Shipbucket

It comes down to SB standard again. It doesn't matter what the standard or default position is, unless they're physically incapable of doing so, a gun should always be pointing for-n-aft and the barrel should be at zero elevation.
It also has the added advantage of making the gun easier to identify.

_________________
“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.

OK, I will place phalanx side views on my ship.

Greetings.

_________________
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024

...and there goes then the veracity of the drawing effort... I keep remembering there's exception to that inflexible rule, and in this case we simply need to make that exception in order to maintain credibility, Thiel. Rules are rules, yes, but they also need to be flxible enough to adjust to reality. Fore-and-aft positioning is erronenous, I repeat erronenous! The phalanxes need to be pointed as they are shown on the above picture, i e paul should keep it the way he drew it originally. In fact, when I visited the USS Iowa, I believe in 1986 or 87 on the Copenhagen Roads, a Public Affairs Officer commented on the limited arc of fire they enjoyed, and why they had four systems.

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

It's not a disaster Bezobrazov ! Even the phalanx are pointed fore-and-aft, it's phalanx again... I know that the rules are some times inflexible but it's a thing needed to keep our ships standardized and real.
Thanks to defend me but if the others want to have my CIWS in this position, I will give my ship with that...


On an other hand, I like to have the moderators and administrators points of view on this subject.

Thanks in advance and greetings.

_________________
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024

No Mod has made a comment or said that the outward facing Phalanx are wrong.

If that's the way they are then show them facing outboard. It in no way detracts from this fine work. Using logic is sometimes better than slavishly following the rules. If you overstep the mark then we Mods step in.
Myself I'm not fond of yellow propeller shafts, maybe change them to red?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Yes, actually a mod has.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Just in the old forum...

Greetings.

_________________
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024

As far as I know, unless otherwise stated, the rules stayed the same when we moved to this board from the old one.

And if you note, that comment was made in the thread for your Iowa drawing!

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Maybe provide the link to the old forum where this drawing was discussed? In this forum no moderator has commented adversely against having the Phallanx shown 'beam on'. I have to say I'm with Hood on this one. If the actual ship is always shown this way, then it makes sense to follow. And if the beam Phallanx is not kosher WTF has it been drawn and accepted!!

But if two Moderators are for it then maybe appeal to the Administrator for a ruling

the thing looks more reconnisable as phalanx when facing sideways...but I agree on Hood, sometimes logic can be also used. In cases where you need to make exceptions to the rules, you need to have good ground for doing so, and I think this would be on the edge for it.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"