Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
rdfox76
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 28th, 2021, 9:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: November 11th, 2015, 2:15 pm
When the Kingdom of Tet Satou heard very believable rumors that a longtime rival, the Empire of Elbonia, was constructing new, 4000-ton, twelve-knot ironclad warships, it put the government in a bit of a quandry. While they knew that they did not yet have the industrial base or facilities to support ships that could defend against the rumored new ships, at the same time, the threat that they posed was too great to ignore. The Army proposed a viable solution: defend the nation's major coastal targets with coastal artillery located in shoreline fortresses. Almost all vital locations and harbors could be easily covered by such... with one major exception.

The largest, most important seaport for the entire Kingdom, Taulaga Muamua Sami, was located on a natural harbor with a mouth three miles wide... but the best coastal guns available, though able to fire such distances, couldn't be accurately fired further than about one mile. Even if coastal fortresses were installed at either end of the harbor mouth, they couldn't effectively cover the entire width of the harbor, much less provide an interlocking field of fire for its entire width. Fortunately, the Army also had a solution to this issue. As the harbor mouth was about 25 feet deep, they proposed, it would be entirely feasible to build coastal fortresses on a pair of large, specially-constructed barges, which could then be towed out to the harbor mouth and, using ballast tanks, be sunk to sit on the harbor bottom, essentially forming artificial island fortifications that would provide the entire harbor mouth with interlocking fields of fire from "coastal" guns. Should major repairs of the barges become necessary, the ballast tanks could be pumped out to refloat the fortresses, and they could then be towed back to land to be careened; resupply of the soldiers stationed at the fortresses could easily be accomplished by boat.

A number of people in the fledgling Navy had doubts about the feasibility of such a scheme, arguing that it would be better to use floating batteries or monitors in the role, but the Navy was still young, and wasn't going to be able to provide such a solution for at least seven years, by its own estimates. Thus, the Army proposal carried the day, largely by virtue of being the only option that could be ready in time for the delivery of the anticipated Elbonian ironclads.

The final design of the fortress barges proved to be quite large indeed, with both length and width in excess of 100 feet, and extending twenty feet below the waterline when afloat, with a designed "emplaced" draft of 25 feet as it sat on the bottom. In fairness to the Army, the fortress itself was quite well designed, with iron armor eleven inches thick over the vital parts of the structure, backed up by eighteen inches of old-growth oak, with two feet of oak on the unarmored areas; the armor on all forward-facing surfaces (and the sides of the spotting tower) being heavily sloped to attempt to deflect cannonballs up and over the fort. Much of the volume enclosed below the waterline was taken up by the ballast tanks used to settle the barge onto the bottom, but there was still a significant amount of space below the waterline available for storage, particularly of shell, powder, and coal.

The fortress itself was heavily armed: two fifteen-inch Rodman columbiads in casemate mounts atop the structure, four ten-inch Rodmans on a gun deck below that, and eight Whitworth 70-pounder rifles on a second lower gun deck. All of these guns were designed to have a field of fire of about 135 degrees, ranging from directly abeam the fortress on their side to about 45 degrees to the opposite side of dead ahead. In addition, two Ericsson-style turrets were mounted on either side of the spotting tower. Each of these turrets had 360 degrees of traverse (and about 270 degrees of clear firing arc) for the two 11" Dahlgren guns installed in them; the turrets were suitable for upgrade to 15" Dahlgrens should such be necessary.

A pair of boilers at the level of the lowest gun deck provided steam to power both the turrets and an ammunition hoist that was the primary method of supplying the 15" Rodmans; the hoist also could stop at either of the lower gun decks to transfer ammunition for the smaller guns to and from bulk stowage below, but in combat, the smaller guns would primarily be supplied by muscle-powered block and tackle hoist systems that resupplied the ready storage racks. The spotting tower was also equipped to control command-detonated torpedoes (mines), as a supplement to control sites on land, on the grounds that visibility from the forts at sea could be better under certain conditions. Provisions were also made to later equip the fortresses as anchor points for harbor defense chains or booms, but these were not initially fitted.

