Shipbucket

Understood.

Now with deepened hull and some more details. It isn't that top heavy as it looks like. Some big space is taken by the hanger. Then the stored missiles are much lighter than stored shells would be. Finally it is much lighter armoured than earlier ships. Freebord is ok, the shape of the bow will produce more lift as that at Moskva, she would not have been that wet.

I know I just got done bitching about it, but it wasn't really necessary; since the design was rejected in your AU, the top-heavy nature could simply be chalked up as being one of the reasons why. Stuff like that happens all the time in real-life. I was just expressing what I felt and attributing it to your AU guys

BTW, the hangar actually makes it more top-heavy because you've got bridge and superstructure (and a heavy-looking missile launcher with reloading equipment and reloads) sitting on top of a huge void space. Being top-heavy isn't about total weight but how that weight is distributed; a little concept called a Center of Gravity.

I would note that from the front or back, Moskva's superstructure was comparatively svelte, compared to this design which appears to have a beam-to-beam superstructure.

Would the wind have any factor when there is this much surface area compared to the depth of the hull? I'm no expert on missile-carrying ships, but that principle remains constant through everything.

SrGopher wrote:Would the wind have any factor when there is this much surface area compared to the depth of the hull?

If it gets to that point either you better be on a sailing ship or you simply have no business being near a drafting board.

That said I doubt even this design would suffer that badly.

Low speed handling could be a problem in high winds, but that's true for most slap sided designs. (Ferries etc)

The Talos-converted Albany/Chicago/Columbus were noted for rather tricky port handling in a strong breeze.

The C-design features two 15cm twin-DPs and the same strong missile armament. The design was rejected due to the weak aa capabilities.

The D-design still saw the same armament but major adjustments to allocations of rooms and equipment. The design was finally chosen for a further devolpment which led to the extended D-design. The D2 was lenghtened some feet for installation of a 12,8cm twin-DP turret. A new turret for the 5,5cm twin was design, with deckpenetrating ammunitionshaft, the gun was full-auto (like the 3cm aa) now. For comparison the E-design was discussed but rejected (obsolete at draft).
The much discussed F-design was decided to get evolved into a helicoptercarrier due to its high potential.
D-design

extended D-design, finally chosen

rejected E-design

Ashley wrote: extended D-design, finally chosen

Well, I have to admit, it's a mean-lookin sun'bitch.