MASSIVE SPOILER about next book hardware

DrakBibliophile wrote:Let's see, I know the word count & know the release date. Now to figure out when I can start "bugging" the MWW for when to start snippets. [Wink]

Drak, you... you... you...

What the Mad Wizard did was bad enough, but this... you are enjoying this, aren't you...

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Me? I'm nothing compared to the Mighty Wizard Weber. [Wink]

On the other hand, I do enjoy myself. [Evil Grin]

Michael Everett wrote:

DrakBibliophile wrote:Let's see, I know the word count & know the release date. Now to figure out when I can start "bugging" the MWW for when to start snippets. [Wink]

Drak, you... you... you...

What the Mad Wizard did was bad enough, but this... you are enjoying this, aren't you...

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

phillies wrote:11 foot freeboard -- moving it places will be entertaining. Perhaps the armour is shipped separately for assembly at the destination continent?

The perhaps most interesting line is that there will not be more of these for quite some time. There are any number of interpretations, including the Houseman works getting turned into lakes by the rakurai projector, the supply of iron ore proving inadequate, the supply of rivers being unsatisfactory, torpedoes, a decision to supply Emerald and Corisande -- Charis and Chisholm from their geography look less satisfactory -- with good rail networks, etc.

USS Onondaga, draft 12'10", freeboard (exclusive of turrets) 5', displacement 2,500 tons; sailed from US to France (across the Atlantic) for sale to France in 1867.

USS Monadnock, draft 12', freeboard (exclusive of turrets) 4.5', displacement 1,564 tons; rounded Cape Horn in 1866 . . . in the winter.

There are other examples available. [G] Admittedly, both these ships (especially Onondaga) displaced considerably more than the Rivr-class in normal load conditions, but they also mounted much thicker armor: 11-12" (albeit over a lower total area) as opposed to the River-class' maximum of 3". In addition, their guns were individually far havier ---Monadnock mounted 4 15" SBs which each weighed 15,700 lbs; total weight of gun tubes was 31.4 tons for the monitor versus 74 tons for the River-class, but the individually smaller Charisian guns would be more readily located and/or shifted as needed for stability issues. Moreover, the truth is that displacement qua displacement is not as major a factor in oceanic survivability than many people seem to think.

It is fashionable to assume since Monitor sank under tow that none of the river/coast defense monitors could survive normal Atlantic conditions, but this is not, in fact, even remotely the case. Monitor was lost primarily because she had neither a permanent smoke pipe nor ventillators raised sufficiently above deck level. The later monitors -- even the very small, single-turret types, like Ericsson's Passaic class --- were far more survivable because they did have permanent smoke pipes, pilot houses relocated to turret tops, and tall deck-level ventillators. Indeed, I think (I'm not certain of this, but I believe I'm correct in saying this) that Monitor was the only US ironclad lost to sea state conditions. I think all the others lost to "hazards of navigation" were lost as the result of grounding or other inland waterway damage (like the Red River Campaign).

I'm not saying that these ships are remotely designed to be effective blue-water ironclads, because they aren't, but it's truly amazing how seaworthy small vessels --- especially powered small vessels --- can be. Don't forget that Columbus crossed the Atlantic in ships which were probably no more than 50' in length and probably no more than 60 tons burden, not displacement!

runsforcelery,

Many thanks for your comments. I think I no longer have my copy of "The Old Union Steam Navy", or I could answer about the ships lost at sea.

My doubt about the riverine ships moving to other continents was not the displacement, but the freeboard. My impression of your local sea going north from Howsman Works is that the most severe storm conditions are significantly worse than the Atlantic, more like the Pacific. An 11 foot freeboard and 24 foot waves -- I think I remember those from the most recent volume -- may be educational. However, I recall in Ventura Harbor seeing a ca. 70' cabin cruiser (loosely speaking) from Hawaii. It, however, looked to be designed for really bad weather conditions.

The Onandoga was remembered, as I recall from TOUSN, was viewed as a very wet ship, despite some unconventional modifications to iirc bow deck, iirc a steep V breakwater pointing forward to keep waves up to a point off the turret. I had forgotten the Monadnock.

I also seem to recall that the Monitor had issues with there not being a good seal between the turret and the hull, and a lot of leakage there under storm conditions.

However, I infer from your comments that most of them will reach their destination.

runsforcelery wrote:

phillies wrote:11 foot freeboard -- moving it places will be entertaining. Perhaps the armour is shipped separately for assembly at the destination continent?

The perhaps most interesting line is that there will not be more of these for quite some time. There are any number of interpretations, including the Houseman works getting turned into lakes by the rakurai projector, the supply of iron ore proving inadequate, the supply of rivers being unsatisfactory, torpedoes, a decision to supply Emerald and Corisande -- Charis and Chisholm from their geography look less satisfactory -- with good rail networks, etc.

USS Onondaga, draft 12'10", freeboard (exclusive of turrets) 5', displacement 2,500 tons; sailed from US to France (across the Atlantic) for sale to France in 1867.