A significant dock area was provided at the rear of the fortress, to accommodate the boats that would be used to ferry personnel and supplies to it. The Army's plan was for these fortresses to remain emplaced for extended periods of time, being careened perhaps once per decade; thus, they specified that the entire barge be coppered below the waterline, to protect it from being destroyed by borer worms. Quarters for the officers assigned to the fort were provided below the spotting tower, as was a mess hall for all personnel; the enlisted men were quartered in the two lower gun decks.

[ img ]
The first of the two fortresses is shown, along with a typical example of the harbor tugs used to position the fortresses in the harbor mouth before the ballast tanks were flooded through the large vents on the sides of the barge.

The project, naturally, ran over budget and behind schedule, and the Navy continued to call for killing the barge-based fortresses in favor of "cheaper" (but later) ship-based defenses. However, despite this, and despite some questioning whether the purported Elbonian ironclads would ever materialize, a combination of bureaucratic momentum and a feeling that something had to be done to counter the perceived threat saw the project completed, with the two fortresses being initially emplaced in early November 1887. Beyond a quick repainting of their exposed iron surfaces from black to white, following the discovery that a black iron box would heat up like an oven in the sun of a tropical summer, the fortresses were found to be entirely serviceable and required no major changes for the first few years of operation.

However, this would be changed by the Great Typhoon of 1871. While the structures themselves weathered the storm well, storm-driven waves blew in some of the shutters over the lower deck gunports, resulting in large amounts of water being shipped aboard and causing internal damage, including to the gun mountings. However, this wasn't the worst problem from the storm; after it had passed, it was found that both fortresses had been pushed more than fifty feet towards shore from their originally planned positions. A number of people familiar with copper-bottomed vessels expressed concern that this could have damaged the sheathing as it slid across the seabed, and the Army decided that both fortresses should be careened for bottom inspection.

The worries only became greater when divers were sent to close the ballast tank vents in preparation for refloating the barges; the divers reported that there was now significant undercutting of the harbor bottom extending beneath the two fortresses. Both were refloated and taken ashore, but inspection and repair was delayed while the exact nature of the undercutting was studied. It was soon determined that the undercutting was the result of scour by the currents produced by the typhoon as it came ashore; whatever solution was undertaken to ensure there would be no further slippage of the fortresses, it would also have to protect against storm scour undercutting them to the point that they either sank or toppled.

One proposed solution involved driving a large number of iron pilings into the seabed until they reached bedrock, then placing the repaired barges on those pilings with interlocking pins holding them in place. However, this was deemed to be too expensive a solution. Instead, the Army chose a different route: the holes in the harbor floor would be filled in, the fortresses placed back in their original positions, and then large piles of fill and riprap would be used to permanently anchor the fortresses in place, effectively turning them into a pair of artificial islands. The Army proposed using rubble and debris left over from the typhoon as a large part of the fill material, with the rest coming from operations to dredge a deeper channel between the two fortress locations; this plan was approved in October 1871.

With this, a number of changes had to be made to the fortress barges. No longer could they be refloated and careened on a regular basis; they would become permanent parts of the harbor and thus would have to be made able to last indefinitely. The most visible change would be the removal of the valuable copper sheathing, to be melted down and reused, instead replaced with multiple thick layers of a paint based on natural rubber found in the nation, intended to permanently waterproof the wood planking and thus prevent rot. Other changes included reinforcing the structural framework supporting the fortress, and removal of the dock structure from the rear of the fortress, as this would no longer be of value in docking supply vessels. Additionally, a lighthouse structure was mounted atop the spotting tower, to warn ships (during peacetime) away from the new artificial islands.

Following the modifications, the two barges were returned to the water and towed back to their now-restored positions, then sunk via flooding the ballast tanks to emplace the fortresses again in July 1872. Following this, there was an extended period where fill dirt from the channel dredging was poured into the ballast tanks, to more firmly weight down the barges, followed by the dumping of typhoon debris and fill material to produce the anchoring artificial islands, which was then followed by dumping riprap around most of the islands to protect the islands from the possibility of storm scour. (A small area at the "rear" of the island was left clear of riprap, to provide a safe space for docking supply vessels.) The fortresses were officially returned to operation in January 1873, and would remain so for many years.

