Shipbucket

yes, line drawings.
but line drawings do not show everything that was visible on the real ship, of course. to get more details, you work with pictures, hundreds of them. all the ones you can gather, and you will in with knowledge what you cannot find on pictures or drawings. that is what defines the true masters of shipbucket style, and is what is aimed at by Whyme and KimWerner

_________________
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

Yup - tracing a plan doesn't make a drawing. A lot of lineart is incorrect in many ways already, so it's your job to cross reference with photographs of the actual thing to make sure it's right.

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

^what they have stated should be in the ship bucket bible. BB and WhyMe would probably concur with me. When it came to drawing Japanese vessels, there were a lot of line drawings which, though they had the general characteristics, were vague in terms of nitpick things like davits, railing, markings, hatches, and other fine details. Its likely that some of the line drawings of older US battlewagons are also susceptible to the same shortcomings.
... Dont get me wrong, you are doing a fantastic job in recreating these old bathtubs.

I have no idea if these drawings are inaccurate (they certainly don't look or feel that way)... just adding my +1 in support of Mr. WhyMe's post in that I think that sort of consideration is useful for any real life drawing.

You should see the extent to which I am redrawing the Alaska...

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

These drawings look great to me (classic SB style). Details are good but only accurate details, I don't want anyone to feel pressured to clutter up drawings with what might look good but not actually really there.
Good photos of older ships are harder to find, while excellent close-up photos of ships from the 1930s onwards can be found, for the period 1900-1930 camera technology often can't capture the detail needed, especially with fuzziness and dark shadows. Finding pictures taken aboard ships helps but then you only get small areas of detail compared to the rest of the ship. Therefore, I feel its up to the artist to add what details they feel accurately portray reality. For the later versions of these ships I reckon improvements could be made, the older drawings of their original appearance perhaps less so. Maybe working backwards to determine subsequent changes might help?

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

I am planning to look over the pictures to see if there is anything I`ve missed. As Hood pointed out, good photos of the ships during WWI are rare, and the ones that do exist are at an angle that do not reveal that which I seek.

In the mean time:

Pennsylvania in 1916:


Pennsylvania in 1918:

Great work!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Do you guys think that I should add the two bumps sticking out the sides of the turrets, or leave it be?

Are they there in real life?

_________________
“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.

The New York class like the previous ships had completely straigth turrets, while the Nevada and Pennsylvania classes had a sort of bump added on the sides that gradually extends from the roof to the barbette.

This will demonstrate it for you:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013706.jpg

An then there is this, third and fourth images:
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-45_mk1_pics.htm