USS Monadnock, draft 12', freeboard (exclusive of turrets) 4.5', displacement 1,564 tons; rounded Cape Horn in 1866 . . . in the winter.

There are other examples available. [G] Admittedly, both these ships (especially Onondaga) displaced considerably more than the Rivr-class in normal load conditions, but they also mounted much thicker armor: 11-12" (albeit over a lower total area) as opposed to the River-class' maximum of 3". In addition, their guns were individually far havier ---Monadnock mounted 4 15" SBs which each weighed 15,700 lbs; total weight of gun tubes was 31.4 tons for the monitor versus 74 tons for the River-class, but the individually smaller Charisian guns would be more readily located and/or shifted as needed for stability issues. Moreover, the truth is that displacement qua displacement is not as major a factor in oceanic survivability than many people seem to think.

It is fashionable to assume since Monitor sank under tow that none of the river/coast defense monitors could survive normal Atlantic conditions, but this is not, in fact, even remotely the case. Monitor was lost primarily because she had neither a permanent smoke pipe nor ventillators raised sufficiently above deck level. The later monitors -- even the very small, single-turret types, like Ericsson's Passaic class --- were far more survivable because they did have permanent smoke pipes, pilot houses relocated to turret tops, and tall deck-level ventillators. Indeed, I think (I'm not certain of this, but I believe I'm correct in saying this) that Monitor was the only US ironclad lost to sea state conditions. I think all the others lost to "hazards of navigation" were lost as the result of grounding or other inland waterway damage (like the Red River Campaign).

I'm not saying that these ships are remotely designed to be effective blue-water ironclads, because they aren't, but it's truly amazing how seaworthy small vessels --- especially powered small vessels --- can be. Don't forget that Columbus crossed the Atlantic in ships which were probably no more than 50' in length and probably no more than 60 tons burden, not displacement!

From what I remember, so I could be totally off base, the Monitor had very little freeboard. Loosely analogous to a surfaced submarine, with the turret being the conning tower.

That being said, from the description the River-class will look a bit more like something along the lines of the Merrimack, rather than the Monitor.
Still, storms at sea won't be fun for the crews.

runsforcelery wrote:
Freeboard = 11.5 feet at design displacement.

Machinery: twin-screw, double expansion engines; 4 Delthak Works watertube boilers (260 psi).

Well, I hope that they do not run the bilge pumps with belts. As I recall, the Monitor sank after the belts driving the pumps got wet and stretched so much that they could no longer pump water out fast enough to keep her afloat.

Assuming some selective intelligence inputs, we can assume a compartmentalized design, watertight hatches with powered pumps (you can use chain drive if belts bother you - maybe the pumps from Empire of Man series) Should make for some interesting 'men of iron' versus iron ship duels. Given what we know of safehold fortress design, thing get interesting. I guess the next is lvcps for infantry assualt, do we get barrage rockets in this installation?

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

MarcW wrote:Hey, are there any artists on this forum who could maybe draw up a scetch that would give us an idea what this armored river boat could look like?
You know what I would like to see sometime in the future, is a digital book that has links in the text that gives a visual representation of what's being described. For example, when Mr. Weber is talking about say a Flintlock or a Matchlock, I know I can google it, but it would be so much nicer to just link it right into the text.
Oh well, as they say, the future is just around the corner.

Hi Mark

Great Idea! I would even spring for a book that had color maps and drawings of some of the items that appear in the story. A conprehensive topographic map of Safehold as the author envisions it would be really nice even if it is subject to change. If it was published in llose leaf format so that updates and new pages could be inserted it would be even better.

Dutch46

I would wish for a digitized Safehold map, even if it had no way of being update by anyone but Mr Weber.

Mr Weber, since you are using map generation software, you MUST have a way of easily producing a printable file showing the latest version of your map.

If you could upload this file to the web where we can see it, I fr one would appreciate it.

Then I could actually see where are some of the details mentioned both in the posts and in subsequent books that are not included in the original map of Safehold (which is the only map I have).

Please ???

R

Dutch46 wrote:

MarcW wrote:Hey, are there any artists on this forum who could maybe draw up a scetch that would give us an idea what this armored river boat could look like?
You know what I would like to see sometime in the future, is a digital book that has links in the text that gives a visual representation of what's being described. For example, when Mr. Weber is talking about say a Flintlock or a Matchlock, I know I can google it, but it would be so much nicer to just link it right into the text.
Oh well, as they say, the future is just around the corner.

Hi Mark

Great Idea! I would even spring for a book that had color maps and drawings of some of the items that appear in the story. A conprehensive topographic map of Safehold as the author envisions it would be really nice even if it is subject to change. If it was published in llose leaf format so that updates and new pages could be inserted it would be even better.

Dutch46

Hi folks (and Mr Weber)

Displacement ?? Total weight while empty ??

Bunkerage ?? Maximum cargo weight ??

Freeboard ?? Ocean level to top deck while full of cargo ??

I am not an expert on nautical terms

?? Can anyone either explain these terms or give me a URL where I can find the definitions myself ??

I need a lot of help here !!!

R