A new generation of coastal guns would, in 1899, render the artificial fortresses obsolete as gun emplacements, as the new guns could effectively cover the entire width of the harbor mouth. However, the old fortresses remained in use as forward spotting and fire control locations for the coastal guns, with armored long-base rangefinders replacing the old 15" Rodman guns and the old spotting tower's armor modified to allow a smaller rangefinder to be installed in it. In 1947, the Army would install fire control radar systems for its coastal guns, allowing it to declare the old fortresses obsolete and abandon them as military posts, though their lighthouses, marking the channel entrance, would remain manually operated until 1956, when they were automated and the keeper positions abolished.

Today, the fortresses remain in place, somewhat deteriorated but still serving as navigational beacons for the harbor of Taulaga Muamua Sami; efforts are being made by the Army Historical Command to restore one to its 1873 configuration, and the other to its 1945 configuration, so that both could be reopened as museums in the future. Ironically, the Elbonian ironclads the fortresses had been built to counter had been nothing more than rumors and disinformation; instead, the Elbonian Empire collapsed in 1877 and was absorbed into the Philippines.

(Hey, folks. When judging, please note that the decision to include the tug in the drawing was based on discussions in the challenge channel on the Discord server, where the general agreement was that I would have to include whatever method was used to transport the barge to its final destination in the drawing itself. Please don't ding me for that, as it's not meant as an attempt to get around the rules!)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
IJNRedshirt
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 30th, 2021, 12:28 am
Offline
Posts: 12
Joined: March 18th, 2019, 8:53 pm
[ img ]

Name: Monroe
Country: Peru (AH)
Launched: 1866
Type: Center-Battery Ironclad Corvette
Builders: Continental Ironworks, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Speed: 10 Knots
Rig: Schooner
Engines: 1 Marine Trunk Steam Engines, driving 1 four bladed screw
Boilers: 4
Displacement: 2000 tons
Length: 229 ft (70m)
Beam: 33 ft (10 m)
Draft: 16 ft ( 5 m)
Crew: 150
Armament: 4x 7in Brooke Rifles
Armour: 5in (Belt), 5in (Battery)

The Monroe, named after the doctrine she was designed to uphold, was ordered in 1865 during the Chincha Islands War. Principally the ship was designed to counter a rumored plan for a new Spanish corvette armed with six 9 in guns, which eventually materialized in the form of the Méndez Núñez, a refit of an existing ship damaged in the war. Budget minded Peruvian agents in the United States located four 7 in Brooke Rifles, now surplus with the defeat of the Confederate States and the scrapping of the USS Atlanta & USS Tennessee. The reduce displacement and cost, although the ship was built completely of iron, it used the latest center battery design which only armored a central section of the ship, with 5 inches of armour. The ships's 7 in guns were mounted on pivot carriages, which fired from ports at the corners of the battery, allowing for end on and broadside fire. Designed for shorter range defending Peru, the ships rig was a simple schooner design. She was powered by a trunk engine, similar to those used in monitors and designed to have reduced height to lessen the chance of their being damaged by shell fire, turning a pair of propellors which gave her good speed and maneuverability. Launched in 1866, the ship’s delivery voyage from New York to Callao was uneventful, the ship arriving just too late for the Battle of Callao on May 5th,. The ship was commissioned into the Peruvian Navy, and typically operated in concert with the turret ship Huascar. During the Peruvian Civil War in 1877, the Huascar defected to the rebels leaving the Monroe the only Government ship still operable. She was dispatched to chase Huascar, but never succeeded in sighting her. The Huascar would later return to port and surrender. During the War of the Pacific with Chile, the two ships once more formed the frontline units of the Peruvian Navy. Unfortunately, the Huascar grounded and was captured by a Chillean ship she was chasing early in the war, halving the strength of the fleet. The Monroe thus became the principle unit of the Brazilian Navy. Serving largely as a fleet in being, the ship traded shots with the Huascar inconclusively near the end of the war and was scuttled during the surrender of Peru to Chile in Callao harbor. Raised after the war, the ship was disarmed and used as a training ship, eventually being scrapped in 1901.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 30th, 2021, 2:03 am
Offline
Posts: 321
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
[ img ]

