Oh no, not another Alaska...

[ALVAMA]

Not really sure why the comments are so hard.. design/and so I can't say much, but it looks cool and it has some style though!

[Bombhead]

As to it's technical merits It's still a very nicely executed drawing.

[eltf177]

Agreed, maybe not historically accurate but an interesting design nonetheless...

[klagldsf]

The forecastle is lent from Tillman. Call it whatever you want.

http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Ne ... rginia.png

I'm afraid I don't see how they match.

The weird hull shape makes it look like the whole ship took a gigantic haymaker to the bow.

And as for this constant harping on decorum...this constant harping on calling it "ridiculous" is getting, truly, ridiculous.

[Portsmouth Bill]

Its an interesting concept, and much more worthy of your talents. the bow reminds me of the German dreadnougts; and it does appear to be somewhat undergunned in the main battery, and over supplied with the secondaries; and I can't recall seeing a two tiered system for casements (though I can be corrected). Anyway, it is certainly novel

[Ashley]

The bow should be revised, I see that. Bow torps were never used on US-ships. And the shape itself doesn't satisfy me. The superstructures are mostly from midnights Tillman-Virginia. And these were influenced by the real planned 20s South Dakota-class. To improve it, the secondairies should be lowered one deck.
With your comment undergunned you might be right from todays sight. But BCs were intended to go as superior cruisers. The (mis)use as fast battleships came later. And I repeat: the 40s original Alaska was armed with 12". Maybe it's because the 12"twin turrets look somehow cute on the large hull. I agree, a 30s design would have seen at least 14" but more probable it would have been 16".
Ok, it won't be torpedoed, it will undergo some mayor refits.

[Ashley]

The second unit of the 1920s Alaska-class USS Guam CB-2 with secondairy guns one deck lowered and a more common bow.

[Ashley]

The third Alaska USS Hawaii saw a major change in armament: the four 12" twins were replaced by two 18" twins. Six of the 5" casemat guns were replaced by DPs. Cage masts are now tripods.
edit: I forgot to delete the submerged torpedotubes. With the 18"s there is no space left for them.

[bezobrazov]

Still not a satisfactory bow. Why revert to something that the USN already had abandoned? They had devised the handsome clipperbow to increase the dryness of their ships both in the Atlantic and the Pacific. Also, I have to agree. The hull does look too low for a US design at this stage. I'm sure the C&R would not have approved it but returned it for revision. The thing is that this ship will have inadequate sea keeping qualities for the needs of the USN. Also, the kind of transom stern you've designed is at least 15 years ahead of time. Cf the Omahas and you'll see a more time-typical stern design. Now, if you're sticking with this, since it's a cruiser, you'll need to add the characteristic flutes above the inner propeller shafts; a design feature (uniquely American!) which essentially created a sharp 'V'-form at the extreme stern section, enabling a much improved water flow and increased steering capability. (cf Brockpaine's Houston for a guide!) So, with that said, with certain modifications it can turn out to be a handsome vessel!

[BrockPaine]

You can use either USN dreadnought-inspired parts, as visible on this ship:


Or cruiser-inspired parts from the Pensacola-class. No, it's not drawn, but it's on my longer work list. Here's Houston as more of a basis:


As I said before, a 1920s Alaska would follow more in the vein of USN heavy cruisers rather than capital ships, as that's the defining feature that distinguishes the Alaska-class from pure period BCs.