Yes, I imported a STL model into blender, textured it and converted it to fix, then imported into daz
It pretty much is.
I like to headcanon her as a foreign order but British seized vessel kept for Coastal patrol being neither fish nor fowl
Maybe a Greek or south American order seized as the British attempted to enact a treaty in the region.?
Funny you say Greek, I was thinking of a Herakles themed ship name (leading to Thunder Child, child of Thunder being Herakles start of issues) meant more to take advantage of the geography to hide and get close to an opponent by hiding behind islands using its small size to throw off aiming before charging
It would make sense for Greece given their extensive littoral environment and many islands. The traditional predreadnought arrangement is just wasteful when you are intending to come out from a concealed position, fire at a numerically superior fleet, and then get out of there. Your probably not going to have much use for a rearward turret, so drop it and focus on speed and additional armor.
Plus the top speed allows for a quick escape and the ram would be a last ditch weapon just in case any enemy gets close
Driftless
Donor
Some questions on the USS Erie class/Treasury Cutters:
First, to set up the questions, the two Erie's and the seven Treasury Class Cutters (of the 30's and on) were similar in hull form and propulsion. They were relatively small ships 100m WL +/-, and 4.5m draft (depending on class) and going about 2,000 tonnes empty. The displacement and basic configurations were driven by both treaty limitations and budget. The two classes had somewhat different "work" profiles, with the Erie's having both heavier armament (4x1 6"/47), armor, and accomodations for marines - they were gunboats, after all. The Cutters were initially rigged for long endurance patrol work, with less need for both guns and armor.
If any treaty considerations are hand-waved away, how might both classes of ships been built for their different, but sometimes overlapping missions?
First, to set up the questions, the two Erie's and the seven Treasury Class Cutters (of the 30's and on) were similar in hull form and propulsion. They were relatively small ships 100m WL +/-, and 4.5m draft (depending on class) and going about 2,000 tonnes empty. The displacement and basic configurations were driven by both treaty limitations and budget. The two classes had somewhat different "work" profiles, with the Erie's having both heavier armament (4x1 6"/47), armor, and accomodations for marines - they were gunboats, after all. The Cutters were initially rigged for long endurance patrol work, with less need for both guns and armor.
If any treaty considerations are hand-waved away, how might both classes of ships been built for their different, but sometimes overlapping missions?
- bigger hulls?
- different propulsion?
- different accommodations?
Last edited:
Without the Treaty, do you not spend everything on warships and then use for second rate use in peacetime when they are free? IE build cruisers and then use them as sloops as they can do both at great cost, but sloops can't be cruisers?
Driftless
Donor
Probably, and the form that might take is what I was fishing for, I guess.
Your last line made me think on something I had read along the way about the Erie's. They acquired the moniker "baby battleships" or "baby cruisers" because of the 6" gun armament, armor, aircraft, etc. I don't know if that was some smart-alecky wisecrack by a swabbie, or some Navy PR flack trying to over-sell their abilities. Still, they were expected to punch somewhat above their weight class, with part of their described mission as shore bombardment, and protection of convoys from merchant raiders. However, they were too slow and lightly armed to do even a light cruisers job. You wouldn't want them patrolling off Guadalcanal, for instance.
From the Cutters perspective, once they got their weaponry ticked up with the onset of the war, they made damn good escorts. A little more speed would have been nice, but that is probably true right down the line. The US tax payer sure got their moneys worth from those long-service ships
*edit* Or, to restate my original thought - I have no flaming idea of what I'm fishing for....
Last edited:
I could easily see a ship such as this sent out to Singapore or Hong Kong as a guardship in the mid to late 1890's when the standard British Pre Dreadnought designs take over the Channel Fleet. From there she'd be sent to join the international fleet bombarding the Chinese forts during the Boxer Rebellion. From then on, depending on her condition, with a top speed of 21 knots she's likely to survive Fisher's mass cull of obsolete ships. Re-armed with more modern guns in 1905-10 and placed in reserve she'd be recalled to duty in 1914 and provide the prototype for the WWI British big gun monitors, so they'd actually be able to move against the channel currents and even at a pinch keep up with the rest of the fleet.
That would've been nice if a invisible ray of heat didn't tear her apart.
I like it I admit even though I suspect she'd be a bit short legged
In 1919 the Netherlands buys the Arkansas class monitors for service in the Dutch East Indies. Only one is still operational when the Japanese attack Java in 1942 and its destruction is a high priority.
Last edited:
Torpedo and gun forever
what if PLAN decided in 1970s that investment in AshM was not worth the effort and they decide to concentrate exclusively on torpedo and gunboats
what would such torpedo and gunboats look like ? Can they develop more advanced torpedoes that could be just as lethal as AshM ?
what if PLAN decided in 1970s that investment in AshM was not worth the effort and they decide to concentrate exclusively on torpedo and gunboats
what would such torpedo and gunboats look like ? Can they develop more advanced torpedoes that could be just as lethal as AshM ?
Short answer, no.
Missiles are just much more cost effective and standing off prevents the usual WW2 tactic of murderous 20-40mm close gunfire from tearing planes apart
But missiles of that era esp eastern were quite inaccurate and you are delivering torpedoes by boats in littoral waters not the ideal environment for AshM ( even western ones of that era ) to accurately find their targets.
PLAN is not a high seas navy
And you think unguided, slow-ass torpedoes are going to be any more accurate?