Shipbucket

I think that is a mistake Zephyr. The British Illustrious, Indomitable, Implacable class had seriously depleted airwings as compared to American carriers of a similar size. Better to use more fighters and ASW aircraft to defend the carrier than rely on armoured decks.When all's said and done the armoured deck does nothing to defend against the historical biggest killer of carriers the torpedo. Secondly more aircraft can help defend the carriers escorts as well.Just a personal opinion but If I were designing a contemporary carrier from scratch I would put the armour on the hanger deck and improve the under water protection.This has the added bonus of improving stability by carrying the weight lower down.

Hnh. Hadn't considered that.

ok ... *poof* ... my magical carrier building unicorns have just shifted the armor to the hanger deck and have a nice unarmored flight deck.

which is my own mildly amusing way of saying "thank you for the insightful clarification on that subject".

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

I have to say that the White Rose still seems off, primarily because the hull design looks like something from the late seventies, if not late eighties.
In the 1960ies warships were still built long and slim and with very fine lines. The short and stubby look so often seen today didn't start to appear until the seventies. At the same time they also tried to simplify superstructures in order to save cost and weight which is why every surface is either vertical or horizontal except perhaps the front of the bridge.
Given the design philosophies of the day I'm not sure you'd be able to carry two Limbos and have room for a meaning full magazine in between, even if they're offset (Fig 1)
In order to carry any real amount of ammunition you'll have to offset the magazines like it was done on the HMAS Quiberon Bay (Fig 2)

Moving on, the lack of radar guidance for the 40mm is rather curious considering the timeframe especially when you realise that contemporary ships had entirely remote controlled systems at this point.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I remember I asked about radar but didn't get any answer at that time so I draw here like that. note that you all could see what i draw when i draw her and could come up with things like the hull shape.... but now it's to late, she is finish. for radars: "later upgrades, perhaps!?"

I did point this out at the time as well

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

just the superstructure cut out, but I doesn't see the reason to change on that.

You're not goin to get enough beam on a period design without cut outs or an inline design

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Something I've had on the backburner for a while, and got inspired to try and finish last night when I got home from work, the Armoured Cruiser Ajax. Commissioned in 1911.



494'

6 x 9.2" (3 x 2)
8 x 6" (8 x 1)
12 x 4" (12 x 1)

(more stats later, just saw the time and I have to get ready for work now. darn)

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

A great AC. I particularly like your innovative superfiring turret arrangement, though this would, by necessity render the vessel obsolete by the time of launching and commissioning, since design work cannot have been implemented earlier than ca. 1903/04, due to the superfiring arrangement. I'd also add one or two steam launches/pinnases to your boat complement, and, finally swap out the four-inches for, say three-inches instead, since you've got a6"-secondary battery (splash interference problems). Your funnels as built will create smoke interference, but you can heighten them in a later version, so it's ok.

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

Well, that was actually a problem for many classes of warships around that time period, they were obsolete as soon as their hulls touched saltwater. There was actually some work done with superfiring turrets earlier, though, such as the French Battleship Henry IV launched in 1899. It was, admittedly, a secondary gun superfiring over a main gun. The US Virginia class had a form of superfiring as well with the 8" fore and aft turrets actually sitting on top of the 12" turrets, and they were laid down in 1902. But, yeah, obsolete on launch is a good way to describe the Ajax Class. But with a nice little punch nonetheless.
Good ideas, both of them. I'll swap the 4's out for 3's. Adding a steam launch makes sense too. Maybe I can save time and just say the launch is stored on the port side.
Raising the funnels is no problem. I kept them a little lower because I thought if they were taller the smoke might interfere with the aft tower and gun director, but I guess raising them would just help the smoke clear those though, right?

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor