The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:13 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Alright, guys, I am going to the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) with my proposal for near, mid, and long-term solutions to NSFS in the next month. As part of the solution, I will be taking the modernized Iowa and Wisconsin. The mods to bring the battleships' combat and propulsion capabilities to a modern capability are as follows:

SLEP: The Service Life Extension Program should be applied to the Iowa and Wisconsin, extending the usable life of the battleship to 20-25 years.

Mk7 16" guns unchanged. 11" and 13" subcaliber and RAP rounds should be fully developed during reactivation. This would entail only the addition of the Barrel Launched Adaptive Munition (BLAM) to the mentioned rounds. Other rounds would be pursued over the next 5 years. Through base-bleed technology, the range of standard 16" rounds can be immediately extended to 33nm; with BLAM, they can all be precision rounds, completely replacing aircraft in the area of interest, a huge concern when aircraft are either unavailable (a commonality amongst actual operations) or unable to support due to a higher anti-air threat. The CVN or elements of the USAF are unavailable in most SOF situations. The battleship, especially when basing operations off her, would provide a superior area of coverage and support.

Mk45 Mod2+ 5"/62caliber: The secondary battery will be replaced with Mk45 Mod2 rebuilt with Mod4 internals and 62caliber barrels pulled from Mk45 Mod2 weapons in stock. This would reduce the ships' secondary battery from 396 men to 36.

Mk41 Mod12-15 VLS installed into the current amidships and aft missile decks. Four 32-cell VLS pads would be installed two per location providing the ship with 128 VLS tubes able to fire SM-2, ASROC, TLAM, and ESSM.

AAW suite: The New Threat Upgrade would be installed aboard the ship with the SPS-48E/G atop a second mast straddling the aft stack. The Mk74 Weapon Direction System (WDS) with NTU upgrade would provide the battleship with the most cost effective AAW capability on a platform unnecessary for Aegis. A center piece ship such as a battleship does not need any more than point defense weapons such as ESSM, RAM, and Phalanx. This is not dissimilar to the need and employment of point defense systems used on CVNs, LHAs, and LHDs. However, because of the nature of a "gunfire support" platform, the desire to range as far inland as possible will always be present. This fact will encourage the commanding officer of a battleship to approach the shore, far closer than any CVN or LHD would (4-30+ miles). SM-2 provides a responsible defensive capability to the ship unique to center-piece ships due to its tendency to operate relatively close to the shore.

SPG-51D/E+: Replacement of all four Mk37 five-inch directors with the SPG-51 to control the SM-2s in terminal guidance would be of great benefit. They would be able to accomplish all kinds of tracking necessities.

SPQ-9B: Two SPQ-9B radars would be installed, one ahead of the forward fire-control tower where the original SPQ-9 was installed during the battleships' 1988/1989 overhauls and the second mounted aft of the SPS-48 on the aft mast providing 100% 360 degree coverage against in coming sea-skimming missiles.

RPV house: A permanent UAV house would be installed aft of Turret 3 providing permanent storage, maintenance, and secondary control of UAVs with all associated maintenance, repair, and control equipment.

Bridge Vestibules: Getting to the bridge in heavy seas and environmental extremes has always been a problem aboard the Iowas. Vestibules covering these areas just aft of the bridge would provide a means to access the bridge without having to go into the armored citadel (a very laborious task) or onto the weather deck.

CIWS: Phalanx Block 1B and RAM in addition to NSSM directed by either of the two SPQ-9B or other radars would provide good point defense against all threats from sea-skimming to high altitude missiles.

Mk38 Mod2 25mm or 30mm (based upon availability): The 3-point IR and TV cameras provide excellent coverage against all small boats and other in-bound small craft. If fitted with the laser deterrence/destruction package, (a large laser emitting box attached to the mount's left hand side). Deterrence and disabling firing would be pushed out significantly further than the standard range of 25 or 30mm ammunition. If unavailable, standard Mk38 Mod2 mount would suffice well.

