Talos

Like I said, it's mislabeled. Richmond had an open gun deck and even when a spar deck was fitted there were far fewer guns on her deck. You can see the name "Santee" on the sand buckets hanging on the left  as pointed out over on Civil War Talk.
 
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/santee-jpg.39160/

Those are definitely mounts for the breeching ropes of the cannons. With having to clear the bench in front of the ports there, I wonder if they're more meant for the two-wheeled iron Marsilly-style carriages like you can see in this mislabeled gundeck photo of Santee. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Gun_deck_USS_Richmond_LOC_4a14697v.jpeg(you can see the name Santee on the buckets). Those carriages make more sense for the stern anyway, since they allow you to shift around one or two guns easily without pivot rails or filling all four ports constantly. You can even store the guns normally out of there, so they don't take up space in officer country.
 
EDIT: You can find/download a bigger version of the Sabine gundeck (facing the bow, I might add) picture here. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/det.4a14697/

It's certainly possible, of course, though I think I got them right, with the fourth main deck port being hidden by the curve of the stern. I point out the port by the bow of the stern boat being almost directly above, as well as the quarter gallery badge (probably a star) in the next space directly to the left, like on the modern stern of Constellation. http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/83f9395f348a497984c631fe8caedc81/uss-constellation-seen-from-the-stern-baltimore-d0w36x.jpg
 
It wouldn't make sense for the ports to function as quarter-gallery access. Not only would that be defeating a major reason for the stern shape (allowing fire over the rear quarters, eliminating a major blindspot  that men-of-war had,  but the quarter port is visible on all the plans of round-sterned ships with quarter galleries immediately forward of it. The Sabine plans actually shed some light there. They're missing quarter galleries and stern detail, so I overlaid them with the Brandywine's stern (which does have them) and they're an exact match. Rather than the quarter ports, they actually cover up the very last broadside gunport aft. You can see it in the heavy frigate comparison I threw together last year. 
 
You're right about Jamestown. The stern detail on the draught and on the real ship is amazing. Notice also in the picture that there are gunport covers fitted on the stern ports, hinged at the bottom and hanging horizontal. Her plan is so weird compared to the other super sloops of her construction program. Vertical, heavy stern, fitted with a spar deck from the start, and quite a bit larger than the rest.

Of course they were. That was pretty standard at the time in the US. You can see them fitted in other gunports here on USS Portsmouth, Jamestown, Kearsarge, and others. Though the ones in the regular gunports were probably only fitted in port, I would imagine that the stern windows were probably fitted any time they weren't cleared for action (at which time they would disassemble the captain's cabin). They probably had blank wood plugs they could put there too for stormy weather.
 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098602502.jpg
http://usgwarchives.net/va/portsmouth/shipyard/ships/jamestown/jamestown4.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098617628.jpg
http://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/z_a_usstrenton1876.jpg

Of course they were. That was pretty standard at the time in the US. You can see them fitted in other gunports here on USS Portsmouth, Jamestown, Kearsarge, and others. Though the ones in the regular gunports were probably only fitted in port, I would imagine that the stern windows were probably fitted any time they weren't cleared for action (at which time they would disassemble the captain's cabin). They probably had blank wood plugs they could put there too for stormy weather.
 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098602502.jpg
http://usgwarchives.net/va/portsmouth/shipyard/ships/jamestown/jamestown4.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098617628.jpg
http://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/z_a_usstrenton1876.jpg

They're ports with window inserts when the ship isn't cleared for action, yes.

That’s actually not a quarterdeck, that’s a poop deck. The ship already had a quarterdeck, it’s the aft section of the spar deck.
 
I don’t think they kept the aft pivot though. The aft pivot is definitely not up on the poop cabin’s roof. You can see in the photo that the spanker boom attached to the mizzen is still in the same place. I really do think they stuck with the same four ports on each deck on the stern, not a specially-wider port for the pivot. If you look at the picture of her stern with the boat, you can see one of the ports open by the bow of the boat. Now looking at the drawings of Sabine’s boats and measurements from that that are in Chapelle, it is probably a 28-footer. I took plans of her stern, sized it to the official 45-foot width, and added a box that’s 28 feet long, centered on the centerline. One end of it is exactly where the gunport is, matching the photograph. I’m attaching that drawing and an annotated copy of the New London photo. There would be a pivot port behind each of the ports for the aft Parrott to use, giving a very good field of fire even without huge ports.
 
With regards to the 8th July post, that’s a gunport next to the bridge (fifth from the stern, not counting the two stern ports on that side). The gangway was far forward of that, around the main mast, not the mizzen. I believe in that picture there, the platform on the stern is built over the starboard stern chase port. It doesn’t look robust and can probably be taken down as part of clearing for action. It couldn’t be built closer to the centerline, the sweep of the spanker boom gets in the way. The part beneath the spanker is just the bulwark, like any other Brandywine-class ship with a round stern.
 
 

Of course they were. That was pretty standard at the time in the US. You can see them fitted in other gunports here on USS Portsmouth, Jamestown, Kearsarge, and others. Though the ones in the regular gunports were probably only fitted in port, I would imagine that the stern windows were probably fitted any time they weren't cleared for action (at which time they would disassemble the captain's cabin). They probably had blank wood plugs they could put there too for stormy weather.
 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098602502.jpg
http://usgwarchives.net/va/portsmouth/shipyard/ships/jamestown/jamestown4.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098617628.jpg
http://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/z_a_usstrenton1876.jpg

They're ports with window inserts when the ship isn't cleared for action, yes.

I'd love to get my hands on details for those (up to draughts) to redraw them and modify them to illustrate those variations. They sound fascinating.
 
