You are not logged in.


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 5:50pm

Vittorio Veneto

Which is better? raised turret aft or lowered turret aft?


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 5:56pm

If you keep the secondaries where they are, I think the aft turret needs to be raised so they don't interfere with each other. However, it really contrasts sharply with the dropped quarterdeck. I'd like the look better on a flush deck.

Maybe you just need to nudge the secondaries forward a bit.


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 6:03pm

I don't like the flush deck look myself.

I could move the aft 6" turrets forward, especially if I use 90mm for AA as well.

I'll have to try it.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 6:08pm

Hey! Those funnels were mine! *grrrrrr*


Move the secondaries and skip the raised main guns - looks silly.


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 6:27pm


Hey! Those funnels were mine! *grrrrrr*

Looks like they will be recycled into the Vittorio Veneto design.
I agree with the others. The raised aft turret would look better if the ship had a flush deck.
However, is it possible to lower the aft guns to the quarter deck? Maybe that could work.


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 6:53pm

I agree with Hoo - the low turret looks better. But then the secondaries have to be moved...

And personally, I don't like "stand-alone" barbettes. You'll notice that both Panabo and Samal 'grew' extended deckhouses to enclose the superfiring barbettes...


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 7:55pm

VV meets UP-41
With the triple secondaries, the raised after turret makes sense.
The large number of tertiary (AA) mounts take up a lot of space making it better to move the secondary turrets as far forward and aft as possible.
The spacing between the funnels seems a little large.

In most instances I would prefer the lower turret arrangement, but the VV's look impressive in their configuration.


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 8:03pm

I agree with Hoo, move the secondary's forward and skip the raised aft turret. otherwise a very fine drawing, nice work ;-)


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 9:14pm

Better now? Plan view corresponds to top picture.


Tuesday, September 28th 2004, 9:46pm

Top one gets my pick.


Wednesday, September 29th 2004, 6:53am

Top one for sure but I'm still not sure your secondarys are clear of your after main turret. I would think they would be quite uncomfortable for the gun crews if your after turret is fireing across the deck or at forward arcs.
You've got the deck space to move them considerably further forward.


Saturday, October 2nd 2004, 3:07pm

Veneto Layout

Why not move the after turret down to the quarter deck level and leave the secondaries where they are in the middle view?

--Edit: My mistake, I meant the top view...


Big Rich


Saturday, October 2nd 2004, 4:30pm

You can also bring the catapult to the space between the funnels, and move the secondaries closer to the middle, while putting the AA guns near the ends. OK, these aren't small changes, but I think the ship would look better.


Friday, October 22nd 2004, 6:06pm

How does she look now?

I've moved the aftermost 6"/50 triples forward a lot and lowered the aft 15"/50 triple. I've also added lots of AA guns.

I've taken the historical 90mm/53 mount which was quadraxily stabilised. I've then used the normal 100/47 gun but removed some of the mechanisms to save space. Now the mount is tri-axily stablised.


Friday, October 22nd 2004, 6:13pm

I like the way it looks now.
Of course just because I like it, doesn't mean others like it as well.


Friday, October 22nd 2004, 7:27pm

Very nice! :)


Friday, October 22nd 2004, 8:09pm

Too many 100 or 90mm turrets. You need to concentrate firepower on a/c - I doubt you would engage a single a/c with each mount. Having twin mounts is a more practical solution.
It also facilitates the fire control situation.
I don't know how close you want to stay to the real world - there was a 5.3" gun planned for DP use as well as a 65mm AA gun (supposed to be rapid fire) that would be installed.
Slight ot - why the focus on stablizing the mount. Fire control systems should be designed to provide constant train/elevation data to a mount that in essence compenstates for roll & pitch. (Look at the US 5"/38 mounts for example). This would reduce complexity and weight of the mount.


Friday, October 22nd 2004, 10:08pm

I agree, too many AA turrets and I don't think those turrets between the secondarys look to good where they are, too clutered. I'm wondering how they would look on the lowered quarterdeck but this may have its own drawbacks like sea spray.

I love the secondary layout now, lots of room and good firing arcs.