Automated propulsion plant: A plant that used to require 384 men at minimum is reduced to a maximum of 72.

Total crew reductions: From 1500 to approximately 828-860 through BAE plan for crew reductions.

Helicopters: No Helo storage ability; despite claims or desires, it is unnecessary. With 2-3 DDG and 1 CG accompanying a battleship, its own helicopter maintenance facilities are unnecessary. Their ability to operate ALL US Navy helicopters is an appropriate capability. Battleships currently maintain the ability to fuel all US helos.

Counter-measures: Modern SRBOC and installation of NULKA in original counter measure platform and a second set port and starbord of the aft fire-control tower.

Reduced RCS: As they are, the Iowa-class battleships sit so low in the water that only their bow and super structure are visible to a surface or air search radar. It was established during the 1980s and 1990s that they have the RCS of a small tugboat pulling a container barge. With a second mast, they would appear as a slightly more cluttered barge. Layering the ship with the same RAM as the Spruance, Ticonderoga, and Perry-class, would very much reduce the battleship's RCS. As is true with any ship of any type, the vigilant use of SRBOC and NULKA counter-measures, would negate acquisition of the ship, and inbound threats would be effectively engaged by the ship's CIWS.

SOF: The Special Operations Community has quietly expressed its intense desire for a gunship like a battleship or a heavy cruiser from which to operate or from which to call support. A battleship/Battleship Strike Group offers all the support capability available: basing, operating, and gunfire support. This alone is reason to reactivate battleships.

Substantial strike capability: Armed with 100-128 TLAM, the battleship can deliver the equivalent to a CVN "alpha strike" over 1,200 miles inland all by itself at equal or less cost than a CVN. The gunnery capability can deliver over 22 tones of precision ordnance per minute and 800 tones in a single 30 minute gunfire mission, or "gun-strike".

The real problem is that the CVN fleet has actually come to a huge cliff. We cannot afford enough CVNs to do the job anymore. Without funding, two CVNs (71 and 72) are not being re-fueled and being kept where they are, and the Enterprise (CVN-65) is in such disrepair that she cannot deploy for a long while and slated for early decommissioning. The George Bush (CVN-77) is only 80% or so complete, and she will not be mission worthy for at least 2 years. That is 4 of 11 carriers down RIGHT NOW and 3 down for the foreseeable future leaving 7 to take the load of a 12 ship force. The greatly reduced fleet of CVNs has to keep deploying at a 12 ship capability though. The reactivation of one or two Iowa-class battleship would greatly reduce strain on a rapidly shrinking CVN force. BB/BBGs acceptably take the place of CVNs in most mission areas.

For less than the cost of a DDG, two battleships, by all means superior to any other surface combatant, could be reactivated, modernized, and their support structure replenished in less than two years. With only 7-9 CVNs available when 10 are required for minimum war-fighting needs and 12 for mission needs, the addition of two Iowa-class battleships to the active duty register would greatly improve the Navy's capability and would supplement the unaccepted and unacceptable long-term failing in available CVNs.

If you have additions or ideas, let me know very, very soon. Please keep in mind: we are not talking about anything silly like ripping the entire structure down to the weather deck to build a DDG structure and stacks or turret removal. We are talking about affordable and practical stuff.

-navydave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1234
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
I agree with you Dave. The BBs need to be brought back.

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
I think you hit the nail on the head, Dave. Only mod I could add might be some IR suppression on the stack tops, as they are relatively old and probably put out some noticable heat when they're in use. Aside from that, I think you've got everything to the T. Just beware the carrier humpers, you know they're out there. Be prepared to defend your baby from the carriers and the subs, they run the party these days.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Link your arguments with the Marines need for fire support in light of a reduction of the DDG-1000 to three ships (maybe).

Commandant of the Marine Corps:
" what we don't have are those high-volume fires that a batallion commander or a company commander might need to move to his objective."

