These are the more time appropriate flags of the Royal Canadian Navy.
The Maple Leaf flag was only really a post-1945 idea.
![[ img ]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/640px-Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png)
![[ img ]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Canadian_Blue_Ensign_%281868%E2%80%931921%29.svg/640px-Canadian_Blue_Ensign_%281868%E2%80%931921%29.svg.png)
| Shipbucket http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| United States Navy: An Alternate Take http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9629 |
Page 4 of 5 |
| Author: | heuhen [ September 16th, 2019, 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
Officially it became the flag in 1965, but has been a symbol of Canada since the 1700s, at least according to wikipedia. Do you guys think I should keep the hull plating, or is it too distracting?
if you took a photo of that ship at a distance, would you see the hull plating easily or with difficulty?
|
|
| Author: | APDAF [ September 16th, 2019, 5:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
These are the more time appropriate flags of the Royal Canadian Navy. The Maple Leaf flag was only really a post-1945 idea.
|
|
| Author: | Karle94 [ September 17th, 2019, 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
I've taken off the hull plating and the maple leaf. ![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/xocHHr9.png) I've also done an alternate Revenge class. The QE class was designed for 25 kts speed, but ended up overweight, and could only do 23 kts. The Revenge was designed to be a longer, improved version of the QE class, with a top speed of the actual 25 kts. The Revenge was commisioned in 1917. HMS Revenge as commisioned in 1917: ![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/wZAhrnr.png)
|
|
| Author: | emperor_andreas [ September 17th, 2019, 8:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
Very nice work! |
|
| Author: | Hood [ September 18th, 2019, 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
Very nice work, these certainly look plausible designs for the time. |
|
| Author: | Karle94 [ September 21st, 2019, 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
Because I might play with it a bit in the future, here is the HMS Hood as commisioned in 1920. Now you might be thinking, what is different about the Hood? Well, apart from using the same turret as the earlier ships, I've corrected the single, biggest flaw of the Hood; the non existing freeboard at the rear. The whole hull is a bit raised, by about a meter, and the quarterdeck is higher than the original ship, thus turning the Hood from a semi-submersible, to a ship sailors would be happy to serve onboard. The Hoods turret design will be used for the 1923 Queen Victoria class, that will be introducing 16 inch guns to the Royal Navy. HMS Hood as commisioned in 1920: ![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/NDUmXEk.png)
|
|
| Author: | Blackbuck [ September 21st, 2019, 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
So basically a stepping stone between the Admirals and J3? |
|
| Author: | Karle94 [ September 21st, 2019, 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
More or less. It will be a sort of "cut down" version of the Admiral class, but with 8x16" guns and much more armor. The idea is that it is a response to the Nagato and the Colorado. |
|
| Author: | emperor_andreas [ September 21st, 2019, 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
Very nice work! |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ September 21st, 2019, 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: United States Navy: An Alternate Take |
Question, how did you compensate the increased topweight of this Hood? |
|
| Page 4 of 5 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|