Rainham Island, located off the eastern coast of New Holland, became the site of a brutal massacre in 1866. The merchant ship Vincent, a frequent visitor, arrived to collect spar timber in late July. Iraroa, the paramount chief, welcomed the crew and offered the labour of his people in exchange for manufactured goods. His son had been aboard the ship for more than a year. Events unfolded amicably for a week. However, Iraroa soon discovered that his son had been beaten and whipped on multiple occasions. Angered by this grave injustice, the Rainham Islanders slaughtered disembarked members of the crew and attacked the Vincent in their war canoes. The ship carried six old carronades as an anti-piracy measure, but these were not ready for action. Three officers escaped in a jolly boat and John Ellesmere, the captain, was taken alive. The rest of the crew was massacred. Ellesmere warned Iraroa that he would soon face the might of the Royal Navy. He described the ironclads he had seen under construction in Portsmouth and promised Iraroa that they would be the instruments of Britain’s revenge.

Iraroa did not fully understand Ellesmere’s description of the new British ironclads. Undeterred, he rose to mee the challenge. Iraroa ordered a new class of war canoe to be built. Each one carried a carronade salvaged from Vincent. A small, reinforced deck was built forward of the typical crab-claw sail for this purpose. The new canoes were heavier than older types and carried fewer rowers. They were still relatively fast, however, and would prove to be difficult targets.

A warship arrived off the coast of Rainham Island in April 1867. It was not one of the fearsome ironclads described by Ellesmere, but a sloop dispatched by the New Holland colonial government. HMNHS Marcher was soon surrounded by Rainham Islander canoes. Aware of the earlier massacre, they were prepared for action. The six carronade-armed canoes were a surprise, but their fire proved to be inaccurate and they soon ran out of ammunition. Sailors aboard Marcher struggled to sink the small, mobile canoes. However, they easily repelled attempted boardings with rifle fire. The action lasted for around an hour before the Rainham Islanders retired. The surviving canoes were burned by armed sailors from Marcher who went on to capture Iraroa and free Ellesmere.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
APDAF
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 30th, 2021, 3:24 am
Offline
Posts: 1508
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am
While the mid-19th century Imperial Russian Navy was one of the largest and more successful navies of the period, the sudden power shift that was the unification of Germany changed everything. The proclamation came not long after the relatively short yet earth shattering Austro-Prussian War of 1853-1855, during which the last vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire were finally cast aside. While that alone did send military planners into a spin it was also the surrender of France after their failed intervention on Austria's side which made the Russian Military really stand up and pay attention.

Unfortunately the Russian Empire was always a conservative and more reactionary power than the more forward thinking and proactive British or German Empires. And it would take another full decade before the Imperial Russian Navy would finally stop and pay attention to what the other Great Naval powers were doing. And they did not like what they saw. Not only had sail completely given way to steam but also warships made and armoured with iron had arrived. With both the Kōshin and the Lousianne Civil Wars the old wooden warships of the Imperial Russian Navy where horrifically obsolete as now there were Ironclads not only armed with new rifled guns but also the invention of the turret had meant that a smaller ship could bring to bare guns capable of heavily damaging much larger vessels.

To this end in 1867 the Tzarist government enacted a naval building program that had never before been since in Russian since the days of Peter the Great. With the laying down of nearly a dozen Ironclads, unfortunately Russian industry was not up to the task of building let alone finishing the vessels in the time it took the Germans to have an ironclad capable of threatening Saint Petersburg. In a panic the Russians looked to their longtime friends in the Americas, the Federal Republic of Lousianne who not only had spare yard capacity but needed the cash to pay off the debts incurred during their Civil War. And thus Compagnie de construction navale et d'artillerie de la Nouvelle-Orléans (New Orleans Shipbuilding and Artillery Company) were contracted to built a class of small class of sea going monitors a speciality of the company.

