Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
ABetterName
Post subject: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 24th, 2015, 11:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 370
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
The Iowa class were the only battleships with the speed required for post-war operations based around fast aircraft carrier task forces. There were a number of proposals in the early Cold War to convert the class to take into account changes in technology and doctrine. These included plans to equip the class with nuclear missiles, add aircraft capability and—in the case of Illinois and Kentucky—a proposal to rebuild both as aircraft carriers instead of battleships.

Initially, the Iowa class was to consist of only four battleships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. However, changing priorities during World War II resulted in the battleships Montana and Ohio being reordered as Illinois and Kentucky respectively. At the time these two battleships were to be built a proposal was put forth to have them constructed as aircraft carriers rather than fast battleships. The plan called for the ships to be rebuilt to include a flight deck and an armament suite similar to that placed aboard the Essex-class aircraft carriers that were at the time under construction in the United States.

[ img ]

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Last edited by ABetterName on April 25th, 2015, 2:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 2:54 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Do you realize that you've got barely any standing deck height in the superstructure? If I were you I'd not be that quick to post a drawing that clearly is in need of a lot of additional attention - especially since you're basing it on a drawing made by one of our grandest and most thorough artists!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ABetterName
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 2:58 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 370
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
Those are not decks, those are solid railings, and this is all based off a drawing of the design that I was sure to scale properly before starting.

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 3:38 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
I assume it's taken from this design?

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ABetterName
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 3:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 370
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
Indeed it is.

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 3:53 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Hmm, Bezobrazov is right, the deck's should be a little higher, not sure though as that could be the plan's scale. Though for certain I can tell you the top down view gives very different guns to what you have for the AA suite, the larger ones are 40mm Bofors mk2 Quads and the smaller ones would be 20mm/70 Oerkilon MG's, not sure if with shield or not though, the 5"/38' look correct though. Be careful with the original deck though as from the cross section, the forwards hull from the front of the hanger structure would be kept for mooring/anchoring purposes but the cleats further aft at least until behind the island would be essentially impossible to reach with the hull shape the cross sections suggest, I imagine that's what those two openings at the original deck level are for, in order to aid mooring.

Promising start!

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ABetterName
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 3:57 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 370
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
The smaller AA guns should be fine, and the larger ones are the upper half of a quad 40mm to the best of my ability.

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 3:59 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Might wish to check the USN partsheet thread then, someone's already done the work for you there for both guns

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ABetterName
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 4:12 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 370
Joined: April 16th, 2015, 7:39 pm
Location: Konugenshafn, Nyrdanmark
AA guns replaced.

_________________
"The first phase of the operation did not go as planned." - Anonymous
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Iowa-Class Carrier ConversionPosted: April 25th, 2015, 8:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
yeah, the cross sections shown on the plans do not match your drawing at all. the hangar deck level would be as wide as the hull, while you have mooring points next to that deck and an overhanging flight deck.
also:
- the gun sponsons will need supports.
- the railings on the gallery deck would be shaped somewhat different, I think.
- the portholes in the side of the hangar deck level do not match the deck levels of the section shown in the oringal plans
- you have portholes and air intakes in the superstructure section dedicated to the uptake.
- I doubt the flaglines would go towards the gun platforms
- the radars look awfully close to each other.
- I think your crane does not have the size shown on the plans
- there are no liferafts or resque equipment on this ship
- you have multiple doors floating 2m above the deck.
- I have doubts about the bridge windows looking like that.
- the top view shows that the platforms extroding from the bridge are not as square as you made them look. there are bends and curves in them, that should be shown and shaded. the same goes for your entire flight deck btw
- you have made verious openings in the side of the hangar deck level. find out what they are for and where they should be, because now they look to be random.
- it is common when drawing carriers to draw top views and both sides of the ship ;) this because unlike most other ships, a carrier is defined a lot by its deck and is asymetrical.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 17 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]