Shipbucket

Im sorry, but I have no idea of what that means. Is my bow disposable like a BIC?

So you essentially mean turn it into a WW2 era ship and remove all of the modern fancy gadgets in order to put it into a time where it would look the best?

Since you will drop your anchors right through it, yes. You have a single-use bow.

not unless it is in heavy seas or at a tilt. Like what is seen on limits class carriers, the bulbous bow is rather narrow in width and the anchor births are spread out farther apart than what meets the eye in a side profile. If the ship were pitching in the water, then yes there you be a mother of a hole. I guess a lot of the problems that people have with my ship is the lack of a forward, vertical, and rear profile to put everything in perspective.

No, it's because you draw something by the seat of your pants and then tend to invent quasi-magical reasons why it would work after the fact.

If that were the fact, I would have not removed the central main anchor on the forward most part of the bow now would I. However i can see your argument and will honor your greater experience.

in your defence? what you describe describes.... well something that would NOT need this hull
for battleship class guns, you need an large beam. ok. I suppose you have that.
now, your hull shape shows that you have that large beam part for..... two thirds of the ships hull. this makes an extremely wide stern, an extremely stumpy bow, and an displacement about twice that of an Iowa class. I suppose you will need at least twice the reactors of an nimitz class, and 3 or maybe 4 times those of an kirov. the bulb.... what the hell do you want with it? I have never seen anything like that before, it is huge but (if your anchor really drops next to it) only about 1-2 meters wide. which.... well..... makes it useless, an waste of metal.
this is a lot more like what you need.
no bulb, the widest point of the ship being in the middle of the bilge keel, and the bilge keel with an strong curve, showing the curvature of the water flow around the ship. and that is done WITHOUT all the excessive shading you used.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

So, essentially you mean something like this?

I'd just like to know what all the nonsense you've put onto the bottom of the hull is.

Or do you not know? A big fault of many drawings here is the "I'll put lines here because it looks cool", without really knowing what you're trying to draw.
In order to put it in a time where its existence makes sense in the first place.

I'm still not disputing the fact that just off the bat this ship has a definite "cool factor" to it. I think you are a fine artist but there is definitely some room for improvement. I think following the direction of the folks who know a lot about it (ace and erik_t) could really make this thing outstanding. I like the feel of a Kirov rocket cruiser concept built on an Iowa size hull.

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

What the curves on the bottom are: water venting systems to suppy the reactors, reinforced keel, torpedo bulges, and extra sonar euipment. I am not trying tosimply make it look cool, I am trying to make it work to the extent of my understanding. Granted it may not actually be good at all, I really would like your advice, just please do not accuse me of being an illogical artist. I have been dealing with physical models most of my life.