Oh no, not another Alaska...

[Ashley]

Yes, another Alaska. Just two decades earlier.

Hull by Colo, superstructures by Midnight, cut & paste by me, torps are yours.

[klagldsf]

What...the...hell?

1.) No USN ship of that era would have that ridiculous a focsle

2.) below-waterline torp tubes went out of fashion with hull casemates

3.) Way too large, that's basically a Colorado with half of Wyoming's firepower

[Ashley]

What...the...hell?
1.) No USN ship of that era would have that ridiculous a focsle
2.) below-waterline torp tubes went out of fashion with hull casemates
3.) Way too large, that's basically a Colorado with half of Wyoming's firepower

1.) Aah, ridiculous... I like seriously professional put comments. Would you make it some more precise?
2.) well, submerged torpedo tubes were installed on all US ww1-era battleships, they were planned to get installed on the South Dakota class, too. Finally, Nelson and Rodney had submerged torps.
3.) Lexington and Saratoga were 874" long, the original Alaska (this hull) was 808" long. Lexington was to have 14", Alaska had 12". This design is equipped with 12" twins.

I do not understand what is wrong with it.

[klagldsf]

) Aah, ridiculous... I like seriously professional put comments.

And I like people who can take fair criticism professionally.

If you have a problem with that type of criticism, or an uncontrollable urge to be snarky about it, maybe you're just not ready.

And just to let you know, I put a fair bit of thought into how to phrase that diplomatically. You bring up valid points (though Lexington was ultimately going to be armed with the same 16/50s as SoDak) but the focsle is high to the point where it looks...ridiculous.

Now I could've said it looked stupid or retarded - that's trolling, but ridiculous is fair. Maybe you're trying too literal an interpretation (in which case where are the triple turrets?) but seriously, if you're expecting a professional response, demanding such in a snarky matter is not going to earn it.

[Ashley]

Thank you for your lession in good behavior.

The forecastle is lent from Tillman. Call it whatever you want.

[sb111385]

Ok maybe its just me but anything that's posted in the personal designs or alternate universe designs shouldn't be held to the same strict level as the real design thread. They are more fantasy based.. I just don't get it. Oh.. and there is a difference between criticism and being an ass and klagdlsf your "criticism" was not fair nor was it constructive. No one should have to earn a fair amount of respect from another member on this site. There is an old saying and it goes something like you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.. which is just a fancy way of saying don't be an ass. Now that is some fair criticism for you.

[Ashley]

It's my Alaska-design in blue:

[BrockPaine]

1. The USN would not and did not use German-style underwater tubes in the bow, they used submerged tubes on the broadside.
2. The USN would not use such extreme amounts of sheer forward, particularly not in this era. Have a look at all the Standards and you'll see that most of them have little to no sheer.
3. The USN would not have placed their casemate guns so high up in the superstructure. Particularly when they have imminently suitable lower decks they could have put them on.
4. The USN would not have used a Renown-styled scythe bow; the clipper bow was highly preferred for seakeeping.
5. The USN would not have designed a ship such as this in 1921 to start with, because it has absolutely no mission. The Alaskas were designed to counter heavy cruisers, pocket battleships, and ships like the Ugly Sisters: in 1921, only the Hawkins class exists, and whatever way you cut the salami, the USN would not have massively overbuilt THIS ship to challenge the Hawkins class.
6. The mix of the 1940s underwater hull aft, a 1940s transom stern, the 1910s underwater hull forward, the British bow, the modernist gun turrets, and the late 1910s USN superstructure makes the ship look like a German-drawn pantomime of an American ship.

If you're looking for an early 1920s Alaska, I'd suggest instead basing it off the early plans for the Pensacola-class CAs. Lengthen the ship, make three to four triple turrets with an updated/lengthened 10" gun or early 8"/L55 and 5"/L25 single secondaries. The superstructure should use the early tripods rather than cage masts, and the aviation fit should be amidships with hangers.

[Ashley]

6. The mix of the 1940s underwater hull aft, the 1910s underwater hull forward, the British bow, the modernist gun turrets, and the late 1910s USN superstructure makes the ship look like a German-drawn pantomime of an American ship.

You got the point... After all, let's torp it, forget it and make it new.

[BrockPaine]

6. The mix of the 1940s underwater hull aft, the 1910s underwater hull forward, the British bow, the modernist gun turrets, and the late 1910s USN superstructure makes the ship look like a German-drawn pantomime of an American ship.

You got the point... After all, let's torp it, forget it and make it new.

It's an interesting theory to start with, in fairness - I just don't think the design holds up based on the factors prevailing in 1921.

Incidentally, I belatedly noticed you're from Germany, so "German-drawn pantomine" was probably an insensitive thing to say. Sorry.