They were to be capable of at least twelve knots, carry a pair of fifteen inch Dahlgren Guns in a large forward turret though those were later revised to a pair of twelve inch Armstrong Guns. In addition they also had eight smaller 7 inch breech loading Armstrong guns in casemates on the hexagonal superstructure. Armour was to be six inches of iron backed with twelve inches of teak for the turret while the hull was more modestly armoured with three inches of iron with the same amount of teak. The class was also armed with a ram to cripple if not sink larger ships if possible as was in vogue at the time.

The first ship and the class name was meant to also be ironic in a sense due to an Iconoclast being one who smashes icons and idols and the new large and very expensive Ironclads could be said to be the Icons of their day.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Victoria
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 31st, 2021, 4:30 am
Offline
Posts: 7
Joined: January 3rd, 2021, 10:35 pm
With the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in the 2nd Schleswig War, Denmark had lost large amounts of land and realized that they could not rely on fellow European powers to protect them as they had in the first war and that they needed a fleet to protect the Danish Straits, against any threat. Thus, a new coastal ironclad monitor was ordered, to defend against the ironclads emerging, to be armed with 12-inch guns. After many years of work with a shaped hull, followed by the bolting of riveted plate armor to provide extra armor to the ship, the KDM Værge, or the Guardian, named after its's role in guarding the Danish straits. The ship was designed with operations from Copenhagen and Aarhus in mind, to intercept hostile ships of the Prussian or British navies.

However, due to the ship's intended role for defending against Britain and Prussia, they could not source the 12-inch guns that were requested by the navy from anyone, since the main supplier of Danish weaponry was Britain, who the ship was ostensibly designed at least partially against. Due to this, the guns had to be downsized to 10-inch guns, which would be produced in Denmark with steel bought from Sweden.

After this small pause due to a lack of weaponry, where the future of the ship seemed uncertain, it was outfitted with the turrets and commissioned into the Royal Danish Navy, where it served as a centerpiece of the new evolution of the Danish fleet, and a prime showcase of a change from the previous power projecting Danish fleet, and the new coastal defense fleet, built around protecting Denmark.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charguizard
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 31st, 2021, 4:36 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
Ironclad Corvette Giant Isopod


[ img ]
The Fourth Naval Program was enacted in 1868 embracing the lessons of the Fifth Anglo-Dutch War (1866-1867), in which several costly lessons were had by both sides. The Giant Isopod-class Ironclad Corvettes exemplify the embracing of the Ironclad concept by the Dutch Admiralty, by granting an admittedly 3rd rate patrol and support ship of wrought iron armour, breech loading rifles and a ram. Unlike their Schooner predecessors, they had a configuration much like a Battleship, with a central battery sporting six heavy guns in embrasures, capable of fire on the broadsides and ahead/astern, and a full ship rig. These ships proved very maneuverable, if a bit quick on the roll. Reuzenpissebed clocked only 11.78 kn on trials, barely saving her builder, Etablissement Fijenoord, from a monetary penalty. Their funnel was retractable and the propeller able to be hoisted, and name ship Reuzenpissebed is depicted here as commissioned, in sailing configuration with her funnel retracted, her propeller hoisted, and almost a full spread of sail deployed. She is still painted in a european scheme, but would be repainted buff on white on arrival at her station in the Dutch East Indies.

_________________
w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
unclesam
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 31st, 2021, 5:31 am
Offline
Posts: 2
Joined: January 1st, 2020, 5:28 am
[ img ]
Names:
Scutum
Hoplon
Parma
Caetra

