1919 BurOrd Battleship study

If this is a 1919 design, you should get rid of the 5"/25s and replace them with 3"/50. The 5"/25 were not fitted to real ships until 1926 to 1940.

Granted this is drawn from a sketch, this is a very well done drawing IMO, although I don't know as much about ships than tanks/planes. Just one super minor nitpick, you've got a couple stray blue pixels around the anchor. Other than that you're gold, keep it up!

_________________
FD Worklist
Me-262 Series
Fw-190/Ta-152 Series
Germany AU Thread
Luft '46 Thread

List of Aircraft with Acquired Data (Updated)
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... 80#p123956

Karle94 wrote:

If this is a 1919 design, you should get rid of the 5"/25s and replace them with 3"/50. The 5"/25 were not fitted to real ships until 1926 to 1940.

Karle,

That's part of what Ilike about this ship, 18"/48s, 6"/53, and 5"/25s were the guns specified.

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

How can it be specified in a 1919 design when it did not exist at said time? The gun was designed in 1921.

it can be that they have already started on the work of the design. but the designed year of the gun "1921" it can be the year it was finish designed. and often guns can use from a year to many year in design the process. so the gun could have existed on the paper as far back as 1919-1918. but officially released with design date 1921.

This is particularly common at the end of wars. Consider both the British and US 3"/70 mounts, whose theoretical final design dated to 1945, but which were not actually finalized, in service form, until 1956.

Well, I fleshed her out to resemble a completed design.

What did I miss or do wrong?

Fire Away

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

Excellent drawing David, but I think the funnel(s) is too small.

_________________
[ img ]

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"

The tubs for the 5"/25s should be removed, and reattached, in 1942. The aftermost part of the armor belt should most likely be squared, or only have a single line. What you have now is what was used on the Colorado class, in 1942 till the end of their lives. There are better directors that could be used. The ship should have different colors, especially the underwater hull. Look at my American AU or simply pull up Colo`s USN color pallet. On the aft cage mast, you can remove the lower observation platform, it is not needed when you have the one on top of the mast. The crane was used on the Arkansas, and as such should be replaced with a more modern looking one. Also, I`d remove the 5 inch gun on top of the crane. I would also like to see two more stabilizers on the fron underwater hull, similar to the two at the stern, which should be moved forward by about 100-150 pixels at least. You can just copy it from my Colorado or South Dakota to make it all symmetrical. As it is now, one is taken from the 1942 Colorado with torpedo bulges, the other one is the 1920s version. The main armor belt could use some more detailing, you could do it like my South Dakota class, or like the Colorado. Maybe you should ho back to the old style turrets, they look better, or you could use this, a triple 6 inch 53 cal turret taken from ships as shown in Spring Styles book: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/939 ... Turret.png. The anchor should probably be more South Dakota/Colorado like, instead of the older and smaller ones. I`d remove the boxes mounted at the back of the 18 inch turrets, they were mid WWII additions for storing survival gear. I would also change the design of the main guns to look more like the 16 inch guns either on Colorado or the South Dakota, it is more appropriate for the time period.

Shipbucket

Who is online