Shipbucket

Interesting thread with some interesting looking ships.
The Millard (which you wrote with 3 'L's) Filmore looks too modern for a cargo ship of the late 19th Century. Most, if not all were single screw vessels. Merchant ships rarely were of flush deck type, most being three islands type. Your bridge structure looks too modern and the upper deck looks too bare.You'll need some more ventilators to the holds and maybe for engine room.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

That map is defiantly wrong its post fall of Ottoman empire !

Cleanup details.
That's an 1895 British break bulk carrier modeled from a photograph with a few "Americanisms" thrown in. It is accurate if a bit modern by the majority of the 1880'S types out there, inasmuch as it is actually a United States warship, I stretched artistic license a bit (half a decade).

Ventilator baffles... you might be right about that. I'll call it a design defect and claim back-fits after a few fires and explosions .

http://www.mainememory.net/artifact/7468/

The three Ls was a typo easily fixed. I also did notice that 'vessel' was spelled 'vesswl' so I guess it was a bad night.

Pre-refit.



Post refit.



The map is revised again for the Ottomans, the Austrians and the Germans



And the 1899 map after the US imperialist colonialism has ended its first phase.



Explanation of the map legend.

No-one teaches the diplomacy of the Spanish American War too well. It is easy to trace the diplomacy that led to the war. It was the kind of blundering that later would lead the Europeans into world wars one and two, especially on Spain's side of the ledger as the Spanish were bogged down in a kind of Vietnam war in Cuba. If the Madrid government had any brains, they would have taken the $100 million the US offered for Cuba in 1889 and saved both countries thousands of lives and about a billion dollars apiece.

Water went over the falls and all that. The Spanish clung to Cuba well after the expiration date and earned themselves a kind of mini-world war for it

The Americans did have a plan to go for the Canary Islands as part of the war if Spain refused to sue for peace after Cuba was taken. Presumably in the course of military operations near Spain, these islands would have to be secured one way or another as forward bases. The AU premise is that Madrid is more stubborn and fights a harder war. With a longer war comes a more lopsided peace.

The Germans as I noted earlier were in negotiations with Spain for their Pacific territories. The Germans were particularly interested in the Philippine Islands as a hefty addition to their island colonial empire as they judged the geographic unity from the Bismarks to Capa Engano would of necessity make for a formidable position in the western Pacific. They would be correct, but in this AU, the Spanish don't get the chance to sell off the Marshalls, Gilberts and the Marianas Islands to the Kaiser. The Guam expedition becomes a larger affair and the German purchase attempt comes up as empty as America's did for Cuba in 1889.

Nicaragua (and Coasta Rico) become dependent satrapies as Uncle goes initially for the Nicaragua Canal, (this being predicated on the current estimate that the French are too strong to be dislodged from Columbia yet.)

Haiti and the Dominican Republic were already virtually American corporate owned as banana republics, the status is just formalized. Puerto Rico as mentioned early was just outright invaded and conquered, as would be the Philippines.

Hawaii like Nicaragua and Costa Rica gets filibustered.

The Copenhagen Agreement is a rather strange footnote. Denmark and the US carried on a three decade long protracted and difficult negotiation for the Danish Virgin Islands. Not until around the First World War did Denmark finally settle on a purchase price. I imagine it was a case of internal politics for both nations. Here again, the AU assumption is that Denmark wants to unload a burden not wanted and Uncle plays the role of "presumed sucker" better to make the sale happen. It's a tack on, but it strengthens America's stranglehold on the Caribbean (Windward islands) to the point that the major European powers know they are present merely because the Americans allow it.

Thus America's ambition to reach across the Pacific to Chinese markets is more or less approximated, and her desire to clean up the Caribbean is attained in the AU sense.

It is a slightly kinked version of what really happened.

\



The thing I noticed about Krakatoa's vessel was that the North Sea forecastle break and hull form are not optimum for mid Atlantic waves or the long Pacific swells. The Brandenburg clearly influenced the hull form a lot as it did my T-class armored cruisers.

I cannot estimate from that hull form what its "battle speed" might be, but I assume that it is of the 16-17 knot {?}speed range and that hull length, beam, and draft [142 meters by 23 meters(?) by 7.4 meters?(?) yields an indicated power of about 13,000 kilowatts or 17,000 horsepower? I want to ask if you use bag guns? stowage for bag guns would be markedly different than for cased charge shell guns. Shell count per barrel might be as low as 55-60 shells per gun?

The gun barrels are unusually long in caliber. (45s?) The Incan navy therefore uses a cooler burning powder than RBY. It would also use lightweight shells. MVs= 700-720 m/s?

No fire control director seems to be present? So can I assume that a central telemeter station is not present either? That gives me a battle range estimate of 1,000 to 6,000 meters. PH predicted of 4%? Local control.

