djandj is right. Even at 1:350 a 1" thick hull plate scales to less than 0.003" (about the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper), and on anything smaller than a battleship there probably were few, if any, any plates that thick. A 1/4" thick (10#) plate scales to 0.0007" thick at 1:350, less than the thickness of a coat of paint.
Here is some information about hull plating and strakes:
Plating thickness varied in accordance with the needs for hull strength and water pressure. Hull plating was thicker amidships than at the bow and stern. Plating was thickest close to the keel than at the main deck level.
Except on small boats plating was not applied in simple patterns, such as checkerboard pattern - this looks silly. Furthermore, it was not applied clinker style with each strake overlapping the one below it. Nor was it always applied in alternating strakes with every other one overlapping the strakes on either side. Some strakes may have overlapped both strakes above and below. Some strakes were under the strake above, and above the strake below (clinker style), and some strakes may have been overlapped above and below. Below the waterline strakes may be butted together with no overlap.
Not all strakes were the same height - in fact they may vary in height along the length of the ship. In some places amidships a strake may be split into two parallel strakes. The thing to remember is that hull plates generally were designed with a maximum weight in mind (the things had to be lifted with the cranes at hand), so thicker plating required smaller sized plates. For this reason, where the plate was thickest strakes were often split into two parallel strakes.
Not all strakes were horizontal. Some ships had vertical strakes at the bow, or at least part of the way up.
Hull plates were not always rectangular. They were cut to fit the framing of the ship, and often had cutouts and tapers. Typically the joint between strakes has longitudinal framing on the inside of the hull. The plates were welded or rivited to these longitudinals with watertight sealing. The vertical joints between plates had backing plates - sometimes outside above the waterline, but always inside below the waterline.
The "scalloping" or "dishing" seen on some ships has nothing to do with welding or riveting. It is the result of years of pounding by waves. It is more pronounced on older ships. It is also more evident near bow and stern where the plating is thinnest and the ship takes the worst pounding.
****
For an example of a Cleveland class cruiser hull plating pattern see:
http://www.okieboat.com/CAD%20hull.htmldjandj is right. Even at 1:350 a 1" thick hull plate scales to less than 0.003" (about the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper), and on anything smaller than a battleship there probably were few, if any, any plates that thick. A 1/4" thick (10#) plate scales to 0.0007" thick at 1:350, less than the thickness of a coat of paint.
Here is some information about hull plating and strakes:
Plating thickness varied in accordance with the needs for hull strength and water pressure. Hull plating was thicker amidships than at the bow and stern. Plating was thickest close to the keel than at the main deck level.
Except on small boats plating was not applied in simple patterns, such as checkerboard pattern - this looks silly. Furthermore, it was not applied clinker style with each strake overlapping the one below it. Nor was it always applied in alternating strakes with every other one overlapping the strakes on either side. Some strakes may have overlapped both strakes above and below. Some strakes were under the strake above, and above the strake below (clinker style), and some strakes may have been overlapped above and below. Below the waterline strakes may be butted together with no overlap.
Not all strakes were the same height - in fact they may vary in height along the length of the ship. In some places amidships a strake may be split into two parallel strakes. The thing to remember is that hull plates generally were designed with a maximum weight in mind (the things had to be lifted with the cranes at hand), so thicker plating required smaller sized plates. For this reason, where the plate was thickest strakes were often split into two parallel strakes.
Not all strakes were horizontal. Some ships had vertical strakes at the bow, or at least part of the way up.
Hull plates were not always rectangular. They were cut to fit the framing of the ship, and often had cutouts and tapers. Typically the joint between strakes has longitudinal framing on the inside of the hull. The plates were welded or rivited to these longitudinals with watertight sealing. The vertical joints between plates had backing plates - sometimes outside above the waterline, but always inside below the waterline.
The "scalloping" or "dishing" seen on some ships has nothing to do with welding or riveting. It is the result of years of pounding by waves. It is more pronounced on older ships. It is also more evident near bow and stern where the plating is thinnest and the ship takes the worst pounding.
****
For an example of a Cleveland class cruiser hull plating pattern see:
http://www.okieboat.com/CAD%20hull.html