Thanks for the effort David, it is much appreciated as this class got neglected somehow. If you allow me to join the critical side: This is the 1944 version of the ship, neither the AA nor the electronics or the mainmast is correct for 1942. Also BB-57 never wore Ms 22, it had Ms 12 mod. for a short...
I like your concept and drawing. It appears though that the funnel is moved way forward compared to the original ship's location. Maybe it's just me but rerouting the fu nel uptakes is not so simple. Otherwise very nicely done!
Maybe you'll get some motivation to do the SOMERS class as well ! Would be so nice to have those covered as well in Colo style. Unfortunatly I think that class is relatively badly documented (both drawing and picture wise) compared to other US ship classes.
I can't call them attractive destroyers by any stretch, but these are top-notch drawings as usual. For ships ostensibly facing stability challenges, it's shocking to me that a destroyer had a high, plated-in secondary conn. Compare and contrast to the open bridges that would find favor in wartime u...
I like your drawing, you should maybe give a go to some of it's sisters with alternative conversion routes (like tripod masts in the '30s, much more thourugh rebuilds after a possible PH damage etc.) David Briedis (CanisD) did some nice versions: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/CanisD/Misc/My...
AMazing drawings! "For some reason, the almost brand-new vessel, which had enjoyed only about two-and-a-half years of active service before being mothballed at the end of 1947, was ultimately rejected and the Chicago was selected instead." - Friedman cites the reason that Fall River would have had t...
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login
!
! Would be so nice to have those covered as well in Colo style. Unfortunatly I think that class is relatively badly documented (both drawing and picture wise) compared to other US ship classes.