Battlecruisers Dunkerque and Strasbourg

[eross]

Hi all !

Here I go again with my serie of twin battleships ! After the Richelieu-Jean bart, and Bismark-Tirpitz series (once hosted on MM, before the HDD crash), here are the 26.500 tW french battlecruisers Dunkerque and Strasbourg. This is still a wip, even if pretty advanced, now.
This battlecruisers where equiped with quadruple 330mm guns, and dual purpose quadruple and twin 130mm turrets, and a torpedo defense system with a maximum breadth of 7 meters. The authors of the excellent book "Battleships - Allied battelships in WWII" even make them the best battlescruisers ever build. Like the UK Nelson Class, the main guns are forward the superstructure. A strange disposition aimed at ensuring the compactness of the design, with a strong, yet as short as possible, armor blet.
The difference between the two ships are mainly a two-level bridge for the Strasbourg and a single one for the Dunkerque. Strasbourg armor belt was also slitly bigger the Dunkerque's one, making her a "small displacement battleship". The Dunkerque was destoyed at Mers El kebir, in July 1940, and the Strasbourg was scuttled at Toulon in 1942. Ill fate for quite beautiful ships, indeed !


... and good to see MM back online again, Yes !

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

See my other battleships on my website here : http://www.erossdesign.com/w0405.htm

[Archetype]

good update!

its been a while since i saw these

last time you only had the hull i think :)
im afraid you will be kicking me from the header

but you deserve it :D

[Spinner]

Impressive.

[cbhierro]

Hi to all,

:eek: :eek: That to say of this I magnify work, (that by the way already knew next to your work the Bismarck and the Tirpitz), IMPRESSIVE.;)

A greeting and good hunting.

[Lukem]

Wow!

You say these are work in progress images, I don't know the ships too well, what's left to do?

[Spinner]

You like those 4 gun mounts eh?
Speaking of things in fours, isn't there four float-planes carried aboard?
Looking great!

[eross]

You like those 4 gun mounts eh?
Speaking of things in fours, isn't there four float-planes carried aboard?
Looking great!

Hi Spinner !,

Nop !... only three !...Three Loire-Nieuport 130 seaplanes on one catapult... As for 4 gun mounts, acutally, not much. Impressive turrets indeed, but not really aesthetical. 4 twin mounts, as on the Bismarck, bring more balance to the superstructure overall looking. Distibution is better, both in erfficiency and aesthetic, I think. But I cannot re-write history. Fench went for quadruple gun mounts... so do I ;)

eRoss

[kiwi123]

Good stuff Eross, you could fill the north sea with your ships, we could walk across to Norway ! hehe, so many big ships !!

[Martocticvs]

Fabulous work, as ever - welcome to the header!

[paddy237]

gorgeous....i remember the other battleships you've done and these surpass the work you did on them....keep up the good work....

[gery]

Hi eric,

Very impressive work..howmuch polygones for one ship....And what time of render..????:)

[Skyraider3D]

Top notch, now make em swim :)

[digiartist]

Stunning work eross.......how about having them sailing through a choppy sea :)

[Lukem]

Congrats on the header!

Any more progress?

[eross]

Hello !!

Oh-oooh !, Back to the header again !! wouhouuu !... Thanks a lot, I feel honored !, and thanks for your comments, that's great !
Lukem : very few progress the last two weeks. I only modeled the rear catapult. But i was busy redesigning the forward and back superstructure as well as the secondary armament of my first battleship : the 35.000 tw Richelieu, in order to cut the number of poly, at least by two. The new version of LightWave (9.0), has a few problems to crunch with the 4+ millions poly of the ship. Now that this problem is solved, I'll go back to the Dunkerque and Strabourg. I'll post some other view very soon.
gery : At this time, each ship is about 850.000 poly, and it takes 12 mn to render them with global illumination.

Thanks again to you all !

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[Spinner]

Any comments on how you're enjoying LW9?
I've a choice to make and it's release has made it that bit harder.

[kiwi123]

From what I've seen it's a lot faster than 8.5, new camera's are really nice as well. Displacement rendering works a charm.

[eross]

Any comments on how you're enjoying LW9?
I've a choice to make and it's release has made it that bit harder.

