Shipbucket

Dear Karle!

I would like to ask your permission to use your drawings to my Lexington class articles here:

https://warshipprojects.com/2017/03/17/teszt-2-cikk/

If you feel the power to do the rest of the designs I would be greatful.

You'd also need to add the lower parts of the armored belt forward and aft, covering the 6" mags (see on the side view how the armored deck steps down, now that is the upper edge of the lower belts.

Nice to see that someone else took the time and effort. It took about a year for Zoli to draw and myself to research and write that article plus several revisions, so I can see that this was no 5 minute job either.

Dear Ian!

As usual, there is nothing more to say than Wow! YOur drawing beats many much larger scale ones . I can only wish you'll do the rest of the class in their ultimate fits.

Cheers,

Akos

One mor thing! Turret top color for the Pearl Harbor versions should not be all red, only for the Arizona! Turret top colors represented BatDiv and position within the division, so there was an individual color code for all BBs. https://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i179/Battleshipboy/5300_121400119243 ...

Very good work, your drawing quality has improved tremendously over the past ones. One small mistake I think that has not been pointed out yet. US BBs (no matter old or new fast ones) had a standard allotment of 3 scout aircraft usually stored in this setup: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01 ...

OK I've sent an e-mail to BB1987 and emperor_andreas as well.

Marvelous stuff as always. I guess you have used Mr Ishibashi's Ultimate Japanese Navy BB book as the primary reference - so here is hope that you will do the 1928 variant of Kongo as well with the reverse conus style funnel cap on page 230 .

You are really the master of this!

I second to this one ! Would be lovely to have a version like the one on WoWS with the Ms32 camo (probably not too likely for 1945 but hey )

Well, that is one way of looking at it. On the other hand what they described there is 70-80% logical if this design would have gone forward. On the broader beam I think that might be a typo in Friedman's book, would not be the first and only such mistake in his tables unfortunately (that does not ...