Fuel bunkerage is a wild guess but maybe 400 hours at 10 knots? That would put in around 1200 tonnes of coal in an 16,000 tonne vessel. (*about 3/4 the total of the Wyoming's bunkerage.)

The armor on that hull will be continuous just from the superstructure form seen. It has to be THIN by US/British standards. (deck about 6-8 cm and side belts no more than 6 cm at the ends to 28->30 cm at the waist frames?)

I assume a standard box barbette housing for the bag gun double barrel turret. Ranges in thickness from 10 cm (ends) to 28 cm in the beam plates?



This is a flush decked hull. The real universe American battleships started with stacked up turreted secondary armament and only adopted citadel secondary armament as a space saver and armor weight saver with the Virginias. American designers knew that barbettes were safer and stronger but required much bigger hulls to space the guns out. Also the real American shipbuilding docks were small.

Assuming that the skinflint Congress comes across with the appropriations and that the dockyards are expanded earlier, we get the Wyoming.

The ship is 150 meters long, 21.5 meters wide with an 8 meter draft (*492 feet x 70 feet 7 inches x 26 feet 5 inches)

Like most American warships in this AU it carries an elaborate armor scheme that is a C armor deck under which is another armored raft, called the "top hat" scheme.

General characteristics
Class: W-class battleship (Wyoming and Wisconsin)
Displacement: Standard: 16,000 tm (16,721.5 long tons)
Full load: 19,000 tm (18,700 long tons)

Length: 150 m (492 ft 2 in)
Beam: 21.5 m (70 ft 7 in)
Draft: 8 m (26 ft 5 in)
Propulsion: Eight TE steam engines coupled to dynamo electric motor final drives, four shafts, four propellers
final output 13,500 kW (18,100 hp.)

Speed: 35 km/h (18.9 knots 21.75 mph)
Range: 11,112 km ( 6000 nm, 6,215 miles ) at 18.5 km/h (10 knots 11.5 mph)
Complement: 33 officers and 586 enlisted

Armament: 6 × 30 cm (11.8 in)/40 Model 1890 BLNR in double turrets
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in)/40 Model 1885 BLNR in double turrets
14 × 9.0 cm (3.54 in)/35 Model 1883 BLQFH in single mounts
8 x 1.15 cm/60 Model 1889 Gatling guns (*refit to 2.0 cm ; (0.78 in)/50 Hotchkiss RFC 1898.)
4 × 46 cm (18 in) torpedo tubes (either Howell electric or Schwarzkopf torpedoes, 16 torpedoes carried)

Armor: main gun houses: 15 cm (5.9 in)-> 30 cm (11.8 in)
main belt: 15 cm (5.9 in) ->30 cm (11.8 in)
secondary gun houses: 7.5 cm (2.75 in) -> 15 cm (5.9 in)
main barbettes: 15 cm (5.9 in)-> 30 cm (11.8 in)
secondary barbettes: 10 cm (3.92 in) -> 20 cm (7.84 in)
C-deck: 10 cm (3.94 in) on the flat and 20 cm (7.84 in) on the slope.
Conning towers 25.5 cm (10 inches)

Notes: All electric ship with hoists traverse, elevator gear, winches, electrical lighting and communications being electric to minimize hydraulics. Exposed oil based hydraulics turned out to be a BAD idea. (Battery Moultrie disaster.) so all recuperators are sealed pneumatics with non-flammable (as much as is possible) hydraulic fluids.

Built post the USS Chicago disaster so coal bunkers are of the wet/dry storage type. Ammunition is single piece cased cartridge stowage type. Shalloon explosive wrap (wool bags) has been discontinued in favor of silk because of the electric spark hazard. Ditto with percussion priming over electrical.

Gun elevation is -3/+35 which is unusual for the era, but which considering that the Americans intend to practice shore bombardment (civil war experience) is not unusual for them in this AU.

Fire Control system is the Bushnell/Fiske stadia meter type. There are two telemeter stations for range control estimate purposes (triangulation). Set ranges for the era and this fire control system was 1000-> 10,000 meters with an estimated predicted accuracy (Probability of hit) of about 8->10%. but which worked out in practice to more like 1-> 3%.

Some of the things the Americans will learn from the Wyoming experience.
a. Their fire control stations are set way too low.
b. Their armor scheme is too complex.
c. Torpedoes on a battleship are almost useless.
d. Those bow and stern 9 cm guns are unworkable in any weather at all.
e. The 2 cm guns are going to come in handy for shooting down Spanish balloons, but will be useless against Spanish torpedo boats. (Yes, the Wyoming is torpedoed by the Pluton.)

Krakatoa noticed that some of the superstructure and detail work resembles the French shipwright's art. That is no accident. The battleship was heavily French influenced.

http://armoured.ru/imperatrica_mariya/index_en.php?9

A question.. am I supposed to put a shipbucket mark on my postings here?

