| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| Missoula-Class CG:s http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3651 |
Page 3 of 5 |
| Author: | bezobrazov [ October 23rd, 2012, 11:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
Naw...I've decided to keep it as it is above. So, no worries there, mate! Besides, it was merely a flight of my mind... |
|
| Author: | odysseus1980 [ October 26th, 2012, 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
Nice ship,but a CG for Hellenic seas must have (my opinion) guns at front.So, I personally prefer to have Boston Class CG instead of Albany class. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ October 26th, 2012, 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
...a ship class that had far less capacity than the Albanys or the Little Rocks, with only one guidance radar per launcher; not two (I e one per launcher arm as become the norm)... Besides, why do you even mention the Albanys here? The Missoula is not an Albany... |
|
| Author: | Erusia Force [ October 26th, 2012, 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
1970s: slap on as much as you can on a cruiser without having it capsize. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ October 26th, 2012, 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
Ehhh...don't think it's that much! The Baltimores, in fact had a great deal of margin left, and even the Albanys were reputedly much more stable, and stiffer than expected. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ November 3rd, 2012, 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
I've toyed around with the Missoula some. I replaced the 'macks' with the Baltimore-class' normal stacks and, instead, erected a second lattice mast around the second funnel's base. Now she ships the extended, tubular foremast of the flagship conversions, albeit on a much larger bridge structure area. Because of these changes, a substantial part of the midships superstructure has been cut away too. ![[ img ]](http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/xx161/Bezobrazov/CG-13-Missoula-2-Class-1.png)
|
|
| Author: | Hood [ November 3rd, 2012, 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
I think she looks much better now without the macks. She less topheavy and somehow more classic in appearance. Even so, all those radars are going to frazzle anyone's brain with radiation who looks at this ship too long! 
|
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ November 4th, 2012, 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
Played around with the Missoula - again. I discovered that the amidships superstructure with stacks and all wasn't aligned as is supposed to be on a Baltimore, so had to shift the mid-section aft, which has the advantage of further distancing the Tartar-launcher from the bridge complex. With this I think the USS Missoula is fairly complete! |
|
| Author: | Trojan [ November 4th, 2012, 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
Fantastic as always. WHy is the Tartar missile blue like a practice missile though? |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ November 4th, 2012, 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Missoula-Class CG:s |
Hehe, 'cuz it is one! I could've painted it white, but figured it soon, oh, soon boring, so did the practice one instead! |
|
| Page 3 of 5 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|