Hi Spinner,

Well, as I don't do any animation, I can't say anything about all the new layout features / bones / maps and so on. The Modeler has not changed a lot, and among offical new additions there is a lot of scrits and former free plugs-ins. Modo (from ex-Newtek developpers) has clearly taken the lead !. Catmull-Clark subdivision surfaces has been implemented, but is still very much ressource consumming. Despite that, the modeler is still excellent, with a better OpenGL support, quick response and a toolset large enough to model any battleship of the world !!! :D
The renderer is still excellent as well, and is really MUCH quicker than in LW 8.x. I do agree with Kiwi123 on that. The new camera modes, like "orthographic" is heaven to me for, well... battleship renderings !!
I didn't have the time to dig into the new XSI-like surface node editor, but it looks rather powerfull...
All in all, LW 9.0 now looks pretty old, suffers from fierce price/features competition, but is still great for what I ask it to do...

attached file : an example of pure orthographic rendering from LW 9.0

Cheers
eRoss
http://www.erossidesign.com

[Lukem]

Wow! You're just showing off now...:D

[eross]

Hi all !

Here are some rear view of both the Dunkerque and Strasbourg, with their crane, catapult, and many bidge elements added. Both ships are on their way to completion, now. They indeed look very much alike and their differences realy lies in details (appart from the single to twin bridge on the Stasbourg). Maybe a week of work or so and Their will be finished !!..

Cheers
eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[cobra6]

Very impressive. I think I will need to overlay them in photoshop to really spot the differences :) makes a nice game though ;)

Cobra 6

[Gotardo]

That's a nice rendition of french warships.
I don't see so nice shippies everyday, so good for header and nice to view. :p

[Spinner]

Eros,
Thanks thats about how I thought it was with LW9.
Am surprised by the positions they chose for ships' boats. Very messy, looking like a crash below the bridge. Not like the naval archetecture of the day at all.
Still the overall design seems to place more importence on aerial spotting than the other navies of the period. The others treat aircraft as an add on scout system, not an integral part of weapons aiming.
Very interesting design, I'm glad to get a look at it.

[Lukem]

Awesome!

It's certainly true that the French heavy units did look a bit perculiar; shame the design was never really tested in action (note - if they were, please correct me; I don't remember any real action that the ships were involved in).

[eross]

Hi Spinner !

Same goes for me! The ships' boats layout is quite astonishing on the Dunkerque Class, I think ! I don't see how they could really be cleared from the main guns blast effect whenever any one turret was trained to more than 90° - starboard or port -.
Yes indeed, the Dunkerque Class was the first in the french navy with floatplane installations seriously and carrefully studied from the start. On the previous classes (23.500 tons Courbet & Bretagne classes), floatplanes where still launched from ra idiculous plateforme mounted on the guns of one of the aft turrett !... the "old dreadnought way"... The Richelieu was first equiped just as the Dunkerque Class, but all aerial equipement were eventually remouved during her major refit in Brooklyn. I think that the improvement in fire control and radar made the floatplanes useless as a fire control helping device.

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[eross]

Awesome!

It's certainly true that the French heavy units did look a bit perculiar; shame the design was never really tested in action (note - if they were, please correct me; I don't remember any real action that the ships were involved in).

Hi Lukem !

Indeed Dunkerque & Strabourg have been sacrified to ridiculous french pride at Mers-El-kebir, (... bloody misplaced french pride... as usual !). Would the french admiralty have accepted to join the Home Fleet to fight against Germany,the French fleet would not have been destroyed, and eventually scuttled at Toulon.
having said that, it is unfair to state that both Dunkerque & Richelieu Class ships did not participate to any real actions. indeed they were never angaged in real naval battleship combats, like the famous Bismarck-Hood one. Nevertheless, they did have to fight the Royal & US Navy.
Strasbourg eventually escaped Mers-el-kebir almost intact under british fire. Not bad, especially if you consider the initial position of the french fleet : The Royal Navy fleet came from behind the French Fleet. The main armament of the Dunkerque and Strasbourg which was grouped on their bows, could not immediately be brought to bear.
Richelieu (95% completed) mamaged to score a few serious hits on the HMS Barham at the battle of Dakar and Jean-Bart fought back with some success USS Massachusetts and USS Augusta in Casablanca in 1942. Not bad for a 75% completed ship, with only 4 main guns mounted. At least, these battles, fought in the worst conditions (ships at anchor), where terrible tests for the ships protections, which prouved to be quite efficient. it can also be stated that both Richelieu and Jean Bart had superior fire control, and very good protection against torpedoes.
Also, the Richelieu saw extensive service in the Pacific Ocean, where it participed in many joint-actions with the US Navy against Japan ground positions.