Sail and steam transport and general supply ship to add to the types on hand.


General characteristics

Class & type: steam and sail general service cargo/transport
Type: cargo/passenger
Tonnage: 2,700 tonnes (2,657 long tons) dry.
Displacement: 5,540 tonnes (5,452.5 long tons)loaded
Length: Loa 108.12 m (354 ft 9 in.)
Beam: (12.45 m) 40 ft 10 in
Depth: 8.12 m (26. ft 7 in) deep load
Installed power: Four-cylinder TE engine, generating 5,000 ihp (3,728 kW)
Propulsion: Propeller, sails
Sail plan: modified schooner rig
Speed: 26.9 km/h (14.5 knots; 16.7 mph) (service speed)
Capacity: 200 passengers, approx, 2000 tonnes cargo (1968.4 long tons)
Crew: 7 officers; 100 rates

Notes: This ship was designed to side load general cargo from two extendable bridges amidships onto other ships so equipped with receiving hull doors or ramps. The normal passenger ferry rate was 100->200 low berth. In time of war this could be expanded to as many as 600-800 as long as the men could be crammed on deck or berthed in the working spaces with rotating hot bunking and the trip lasted no more than a week. Otherwise the troop capacity (heads, commissary, bunking and mess) was rated the same as low berth passage. ~ 200 men or 100 men and their horses (horses carried in special stalls placed in the cargo holds.)

Naturally if you are planning an invasion involving corps numbering about 18,000 men you will need at least 100 such type ships to provide the lift. The USN only had 30. Half of those they had leased to commercial trade (What the British call STUFT ships) The lift difference had to be made up from coastal freight luggers and logging schooners. None of those coastal ships were designed as true ocean going passenger carrying vessels, so you can imagine what troop conditions on those converted transports was like?

The status of the AU USN 1887. (rather close to the real thing at the time. Call it Mister Cleveland's Navy.)

By this date the USN was comparable to the Ottoman Empire, to Brazil, and to Argentina in rough naval strength. Any of the first rank European navies; Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy (and this includes # 7 Spain) could detach a squadron from home service and threaten US coastal cities with the same impunity as the British and French showed in the Mediterranean when they bombarded Alexandria, Egypt and effectively ended Ottoman pretensions to suzerainty in that kingdom.

US Navy 1887
Battleship......................1
Cruiser..........................1
Monitor.........................1
Torpedo boats................1
Steel Gunboats..............1
Screw Steamer.............13
Screw Sloops................14
Wooden Gunboats...........5
Sailing ships...................4
Auxiliaries......................3
-----------------------------------
Active ships....................45

Ten years later.

US Navy 1897
Battleships......................5
Armored cruisers.............5
Protected cruisers...........15
Torpedo boats................15
Submarines...................15
Transports.....................15
Colliers...........................5
Common Service Ship.....15
Train Ferries...................02
-----------------------------------
Active ships....................92

The real American navy had 72 warships in 1897. (http://415vva.homestead.com/USN__Force_ ... resent.pdf)

The revised navy in this AU is a bit larger (92 ships) and that number includes support ships (37 ships). The warships are fewer (55 ships) but the fleet I believe would be more effective than the Hodge-podge miscellany that existed in the reality.

One of the things that the USN should have is an ocean going train ferry.

Hmm.

Hmm...

A catamaran ocean going train ferry? Well... Let's see the laughs roll in.

Don't be surprised when the USS Haupt shows up again.

I find nothing wrong with ocean going catamaran

Only question I had was if the bridge superstructure needed to be duplicated on both sides?

Actually there is nothing wrong with such an idea of a double-decker train ferry. The only problem is how to get the top deck clear?

Aside from that little problem, which army engineers would solve with a tall pier, there are other problems;

a. Two engine rooms with two independent control setups and power trains. This catamaran does not have a split drive.
b. Backing off. Some train ferries (even in that era) have bow pushers or tug assistance. This thing is intended for overseas invasions as well as peacetime export/delivery of locomotives and rail cars. So when this ship grounds she will have to back off by reversing engines. Therefore she has two extremely powerful engines sets for her size for reversing off a beach or a dock.
c. Not seen in profile are the retractable ramps from the lower deck. Ditto the upper ramps for the upper deck. Like a giant car carrier these operate.
d. Portside steerage I included because the Americans are cautious (read incompetent) when it comes to counterweight on a hull. Even catamarans need to be ballasted traverse to beam as well as ballasted to keel.

Besides in 1895; how else are you going to land a dirigible on that thing?

" a. Two engine rooms with two independent control setups and power trains. This catamaran does not have a split drive."

With the powerplants of the time being coal powered triple expansion engines I can see a large problem in trying to match the outputs from both sides propulsion systems. Even with oil fired systems I expect there to be quite a bit of juggling revs to match both sides so the ship goes in a straight line rather than lots of lazy 'S's.