Specifications:
Tonnage - 1200 tons
Armor - 8.5in "Turret" face, belt of 4in, deck of 1.5in, CT of 8in(all varied in class)
Speed - 8(commissioned)-12knts(planned)
Range - 1,200nmi @6knts
Armament -
Originally 2x20in smooth-bore(AU Dahlgren equivalent)
As commissioned: 2x15in smooth-bore(AU Dahlgren equivalent)
History:
The first of a new kind of warship for the kings navy and more importantly a stepping stone for in-country built naval manufacture, the Scutum class was meant to be deployed with large 20in smoothbore guns to defeat larger enemy ocean going type ironclads armor in close range combat in brown water areas and able to quickly maneuver up to and around said larger ocean going ironclads, pivot guns were put inside a armored housing simplified price and work compared to plans of armored rotating gun houses.
The civil war at almost the end of their construction saw the Navy siding with the king and the army siding with various tribes that made up the "states" of Lorico. The navy rushed constriction of the class launching one unfinished as the army captured the naval yard they were being constructed at. Scutum was the first officially finished ship, by the army. Armed with 15in guns off of costal defenses she was used with great effect against the blockade by the navy which was primarily made up of wooden ships.
The Navies half finished ship, the Hoplon, was armed quickly with smaller 8in guns.
The fight between the sister ships soon after turned sour for the Hoplon, as Scutum had the ability to punch through her armor. the Hoplon surrendered after being cut off by the rising tide, and was captured by the army, eventually being returned to service after the war. The navy continued to try to rig up ironclads as they continued to lose ground to the Army with decidedly mixed results. The navy eventually mutinied and surrendered to the army for clemency, with the king choosing exile instead of facing the court. This firmly cemented the army as the first and main branch of the armed forces, with the navy put under control of the army.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 31st, 2021, 11:47 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
In the 1860's, the Royal Netherlands Navy had a problem. Recent events had proven that while there was still a role for unarmoured ships, to be a player on the world stage it was a requirement to be able to stand up to armoured ships. The Dutch, with their large merchant fleet and overseas territories, could not afford to have a navy that could be completely dismissed by the larger nations. For this reason, a major programme was started. First of all, 4 turret ram warships were ordered in Great Britain for coastal defence in 1866: Buffel, Guinea, Schorpioen and Stier. These would defend the home waters along with low freeboard monitor types. This solved the immediate problem, but did not suddenly make the Dutch relevant again in the waters away from home. It was considered to order another warship in Britain, this time an oceangoing armoured warship. It was however considered an issue if the navy was reliant on foreign powers for every single modern warship in service. Instead the choice was made to design and build an seagoing ironclad in the Amsterdam Navy Yard, sourcing only the materials that could not be procured otherwise from Britain. In the end this would be part of the frames, the steam engine and boilers, the guns and the armour plating. In addition, the Dutch also procured the tooling and spare materials to be able to not just build this ship, but also repair and maintain it and the other new armoured warships. The ship was laid down in 1866.

The requirements for the ship were to be an oceangoing warship that could operate worldwide, would not be fully dependent on coal supplies and could stand up in a fight against armoured opponents of similar size. Such a ship would be a capable part of the Royal Netherlands Navy and would prove the Dutch were capable of building modern warships.

To save time and to ensure the ship would be a good sailing ship while still having the bulk and stability for the weapons, engine and armour, the hull design started out as an lengthened version of the ships of the line the Dutch stopped building 30 years earlier. The choice was made to build a ship of composite construction; a wooden skin covering metal keel and frames. It was proposed to have a simplified rigging which could be handled by a small crew, until it was pointed out that a small crew would mean less guns, as the rigging would require less crew then handling all guns in battle. Instead the choice was made to just ship-rig her, but fit no stunsails. When in battle, the bowsprit would be reeled in, freeing the ram, so it was chosen to fit tripod masts.

The armament would consist 8 guns: 6 8-inch muzzle loading guns in the central battery, which could be aimed 30 degrees off the transverse axis (so 60 degrees total) except for the forwardmost and aftmost guns which could be aimed 45 degrees forwards and 45 degrees aft respectively, and 2 32 pounders on rafts which could be moved over rails into different locations on the ships bow and stern, which allowed them to be part of a broadside or serve as bow/stern chasers.

The resulting ship, Prins Hendrik der Nederlanden, was commissioned in 1869. Construction had been longer then expected, the new materials proving more difficult to work with then originally estimated, however any future ships would gain from this experience. The ship would remain operational until 1899, operating around the world but especially in the east indies. She would never fire her guns at any enemy ships during her lifetime. In 1875 the choice was made to reduce her rigging by shortening the bowsprit and removing the spars for her royals and mainsail (the mainsail wasn't normally fitted as it was in the smoke, and the ship rarely used her royals in practice). Interestingly, this made the ship less popular as the reduced topweight made her motion when fully loaded far less comfortable. It was then proposed to add more armour fore and aft or add more guns to fix this issue but it was not considered worth it to do so.
[ img ]
It was proposed to immediately build a second ship, but no money was available. Only in 1971 the Koning der Nederlanden was laid down, constructed fully from iron and build as a more modern, turreted design.

