CA-B WIP

[John_McCarthy1]

Hello as I mentioned in my first thread here --> viewtopic.php?f=32&p=171204#p171204 I had started my First... Pixel drawing before I created my account, and i got a bit of it done, but would like some tips/ second opinions so i got a dropbox and here it is
Ok, I Hope I did everything correct.
The red is for different levels in the super structure and stuff i'm not 100% on whether I want to keep it or not.

[Colosseum]

Ah sadly it looks like your Dropbox link isn't working. Try using imgur: http://imgur.com/

Hit "new post" and just drag and drop your file into the browser window. Then find the "share" link and paste the link into the board.

edit: I don't know anything about the USN concept designs but a casual google search shows CA-B as one of the spring styles that eventually became the ALASKA (CB-1) class - so I am definitely interested in seeing this!

[John_McCarthy1]

Ah OK, as it turns out I had an imgur account that I had forgotten about. Knowing that would have made this A LOT easier but any way this is hopefully what I have so far.

I will make a note, that afaik the CA-B and CA-C projects were not a development that lead to the Alaska, but another cruiser project that lost out to the Des Moines.

[John_McCarthy1]

oh, and here is what the original image looks like

[Krakatoa]

Looks interesting, a Baltimore type with extra turret and aircraft handling placed amidships.

Keep going, please.

[erik_t]

Any time I see a new poster working from a buships spring style rather than making up some sort of absurd uberKirov, that's a good sign

Early, still, but a good start!

[Colosseum]

Ah I see... for some reason my google search turned this up but now I see where I went wrong: http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-511/ ... 511-06.jpg I'm not terribly familiar with the concept designs (despite being constantly asked to draw them) so forgive my error!

Preliminary design looks cool, though I note with dismay that the masts have been copy-pasted directly from this horrible thing... all those radar set drawings are out of date and should be replaced with the correctly scaled ones in my new sheet available in my signature. Same goes for the gun directors. The 5"/38 twin mounts are also the bad old type that are too large. Find newer ones here.

I would also caution against using that crane in the amidships position - it was meant as a stern crane and designed specifically for that usage, hence its folding capability for heavy weather. I would use the type available on the early CLEVELAND or BROOKLYN classes.

Otherwise, I salute your effort and look forward to more!

[John_McCarthy1]

Ah I see... for some reason my google search turned this up but now I see where I went wrong: http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-511/ ... 511-06.jpg I'm not terribly familiar with the concept designs (despite being constantly asked to draw them) so forgive my error!

Preliminary design looks cool, though I note with dismay that the masts have been copy-pasted directly from this horrible thing... all those radar set drawings are out of date and should be replaced with the correctly scaled ones in my new sheet available in my signature. Same goes for the gun directors. The 5"/38 twin mounts are also the bad old type that are too large. Find newer ones here.

I would also caution against using that crane in the amidships position - it was meant as a stern crane and designed specifically for that usage, hence its folding capability for heavy weather. I would use the type available on the early CLEVELAND or BROOKLYN classes.

Otherwise, I salute your effort and look forward to more!

Thank you very much for the feedback. Like I mentioned this is my first attempt at this, and there are going to be mistakes. as for the masts they were red because I wasn't sure if I was going to keep them and I was actually just about to try and re-do them because I didn't like the way they looked, so I guess it's good that I shouldn't use them.
I was unaware about the crane, so thanks about notifying me of that.

Actually mentioning the crane I am now unsure whether or not plane I chose to use is correct, so i'm going to check about that.

since some of the parts I used are out of date, and I downloaded all the parts sheets (just in case one of the parts I needed was on one but not the others) could you (if it's not too much of a bother) tell me what parts sheets are out of date so I can remove them from my computer.
I will just use what I find in the thread from your sig. thanks, and may I ask is there a sheet that is up to date for weapons or are those ones still ok?

one thing that I know I am unsure of is how to "fill" up the super structure, I'm not going to ask for help on it right now, i want to look at pictures of US ships of the time and look around, but If anything this is what I think I will have the most trouble with.

P.S. looking back on a mixture of the web site and Wikipedia, I now believe the design wasn't competing against the Des Moines Proposals, still as a proposal for something better than the Baltimore class it just wasn't picked up for what ever reason

[Colosseum]

Yeah of course, the parts sheets on the Shipbucket.com site are all badly out of date and need to be deleted... that's primarily my fault for not keeping them updated but drawing ships is usually enough of a job to keep me occupied! I keep the sheets in my signature thread updated as much as possible; everything in there is "good to go", a.k.a. it's the latest version I've drawn.

The 8"/55 triple turrets you've used are probably fine though I haven't revisited those in a while. They're scaled more-or-less correctly and will work perfectly for this.

For the 5"/38 twin mounts I'd suggest pulling the ones on this drawing, and keep in mind that there are definitive "left" and "right" views of each. The ATLANTA class carried the Mark 29 Mod.0 mount which would be perfectly adequate for a ship of this type.

The 1.1" Mark 1 quad machine cannon is available on the USN master sheet I linked and is updated, along with Mark 44, Mark 49, and Mark 51 directors for it.

Re: "filling up" the superstructure, well it shouldn't be terribly difficult as the decks are shown, but I see what you mean about populating it with detail - luckily you can basically "wing" this based on existing work. I would suggest downloading some of the Booklets of General Plans available here and looking at the "outboard profiles" to understand what kind of equipment would generally be carried - then you can add small details as you see fit. The drawings for MIAMI (CL-89) and ASTORIA (CA-34) would probably be most fitting.

---

You'll need to decide what time period this ship would be finished and fitted out, were it to be launched. The fit of the BROOKLYN class was quite different in details than the BALTIMORE or CLEVELANDs late in the war, for instance. It might be cool to see a version "as completed" in 1940, with the pre-war light grey scheme, no radar, and a big boat complement, then a "first wartime refit" version with a basic radar fit and Measure 12 modified camouflage... then maybe a 1945 version in Measure 22 with all the usual modifications for late-war ships. I can help you with all of this if you'd like.

Cheers

[John_McCarthy1]

Ok, here is what I have now.

First off, fixing that crane was so much more difficult than it should have been, but live and learn.

After looking around a bit I decided to switch up the airplane because I imagine since it was a 1940s proposal that the first one would have most likely been pushed out in 1941, so i spent a couple hours looking around to see what would fit the ship best.
I changed the 5" gun directors, and looking at the 5" gun mounts you told me to look at there was no difference in size, but there was in style so i did use them but then changed the colors to fit the rest of the ship.

so that's it for today, because I want to shower and then play some video games for 1-2 hours before I go to bed.

feel free to mention any mistakes or additions i should make