Shipbucket

Carthaginian wrote:That's the purpose of the belt extending so far down?
That's at least twice as far below the waterline as a contemporary ship's belt would go.

Part belt/part bulge combination.

seeing the speed of the gun development during those years and the fact that the dante was build by an designer who was far ahead of his time on several occasions (http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... iberti.png)
(http://www.shipbucket.com/Never%20Built ... iberti.png) so I would say the same as thiel.

also, the USN used the first tripple turret in 1916 and the british not before WW1 ended....

I am not quite understanding the discussion/disagreement. This does not have triple turrets. All I said was that it was designed for two triples, which did not exist at that time so they used twins. I would also like to remind folks this is not Earth, not the UK, not the US, and that while the timelines may be similar, they are not identical.

I am fully aware of when the first triple turrets were developed and used in the real world, I have been studying naval history since, honestly, before some of you were born.

So, I would appreciate if this tangent of the discussion was terminated because argueing over something which did not happen is rather pointless, don't you think? I would rather discuss points of the actual design and possible improvements, not the exact specific dates in the real world something happened because of one sentence in my narrative.

Biancini1995 wrote:Looks like the Agincourt because of the superstructure but it's a nice draw

Actually based more off the German Helgoland than the British Agincourt, but the Agincourt was the original inspiration.

Zephyr wrote:All I said was that it was designed for two triples,

That's were the problem lies. You're laying down ships well before triple turrets were even a twinkle in the designers eyes.

Thiel wrote: That's were the problem lies. You're laying down ships well before triple turrets were even a twinkle in the designers eyes.

Zephyr wrote: I would also like to remind folks this is not Earth, not the UK, not the US, and that while the timelines may be similar, they are not identical.

Thiel wrote:

Zephyr wrote:All I said was that it was designed for two triples,

That's were the problem lies. You're laying down ships well before triple turrets were even a twinkle in the designers eyes.

No, he's not.
The Russian Gangut class was laid down at the same time.
Sevastopol, in specific, was actually laid down in 1906, built for triple turrets.

Drawing tweaked and edited a bit.

OK, is there anything I'm missing?

its up to you but you may want to fit a few smaller caliber 4-3 inchers as extra torpedo defense and defense against air attack but i dont know if you nation has those concerns

Trojan wrote:its up to you but you may want to fit a few smaller caliber 4-3 inchers as extra torpedo defense and defense against air attack but i dont know if you nation has those concerns

Air attack in 1913 was not a large concern. I would imagine that at a later date more AA might be fitted. Anti-torpedoboat, though, probably so.