Shipbucket

That's a very good work indeed!
(minus these details mentioned above )
Keep up the good work!

Hello everyone!

I have to concur, this is a splendidly executed drawing.

I am no expert on British fire control gear, so ignore me if I talk gibberish, but with an all DP armament, the main directors look wrong; they resemble the battleship main artillery type. Shouldn't they be HA directors??

Greetings
GD

Good catch. I am not sure exactly what is the right main battery director, but that seems like the wrong one.

Try something from here.

Thank you all for your kind praise!
---

Hood wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 9:03 am*snipped*
The early LRS-1 directors as shown on the John Roberts plan are on the RN Radar sheet, look for the Long-Range System (LRS-1) on the gunnery director column, its the one with the two dishes (shown face on). It is the same mount but the dishes hide the sloped sides of the central structure that Roberts shows.

Garlicdesign wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 9:52 pm*snipped*
I am no expert on British fire control gear, so ignore me if I talk gibberish, but with an all DP armament, the main directors look wrong; they resemble the battleship main artillery type. Shouldn't they be HA directors??

I did a bit more reading and from what I gather you're totally right; I feel a bit silly for not doing my research properly! Since I have never seen these directors before, would it be acceptable to just plop them onto the mounts I already have for the directors, or would the mounts need re-profiling to be thinner? Also which of the LRS1 do I use? (examples below)

---

Tempest wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 12:04 pm*snipped*
I’m not sure detailing the individual panels does anything for the drawing however, if you look at other drawings the majority they don’t have them I think it’s because it goes against the rules. Some shading and highlighting at the bow and stern would help in giving them depth.

heuhen wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 12:19 pm*snipped*
yeah, you would not be able to see those paneling from long distance. and the hull would be welded, so there would be no visual panneling

Yeah I know welding lines are not strictly necessary, however I felt it breaks up the vast open areas better. I left below the waterline free of them because I figured the paint used down there would be substantially thicker. From what others have said on the discord server, it seems to be either a love or hate affair! Also, yeah it could use some highlighting on the bow, I missed that.
---

Colosseum wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 2:47 pm*snipped*
My only minor suggestion would be to make the rigging color the same as the railing (right now it's kind of hard to see).

I will be reworking my colour palette for the next drawing since this is the same basic palette I used for Conqueror.
---

erik_t wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 3:14 pm*snipped*
Very nice work, although IMHO the number of portholes is somewhat anachronistic. It's worth noting that neither the Tigers nor Vanguard had portholes below the second deck.

Yeah, I went a bit ham with the portholes.
---

John_McCarthy1 wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 5:51 pm*snipped*
I'm curious to ask what you're going to do next, more proposals for the Minotaur or other designs entirely?

No idea!

Glad it's been well received!

Deskjetser wrote: ↑February 15th, 2018, 3:25 am I did a bit more reading and from what I gather you're totally right; I feel a bit silly for not doing my research properly! Since I have never seen these directors before, would it be acceptable to just plop them onto the mounts I already have for the directors, or would the mounts need re-profiling to be thinner? Also which of the LRS1 do I use? (examples below)

Use the one on the left hand side, that was the mount as planned. The one on the right is an experimental mount which was actually built for Type 901 radar trials, but lacking any optical system.
You could thin out the supporting tube, but given its bulk a thicker lower section makes sense.

I think the mix of MRS-3 and CRBF is right, but I have noticed that the reversed aft-facing MRS-3 are incorrect, you've flipped the right-hand side but the left hand side is different. Both sides can be found on the sheet.

As to portholes, you could also try out the newer 3x3 portholes and see how they look.
Ship panel lines are love hate, I try to add a couple of horizontal deck lines when feasible for older riveted ships, but of course a welded ship like this would be pretty smooth. As its never-were its personal taste, I'd probably vote for a plain hull.

Very busy currently, but I updated the OP image. I'll also post it here.

Thanks for the help!

Looking good.
One last thought, it might be worth swapping those 20mm twins for 40mm Busters. The 40mm would fit better for the post-war role as I don't think the Navy would have bothered to fit 20mm at that late stage.

Hood wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:44 am Looking good.
One last thought, it might be worth swapping those 20mm twins for 40mm Busters. The 40mm would fit better for the post-war role as I don't think the Navy would have bothered to fit 20mm at that late stage.

Thanks! I think you're right; However I don't think there is a part for the BUSTER currently and the STAAGs are pretty massive to be open deck mounts? I don't think they would fit on the foc'sle and they look out of place on the stern, being such large mounts and all.

I really should delete them all together, since there is no mention of such armament on the scheme.

I also updated both images again, since I forgot the draught marks and life rings. The final version is here now though!

Lovely looking ship Deskjetser. Jolly well done my friend

I wonder what she would have looked like through the ages, after her refits and up grades...

May one enquire if there are any plans afoot to publish modernisation plans over the years after the war please? During Korea for example, or the Falkands (if she were to be taken out of mothballs that is)