Shipbucket

subject details:

Displacement: (700,000 tons planned) 462,750 tons light; 484,920 tons standard; 560,057 tons normal service; 617,927 tons full load
Dimensions:
Length: 2,000’ (609.60m)
Beam: 300’ (91.44m)
Draft: 55’ (16.75m)
Armament:
Main: 8 – 31.5” (80cm) Gustav siege guns (4 x 2)
Secondary: 12 – 9.45”/73 (24cm) Long Range AA guns (12 x 1)
Tertiary: 24 – 5.04”/60 (12.8cm) AA guns (12 x 2)
Light: 5.5cm/77 Gerat 58, 30mm AA guns
(Broadside = 131,574 lbs/59,631 kg)
Aircraft: 15 aircraft
Armor:
Belt: 14.96” (380mm) Deck: 14.96” (380mm)
Turrets: 25.96” (660mm) Conning tower: 24.8” (630mm)
Machinery: 8 shafts, (480,000 shp planned) 498,735 shp/372,057 kw
Performance: 28 knots; Range: 30,000 nm @ 20 knots
Complement: (5,000 planned) 10,236 – 13,307
Distribution of weights:
Armament: 16,425 tons = 2.9%
Armor: 158,660 tons = 28.3%
Machinery: 11,931 tons = 2.1%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 274,955 tons = 49.1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 97,307 tons = 17.4%
Miscellaneous weights: 750 tons = 0.1%


design I started from:



where I am now




tell me what you think

To be fair it has come from a sketch to something (and no offense is meant here) unfinished but usable in SB scale

However this should probably be back in Beginners Forum as its seems to be the rule of thumb that no-one graduates till they either finish a drawing or is to such a high standard it immediately passes through. There is yet work to be done here, doors, hatches, guntubs, directors, navigational aids, railings rigging and I'd drop those anchors down nearly half a deck other wise its going to add strain to the edge your foredeck. I know the drawing has them up high up however I had a peek at the Bismarck class and the arrangement it had for stowing anchors which does agree with the sketch. They should be pointing the other way, slightly closer to vertical, as the current situation suggests they are jammed.

_________________
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

ok ill move this back to beginners

H-45 was a joke that got out of hand. That has been mentioned here, here, and here in the original threadby Lazer. The concept does not belong in this forum, and even if that were not the case, your drawing is pointed the wrong way.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Fitting it was posted April 1.

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw

I was really hoping this crap could stay contained in Beginner Designs.

Moving to Beginner forum...

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Um, I don't know if now is the right time to mention this, but your armament is incorrect, or, rather, does not match the drawing.

For instance, the deviantart drawing carries 4 triple turrets that are not identified in the text you quote (but I'd guess they're 150mm triples?) - that's why the turret for those has such a pronounced 'step' at the front (all three barrels are side-by-side, yet have to fit inside the turret ring to point upwards - so all three have to move back). However, in your drawing, you have decided that these are 240mm weapons, although actual barrel size used would indicate a secondary armament of 550+mm calibre.

Your tertiary armament, quoted as 128 mm AA, does not match the drawing - it's in the position that the 240mm weapons should be. Again, barrel thickness would indicate tertiary armament calibre of 500mm+

You've used 150mm turrets from Bismarck's secondary armament where the drawing specified 128mm doubles, I think - it's difficult to tell because you have not followed the drawing when placing these. Because these are not AA guns and because you use weapons that are too large for this ship, they have poor arcs of fire - some of these seem to be blocked to some extent by your 240mm / 550 mm AA guns, and some appear to be both behind and in front of the same gun.

You've placed some 105mm, proper AA mounts, in places that have guns on the drawing, but I think that the places you have used were intended for the light mounts that you have mounted amidships. However, you have again not matched the drawing - which specified some AA cover fore-and-aft - and 105mm AA guns are in any event not mentioned in the descriptive text.

Your light AA placement does not match the source drawing. You've no light AA fore or aft, leaving the ship very vulnerable to a low-level attack, such as the skip bombing technique, for instance.

Given the substantial up-gunning you're drawn, I'm not sure the ship floats. If it does float, it will be catastrophically vulnerable to a low-level attack from ahead or astern because you have not followed the source material - any allied force using similar tactics to those employed in the battle of the bismarck sea would have great success against this ship, I think.

I know this looks like I'm trying to be mean, but I'm really, really not. You've said time and time again that you're not to going to take suggestion on how to improve this ship - not that it would ever become a practical ship, mind, but that's not something you've done wrong, it's just that this ship can't be practical - because you're following the deviantart drawing, however, a couple of minutes of examination shows that you are not following that drawing either, and further, the modifications you have made make this ship worse, not better - not intentionally, I think, but true nonetheless.

Help is available, if you want it, but at the moment, the impression I am getting - I can't speak for the others - is that the help is not wanted.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

I don't see why there are two posts for this. Looks identical to the one posted in the other thread.

I've nothing to add to any of the 250+ comments on this, except to say I'm surprised folks have persisted this long. This is not a proper SB style drawing and I doubt it ever could be. I must say, it doesn't even look much like the ship in the hand drawing either.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Comments in these two threads keep tricking me into entering this subforum