... All in all : no "Jutland-like" battle for the French Fleet, but all four ships had to fight enemy fleets and given the cicumstances, they did the best they could with some success.

Cheers !

eRoss
http://www.erossdesgn.com

[Art 111]

Hi Eross!
Nice to see such good thema!

[Lukem]

Hi Eross

I thought I would be wrong somehow :lol: I honestly didn't know: I knew that both Richelieu and Jean-Bart were incomplete and still managed to escape. Dunkerque and Strasbourg were relatively unknown to me (apart from the arrangement and calibre of their main guns).

Thanks for the correction.

[Spinner]

Yes, unfortunately the French Admiralty mind-set always had England as the enemy of old.
Our post war generation (especially outside europe) has been raised to view WW2 as two sides, Allies n Axis, but European history had created a much more complex set of overlapping sympathies and old resentments than that.
Churchill was quite ruthless in supressing British upper class expressions of sympathy for Germany for instance. Certainly Stalin had solid grounds to be paranoid too.
It's one thing to push public opinion around with propaganda. It's a diferent proposition with institutional mind-set in a military wing however. They have an inbuilt system for remembering and placing value on past conflicts, thats much harder to switch around.
One of the joys of modelling for me is the insight I gather into design and history as a bye product.

[rayonx]

Great job!!!

Actually Dunkerque was not destroyed at Mers el Kebhir. She received 4x381mm hits(One through seaplane hangar, second bounced on the n°2 turret, third went through the starboard 130mm trunion then bounced on one boiler sending hot vapor that killed everyone inside. The last one stroke an other boiler in the same engine room stoping energy to the ship) and had to beach because she lost power to steer. 3 days later still beached while her crew get of the boat in a minelayer ship alongside, Swordfish biplanes launch torpedoes, all but one went beetwen the ship and the bottom (5 feet space). The other one stroke the minelayer and it exploded. Dunkerque was damaged in the process. Repaired and raised she was in drydock when the fleet was sculted in 1942.

I agree with Spinner.
History is more complicated than that.

[Lukem]

I quite agree. Unfortunately (to mirror what Spinner said), I understand that the English hold the French as a natural enemy as well.

Not meaning to be picky, but I understood that 381mm was a German calibre - everyone else used 15".

Any updates by the way?

[rayonx]

German use the metric system, so their guns where 380mm so were the french guns, but the british ones were 381 mm. 15x25,4=381.

In french we use to say "La perfide Albion" to talk about UK that says it all
(Don't know how to translate it.

Again good work. Like to see some close shot.

[bigz]

"La perfide Albion" = trecherous England

I believe taken from a poem describing the underhand practices of English foreign policy.

[eross]

I quite agree. Unfortunately (to mirror what Spinner said), I understand that the English hold the French as a natural enemy as well.

Any updates by the way?

I think French have been holding the British as their "natural ennemy" at sea, since the naval disaster of Saint-Vaast-la-Houge in 1692 (Normandy, 30 km from Cherbourg - where I lived for 20 years, by the way;)), when Louix XIV's fleet commanded by Trouville, was destroyed by a Netherland-British combined fleet. Long before Trafalgar, this episode ruined French hope to be one day as powerful as the British, at sea. Something important too about this episode : it seems that the lack of interest of the French government for naval affairs, and the disinterest of the French people for their own Navy both go back to this defeat !

Cheers

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[eross]

Not meaning to be picky, but I understood that 381mm was a German calibre -everyone else used 15".
Any updates by the way?

Nop !, Lukem, 381mm is also the caliber of the British battlecruiser Hood main guns !... The french used exact 380mm caliber whereas 15 inches gives 381mm. Because of that, when the Richelieu was modernized in Brooklin Navy yard in 1943, all her guns had to be re-bored to accept shells from the Royal Navy ! (such a work for 1mm ! :p )

... Oh, by the way : Strasbourg & Dunkerque are almost finished. A couple of details here and there are missing, but nothing much. Just a matter of day !. Here is a little update (Dunkerque).

cheers
eRoss

http://www.erossdesign.com

[Spinner]

Ah, lovely!
Nice to see some progress, its been a tad quiet in here lately.
You guys help motivate me with my own. So thanks.

