Chop down the intrastruture and the smokestack to a smaller size, and you have a decent coastal defense BB/monitor.
Oregon should remain as a museum ship though. She should've never been taken out of service
That is a great model. First time I've had a good look at a Lord Nelson. They are Dreadnaught's forgotten cousins. I didn't know the center 9.2" gun turret was a single, nor that there were no hull-mounted guns.
Looking at the model, an ATL design would replace the 9.2" battery with four single 12" gun turrets. Or go crazy and replace the 12" and 9.2" guns one for one with 10" guns. Eventually dual-purpose turrets (4.5" or 5.25") replace all but the two main turrets.
Yeah, either go full big gun or down to something akin to 6 or 7.5s.That is a great model. First time I've had a good look at a Lord Nelson. They are Dreadnaught's forgotten cousins. I didn't know the center 9.2" gun turret was a single, nor that there were no hull-mounted guns.
Looking at the model, an ATL design would replace the 9.2" battery with four single 12" gun turrets. Or go crazy and replace the 12" and 9.2" guns one for one with 10" guns. Eventually dual-purpose turrets (4.5" or 5.25") replace all but the two main turrets.
Dreadnought Lord Nelsons would certainly be an interesting design, though made obsolete very rapidly.
That is funny! A bathtub toy maybe? Or a design for a USN monitor? Is the main turret too close to the superstructure? It looks to me like there isn't enough clearance to move the turret to either side beyond a few degrees. I actually do like the design as a monitor.
Reminds me of Admiral Furashita's ATL rebuild of the Greek/American predreadnaughts. http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/rhodei_f.htm
What is the small turret above the main battery turret? I recognize the 20mm guns and the 40mm mount aft. Are the small turrets 40mm guns as well?
I like that drawing. That USS Oregon deserves to be in a story. An emergency reconstruction, or an ISOT, or an ATL where the USN has elderly predreadnaughts survive into the late 1930s, something like that.
That is a great model. First time I've had a good look at a Lord Nelson. They are Dreadnaught's forgotten cousins. I didn't know the center 9.2" gun turret was a single, nor that there were no hull-mounted guns.
Looking at the model, an ATL design would replace the 9.2" battery with four single 12" gun turrets. Or go crazy and replace the 12" and 9.2" guns one for one with 10" guns. Eventually dual-purpose turrets (4.5" or 5.25") replace all but the two main turrets.
There were alternatives
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Wasn't that pretty much what the IJN did with the Satsuma & Aki (10" secondary") and the Settsu & Kawachi all 12")?That is a great model. First time I've had a good look at a Lord Nelson. They are Dreadnaught's forgotten cousins. I didn't know the center 9.2" gun turret was a single, nor that there were no hull-mounted guns.
Looking at the model, an ATL design would replace the 9.2" battery with four single 12" gun turrets. Or go crazy and replace the 12" and 9.2" guns one for one with 10" guns. Eventually dual-purpose turrets (4.5" or 5.25") replace all but the two main turrets.
I was thinking about the whole USN torpedo situation leading up to WW2, and it just feels extremely ironic that the USN demanded more freakin torpedoes on about every DD class in the thirties (8 on the Farragut wasn’t enough, need 12 on the Mahans, not good enough, let’s go 16 on the Benhams(what the actual hell), okay maybe bigger broadsides are better so let’s go back to 10) jump to ‘42 BuOrd the hell you mean our destroyers’ designed main armaments (When compared to number of guns) doesn’t work?!
McPherson
Banned
From another thread.
You think that Rear Admiral Land might have smelled a rat?
Last edited:
I've been considering what Inflexible would look and indeed be designed like if it had been more akin to an up scaled Devastation or Dreadnought.
Let's say the navy develops something of a Devastation craze, the obvious benefits of such good firing arcs outweighing the hold to sail, which was done away with in battleships by Ajax anyway, rendering that class and the Colossus class somewhat unnecessarily tied to the echelon arrangement.
What would Inflexible look like? Would the armoured box method be best to pursue?
Let's say the navy develops something of a Devastation craze, the obvious benefits of such good firing arcs outweighing the hold to sail, which was done away with in battleships by Ajax anyway, rendering that class and the Colossus class somewhat unnecessarily tied to the echelon arrangement.
What would Inflexible look like? Would the armoured box method be best to pursue?
Drachinifel is running a new SpringSharp design contest: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgyNqPLxc3YnACait9h4AaABCQ.
If I could figure out how to make Springsharp work worth a damn and not get error read outs after sticking on my secondary guns I would give this a go as the Chileans. Yet every damn time I try to stick on secondaries my Springsharp goes stupid.
Ok... no tonnage limit? So someone can enter 50-60,000t ships or worse?
You in theory could. But given this is the South American Naval Arms race, I think Drach will simply laugh his ass off or do what he did in this video which IMO is always worth the laugh. Skip ahead to about minute 51 to see what I'm talking about.