Shipbucket

I went with 6" x 53 triple turrets that Latuch drew. Engineering plant was drawn to insure I didn't have any conflicts with boiler rooms, uptakes, etc. and the 6" gun turrets.
Hope it looks ok.




Found a few problems after posting. Hopefully fixed them.

SUPER MONTANA!™

Nice drawing though. Keep up the good work!

However, I can spot the crane’s shading is not consistent with the base, and even the rest of the ship.


Those tertiary guns also appear to have mistakes of their own


If I have misunderstood your message, please let me know, because you said that you “Hopefully fixed them”, and I don’t really know if you really fixed them or not.

_________________
R.I.P, Paranormal-Thingum’s profile pic maker used to make my profile pic...

Thanks.
I think I got them all.
But the more i look the more i find problems.
Its always nice to have someone else double check my work.

Yes, that is a good idea, but you can, and are able to, double check your work. Trying to make your drawing as detailed as possible increases your chances of creating mistakes. Simpler drawings are less likely to have mistakes, but we do still make mistakes. So here’s a lesson to all of ya, always double check your drawing for mistakes.

_________________
R.I.P, Paranormal-Thingum’s profile pic maker used to make my profile pic...

You have parts with diferrent colors (bilge keels, prop shafts, some parts of the armor etc)
Also, in 1928, the bridge structure should look almost the same as the South Dakota class. This look persisted even into the 30s.
The stern could use a little bit of rounding, instead of one consistent angle all the way up.

Karl94

I'm not sure what you mean about prop shaft color, I checked them and they appear to be the same.

On the armor, I did find some color problems at the waterline but nowhere else.

The bilge keel I think I've corrected what you're referring to.

As to the bridge its almost identical to the South Dakota class except its larger, I changed the shape & size of the piolet house, and I've added additional "wings" for The Admiral and his staff.
One thing I've read about was complaints about the lack of flag facilities on our Battleships (even the Iowa's). Nimitz and Halsey even had a redesign for the last two Iowa's to attempt to correct this.
I believed that as we started exercises with large combined battle fleets the problems would be noticed and corrected.

I rounded the fantail a bit and I can see what you are talking about.




I've also included one of my test drawing sets for the bridge. My original was without the wing for fleet staff but the more that I read about it the more that I thought that additional space for the Admiral and staff would be designed in.




What do you think?

What I am referring to is how the bilge keels, propeller shafts and the hull have two different colors. The hull is using a color I made up years ago, whereas the other two parts have the proper Norfolk 65-A anti-fouling paint.

Your pilot house is taken from the refitted USS Arizona, but it should look almost exactly the same as the South Dakota class. This is from Norman Friedman's book on US Battleships, it's a design from 1935, notice how the pilot house is a block, ala Colorado/South Dakota.



Here's a 1933 design:


and two 1934 designs:




The last two have a much more "cruiser" like superstructure.

I like the "test" drawing one more than the Arizona one.

Did not notice this before now, so this one's on me, the bilge keels are far too close to the bow and stern, you should move them closer together.

And if you have the patience for it, I would reccomend repainting the ship in it's proper colors. It would look better without the shipbucket gray.

Karle94
I'm working on changing the bridge and hull as you pointed out.
I can't believe how badly I missed the bilge keels. I've looked over the contract plans on the South Dakota and I'll be working on correcting those. But a question about those keels, I've looked at many shipbucket drawings and others and something doesn't look right to me. Even your drawings of the CC-1's. It looks as if there is a bilge keel on a build photo on the Lexington CV-2 that has no breaks in it mid hull (but it isn't a very clear photo). Also on BB-49 contract drawings they appear much lower and smaller fwd and further positioned aft than many drawings have them. Should I have keels that appear more like the Lexington as she is longer than SoDak?
When you referred to the proper colors, what did you mean? Is there a color pallet with the correct colors?
I also noticed the rudder needs work from comparing a photo from the Lexington.
I know its a lot of questions, but I started this and would like to see it through.
I appreciate your help.

American ships in this time period had split bilge keels. You see them using the more traditional single keel later on. The smaller ones at the bottom of the hull are docking keels. They help spread the weight out by providing more contact points on the structures that the ship rests on when in a drydock. Another piece of advice, is not to use the carrier hull as a referance on other ships, she had numerous changes done that made her different from her battlecruiser days.

As for the placement of the keels on your drawing, as show currently, they should be closer amidships. Alternatively you can make them less tall, but much longer. This is what I did for my Lexington drawing, as she had a much finer hull shape (American BBs were quite fat).

As for the colors, any of my drawings depicting American ships from the 1910s to the 30s should have the color you need.

Karl94
Finally got to work on those changes.
What do you think?
I'll do the colors change after I get the bugs worked out of this.