[eross]

its been a tad quiet in here lately.

Ah-aah, Spinner, we've got A LOT of holidays in France !... Seriously, my silence about my current models has one cause : the 13.2mm AA quadriple machine-gun : a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y no data. Anywhere. Nothing... I had to improvise a bit, deduce from photographs and so on. That's long, that's no fun.

... but things are moving anyway !

cheers

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[Spinner]

I guess there's less pics, 'cause they're not as pretty as the Richelieu. :D
She has to have one of the all time sweetest bow lines.:cool:

You dont even have the manufacturer of the 13.2 's? Thats hard modelling without anything but grainy pics.

[eross]

Aaaaah Spinner, the Richelieu !!... such a beautiful hull ! Such a shame her sister-ship the Jean-Bart had these infamous bulges installed that spoiled her hull lines.... Without them, and given her superstructure and armament layout, it would have been the most beautiful warship ever in my opinion... Hmm by the way, I have a little 3D Jean-bart that has never shown up here I think... May I show off a bit with a little render of the beast ?... here you go !

(In my opinion I would say that the Richelieu class hulls are the finest. Very close would be the Bismarck Class Hull, and then, maybe the Iowa class hulls. Very nice too. British and japanese vessels hulls... I should make no comment. :rolleyes: )

Cheers

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[Lukem]

The Dunkerque is looking great Eross! Nice to see Jean Bart make an appearance too.

Given what you said above (which I agree with), I do believe the Yamato's hull also had a certain elegance.

[eross]

Given what you said above (which I agree with), I do believe the Yamato's hull also had a certain elegance.

Hmmm... Is the Yamato an ansome ship ?... this deserved a second thougt and after careful readings, I must admit that I spoke too quiclky. You're right, Lukem : Yamato's hull also had a certain elegance. The bow, especially, is very nice and powerful. Looked at from a certain distance, the overall lines are quite fine. Nevertheless, the hull has too much bits and pieces here and there on it, too many littles elements on each side that spoils these lines. You may also admit that the forecastle deck has a pretty strange looking, with its slope at turret 2 level, and a very hugly aircraft deck !
I would say that some parts of the ship are indeed elegant, but on the whole the Yamato is more impressive than ansome. And because she is impressive, her massive lines has a certain elegance, as is elegant a slow, big whale moving into the ocean.

Cheers

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[Spinner]

Yeah, rowing boat view. Water level looking up as the bow aproaches, I'd rank them the same order.
The Jean Bart disturbs me, its troubling. The smoke stack is inspired! Looks like its styled by one of the great Italian design houses of the '60s, but that last deck reminds me of the Daleks from Dr Who.
There's certainly an impressive number of barrels pointing to the rear and BIG ones out the front. I can't help thinking its design has one eye on the British liking for capping their opponent's T. The rear gun deck, astern the stack, is so much better and interesting than the one after it.

[eross]

Hi Spinner !

two pics of the Jean-Bart, the first one showing the conning tower and those 100mmAA "Dalek Guns" (excellent nikname !... i'll keep it ! :D ). On the side are 3 of the 57mm AA guns. the bizarre structure with two little radar dishes on each side (a rather "Cosmos 1999-looking" structure !) is a fire control station for the 100mm. Also the main gun fire control at the top of the tower looks a bit like a toaster, doesn't it ?.. I wonder what the designers had in mind when they issued the blueprints for the reconstruction of the Jean Bart !
The second pic clearly shows the MASSIVE main gun turrets... Impressive, innit ?

Cheers

eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[eross]

... a third one Spinner, I cannot help it ;) This one just shows the line. Isn't she beautiful ?... look at that the sharpness of this stern !..

[rayonx]

Richelieu guns were not rebored !!! A factory was established to manufacture custom shell for her. She spend less than 5 months in Brooklyn yard, and most of this time was spent repairing the stern damage of 1940 and replacing the guns tubes of turret 2 for the guns taken from turret 1 of jean bart.

(At St Vaast it was Tourville and not Trouville.)

[Spinner]

That would make sense, I guess, when you start to consider all the store and handling equipment for the shells. Designed for specific size, shape and weights modifying for a changed spec could be more complex a problem than one might think. You could wind up rebuilding half the ship.

