Shipbucket

Colo - maybe you had better have a look at the drawing of the Cleveland you have in the Archive. That has the mk37's as I suggested and is what I based my comment on? If the US practice changed after the Cleveland was built maybe you should take into account all of the US practice not just what suits you.

-Swapped the gun directors as suggested.
-Added 1943 next to the name, which I think would be the year the ship could've been introduced.
-Moved the rear mast further away behind the funnel
-Adjusted 2 of the secondary guns

_________________

Much, much better!
The first batch of Clevelands (the "round bridge") had the original configuration, with the Mk.34 directors located below the Mk.37 directors. The later "square bridge" Clevelands moved the Mk.37 directors to the more advantageous upper position. This is also evident on the Baltimore class.

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

It still looks kinda plain, but I don't know what more to add.

_________________

Have a look at the US CL's Colo did in the main Archive. That will show you what you are trying to end up with. Colos drawings have a lot of little details on them that yours is missing. It is the little details that makes a good drawing great.

Added some details and extra AA guns.

Old


New

_________________

Well, you asked what more to add? There are doors, hatches, vents and ventilators, basically everything that makes a modern steamship function! You've got very little of all that. You're right, your drawing does look plain, but, while we can advise you and direct you to modes that you can study, we certainly cannot and will not do the job for you - afterall, it's your ship, your creation!

Let me ask you, what's that weird looking raised structure that goes across the forward section of your superstructure, it's not even tall enough to fit a normal-sized man, and it slopes oddly down towards the front of the bridge complex? That looks very redundant to me. Your funnels may also need some work. Right now it appears as if the second one is also a redundant, even a non-functional one, and gives the whole vessel a strange imbalance. You can use two, heck, even three funnels, but they should be in somewhat congruence with eachother to appear realistic and believable. The 40 mm Bofors you've put right atop (as it appears) of your second (elevated) 5"/38, and I know it's not literally on top of that turret! - you could better move either slightly forwardor aft, to clear the turret entirely.
Also, my friend, you need boats! There's a suitable USN boat sheet in the parts section. Again, consider the function of yor ship and equip it accordingly. If it's a flagship, it'll in all likelihood carry one or to extra motor boats, steam cutters and/or pinnaces.
As for the bridge, it's much better than when you originally posted your first attempt, but the levels still lacks any kind of sophistication, such as dedicated bridge wings, mooring stations, signal stations etc. Again, you'll be inspired by looking at the relevant USN drawings - and, for that matter, other nations' ships as well!
It's definitely an improvement, but can still use quite a lot of careful TLC!

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

I'm guessing the structure you're talking about is a blast shield, though I doubt it's necessary. The geometry of the area between the bridge and the forward funnel is a bit odd. I suggest you draw a simple topview of the area to check if it'll actually work out. It's all too easy to draw something that looks completely reasonable in a side elevation, but turns out is impossible once you look at it from another angle.

_________________
“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.

Ahhh..Thiel, yes, yours is a plausible guess, but that would certainly make it wholly redundant then. One thing we haven't mentioned is weight savings and volume efficiency.

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

The cruiser went through a notable change. The funnels are on the same level now and the size of the bridge has been made a bit shorter.

_________________