world (CG visual effects for film and television), and I would bet the farm that my scenario above is pretty much how that confusing monstrosity of a ship model came to be. The directors may have even found images of that Sverdlov wreck that they were inspired by, but recreated it using Iowa class models that were available.

              Originally posted by bbvet View Post
              The photos shown up to this point don't even match - whatever it is (or was) was something photoshopped or contrived - certainly not an actual ship.
              You are on the right track Hank, but Photoshop is 2D, and this is 3D like RandyM's work-in-progress model on the Ship Model Forum, though not nearly as accurate or cool!

              I just find the whole thing funny, because RandyM is "just" a talented amateur enthusiast, and the guys who did this model in question are professionals. The irony is that Randy has the freedom to do whatever he wants and take as long as he wants to do it right, where as the pros have to do it on a tight budget and answer to mucky-mucks who want it their way, leading to the good folks here scratching our heads in confusion.

              I'd love to get my hands on Randy's accurate BB-63 model, and see what I can do with it in the high-end professional 3D packages I work with.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dan_Bickell View Post
                "CG" as in computer generated 3D models, although after 20+ years of doing it professionally, I can tell you that the computers still don't really generate much at all. When we do hack-jobs with different models, we still call it "kitbashing", as when parts of practical (real-world plastic) scale model kits are utilized in ways they were not intended for, like making a Star Wars spaceship out of parts of various model kits for a filming miniature back in the day before CG largely took over.

                I don't know how accurate the models they used were to start with, but they were modified to suit their needs. With CG models, it is possible to do many things you can't do with practical models, like scale parts up and down, or move parts around intersecting with each other. My guess would be that some art director, with little knowledge or reverence for these ships, wanted the turret "bigger!", wanted the turret from the modern Iowa model with the flag to help convey that the United States was ancient history, but wanted the AA guns from the WWII model as well ("I think it would be just fabulous to have all those little guns from this one too!"). Then he probably didn't like the feng shui of the enclosed bridge structure, but liked the phallic nature of the exposed citadel for some reason...

                I spent most of my career in video game development (Call of Duty, anyone?), but do CG work for the military industrial complex these days, which requires total accuracy and realism. Most of the guys I work with come from the VFX world (CG visual effects for film and television), and I would bet the farm that my scenario above is pretty much how that confusing monstrosity of a ship model came to be. The directors may have even found images of that Sverdlov wreck that they were inspired by, but recreated it using Iowa class models that were available.



                You are on the right track Hank, but Photoshop is 2D, and this is 3D like RandyM's work-in-progress model on the Ship Model Forum, though not nearly as accurate or cool!

                I just find the whole thing funny, because RandyM is "just" a talented amateur enthusiast, and the guys who did this model in question are professionals. The irony is that Randy has the freedom to do whatever he wants and take as long as he wants to do it right, where as the pros have to do it on a tight budget and answer to mucky-mucks who want it their way, leading to the good folks here scratching our heads in confusion.

                I'd love to get my hands on Randy's accurate BB-63 model, and see what I can do with it in the high-end professional 3D packages I work with.
                There is one point regarding the "kitbash" that is pretty much accurate, and Rusty will probably bear me our there, and that is if you tried to put that big, freaking turret on an 11,000 ton warship (approximate displacement of Sverdlov from memory . . . back in the day we had to be able to regurgitate crap like that), it would probably heel her over just as you see in the picture. Bad juju.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                  Right, that's what I mean by "side-to-side" vice "fore and aft" as is generally the case in most US warships. One other thing to understand about those boilers you operate is that they are just a bit more forgiving than the D or M type in a warship. That's because they are not "accelerated," or at least not accelerated to the degree the other two variety are. What that refers to is the angle of the tube bundle. If you look at those in Lane Victory, they are set at an angle between the steam drum on top, and the water drum (or "mud" drum as we call them in the Navy) and the water screen and water wall tube headers at the bottom, but the angle is very slight, just north of horizonal. Then look at the angle in the M and D type and you can see the angle is much closer to nearly vertical. That accelerates the nucleate boiling process. It also mean things happen faster. Sometimes too fast, and bad things can happen if people aren't on their toes.
                  I toured USS Missouri at Pearl last November. Took the "Heart of Missouri" tour and got to see the inside of turret 2 (cool) and two of the main spaces (even better). Stood in front of boiler #7 and marveled at how similar it is to what I'm familiar with but on a much grander and intense scale. Would love to see one of those operated and understand the nuances that come with it. While I could certainly get some fires lit, I'd be over my head pretty quickly when it al started to come to life.
                  Attached Files
                  Last edited by SharkPilot; 18 Oct 14,, 21:45. Reason: Added photo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SharkPilot View Post
                    I toured USS Missouri at Pearl last November. Took the "Heart of Missouri" tour and got to see the inside of turret 2 (cool) and two of the main spaces (even better). Stood in front of boiler #7 and marveled at how similar it is to what I'm familiar with but on a much grander and intense scale. Would love to see one of those operated and understand the nuances that come with it. While I could certainly get some fires lit, I'd be over my head pretty quickly when it al started to come to life.[ATTACH]38312[/ATTACH]
                    Yup, it would be a real challenge for an untrained crew not to run a boiler high water casualty the first time they tested the main engine. "Shrink and swell" in the steam drum is something we all hear about in training, but the first time it happens is rather disconcerting to the uninitiated.