[Lukem]

Eross, do you have a cross section image you could post of the Richelieu? I'm interested to see the armour layout - at least with the German ships you could see an armour belt; with British, french and American ships you haven't got that.

As far as Yamato goes - awesome certainly. Unique, definitely. The davits etc attached to the hull may detract slightly from the overall effect, but there has never been another hull shape like her's (discounting Musashi and Shinano of course).

[Spinner]

Problem is the hulls had half of Tokyo built on top of them. lol
But since you're interested in naval nipon...
I offer Drums of War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp7h8t1sRiA&search=WW2) for your pleasure.

[eross]

Eross, do you have a cross section image you could post of the Richelieu ?.

Hi Lukem,

Yes I have, from the book "Battleships : Allied battleships in WWII". I'll scan them for you tomorrow...

Cheers
eRoss

[eross]

Eross, do you have a cross section image you could post of the Richelieu?.

Here you are... !! ;)

cheers
eRoss

[eross]

Hi all !

Here are the final versions of my twin 26.500 tw french battlecruisers !...
I hope you'll enjoy them...

Cheers
eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[Skyraider3D]

They still look fantastic! :)
Now how about some realistic backgrounds?

[eross]

They still look fantastic! :)
Now how about some realistic backgrounds?

Hi Skyraider !
Thanks for the comment.
As for realistic backgrounds are concerned, simply put : i'm not skilled enough to composite a 3D model with either a 3d or 2D environement. These things, if not PERFECTLY realized, look immediately fake and dull. Therefore I prefer to concentrate on "the object in itself" instead of battling with some compositing that will convince no one at the end.

Cheers
eRoss
http://www.erossidesign.com

[Skyraider3D]

i'm not skilled enoughNonsense! :lol:

[eross]

Nonsense! :lol:

Correction : I got no time to experiment (what might give good results with a bit of patience.) ;)

[eross]

Correction : I got no time to experiment


correction : i'm too lazy. :D
btw : my ultimate environmental render benchmark would probably be this one, from Thomas Schmid : http://www.3dhistory.de/elemente/bilder/Bismarck/norway_sun2small.jpg

Honestly... I just CAN'T do that. I would not know how to start and from where...
I've made some background redering tests, one you can see here : http://www.erossdesign.com/2004_2005/richelieu/at_sea.htm, but i'm not very satisfied of it...

[pete.cook]

I think you'd be quite surprised at how straightforward that could be. The background looks as if it was done with Terragen and with a bit of experimentation the sea could be quite easily replicated using a couple of the tutorials floating around the web.

[Lukem]

Here you are... !! ;)

cheers
eRoss

Apologies for not replying to you sooner!

Thanks a lot for scanning that section in - being used to German capital ships, that arrangement looks a bit perculiar to me, but never mind!:D Also I notice that the armoured deck is totally horizontal; no angled sides?

As to the source of the image - I must get a copy of that book, as well as the American Battleships volume (the Axis and Neutral one, I already have).

Congrats on finishing the battlecruisers - great images! I do agree with the others though; one (or both) of them in an environment would be awesome IMHO.

Spinner: Thanks for the link!:D

[Skyraider3D]

Eross, you definitely got the hang of doing proper lighting as your model renders look great. The procedural background in that image doesn't look very convincing and probably you'd be better off by a photo or even simply a sky.
Your only worry would be how to do water, and there's some decent discussions about that on the obstacle course. I am sure you'd get there in no-time.
It's a pity to put so much effort into the model, then not to render it nicely.
Of course if you don't want to make renders of it, then that's your coice :)

[eross]

It's a pity to put so much effort into the model, then not to render it nicely.

That's where I completely disagree, Skyraider3D... I'm interested in OBJECTS, in "things", tangible and mesurable. I'm not interested in moods. At all. If I got interested in planes, for instance, I would concentrate on modelling one, as precisely as I can, in order to, say, "feel" the object, its proportions, its mass, its lines, just like a blind person feels with its hands to get the shape of things. To "experience" the object in itself. Compositing this plane in the sky, surrounded with clouds, is irrelevant to me, as it would mainly hide the model within some unnessesary "theatrical effects". That's why evey object I model is rendered with maximum details, using radiosity whenever I can, BUT, in the simpliest possible environment. What I really enjoy is modelling. I could go without rendering, I think ;) - But then I could not share experiences or discuss with you, now. Which would be a shame.
So, I do not think, as you said, that's is a pity. It's simply a choice, that serves what I want to show. The Object. Just that.

