You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Thursday, November 16th 2006, 2:53pm

Destroyer question...

You may recall that older Indian destroyers feature the same torpedo-tube well forward of the bridge that WW1 German and early post-war Japanese destroyers did historically.

This is evidently not so good for seakeeping. Is there a historical precedent for plating up this well to essentially create a uniform freeboard from bow to mid-break?

2

Thursday, November 16th 2006, 6:50pm

I can't think of a historical precedence for it but it wouldn't be too hard to rivet some plates either side of the opening. Filling in the whole is a different matter and probably couldn't be done satisfactorially.

3

Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:08pm

Plating it over and perhaps sticking a light AA emplacement on top is all I'm really contemplating.

4

Thursday, November 16th 2006, 11:21pm

If it's just filling in the hole for seakeeping you're after, I don't see that there will be much of a problem. Trying to get decent structure in there might be more trouble than it's worth, though.

I'll have a poke about in our library if I get some time tomorrow. Studying Naval Architecture can have its' uses...

5

Friday, November 17th 2006, 12:35am

We too have quite a large library on marine engineering. Which is strange considering that Bath doesn't actually do marine engineering.

6

Friday, November 17th 2006, 1:48am

You may want to look into the RL rebuilds of the Greek Aetos class DD's. They were built in 1912 and then rebuilt in the 20's looking more like a V&W class DD.

Cheers,

7

Friday, November 17th 2006, 9:59am

The question is, is it really worth it to fill in the gap? Wouldn't it be easier to just build new DD's, or purchase some used ones with better sea keeping?

8

Friday, November 17th 2006, 2:33pm

It would be most cost effective, I think, to include a plate-over job as part of a destroyer's mid-life refit (which Indian cans receive because they're expected to have a ~20 year service life).

9

Friday, November 17th 2006, 2:53pm

The only forecastle extension I can recall off-hand is that which was applied to the 'Flower' class corvettes of WWII. whereby the foc'sle deck and side plating were extended aft from a point forward of the bridge to a point abreast the funnel and, in some cases, even further aft. I am not sure how much weight was added but crew accomodation and seakeeping were much improved. It made them look much better and, quite possibly, increased hull strength.

Of course, corvettes aren't destroyers but maybe it's something you can work on.

10

Friday, November 17th 2006, 3:02pm

Good to know. And the matter of added topweight needs to be considered, I suppose.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

11

Friday, November 17th 2006, 3:14pm

I think if you use the plated over space only for crew quarters and the like with no heavy installations above it shouldn´t cause you any trouble. However, if you want something heavy there you might face problems because her current weather deck is the deck meant to take on all the stress...

12

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 10:16am

I see no problem filling the well, a light deck should also be ok and may support a light AA gun but topweight might have to be reduced slightly. It has to be cheaper and more effective than building brand new ships.

13

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 12:12pm

Here's an awkward thought:

Would it be possible to plate over the well as described, but leave a gap on one side of the ship for the torpedo launcher to protrude from? That is, turn it into a fixed launcher below decks?