                    Comment


                    • Dan_Bickell wrote:

                      I just find the whole thing funny, because RandyM is "just" a talented amateur enthusiast, and the guys who did this model in question are professionals. The irony is that Randy has the freedom to do whatever he wants and take as long as he wants to do it right, where as the pros have to do it on a tight budget and answer to mucky-mucks who want it their way, leading to the good folks here scratching our heads in confusion.

                      I'd love to get my hands on Randy's accurate BB-63 model, and see what I can do with it in the high-end professional 3D packages I work with.
                      Dan,

                      I also post on SMF and RandyM & I are in correspondence re. his 3D printing/design work on the 1:200 scale IOWA class model we're both working on (his - MISSOURI 1945; mine - NEW JERSEY 1968-69) as well as kibitzing on his 3D MO project that you mentioned. He has done a wonderful job on it and for only a self taught SolidWorks designer, quite an accomplishment. I am a professional facilities CAD engineer using 2D Bentley MicroStation and haven't had the time to delve into the 3D arena. I was toying with Solid Edge quite a few years ago but never had the time to learn it from a usable standpoint. Outside of work, I also use MicroStation for drawing up parts I need and have done so in construction of several models now.

                      The original photo posted showing the ship in question obviously was the creation of someone with high level CG tools available, but what they came up with was a real piece of imagination. As earlier pointed out, the oversized turret with the U.S. flag was a dead giveaway that someone was under the influence...of something!

                      Hank

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                        Yup, it would be a real challenge for an untrained crew not to run a boiler high water casualty the first time they tested the main engine. "Shrink and swell" in the steam drum is something we all hear about in training, but the first time it happens is rather disconcerting to the uninitiated.
                        We would get swell when throttles opened, especially when going astern. Our little turbines use so little steam compared to the warship engines, the swell must get pretty dramatic. Probably downright exciting if the throttle man has had a lot of coffee, or there is a genuine emergency topside.
                        How is it handled? For most conditions we would just let well enough along and it would all stabilize. Going astern though did result in some tense moments a few times.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SharkPilot View Post
                          We would get swell when throttles opened, especially when going astern. Our little turbines use so little steam compared to the warship engines, the swell must get pretty dramatic. Probably downright exciting if the throttle man has had a lot of coffee, or there is a genuine emergency topside.
                          How is it handled? For most conditions we would just let well enough along and it would all stabilize. Going astern though did result in some tense moments a few times.
                          I know you are familiar with the situation, but just for the edification of others, "swell" is a phenomenon that occurs when the main engine throttle is opened or electrical power demand is increased such that the ship's service turbine generator throttle opens wider. It happens because pressure is temporarily taken off the top of the water level in the water drum, causing the steam bubbles entrained in the water circulating through the boiler generating tubes to expand in size, not unlike opening a bottle of Coke. This results in an artificial rise in the boiler water level. As you indicated, you can often hang tight until the system reaches equilibrium, simply by increasing the firing rate (adding more fuel and air to the fire) to accommodate the change in boiler load. "Shrink" of course is just the opposite; you close the throttle and the pressure inside the water drum increases, causing the steam bubbles to shrink, and the water level to fall. Of the two potential casualties, shrink is the worst as it can, if too extreme, result in generating tubes being uncovered, and a ruptured tube not far behind.

                          On the modern 1200PSI and 600PSI plants I was associated with for most of my career, we had Automatic Boiler Control systems, which like the water level in Lane Victory, were operated by pneumatically controlled valves and sensing mechanisms. The whole thing ran on low pressure air, with made operation of the LP air compressors a key facet of overall plant safety and operations. If the system, which included the subsets of Main Feed Pump controls, and Feed Water Inlet Valve controls; and Force Draft Blower and Fuel Oil Pump/Fuel Oil Control Valve controls, was operating properly, the plant operators need not touch a single thing. They were merely there to monitor the plant, and intervene should something fail. The only valve that was manually operated was the Main Engine Throttle and that's it. However, because sometimes an LP air compressor will fail, and therefore the ABC system fail, the watch standers were trained to take what was known as "local manual control." In other words, operate just as you do in Lane Victory all the time, only for them, it is a casualty situation.

                          Midway, Coral Sea, the battleships, and some of the old LPDs and I believe the LPHs (I just can't remember for sure), did not have ABC systems so they too operated as you do in Lane Victory. Now, with a crew that is accustomed to doing things that way, it's business as usual. Except for one instance; the biggest, fastest swell you have ever seen is a catapult drag off of the boiler. Every time an airplane is shot off the pointy end, that boiler gets the mother of all steam drags. It's like opening the throttle at Warp Factor 8 and hanging on for dear life. It's so bad in fact that the throttleman in the affected space will actually close down on the throttle valve to reduce the load from that end, until the cat drag is over, and then opens it again.

