Shipbucket

Btws, those 5in guns were pretty much failures and were quickly replaced. It would make sense to either remove them or replace them with a more modern model, or a gun such as those that you have placed higher on the superstructure. Also, why do you have an old RN Bofors 40mm just chilling while you have Phalanx and RAM? It lacks much of a purpose. And only adds to the multiple different calibers (16in, 127mm, 100mm?, 40mm, and 30mm). It just lacks sense.

very funny, Ace, are you saying my ship is too vulnerable to torpedo attack

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

It's vulnerable to just about anything that explodes. Unless it's unnaturally wide it seems as if it will snap in half in a light breeze...
Added to which the whole notion of that helicopter hangar disturbs me.
As others have said if you continue to go down this silly road at least bring all the systems up to date and make sure not to over complicate things.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

yeah this AU feels weird. AU's have to be realistic possible to function. nothing here does.

What ace... is saying is that this is an lost cause. and you should just stop it. and redo the entire AU.

I was writing a long text about the cost of maintaining something like this for 70 years than just build a new CV/CVN every 25-30 years. and I did also write something about the cost for weapon fired compared to an CV/CVN firing it's weapons. and I added in also that after 70 years a gun fire from a BB would cost more today than for 70 years ago. and that after have fired around hundred shoots at one target with the BB... for that money you could get one new frigate or two, and then fire some missiles at the target for the same cost. (but I found those numbers was to extreme for you, so I just deleted it)

Alright, huehen, I will concede, I will redo this AU from the beginning so this is going to be the last post from me until I get this AU properly done

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

In all honesty the best course would be to probably take an actual place before jumping in at the deep end. I did it and I regret doing it but I still stick with it several years on. Maybe look at something else in the Indian Ocean like Madagascar or something.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

This is recognizable as a British Armored cruiser. They other observers are right about no triple 8" turrets until USS Pensacola in 1927. The Brits did plan an ACR with twin 9.2" turrets fore and aft and five twin 7.5" turrets amidships. By 1910 the IJN had four large ACRs with main guns of 12" and the US and Italy had ACRs with10" guns The Russian Rurik (built by Vickers)had 10" guns in Twin turrets fore and aft and 8" guns in twin turrets amidships. If this was Vickers built for the Russian navy I'd go with 12 10" guns in 6 twin turrets in a hex pattern as in Nassau or 12" twin turrets fore and aft and 8 10" guns on the beams.