Zr. Ms. Prins Hendrik der Nederlanden
Central battery ironclad ship
Displacement: 3100 metric tons.
Lpp: 200 ft (60.96 m)
Beam: 40.8 ft (12.4 m)
Draught: 19.6 ft (5,97 m) (full load)
Installed power: 2831 ihp
Propulsion: 1 shaft, Horizontal return connecting rod compound steam engine, 2 square boilers. Lifted propeller.
Sail plan: ship rigged
Speed: 11 knots (steam propelled), up to 12 knots (on sails), up to 15 knots (combined sails and steam)
Complement: 270
Armament:
- 6 x 8-inch muzzle loading guns (main battery)
- 2 x 32 pounder muzzle loading guns (bow and stern chaser)
Armour:
- Belt: 4.0 in wrought iron
- Bulkheads: 3.0 in wrought iron

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Renown
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 31st, 2021, 11:57 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7
Joined: May 25th, 2020, 4:42 pm
[ img ]
Annihilator-class turret ironclad

Annihilator-class was a class of two experimental turret ironclads built by Royal Navy. The class featured two dual 12" muzzle loading turrets with a great belt armor of 12 inches thick , while relying only on steam power. Annihilator was the first turret ship built to an Admiralty design, and was also the first with entire armament placed on deck rather than the hull and powered only using steam power. Annihilator and her sister ship Obliterator was classified as half-sisters of Devastation class which was ordered right after Annihilator-class and was essentially almost the same ship but smaller.
The class was experimental , and due to technology limitations the class was oversized.This issue would later be solved on Devastation-class with a smaller and less costly design yet almost the same armament , same armor and same speed in a smaller hull and displacement. The ship was fitted with a ram bow , this was a change made during construction after the results and lessons learned by Battle of Lisa of 1866. The turrets were of Coles design. The guns were RML 12 inch 25 ton guns. The ship was propelled with two four-screw propellers each propelled by two direct-acting trunk engines , providing a total of 5000 horsepower with eight boilers.
Commissioned in 1870 , she had sea trials in 1870. A maximum sustainable speed of 12 knots was achieved with the 13 knots as the absolute maximum speed achievable.
The ship was deployed in Mediterranean Sea , she had no action happening there until 1891 refit. In 1891 , she was refitted with experimental 12 inch breech-loading guns , a prototype for the ones to be fitted to Devastation-class and the guns proved to be succesfull, along with new triple-expansion steam engines . After the refit , she appointed to fleet reviews. She was then broken up in 1905 , seeing no action.


Last edited by Renown on January 31st, 2021, 12:03 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Skibud1998
Post subject: Re: The Iron-Clad Menace (Challenge)Posted: January 31st, 2021, 11:57 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 29
Joined: June 30th, 2016, 12:21 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Hawe vir d'Avalostad (Oct 1869)

The Hawe vir d'Avalostad was a fast 130-gun three-deck ship of the line for the Afrikan Navy. Built as a new capital ship and incorporated the philosophy of "fast ship of the line" pioneered by the French, with a rounded stern and a two-cylinder, 8-boiler steam engine allowing her a speed of 12.6 knots. The propeller could be retracted to streamline the hull when sailing under sail only.

She was Launched in 1860 and was decommissioned in 1865, until being recommissioned in 1867. And lastly. struck from the Navy lists in 1879, she was broken up in 1894.

[ img ]

_________________
Worklist

Working on currently:
  • French, Bretagne, First Rate → Attaching the Sails (FD Scale)
  • French, SS Normandie, Ocean Liner → Detailing the Hull (FD Scale)
Planned works:
  • American, Wyoming, Schooner → Blueprint (FD Scale)
  • American, USS Pennsylvania, First Rate → Blueprint (FD Scale)
  • American, SS United States, Ocean Liner → Blueprint (FD Scale)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 25 posts ]  Return to “Drawing Challenges” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]