Shipbucket

While outwardly looking nice, your Adelina-class CAs have several severe flaws and errors:

1) the hull is way too shallow either to ensure any sort of seaworthiness and, most importantly, to allow for those huge (and heavy) turrets; especially as you've got anything from eight (four twins) ten (two threes, two twins) or 12 (four threes). There simply is not enough hull volume to accept them.

2) There seems to be too low headroom between the decks. Compare to a British County-class; but, more importantly check the height between decks on any French, Italian or American cruiser, and you'll realize that you need to raise the deck heights some more (which, coincidentally will also raise the overall hull above water, giving better seaworthiness - and substantially increase hull volume!)

3) Superstructure deck levels should also be raised with a few pixels to clear the necessary headroom.

4) You've got a wholly insufficient - one might argue deficient FC-system. I'd recommend you again study contemporaneous cruisers to establish what kind of systems you're lacking.

5) Your secondaries appear to be positioned in very exposed and cramped positions. They probably would do better to not being emplaced in little, confined "birds' nests", but rather either on 01-level or on the superstructure deck, with ample room to turn and elevate.

6) That grossly enlarged, tumorous rudder of yours (and are there a couple of fin-like auxiliary rudders on either side of it?) will violently jolt the ship as it maneuvers. It simply is not very practical, and will, in fact, also serve as a huge drag on the cruiser's speed. Again, I strongly recommend studying RL-designs to find out what best works and what does not. In this case, I'd take a look at the French Treaty-cruisers of the Suffren-class, since your ship appears to have a three-shaft installation; and in particular how the Dupleix was designed.

There are other, minor details, such as your positioning of S/L:s and the curious lack of a proper boat complement that leaves me somewhat befuddled. But overall, you get strong points in your shading attempts and the fact that you do try to create an original design. It's not quite there yet, but it can be with little effort!

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

1) the hull is way too shallow either to ensure any sort of seaworthiness and, most importantly, to allow for those huge (and heavy) turrets; especially as you've got anything from eight (four twins) ten (two threes, two twins) or 12 (four threes). There simply is not enough hull volume to accept them. This design was based on the Pensacola class and has very similiar shape. This ship is just as shallow in the water as pensacola, if not slightly higher. Placement of weapons are also almost identical. The turrets are on the same levels of the pensacola too. But I guess you are right to a certain degree. Adelina has 12 7" main guns, so perhaps she might differ in pensacola to suite the heavier guns.

2) There seems to be too low headroom between the decks. Compare to a British County-class; but, more importantly check the height between decks on any French, Italian or American cruiser, and you'll realize that you need to raise the deck heights some more (which, coincidentally will also raise the overall hull above water, giving better seaworthiness - and substantially increase hull volume!)Ok I will

3) Superstructure deck levels should also be raised with a few pixels to clear the necessary headroom.Ok I will

4) You've got a wholly insufficient - one might argue deficient FC-system. I'd recommend you again study contemporaneous cruisers to establish what kind of systems you're lacking.What is an FC-system?

5) Your secondaries appear to be positioned in very exposed and cramped positions. They probably would do better to not being emplaced in little, confined "birds' nests", but rather either on 01-level or on the superstructure deck, with ample room to turn and elevate.Should I put them here?

6) That grossly enlarged, tumorous rudder of yours (and are there a couple of fin-like auxiliary rudders on either side of it?) will violently jolt the ship as it maneuvers. It simply is not very practical, and will, in fact, also serve as a huge drag on the cruiser's speed. Again, I strongly recommend studying RL-designs to find out what best works and what does not. In this case, I'd take a look at the French Treaty-cruisers of the Suffren-class, since your ship appears to have a three-shaft installation; and in particular how the Dupleix was designed.There was no fin rudders, but I see where you are coming from. I'll correct it a bit

There are other, minor details, such as your positioning of S/L:s and the curious lack of a proper boat complement that leaves me somewhat befuddled. But overall, you get strong points in your shading attempts and the fact that you do try to create an original design. It's not quite there yet, but it can be with little effort!What are S/Ls?[/quote]

_________________

How is this so far?

_________________

First of all: I do apologize if I presumed you'd know all the technical terms that we sometimes, kind of haphazardly throw around; abbreviations etc. Secondly: thank you for considering the critique.

What you're basically trying to do is to cram a huge main battery into what is a heavy cruiser hull. In that respect the Pensacolas are just as dreadful examples to imitate. If anything (if you want to actually use Treaty-cruiser characteristics) I'd choose my rendition of the Northampton or the French Tinclads or even the Italian examples! All with appropriate adjustments, of course. I'd seriously ditch the 12.7" armament and go with any of these instead: 7", 7.9", 8", 9.2" or 10" Those would be far more appropriate and, actually most effective against the intended targets. We all have occasionally redraw our drawings; has happened to me to, so that's no biggie!
FC-system means "Fire Control-system" and denotes both the fire control, target acquisition and range finding capabilities of your main armament and secondaries, as well, if you have a tertiary ditto. - Your crew simply put, need to know what to hit, and to do that before their opponent finds their range! Right now, your ship would be left at a terrible disadvantage with regards to this. Take a look at the Northampton-class (in the guise of USS Chicago to find out! (viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7061)
S/L is a common abbreviation for searchlights; you put them in somewhat odd, awkward positions, where they might not do much good.

As for your secondaries, they appear to be placed on very narrow, and fragile platforms, without much room for their crews to properly operate them. Better placement is to put them on a solid deck space, where there will be ample room behind and to the sides of it for their crews to sufficiently operate the guns in action.
And, yes, that rudder of yours is way, way, too large! Again, I'll direct you to the French Treaty cruisers for inspiration: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4110&hilit=Suffren&start=50 (Unfortunately, some of the images [I didn't post them] appears to be resized. Don't know why...anyway, take a particular look at the Dupleix, which has a similar shaft configuration to yours - three-shafts)

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

_________________

The smokestacks should be taller, as it is now, the smoke will cover the aft superstructure.

I think you should improve the posotion, and the way the boat complement looks like.

If you are going for a treaty cruiser, the armor belt should be only half as long as it is now.

Your barbettes look too small for triple turrets, or it's just the turrets that are too big.

This is just a thought - I think that your funnels need to be taller.
It appears to me that the funnel gases and soot would be a real
problem for your mainmast platform and your searchlight platforms,
too.

Yes, I did misread your statement about the main armament. Sorry about that. Read in a haste, I suppose. 12 9" (or is it 9.2", since 9" is a highly unusual if not unknown caliber...) is quite frankly overkill. Take a look at my Thevai-class which is substantially bigger than yours; it's got only ten 9.2" (2x3; 2x2) Don't spoil an otherwise viable and good design idea by overarming it; it won't do the ship-type any good, I can assure you that. As for the directors; they're way too puny; won't be able to cope with the telemetric data input/output required for range finding, target acquisition and actual firing of the guns by remote control, which is something most treaty cruisers introduced at the end of the 1920s. Again, study the example I provided. Thevai-class: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1970&hilit=Sphendoni&start=60 (Class needs an overhaul, to which I haven't yet come...)

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

I'm going to change the caliber to 8". I'll make some of the changes suggested.

_________________

I just need to add the secondaries, and then a refit with AA guns and radar sets.

_________________