Shipbucket

I know that but here is the correct drawing:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... EIPNER.png

Well, this one is also about 15 meters longer (now with comparable draught - light draught is still deeper on Raxar's ship) and still has very different underwater aft.
Destroyer hulls were then extremely sleek and Raxar's hull doesn't look like one - rather like a quite broad one - more like a gunboat or minesweeper, or (underwater aft only) like a miniature old cruiser or pre-dred.

what I am trying to tell you between words is that those Norwegian destroyers was called a large torpedo boat. On country can call a PT-boat for a Destroyer but it will still be a PT-boats for other country's!!

I'm not sure if "trying to tell between words" (lines? ) in English by one non-native English speaker to another non-native English speaker is a good idea.
Anyway - that Norwegian destroyers could be called "large torpedo boats" but that doesn't change the fact that the ship's underwater hull we're talking about doesn't look like belonging to ships that in the era in which it was supposed to be made were called either "destroyers" or "torpedo boats" or (or PT-boats by the way).
And Raxar didn't wrote anywhere: "This is a large torpedo boat/gunboat/spaceship/Montezuma's palace/high-speed cucumber-powered hamster-operated locomotive/whatever that in my navy is called destroyer". He simply named it destroyer. And while it's true that there aren't many clear border lines between categories of warships, especially today, I believe, that 100 years ago ships called either destroyers or torpedo boats all had certain defining features I do not see at all in the underwater hull of this particular drawing.
Yes, You can name things any way You like, but generally idea of names (in this case: names of ship categories) is that they convey certain ideas. You can draw a 15 metre long patrol boat and name it a "battleship", but since this word is usually used to described rather different kind of ship, it would invite some comments, asking for explanation of that discrepancy, or saying "well, that doesn't look like any battleship I have ever seen in my life".

Yeaaaaah Hamsters Attack! hehehe did I lol or troll today!

Yes, indeed I had a suspicion that You're trying to troll me troughout all this discussion. Now it seems confirmed.

Lots of posts, how to respond..... As for size, HueHen guessed correctly, I was inspired by smallerish Scandanavian designs. (Before drawing I came across Golly's Finland AU.) She's not meant to be a first class destroyer either, more like a 2nd or 3rd. The underwater hull, at least the aft part, was pasted from a project I scrapped almost a year ago. (Think Neverland) Now that I look at it, it does seem rather odd. That's the genaral direction I was going for.

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

Not exactly got my point (perhaps I should take some additional English lessons? ).
Indeed, I wrote that by 1915 destroyers were usually longer, but it was written in parentheses and wasn't the main issue, just a mention on a side. I know that some destroyers were smaller than the others (I guess I should know it, since - after all - I put a link to a drawing of such smaller destroyer).
It was the underwater hull that was my point - it's draught and aft part. It's too deep and the way it looks near screws/rudder suggest that it's much wider ship than a destroyer should be. My point is that for a ship this size it (the underwater part) should rather look more like this:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 0A-III.png

Ah, thank you for clarifying Eswube.
Edit: How's it now?

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

Now it looks great! Just maybe make the bilge keels bit shorter (so they would be more-or-less in the middle 1/3rd of the ships length).
Sorry for (partially) causing all this unnecessary argument above.