Shipbucket

Hmm....Both of your vessels seem to be using an older, incremental armor scheme that was largely abandoned by WWII. While a *small* case might be argued for it on the battleship, you could likely stand to lose the bow and stern belts on the cruiser, in my humble opinion. I really like the cruiser design, though as pointed out, it could use a tad more length. Keep them coming!

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

Well, that's what a battleship could have looked like. The secondaries are definitely not too much. The 8 5,25"-turrets are very usual. I'd like to see them superfiring like on KGV. It's the light aa that seems to be much. But have look at late large warships. They were covered with aa. So it's ok.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead

I am thinking about what my ship would have looked like if she went thrue a modernization in the early 60´s but I fail on knowing what weapons and radars that was used by Royal navy at that time, can anyone help me?

Look on Hoods excellent RN parts sheets.I would go for 4.5" MK 6 or 3"/70 secondaries,Sea Cats with MRS3 directors.Keep forward guns,Maybe Sea Slug with type 901 radar instead of rear guns.Maybe a lattice mast with type 965 and 277 radars.Just suggestions.Look forward to see what you come up with.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=65&start=0

Thanks Bombhead, I will base the modernization arround that setup but for those secondaries do you have any idea what directors that was used?

I would say MRS3s,but Novice would know for sure.I think 40mm staags would look more updated too If you get grief with the lattice masts PM me and I'll send you some you can used/adapt.

This is how far I have come so far on the update of the Prodigious
Any suggestions on how to take it further?

yes were those missile not reloaded from the horizon-line --------- not lik .
.
.
.
You have done now. Also I suggest to place a another FCR at the back, since you have two missile systems IMO.

Alex is right, but there were plans for vertical loading which, because of the missile bulk (weight and size), were not implemented.
Also the after-most guns are too close to the missle launcher.
The deck houses in front of the launchers are too short, and because of the horizontal loading you don't have much room for missiles. Upper launcher will have about two reloads only (for each side, that meand 4 missiles), and lower three or four only (for each side again which means between 6 to 8 missiles). I know it sounds a very low number, but you must remember that before loading into the launcher, the missile had to be checked and finned (the wings of the missiles were stored seperately to conserve space), and this was done in a space before the launcher.
Also consider the weight of the launcher which was very heavy, very heavy in fact (much like the twin 4.5" Mk. 6 gun mounting), and this will compromise the ship's stability, as it is quite high (especially the second launcher) and to that add the weight of the Type 901 radar FCR.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"