Shipbucket

Guys on that forward 2-Pounder are gonna get cooked if the main turret fires.

Also, why go with an 8" gun if there is a 7.5" gun is still fairly modern and capable?
Wouldn't that just complicate the parts and supply situation?

Agreed, I'd cut back on the superstructure and flip those two around. That turret's going to be wet though...

First off, you'll have to change the shafts and maybe extend the engine room further aft. (I'm assuming that's what the belt covers)
Right now the shafts will enter the engine rooms right around the upper aft corner of the belt armour.

As for the refit, I'm not sure it's going to work out all that well. You're replacing single 7.5in shielded mounts with twin 8" turrets.
You'll need new magazines and handling rooms, the structure will have to be heavily altered to allow for the three massive holes you're punching through the strength deck and the supporting structure, the keel will need to be remodelled to take the strain of the much much heavier guns (About 5 times as heavy)
The Octuple two-pounders are not exactly feather weights either and the 4" twins are hardly one for one replacements either.
The new mast will also ad considerable topweight.
In conclusion I think the resulting ships are going to be highly overloaded and extremely expensive, to the point where you would be better off building new ships and converting these to other roles.

_________________
“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.

They'd be fine as they were up until the beginning of the second world war and by then I'd be relegating them to second line duties maybe replacing the 7.5" with American 5"s or lesser for AA and ASW I'd probably mount lower calibre AA than the 4" twins. In short I'd probably end up with something like this

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

meh. so it stays the way it was then.

EDIT: Ok, something I have just noticed, however, about the original 1917 design is that currently the fire control system appears to consist solely of the "Mark 1 Eyeball".

So, how about some recomendations for type and location of modernized (circa 1930-5) fire control directors for the 7.5" main guns and for the secondaries. Also, as the 4" secondaries are an older design, and twin 4's are out of the question, what would be a better choice for updated secondaries, or would what is currently there be sufficient? For AA, would replacing the 3" HA guns be feasible, and with what? Single or twin 40mm? A metric buttload of single 20mm? Leave the 3" HA where they are, but add several 20mm singles to supplement them?

Oh, I'm just full of questions this morning, it seems.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

I have a question about crediting, so if somebody could provide some feedback, I would appreciate it.

Statement: I currently use many RW ships in my OB. That will gradually change as I do kitbashes and original designs. But for the time being, there will be RW ships in use as Grays Harbor ships. In the past, I just used pics of them, but the drawings are better from a continuity standpoint, and because they are easier to do modifications on in order to get weapons systems and aircraft which are consistent from ship to ship.

Question: When using the RW drawings, I would like it to appear as if they are part of a single coherent fleet. That is hindered by having ships from several nations together. So, I need to know if it is acceptabile to change the name & credit block thus...

original ship credits:
USA, Spanky Class
USS Spanky DD-1099
(Artist1)

changed to read:
Grays Harbor, Elegent Class
HMS Elegent D750
(Artist1)

same ship, same artist credited, different name.
If I make major changes to a ship, such as with a kitbash, I will add my own name to it in the approved style.
If it is just cosmetic changes such as color, aircraft types, or weapons types I leave the artists credit alone.

Does this sound reasonable?

Answer: [fill in the blanks]

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

So long as you're not modifying the drawing I would think you would be ok to do as you've proposed. But if you do change anything other than the title, you will need to put 'modified by Zephyr' in the brackets. If you want to hold fire this is being revised anyway by Admin

Re: crediting: yes, that system should work, we are discussing a guide to crediting in the staff forum however.
I would change the main air search radar on this to SK (the large bedspring set you have right now is the CXAM, a very very early air search). Since this is commissioned in 1944, I would add splinter shields around all the 20mm guns. You might also move away from the enclosed bridge to an open bridge (helpful for air defense). I would also raise the entire superstructure one more deck level. It would also be interesting to see an SG set above the SK, with a backup SG on a mast above funnel No.2. Might also investigate putting a lattice mainmast above the second funnel and mounting an SP height-finder for fighter direction.

Also, it's very doubtful that this ship would commission with what is essentially a pre-war boat complement; during the war, a large boat complement was found to be a hindrance and a major fire hazard (I believe one of the American CAs at Guadalcanal was sunk because its boats caught fire and gave away its position during the night). Plus the space taken up by boats can be used for more light AA. I would remove ALL of the amidships boats and replace them with a gallery of 40mm Bofors with associated directors. Alternatively, this could be displayed with a 1945 refit.

I would also move the large air search set to a foremast suspended aft of the forward fire control tower. That way your forward Mk.38 director has the required belowdecks space to operate.

It might do well to increase the ship's draft. Heavily armored ships like the American fast BBs drew a lot more than they had freeboard.

This ship could also use some directors (Mk.51 or Mk.56 would work) for the heavy AA (Bofors or whatever those are). One director per mount seems to be the requirement aboard larger surface vessels.

I would limit the searchlights only to platforms on the funnels as per standard USN design practice. Not sure why they were never mounted higher up (only answer that comes to mind is weight).

Put a 40mm Bofors at the bow a la Alaska for some nice flavor. It would be an extremely wet mount but IIRC the forward mount on Alaska was in a really good spot to engage targets coming head on.

I would get rid of those awful life rafts and replace them with the smaller version scaled to USN examples on some of my newer ships. You might also investigate reducing the liferaft complement and sticking to floater nets in baskets instead.

The turrets are very obviously "Iowa" and could do with some differentiation -- perhaps removing rangefinders from No.1 and 4 turrets, changing liferaft stowage, or maybe changing the general shape of the turret would help.

This ship has no armored conning tower! I would put one right forward of the bridge. You might surmount it with a 40mm gun mount again a la Alaska.

You might also investigate some centerline secondary guns superfiring over the main battery to engage aircraft head-on.

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

hnh. ok, some good ideas to work on. thanks.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Actually, an early version did have a forward gun mount but several folk talked me out of it. I would like to put one back on though.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor