Shipbucket

Dear Garlicdesign,
I absolutely do not want to discourage)

The Mogadors are very very well covered. Please pay attention to the detail - rear funnel bridge and boat davits, fore funnel crane, and so and so and so on...
It seems to me, that you rescently works over Fantasque. The pope detail over the screws from Fantasques.

I do have this (linked due to size) drawing from the official Marine Nationale plans. While some of the structure appears different than what's in the drawing (and at a glance appears to match the image Dima posted), the screws and underwater hull appears to be correct.

Good work. These ships look excellent.

Hello again

Dima's plan shows a 37mm twin which was never actually installed; there is no photographic evidence whatsoever for that mount. I've included it in the improved mogador drawing, the real ones did not have it. Same for the rear fire control director - according to photographs it was the same as used on the Fantasque. The searchlight installation was shown like I drew it on the plan I used as a basis, but as usual - there are sources and sources. By the photos I have, I could not tell the difference.

By the way, Dima11 - since you seem to have made detailed drawings of just about every ship - could you please post one of the Charles Martel (1893) if you have one? I would gladly use it as a template right down to the tiniest details!

Greetings
Garlicdesign

Is this really necessary? To me, the contrast shows just how good GD's work is

Well done GD, mate... great work.

Most of GD work is absolutely on par with photographic evidence. The twin 37mm mounting on plans was never put into service, only one mounting was built and put on one cruiser (can't remember which) , as trials mounting.
The crane on the plan is a just that a drawing on the plans. GD used one which is shown in pictures.
And as Charybdis said above the comparison just goes to show how well the drawing by GD, was realy done.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

To dear Charybdis,
If we speak about NOT nescessity of the historical truth (not me) we are slowly comming here
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13
or here
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=15
what would you choose.

The real design means the real design in the base. Derivations of course had place. Modernisations. Guns reinstallations. Even the complete hull rebuildings had places. But these are derivations FROM real design.

Dear Garlicdesign,
I do not want to stress inconviniencies, I only want your work to be perfect. Some imperfection is due to the chosen scale. It is almost impossible to cover small things with that scale. You are to choose what not to cover - I know it pretty well. Here is no problems. But are you sure, that 37 AA was never (say for a day) installed? Do you have any offiicial (from French archive) witness? The real design indicates it instead. That's my point.

Unfortunatelly I do not have Martel or Carnot. My sources are pretty the same that yours are.

Dima, I'm sorry, but I have to echo Charybdis and Novice on this one. Given the choice between actual photos and drawings, photographic evidence wins every time. GD has done an excellent job here. I'm also rather confused why you posted links to the never-build and AU sub-forums?

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

Ooops,
Of course - I never have guessed before. It is the official building plan is wrong...))))))

Dima,

Perhaps you're confused a little. We term 'Real Designs' ships which are 'real' as opposed to drawing board plans and ships that were never completed. All good SB drawings are based on plans AND photographic evidence, the photographs capture more detail and resolve more issues than any blueprint. Probably very few ships exactly match the offical Navy plans. We do not simply reproduce the plans, there is no point in that. If you just want the plan you already have it.

Your resizing of GD's SB drawing over a massive plan proves very little. Yes there are small differences buy you've resized it massively, for example a 3 pixel wide flagpole is now 39 pixels wide in your oversized plan. The correct procedure is to scale the plan to our scale, 2 pixels = 1 foot. Your nitpicking is not undermining GD's work at all, in fact I still belive it to be 98% correct. You have not proved any miscaling or serious omissions or errors.

As for the twin 37mm outfit and refits, this is the info I have from M.J. Whitley's 'Destroyers of World War Two';
Mogador: After Mers-el-Kibir X turret was removed and replaced by two twin 37mm M1933 mounts, and two more M1933 mounts replaced the original M1927 mounts.
Volta: received in 1941 in addition to her standard armament two single M1933 37mm mounts aft and two single 25mm in the bridge wings and eight Browning or Hotchkiss machine guns (2 on the bridge, 2 on X turret and 2 on the deck and the other 2 ?).

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

And of course, along with th the builder - my plan (stressed in red) - is an absolute mistake.
Folks here in the topic prefer liking not sience fiction more))))