See Malaya '41.... relied a bit too much....
Should probably be a new thread... who were the idiots that lost PoW and Repulse.
The Yanks....you had already lost yer own, now ya wanted ours.:icon_twi:
regards Collin:ernae:
LOL! Your ships look a little too um... utilitarian. Adding a 4th gun to the turrets.... should have just upped the caliber to 16.
My favorite British warship......Warspite.... saw action everywhere.... too bad they gave her that ugly prewar modernization.... blocky appearance.
My favorite British warship......Warspite.... saw action everywhere.... too bad they gave her that ugly prewar modernization.... blocky appearance.
I kind of like the looks of the RN WW-I battlewagons in WW-II. That big "blocky" upperworks gave those ships an imposing look. Same with the USS California, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Hood seems to have been one of the first to set the style trend. A very beautiful ship if showing her design of an earlier era by the time of her loss. As far as rebuilds go, the most amazing rebuilds were Tenessee and West Virginia with a South Dakota style superstructure replete with single stack and fire control tower and bunched 5"38 twin turrets amidship.
Repulse and Renown were also good looking ships if perhaps relics of interwar projection of naval power. With later war necessity of extreme AA batteries made nearly all ships veritible beehives of topside clutter and activity.
I agree that Warspite, Vanguard etc display a certain aura of power, perhaps relating a bit to visions of midevil castles.
Bismark and her Kriegsmarine contempories tended to have clunky, unasetic superstructures from the bridge upward, topping out otherwise clean lines. Of course a situation totally unrelated to the ships functionality.... I have always wondered just what the functions of all of those levels in the Japanese "Pagoda Masts" were.
Fine lines can be found in very functional ships, the Fletcher's always looked just right and were a very good destroyer, possibly the best. They looked fast, even sitting still!
Cheers: T
Repulse and Renown were also good looking ships if perhaps relics of interwar projection of naval power. With later war necessity of extreme AA batteries made nearly all ships veritible beehives of topside clutter and activity.
I agree that Warspite, Vanguard etc display a certain aura of power, perhaps relating a bit to visions of midevil castles.
Bismark and her Kriegsmarine contempories tended to have clunky, unasetic superstructures from the bridge upward, topping out otherwise clean lines. Of course a situation totally unrelated to the ships functionality.... I have always wondered just what the functions of all of those levels in the Japanese "Pagoda Masts" were.
Fine lines can be found in very functional ships, the Fletcher's always looked just right and were a very good destroyer, possibly the best. They looked fast, even sitting still!
Cheers: T
Yep, I see PRB has set a new thread for the pagoda's, we can make a new thread for the disastrous Alaska class.
regards Collin:ernae: