Shipbucket

The problem huehen me old mucker is that when you post a design study on the forum you are 'defacto' inviting other members to comment, otherwise why bother I mean, you could wait until you have your final version and then post that. Re the comments and how you take them, do I detect a slight irritation? Surely not from the Joker?

Anyway, my latest thought is why do you need two of these 3-in twin 'mothers'? on such a small hull, especially when you intend one to have a small magazine? One feature of this gun mount was that it could exhaust a magazine very quickly, which is why it wasn't necessary to have more than one on a hull of this size; the RCN was the only navy that used it in this way, but I'm not sure how they coped with depletion. Maybe have one mount forward, where the current 5-in is shown, that should work o.k.

Re beam, maybe give us all a look at the plan view to see what you intend?

The problem huehen me old mucker is that when you post a design study on the forum you are 'defacto' inviting other members to comment, otherwise why bother I mean, you could wait until you have your final version and then post that. Re the comments and how you take them, do I detect a slight irritation? Surely not from the Joker?

you know how I feel, every time I getting beaten by Batman... and the I have to walk around with that big gun in my trousers. and I caln't find my pen... I left it at the desk...

But yeah I got a bit irritation, but that might be me and lost in translation... But then I get that feeling when everybody talks about that 5" gun, when I say it is just mounted there for fun (that means it's not meant to be there!)

Anyway, my latest thought is why do you need two of these 3-in twin 'mothers'? on such a small hull, especially when you intend one to have a small magazine? One feature of this gun mount was that it could exhaust a magazine very quickly, which is why it wasn't necessary to have more than one on a hull of this size; the RCN was the only navy that used it in this way, but I'm not sure how they coped with depletion. Maybe have one mount forward, where the current 5-in is shown, that should work o.k.

I chose the gun because it was the only gun I could find that day I drawn the ship that fits the time period. but I could have gone for one late WW2 gun instead sinc sh is intended to be an ASW vessel. But then what gun shall I us...

Re beam, maybe give us all a look at the plan view to see what you intend?

yup! I can do a fast one on here.

This is how I draw here originally! and as you can see it's way different then what I posted! the beam: It's just a meter and half more than other ships from that time period.

Much better but I'd place the Limbos in centerline wells.

I do think that this original iteration is somewhat nicer laid out. I'm also with Thiel, ASW mortars to the centreline.

I see the advantage of having them center-line mounted, but there is probably also some advantage to have them mounted of cent, since they are loaded from the side. but then this hull is so big that there are no problem to me to have them mounted on center-line.

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675 ... in-rammers

Honestly, I like the offset look.

Were depth charges ever carried on the same ship as SVTT and Limbo? Seems a bit pointless.

for some reason these two had it!

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... tineau.png
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... Fraser.png


And Oslo class to but that system was an rocket launched depth charge instead of an mortar. (BTW, did you know the Oslo class had three ready for use rockets in carousels. Two carousels bellow the launcher, and one carousel bellow (in the magazine) those two carousel. There was also a magazine under that again. so the maximum depth of Terne III with big magazine was, four deck. )

The Limbo was retained because early ASW torpedoes had a hard time dealing with shallow water.
This is also why you see standard depth charges on new built ships all the way up to the eighties.