Reactivating BBs meets a presure from the USMC to build more amphibs/support ships with the limited shipbuilding budget.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
SumGui wrote:
Link your arguments with the Marines need for fire support in light of a reduction of the DDG-1000 to three ships (maybe).

Commandant of the Marine Corps:
" what we don't have are those high-volume fires that a batallion commander or a company commander might need to move to his objective."

Reactivating BBs meets a presure from the USMC to build more amphibs/support ships with the limited shipbuilding budget.

SumGui,
It's always good to hear from you, sir. The voice of education and experience, a quality envyed by many on this forum. Thank you for the input. You are right, I have included the USMC concerns in the article. The USMC has historically been a huge, HUGE conern for and proponent of NSFS. If you would, I would like to send you the finalize article that will be accompanied with picutres of the finished ship; I would appreciate your e-mail address if you are interested.

Anyone else, too!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
I'm very interested as well. I've been watching the progress on your build. I'm planning to try and copy it with the extra Tamiya New Jersey I have sitting around. I hope you document it with lots of pics. I think it's a waste to have the Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin sitting around considering the "mileage" they still have left in them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1234
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
I'm also interested in the finished article and pics of your finished model. :smallsmile:

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
I'm interested as well :cool_1:

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
NEXT, paint scheme!!! I have my own idea of what I want to do based on how ships do things today, but I would like to hear a few ideas.

I am near the point of painting this beast. How do some of you guys suggest I paint the ship? I know of no ships that have fully blacked out funnel caps, so that will have to change. The funnel caps and masts would be dark grey like on current ships. I have an idea of how dark, but how dark do you guys thing they need to be?

I am thinking modern helo markings we find on DDG helo decks with the more specific markings (little white blocks for the helo wheels to land on). Since storage for the CH-53s is a requisite I was thinking about the large "L"-shaped makings you find on LHD decks on the right and left hand ramps of the helo deck leading down to the main deck, but I am pretty sure I have decided against it. They CH-53 pilots can land on a circle just fine.

What about warning lines? New Jersey was the only one during the '80s and '90s to have warning lines on the wood decks. The other crews were smart enough to stay away from the gun turrets and mounts when they were moving around. Warnings around the VLS arrangements and other radars? The SPG-51s on other ships have circles around the top of the stand holding the emitter while others had the circles on the deck.

Low-vis numbers and a haze grey name (so invisible) name on the back?

Any ideas, guys?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Hmmm I would go with references off contemporary warships where at all possible:

Stack Caps - reference off other ships of the fleet with Boilers, of course, I still suggest the idea of a few uptakes to reduce IR signature, which might also lighten up the smoke effect, or else you might have to blacken masts and such around the stack tops to compensate for boiler smoke.

Helo Markings - Not sure DDG markings are big enough per se - they're also used to warn personnel of the rotor sweep and the like so they know what's going on. Since you're mentioning CH-53's, consider the larger markings. The parking L's might be a little much, but something might not be a bad idea.

Warning Lines - were Jersey's markings Painted in the 80's/90's timeframe? Remember, Jersey was in service during Nam, while others were not, owing to her different electronics fit and some of her differences beside other Modernized Iowas. Those warning lines might have been a hold over from her Nam activation.

Low Viz Numbers/Name - questionable merit in the long run, case of identification versus visibility, but I'd go with what you see on the Burkes and such these days, as I doubt there'd be any difference in the orders from the fleet standard if/when they get reactivated.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Hi guys, I will be posting some pictures probably tomorrow. This PE work is a lot more time consuming than I thought. It's coming a little at a time. I am nearing the point of getting all of the "apply before you pant" stuff finished.

The Wisconsin seems to have been the only one of the four to have received a king post for replinishment. It seems that if Iowa were reactivated, she would receive one too. So, I scratched one, and that was a pain.