                          I may have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. We frequently dealt with the situation in some unique ways to make the throttleman's life, and the wear and tear on the ABC systems a bit more genteel. We had standing permission from the commanding officer to give verbal orders to the engineering spaces for making the required speed through the water. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that the bridge ordered "All Ahead Full, Indicate 125 RPM for 20 knots." The spaces from forward to aft in that class are Number One Auxiliary Machinery Room (AMR), Number One Main Machinery Room (MMR), Number Four MMR, Number Two AMR, Number Two MMR, and Number Three MMR. One and Four MMR have the two outboard shafts which are the longest on the ship, and Two and Three MMR have the two shorter inboard shafts.

                          In any event, one could let the spaces answer the bell the way the bridge ordered, which in fact they do initially. However, the Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) will take stock of what spaces are carrying the catapults. In this case, let's say that Number Four MMR is feeding the bow cats, and Number Three MMR is feeding the waist cats. So, we would do this, "One Main, Central, Verbal Order 175 RPM; Four Main, Central, Verbal Order 080 RPM; Two Main, Central, Verbal Order 160 RPM; Three Main, Central, Verbal Order 085 RPM. If you count up 125 times four, you get 500 RPM, which divided by four of course gives you 125; the ordered RPM from the bridge, yes? However, if you add 175 + 080 + 160 + 085, you also get 500 RPM, which again divided by four gives us the same 125 RPM ordered from the bridge. The boilers carrying the cats are happier, as are the thottlemen in those spaces, and you get the added perq of effectively demonstrating the ASW countermeasure of "turn count masking." A submarine listening passively doesn't know if he's hearing one large ship, or four smaller ones, all doing different RPM. It's a win-win across the board, and with that, I am going to bed. Good night all.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                            In any event, one could let the spaces answer the bell the way the bridge ordered, which in fact they do initially. However, the Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) will take stock of what spaces are carrying the catapults. In this case, let's say that Number Four MMR is feeding the bow cats, and Number Three MMR is feeding the waist cats. So, we would do this, "One Main, Central, Verbal Order 175 RPM; Four Main, Central, Verbal Order 080 RPM; Two Main, Central, Verbal Order 160 RPM; Three Main, Central, Verbal Order 085 RPM. If you count up 125 times four, you get 500 RPM, which divided by four of course gives you 125; the ordered RPM from the bridge, yes? However, if you add 175 + 080 + 160 + 085, you also get 500 RPM, which again divided by four gives us the same 125 RPM ordered from the bridge. The boilers carrying the cats are happier, as are the thottlemen in those spaces, and you get the added perq of effectively demonstrating the ASW countermeasure of "turn count masking." A submarine listening passively doesn't know if he's hearing one large ship, or four smaller ones, all doing different RPM. It's a win-win across the board, and with that, I am going to bed. Good night all.
                            Now that is fascinating. I wonder though, with the shafts all turning at different rpm, is the ship's speed still 20 knots? Also, with two screws turning slower, are they a drag on the ship, or are they turning fast enough to contribute? I have only worked on a single screwed Lane Victory so don't have any experience with multiple shafts.
                            Cool though how it affects passive listening. A confused submarine can be a good thing, I would think.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SharkPilot View Post
                              Now that is fascinating. I wonder though, with the shafts all turning at different rpm, is the ship's speed still 20 knots? Also, with two screws turning slower, are they a drag on the ship, or are they turning fast enough to contribute? I have only worked on a single screwed Lane Victory so don't have any experience with multiple shafts.
                              Cool though how it affects passive listening. A confused submarine can be a good thing, I would think.
                              Yup, same speed, because in the aggregate, it's still 125 RPM per shaft . . . even though it's not. LOL!!!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                                There is one point regarding the "kitbash" that is pretty much accurate, and Rusty will probably bear me our there, and that is if you tried to put that big, freaking turret on an 11,000 ton warship (approximate displacement of Sverdlov from memory . . . back in the day we had to be able to regurgitate crap like that), it would probably heel her over just as you see in the picture. Bad juju.
                                I agree definitely that the first picture of a large ship capsized to port is horribly out of proportion, particularly that enormous turret. Using a magnifying glass on my screen, it appears to have an American flag painted on top but with 50 STARS?

                                The second photo does appear to be a Sverdlov class ship. I have seen other photos of 2 or 3 of them washed up on a beach in Spain. They were to be sold for scrap but a heavy storm broke them loose from their moorings wound up looking like my grandkids toys on the floor when they got tired of playing with them.

                                Oh, and in a ship identification book we had in the library of LBNSY, it said the Sverdlov had 7.1" guns with a range of 20+ miles. I'll let the artillery experts on this forum debate on that. I have enough to fret over as it is.
                                Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X