Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 20 of 22  [ 215 posts ]  Go to page « 118 19 20 21 22 »
Author Message
BB1987
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 18th, 2018, 9:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
I personally do not see the issue with the 4.7'' mount being almost identical to the 4.5'' one. The concept of the gun mount was basically the same, and the calibre difference is minimal (0.2 inches, or 6mm). The IJN rearmed its older heavy cruisers in the 30s replacing 200mm (7.9'') guns with 203mm ones (8'') without replacing the turrets (with the exception of the Furutakas, but in that case they switched from single to twin guns). The italians did the same going from 305 to 320mm on the old battleship refits.

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 18th, 2018, 9:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
The goal is not to differentiate, it is to be accurate, right? If the later 4,5in mounting was based on the same design principles, the only things that would change in an shipbucket style drawing would be the dimensions, hatch positions and the barrel length. Looks to me those are different, so in my opinion this was done properly.

You were the one doing the criticizing here, were you not?

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charguizard
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 18th, 2018, 9:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
I don't mind the attention myself but I'm sorry I kinda ruined Hood's thead :oops:

Anyways, I've added the notorious part in question to the SB wiki: http://shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/4. ... rk_VIII_BD

About the superstructure, the glazing comes from me grossly misinterpreting pictures of Nelson. I'm inclined to redraw that bit if a passable argument is presented, but if you think it's allright then I'll just leave it as it is.

Thanks for the comments and feedback to all of you, discussion is important!

_________________
w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 18th, 2018, 10:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1647
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Very well drawn, Char! First time that I have the oportunity of having a look of the design (and is much more impressive, and massive! ;) )!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 19th, 2018, 8:16 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
To throw my two-pennies worth into the discussion on BD turrets; had I been drawing this I would have been tempted to have used the 4in Mk XV experimental mount BD Mk XVIII as shown on the RN gun parts sheet. This was briefly trialed a couple of capital ships in the mid-30s.

The only real difference is that the XVIII is an earlier design than the 4.5in BD mounts and has a slightly more domed roof.
There used to be really good photo sources for this from the Vickers Barrow archive online but the images were removed years ago.

Given the nature of the BD mounts, there would have been little difference in the above-deck cupola size and little in the way of detailing to differentiate between 4.5in and 4.7in other than the barrel length.

As to the superstructure detail Erik_T brings up, I had the same thought when Charguizard gave me preview of the drawing. Given the forward part of the upper position on the Nelsons were glazed in during the 1930s I felt this wasn't a huge problem. I would be tempted though to to limit the glazing to just the forward section for wind protection and leave the rest open, as on the Nelsons.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MihoshiK
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 19th, 2018, 10:46 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact: Website
Apart from the usual suspects being asses again, this is exactly the kind of thing we need more of. An excellent drawing of a somewhat obscure design.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
adenandy
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 19th, 2018, 5:17 pm
Offline
Posts: 1630
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 1:46 am
I quite like her, as drawn.

Jolly well done Charguizard, you've got my vote :!: :D

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 19th, 2018, 7:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
An excellent drawing.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 20th, 2018, 12:01 am
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Excellent drawing, Charguizard, no matter what certain detractors (*cough*ban him*cough*) might say!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MihoshiK
Post subject: Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial ShipsPosted: April 20th, 2018, 10:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact: Website
Colombamike wrote: *
Colombamike wrote: *
[ img ]
Good luck to differentiate (VISUALLY SPEAKING) your 4.7"BD and the 4.5" Mk I/Mk III mount....(except 2-3 pixels)
My opinion, boy, before drawing a Gun-mounting, finds the full COMPLETE DIFFERENCE/FULL SIDE-LINE/CUTAWAY, & add it to the official "british drawing refs", before add it to current drawings...

@ all, please :
before criticizing, draw accuratly/precisely the 4,7"BD 1928-1934's mounting (to differentiate from the 4.5"Mk I/Mk III), and after it, we speak about it again ;)
Know what? Put up or shut up, you mong.

You think it isn't correct? Draw a better part. Come on, fire up MSPaint, Photoshop, whatever, and draw a better part.

Or is your mouth bigger than your artistic chops?

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 20 of 22  [ 215 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 118 19 20 21 22 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]