Oh no, not another Alaska...

[Ashley]

The 20s Alaska after a late-war fullscale refit.

I agree the aft of the early Alaskas is mid 40s style. Should be revised, too. Oh, and yes, I know how the above looks now. Would you believe, it was derivated from the first 20s Alaska drawing?

[erik_t]

The middle centerline 5/38 is untenable and not worth very much in the first place.

[klagldsf]

Well, IMHO, it's more aesthetically pleasing than at-launch, but...it also looks like an OTL Alaska. Practically identical, and I think that kind of defeats the purpose of the whole exercise in the first place.

Also, I still think the armament is weak - I still think you should go for three triple-tube turrets for a true Alaska analogue.

[bezobrazov]

Thanks Brock, for posting the Houston as a reference guide. Yes, that'd be the choice of stern-design that I'd make, with the characteristic flutes along the aft upper floatplane, basically cracking the two stern-halves in two and acutely pressing them upwards, creating that extra hydrodynamic lift for the stern, enabling better and swifter steering and improving the overall stability. Also, by adding the Ole' Miss. you're emphasizing the necessary freeboard required. Maybe, Ashley, you should consider a foc'sle, so that your ship stays dry and with operable forward gun mounts?

[Ashley]

Well, IMHO, it's more aesthetically pleasing than at-launch, but...it also looks like an OTL Alaska. Practically identical, and I think that kind of defeats the purpose of the whole exercise in the first place.

Also, I still think the armament is weak - I still think you should go for three triple-tube turrets for a true Alaska analogue.

It was an excercise to me to develop my 20s Alaska to a stage were it looked like the real Alaska. But the roots are still the 20s ship. And, for this is my version, not an analogue, I keep the armament. I won't repeat my reasons.
But please continue commenting, me and others can only learn from that and get better.

[Ashley]

The advices of an era-fitting stern and bow are implemented now. The forward secondairies are revised, too. The look now more cruiserish.

[bezobrazov]

Now, THAT's a pleasing sight! So much more appropriately American! Very well done! It's truly a handsome ship now! You've succeeded very nicely with the bow and its curvature. I still would prefer to display the aft uw flutes along the floatplanes, since it was such a consistent and unique design feature, which alone, almost, set US cruiser designs apart. But I'm not going to nag about it. You've come a long way here to create a truly well-proportioned man-'o-war!

[BrockPaine]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. That is so much better and looks far more appropriate for her design era. You earn green for improvement.

[BrockPaine]

Incidentally, here are some photoshops I did a few years back of a USN fast battleship/fully armoured battlecruiser, in case anyone's interested. It's intended as a 12x14" gunned, 30-knot BC.


1920, running trials. (Photoshop of USS Idaho trials.)


1941, part of the Icelandic neutrality patrol, tasked with intercepting and shadowing Tirpitz should she come out into the Atlantic. (Photoshop of USS Idaho in Reykjavik.)

[mirage2000]

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.

Really interesting, I am inspired by one of these vessels for my capital ships of the Quebec Navy!

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=582