Cheers
eRoss
http://www.erossdesign.com

[Skyraider3D]

Fair points mate, fair points :)

Let's put it this way, it's a pity to many of your fans! ;)

[kevjon]

Intersting discussion....to be a scale modeller (3D) or artist. Your ships are beautifully detailed and textured and would look great in a suitable background but of course you should present your ships the way you want to.

Next version of Terragen should give better results than the current one if you would like to experiment with renders in a enviroment like the link you provided.

[Lukem]

I do agree with you Eross....

But one of the best images I've ever seen was the image displayed whilst MM.com was down - an American aircraft carrier in dry-dock.

In my opinion, you need to put one of your fleet of capital ships in water.

[Spinner]

Not totally necessary to be afloat.
Put her in dry-dock. Like that carrier.
I'm hoping to do my little boat in a couple of hull dry settings, when its ready. There's a few ways to get around the difficulty of water imho.
I totally get where eross is coming from, though.

[Archetype]

I do agree with you Eross....

But one of the best images I've ever seen was the image displayed whilst MM.com was down - an American aircraft carrier in dry-dock.

In my opinion, you need to put one of your fleet of capital ships in water.

http://lnx.eklettica.com/coppermine/albums/artworks/dd1600.jpg

yeah its the "essex?" class carrier under cunstruction made by alesandro baldasseroni

[Spinner]

Love the sense of scale engendered by the people and trucks etc.
The scene just leads you on forever, speculating on details like the lounging harbour launch crew shairing 'smoko' with the tradesmen.

[Archetype]

just tyhink he overdid all the bumpmaps though "those on the drydock" making it look super grainy..
at this distance the detail would be much finer

[Lukem]

That's the image! An Essex class? I didn't know - I'd assumed it was one of the bigger ships, Lexington for example. Thanks for posting the image!

Sorry for going off-topic by the way!:D

[Archetype]

sry for the offtopic ;)

essex
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/USS_Essex_(LHD-2)%3B10080203.jpg/300px-USS_Essex_(LHD-2)%3B10080203.jpg

lexington
http://www.usshancockcv19.com/images/blueghost.jpg

[Lukem]

Lexington with an F14 on the flight deck? I hadn't realised the ship lasted that long! Either way, point taken...

[Skyraider3D]

Lexington with an F14 on the flight deck? I hadn't realised the ship lasted that long!That's because it didn't - well the fourth one (CV-2) didn't.
Archetype is showing the USS Lexington CV-16 which lasted from 1942 until now (museum).

The fourth USS Lexington, CV-2, was sunk on 8 May 1942 during the Battle of the Coral Sea: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv02-lexington/cv02-lexington.html

The USS Essex however wasn't scrapped until 1973, after a second life that started in 1951: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/09.htm

It's a bit confusing when ship names get re-used :)

[ModelWarships]

Very impressive work.

[Spinner]

Still wonderfully preserved by the depths. Her quad 20mms pointing skyward forever.

[eross]

Still wonderfully preserved by the depths. Her quad 20mms pointing skyward forever.

Wooohooo !!!, Spinner !!, where did you find these (if I may ask ?)... This photos are great !... thanks for sharing !

Cheers
eRoss

[pete.cook]

sry for the offtopic ;)

essex
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/USS_Essex_(LHD-2)%3B10080203.jpg/300px-USS_Essex_(LHD-2)%3B10080203.jpg


That's the fifth and current USS Essex which isn't really a carrier, its an amphibious assault ship, a LHD (landing ship, helicopter, dock).

Ronnie's already posted links to the Essex you mean.

An interesting point to note is that all of the Essex Class Carriers (Essex, Yorktown, Intrepid, Hornet, Franklin, Lexington, Bunker Hill, Wasp, Bennington and Bonhomme Richard) all survived action in WWII. Two others were built during WWII but commissioned after hostilities had ceased (Kearsarge and Oriskany). But this is for a whole new topic......

[SvenLittkowski]

Interesting ships. Can you publish some more views? Thanks.

Sven