Currently working on redrawing HMS Macedonian.
 

Looking forward to following this!

Looking forward to following this!

Looking forward to following this!

As noted elsewhere I am re-starting (for the second time) my Amphion plans, explantions elsewhere.
 
This does have some advantages. First up I am much more competent with Turbo cad so it should be an easier process along with the fact that I seem to need to do things multiple times to understand what I am doing. Secondly the first plan set was documented on the original MSW (back in 2012 if I remember correctly). This meant that a lot of the early donkey work was lost which will hopefully not happen again.
 
I will leave both superceded research and build threads open until this is (re) done and then mark them as deprecated.
 
To start I am going to lay down some ground rules for the project to avoid the mess I got into last time. This will be incredibly boring to anyone who is not ocd so i recommend most stop reading here, at least until I get to something more interesting draft wise.
 
 
 
Drafting Style Guide 
To better control the validity and understanding of what a file actually occurs the following guide will be followed.
Folder Structure 
Past experience says that large amounts of files will be generated in the drafting process. The folder structure can be used to ensure a files location indicates its relevance. Files will be held locally on a pc and auto backed up to a one drive folder.
 

 
Source Scans:     Contains the scanned version of any source plans. Will not change once added Plans:                    Parent plan folder. Will only contain other folders. Structural:           (Or source). This will contain master plans that will be used in the building process to generate the actual working plans. As an example the sheer and framing plans will appear in here Build:                     This will contain plans intending to be built off of. Individual frames, keel sub plans etc Presentation:    This is for helper plans that show, usually styalised versions to assist in building. Examples include the ‘fish’ plan and subsections showing how parts go together or what they are called  
Each of the three main working folders (listed above as Structural, Build and Presentation) will contain a sub folder called ‘[Primary Folder Name] Approved’. When a plan is regarded as complete it will be moved to the relevant Approved folder and its file name adjusted.
 
Each of the three Approved folders will have a sub-folder named ‘[Primary Folder Name]-Revisions’. When an approved file is changed the old version will be moved here and only the new version will reside in the approved folder. This means that there should only be single files in the approved folder but both the working folders and revision folders could contain multiple files.
Change logA change log will be generated and held in a one note page for each primary folder. This will list the file name, the added date, the superseded date and either a ‘current’ indicator or a description of what was changed and why. I.e
 

 
File Naming Conventions TCW Files AM-[Zone]-[Friendly Name]-V[number].tcw
‘AM’ is the project name (in this case short for ‘Amphion’)
Zone indicates which working folder the file is intended for. Currently ST for Structural, BU for Build and PR for Presentation.
Friendly Name will be an appropriate name for the file in question i.e Sheer or Keel etc
V[number] is the version
 
So a sheer plan may be called
 
AM-ST-SheetMaster-V5.tcw
Indicating the 5th version of the Structural ‘Sheer’ Master plan for the Amphion project
 
ApprovalWhen a plan is ‘Approved’ (as hopefully complete) a copy will be moved to the approved folder and its name will change to
AM-[Zone]A-[Friendly Name]-RC[number].tcw
RC is a software development short hand for ‘Release Candidate’. Therefore there are two visual indicators that a plan is complete  - the ‘RC’ version and the ‘A’ after the zone. So if the above sheer plan is regarded as complete then the copies name would ne
 
AM-STA-SheerMaster-RC1.tcw
Copies will be made to prevent accidental adjustments of originals.
 
Paper Space Naming conventionsThis will be different to the file name and is intended for printed versions of complete plans as opposed to draft versions. This naming convention will be
 
AM-[Zone][Plan Number][Plan Subset]-V[Version]
Only approved plans will have paper space so the above sheer master might have a print name of
 
AM-STA-5-V1
So version 1 of approved structural plan 5. All printed plans will also have a name describing the plan and a separate title.
 
 
 
 
 
So allowing I stick to the above if I down tools for a year or two and return then I should be able to at least ensure I can access and find the correct current plans.
 

Well, that's an interesting question. The bow and stern pivots are the only two pivot locations I know for sure on the ships, so the IX-inch are either in pivots on some of the broadside ports, or they're on Marsilly carriages, which I think is more likely. These were the standard carriages for IX-inch Dahlgrens in broadside mounts. Even the XI-inch broadside Dahlgrens on New Ironsides used modified IX-inch carriages that were widened.
 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Marsilly.jpg
 
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/00177u-jpg.17193/

Well, that's an interesting question. The bow and stern pivots are the only two pivot locations I know for sure on the ships, so the IX-inch are either in pivots on some of the broadside ports, or they're on Marsilly carriages, which I think is more likely. These were the standard carriages for IX-inch Dahlgrens in broadside mounts. Even the XI-inch broadside Dahlgrens on New Ironsides used modified IX-inch carriages that were widened.
 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Marsilly.jpg
 
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/00177u-jpg.17193/

Well, that's an interesting question. The bow and stern pivots are the only two pivot locations I know for sure on the ships, so the IX-inch are either in pivots on some of the broadside ports, or they're on Marsilly carriages, which I think is more likely. These were the standard carriages for IX-inch Dahlgrens in broadside mounts. Even the XI-inch broadside Dahlgrens on New Ironsides used modified IX-inch carriages that were widened.
 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Marsilly.jpg
 
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/00177u-jpg.17193/

Probably a good thing that all major US Navy surface combatant classes, the Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers, have gas turbines then.

Probably a good thing that all major US Navy surface combatant classes, the Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers, have gas turbines then.

Probably a good thing that all major US Navy surface combatant classes, the Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers, have gas turbines then.

Probably a good thing that all major US Navy surface combatant classes, the Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers, have gas turbines then.

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.