Shipbucket

The 76mm doesn't take up any less space lengthwise tahn the 5".

_________________
“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.

Better, but I thnk your draught is too deep now... (I know, compromising on such things is hell!)

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

Ok, if you really want me to get into the excruciating details about the whys - I need to pack in all the same electronics and support equipment for the SQS-53 into a now shorter bow section, along with all of the other internal volume that is required to be populated. The 5" mount requires several decks worth of ammo magazine, hoist equipment, and so on. The 76 only needs a much smaller space, and only extends one deck below the mount.

Without appearing out of line, I am not sure how many of you folks on here have firsthand experience aboard warships and knowledge of their systems and how much space they take up. I do, and I am well aware of what "stuff" occupies the space below decks in the DDG 51 design.

I did not pick the 76 because it "looks cool" - there is a rationale behind my design choices, driven by my naval experience and experience aboard all of the major USN warship classes. The 5" is not appropriate for this design, and I stand by my decision.

I know I am new here, but I am not new to USN warships.

I have doubts about that SPY-1 position, but ok.....
the weight is still a lot forward..... and the bilge keels do not fit this hull as you have it now.
the oto 76, if you decide to keep it, is an outdated drawing. also, the oto 76 has to have the same electronics and magazine spaces as the Mk 45, or your ammo reserve and usability will be very limited. while I can agree the Oto takes a bit less space, I would choose to have the Mk 45 on board just for ease of maintenance over the entire fleet.
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =16&t=2755 here you can see how much space different systems take on a ship, most notably the guns in this case.
also, again, go to vossiej's drawing and update the mast, hull, boat and bridge a bit, at least, please.... this just looks old.

ow and I actually find the why's of an design much more interesting then the drawing itself. by explaining why you did something, reasoning, adjusting stuff and letting us comments on that, is much easier and more interesting for both you and us so, feel free to always explain what you are meaning to do when we ask you

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Just out of curiosity, if parts/drawings I have used are "outdated," why are they available at all in the ship library / parts library on the shipbucket.com homepage? Shouldn't they be updated with the "up to date" files, so people like me don't make these kinds of mistakes?

That is an excellent question. The staff has been slowly evaluating the best way to move from the current combined parts sheets to the Nation-of-Origin sheets (currently these include sheets for the US, Netherlands, UK, IJN, and a few others) that currently are the most up to date. The issue that crops up is that the old sheets often have parts that are not included on the newer sheets, and if the newer sheets simply replace the old, certain parts are lost. It's an issue that is currently under discussion and we are trying to work to a solution.

And yeah, we need to fix it sooner rather than later. As the primary point man for the parts forum, I'm the guy this falls on and it's not my best work or my brightest moment.

Edit: Also, Ace has been doing a yeoman's job of keeping the parts in the first page of the below deck parts thread exceptionally up to date.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