Thanks for the comments about the helo deck markings and stack/mast scheme. I like what most of the Burkes got on both accounts, so that's what I am going to use. The black soot has never been an issue for the masts on the Iowas. The soot gets blown away before it reaches the masts, so a dark grey modern ships get now and again would not get all yucked and blackened up like some ships do.

See you soon with pictures!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11301
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
By king post, do you mean the "7" shaped thing with hoses at the starboard-rear of the rear superstructure or the vertical rectangular things between the funnels of the Burkes?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Timmy C wrote:
By king post, do you mean the "7" shaped thing with hoses at the starboard-rear of the rear superstructure or the vertical rectangular things between the funnels of the Burkes?
What in the world are you talking about, Timmy? Smoking a little, are we? :big_grin: But seriously, the Burkes have what is below between the stacks.
Attachment:
King016463.jpg
King016463.jpg [ 29.85 KiB | Viewed 670 times ]

They are tentioners that support and keep the high-line that the fuel line comes over on tight when you are receiving fuel from someone else.
Attachment:
DSCF0405a_Small.jpg
DSCF0405a_Small.jpg [ 24.32 KiB | Viewed 768 times ]

The large "7" looking things are used for when you are giving fuel to someone else.
Attachment:
51767245_IMG_6420_edited1.jpg
51767245_IMG_6420_edited1.jpg [ 59.46 KiB | Viewed 675 times ]

In the above, you see the "7" thing on the right side of the ship. This was how the battleships filled the mission of "refuling its escorts". They used their capacity of 2.5 to 3 million gallon fuel capacity to refuel its escorts in addition to itself! If you examine the LHDs and LHAs also, they have one on the outside part of the island structure. AOEs have so many they look like spiders!

It's cool this stuff.

Oh, by the way, how do you respond so fast to posts? I am beginning to doubt you're an organic Timmy.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11301
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
So which one is the kingpost, or is that something else entirely? Haha.

No secret for responding to posts - after every few pages in my university readings, I just check the forums for new posts.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Timmy C wrote:
So which one is the kingpost, or is that something else entirely? Haha.

The Kingpost is the tensioner, not the "7" arm.

Quote:
No secret for responding to posts - after every few pages in my university readings, I just check the forums for new posts.
Oh, sure. I am sure you are programing the next flight of T-800s :thumbs_up_1:

Tomorrow, I am going to texture the hull. I will etch the hull and add the decapping plates that run the length of the internal armor belt. The decapping plate is best seen in this picture. It's the smooth segmented plating that is at the top of the hull, just below the main deck.
Attachment:
51767247_IMG_6469_edited2.jpg
51767247_IMG_6469_edited2.jpg [ 44.92 KiB | Viewed 682 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Hi, guys! Here comes the result of the last week! LONG! It take so long to do this stuff! Oh my GOSH!

Below: The turrets on all four battleships have different parts and pieces on top of them. The only commonality is the original design. Vents, cleats, replenishment frames, periscopes, I mean, there's all kinds of different stuff, so here, on Iowa's Turret 2 and Turret 3 tops, I have made some mods to make them more accurate.
Attachment:
small011.jpg
small011.jpg [ 74.74 KiB | Viewed 802 times ]


Forward mast with and 18' SPS-67 ( :o ), FC director detailings, SLQ-32 (V)3 I believe and some of the aft stuff.
Attachment:
small012.jpg
small012.jpg [ 89.96 KiB | Viewed 799 times ]


The extension on the forward mast can be seen here. This extension on the mast is on Wisconsin. I have been told it was built with the TAS23 rotating antenna that was part of the Warfighting Improvement Program authorized for '93 in mind. Instead, it's going to be for a SATCOM dome associated with badassery. Ladders...and look at that forward director! Man, what awesome detail!
Attachment:
small016.jpg
small016.jpg [ 90.8 KiB | Viewed 808 times ]


