Search found 1416 matches

[ Search found 1416 matches ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5142 »
Author Message

 Forum: Alternate Universe Designs  Topic: Navy of PLK Commonwealth

 Post subject: Re: Navy of PLK Commonwealth Posted: July 29th, 2018, 10:17 pm 

Replies: 13
Views: 3717

Nice CL, I would ask why not remove the mines for the last one, if she is a convoy escort or any raider? Would she be better with a third funnel? Just a quick SS sim suggest your engines are 73m long? Ie most of your belt is engines? This is sensible for such a fast light cruiser with 6x6" single gu...

 Forum: Personal Designs  Topic: Fast battleship challenge! (Ended)

 Post subject: Re: Fast battleship challenge! (Ended) Posted: July 27th, 2018, 9:18 pm 

Replies: 158
Views: 27129

Or just upload them to the Wiki on a single page with scores and description of challenge so they are saved?

 Forum: Alternate Universe Designs  Topic: Nigeria AU

 Post subject: Re: Nigeria AU Posted: July 25th, 2018, 9:52 pm 

Replies: 46
Views: 11197

Very nice, really like shading/colours really work and the LSV 2000 is my favourite especially the superstructure.

 Forum: Alternate Universe Designs  Topic: Dominion of Newfoundland and Labrador

 Post subject: Re: Dominion of Newfoundland and Labrador Posted: July 25th, 2018, 9:47 pm 

Replies: 62
Views: 15840

I like the improvements, may I suggest a few alterations? The engine room looks like it has port holes do you need to remove some under funnel? maybe as far back as the start of the stern superstructure? 34 - the .5 could be on each side for better arcs and potentially to make space for TT (FFBNW :-...

 Forum: Alternate Universe Designs  Topic: Dominion of Newfoundland and Labrador

 Post subject: Re: Dominion of Newfoundland and Labrador Posted: July 22nd, 2018, 9:32 pm 

Replies: 62
Views: 15840

I think they look very "blocky" and high for 30 DE? Specifically the enclosed bridge looks more CL than DE? and I would land the TT etc so they don't count as DD tonnage for the LNT? I don't see why any of them would serve through after WWII as they would be wo...

 Forum: Real Designs  Topic: Collection of the US Navy (destroyers, cruisers, super carriers )

 Post subject: Re: Collection of the US Navy Posted: July 7th, 2018, 9:05 pm 

Replies: 43
Views: 5650

Well they are all gorgeous as I think we expect from you.

My only question was it a deliberate omission of missiles?
(its does look nice and clean even if it limits information?)

 Forum: Personal Designs  Topic: WIP AU personal designs

 Post subject: Re: WIP Cruiser Class Posted: July 7th, 2018, 6:44 pm 

Replies: 9
Views: 1149

Looks nice my questions would be, On CG - Do the bow thrusters make sense (155mm Mags and flow noise near sonar?) - Only two not three Marlin (ie is the rear one not actually two if it needs to stick out both sides?) ON FFG - Is the rear rib bay area sufficiently wide for Bay/funnel/Bay? (or just mo...

 Forum: Never-Built Designs  Topic: Scheme 59 Missile ships: Super Talos and SCANFAR

 Post subject: Re: Scheme 59 Missile ships: Super Talos and SCANFAR Posted: June 30th, 2018, 1:53 am 

Replies: 28
Views: 5896

Its certainly interesting and a great drawing.

Erik, I wonder how tight the landing pad is, what's the width of the rear superstructure? In service would they think of quickly fiting the empty Polaris area (assuming OTL none fitting to surface ships?) as a larger second landing/refuelling pad?

 Forum: Never-Built Designs  Topic: Lions

 Post subject: Re: Lions Posted: June 13th, 2018, 7:28 am 

Replies: 16
Views: 4442

Very nice addition! A question about the later versions would the "plausible 1943" ship not be more likely to be closer to the original laid down design than the later 42k design? Ie once the laid down hull is cancelled, reordered and delayed to the later design then its not going to get finished by...

 Forum: Alternate Universe Designs  Topic: The Dominion of Westralia

 Post subject: Re: The Dominion of Westralia Posted: June 13th, 2018, 7:21 am 

Replies: 75
Views: 20989

That or ditch the 4.5" twin as by late 60s its far less useful than the Mk22 (better for everything apart from shore bombardment), you could balance that with a 3" or just 57/40mm? for small junk bashing?
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Go to advanced search [ Search found 1416 matches ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5142 »

Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC

Jump to: 

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]