Stack caps, oh, man. How awesome this was. The railings were great once they finally went on, and I was really looking forward to the foot ledge, the grated deck that runs along the outside of the cap, for some reason. It really worked out well. I hollowed out the exhaust pipes sticking off the aft of the funnel cap, too...only new Xacto blades do! Something else that needs to be mentioned is the pole for the forward mast. The kit one is accurate to the New Jersey, but unique to NJ. That one was installed on NJ for Vietnam and was used int he '80s. New ones were made for the other three ships. They were longer and more sturdy than NJ's.
Attachment:
small015.jpg
small015.jpg [ 80.94 KiB | Viewed 799 times ]


Here's the tensioner used for keeping the high-line tight when your ships is taking on fuel I was talking about, the King's Post if I am not mistaken. All SCRATCH and all night long it took me! Scaling it was a problem, but I got it right.
Attachment:
small023.jpg
small023.jpg [ 67.96 KiB | Viewed 800 times ]


Here's the entire refueling station.
Attachment:
small024.jpg
small024.jpg [ 88.08 KiB | Viewed 800 times ]


I first marked with sharpy and then pressed in all the little pad-eyes on the helo deck.
Attachment:
small028.jpg
small028.jpg [ 81.03 KiB | Viewed 802 times ]


And the bow. Iowa had all kinds of markings on her bow. One of them was a white out-line of the diamond grate that the anchor chain sits on...so the anchor chain plate? Anyway, since the lines are so thin I figured the best way to do this was to spray the white first and mask the design I wanted and then lay the next series of colors down. I have to keep the paint thin so it does not stack up and look layered.
Attachment:
small025.jpg
small025.jpg [ 86.38 KiB | Viewed 800 times ]


What's this?...an extra forward turret...with an American FLAG ON IT?! What is this?!
Attachment:
small029.jpg
small029.jpg [ 100.93 KiB | Viewed 815 times ]
Nothing says, "My manhood is SHOCKINGLY huge" like an enormous American flag on top of a 16" gun turret!

I will keep on keepin' on guys. Let's see what more I can lay out, true believers! Comments on the awesomeness welcome.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Mmmmmmmmmmm pad eyes!!! Looking awesome! Make sure that flagged turret makes it on the ship and isn't left on the pier :big_grin:

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11301
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
I hope that flag isn't glued on, because I think it's flipped horizontally ;) Although it seems that's your fourth turret, so it won't be any problem to make a corrected one.

Here's Iowa's for comparison: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016196.jpg

Otherwise, looks awesome!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Timmy C wrote:
I hope that flag isn't glued on, because I think it's flipped horizontally ;) Although it seems that's your fourth turret, so it won't be any problem to make a corrected one.

Here's Iowa's for comparison: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016196.jpg

Otherwise, looks awesome!

Muahuhuhu! Good eye! I was wondering how long it would take for people to notice! Not long, my wheelchair-bound friend.

I have been looking for an appropriately sized flag for a long time, and I finally found one, it's just a really thin sticker for Pinwood derby cars instead of a decal. So, to test it out, I cut out the opposite side and stuck it to the top of an extra Turret 1 I have to see how it looked. It fits well, but the rivets underneath offer a challenge. I would prefer a decal instead. So, either I will use the correct side (star field on the left), I will come into possession of a decal, or the turret won't have a flag on it. The flag was a late '80s thing anyway. They might not even keep it if the ship were reactivated.

Now, Dunagain seems to be out of print. If there is anyone out there with one of the Dunagain sheets for the Iowa-class, I would be interested. It has Iowa's flag on it and all the appropriate markings, awards, etc.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Excellent attention to detail. Fantastic work so far. I eagerly await any more updates and the finished product. Is there a specifc year you are going for here?

How is the Mod Spruance going? Is she waiting for this to be completed?

I like the Iowa-style flag on the turret. I wouldn't worry too much about being to pretentious with a big American Flag, after all, one of the non-quantifiable assets that the Battleships brings is psychological belligerency - and the big ass flag plays into that very well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group