Sexiest Warships Ever Built

Discussion in 'Full Scale' started by AdmiralBangerBang, Jan 23, 2018.

  1. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    Dunkerque is good looking from the front, but that stubby butt kills it.
     
  2. rcaircraftnut

    rcaircraftnut Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2016
    Posts:
    1,520
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    A stubby stern can be a good thing for battle though as it can allow more down angle on srern cannons where a long gracefull stern can cover up a tripple set and make it shoot almost level.
     
  3. buttsakauf

    buttsakauf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Posts:
    695
    Location:
    Waycross, GA
    I like the balance of Tennessee. It almost shuns elegance for a female body builder approach. Attractive, impressive even, but not for everyone. You my friend have an eye for aesthetics. And finer things of an older vintage:). Gotta love those armored cruisers!
     
    Anachronus likes this.
  4. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    Armored cruisers to me look like 1920s Ocean liners with some battleship caliber guns on them. not sure if i love or hate them.
     
  5. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    They are definitely a niche. For the turn of the 20th century they made sense but by WW1 turbines made them obsolete. German WW1 battle cruisers were on the right track but really HMS Hood is the first replacement for them. The first fast battleship.
     
  6. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    Hood would have been great in 1916, but hard capped AP shells rendered her triple layer deck and citadel armor useless.
     
  7. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    No doubt. One of the drawbacks of the Washington treaty was that ships were faced with technologies that did not exist when they were designed.
     
  8. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    Except those new American treaty warships. South Dakota would wreck any other treaty ship.
     
  9. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    That is what I meant. A pre-treaty ship (Hood) especially one in need of re-fit was not really fit to fight a post treaty trip (especially one that fudged the figures a bit.

    Now if Hood had gotten her refit the results may have been different. Or maybe not the Goddess Fortuna played a big role in long range gunnery.
     
  10. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    The RN still thought layered armor worked. If they had thought otherwise she would have gotten it earlier.
     
  11. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    I need to reread my Friedman and Burt. One or the other has a pretty good discussion on Hood's planned refit. They went thick for Nelson/Rodney and KGV.
     
  12. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    Yes because they were battleships. The RN were firm in their belief that "SPEED IS ARMOR"
     
    Anachronus likes this.
  13. Morgen Anthony

    Morgen Anthony Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Posts:
    74
    Location:
    Canada
    [​IMG] arleigh burke my favourite ship very macho ship
     
  14. SteveT44

    SteveT44 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,855
    Location:
    MD
    If your looking at modern ships, my vote goes to the Dutch Sigma's

    upload_2018-3-26_14-7-2.png

    upload_2018-3-26_14-10-43.png
     
  15. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,522
    Bah, you and your modern warships. All fancy swoopy lines and sharp edges. Not enough guns, and not enough funnels. And such pitiful masts! Why, they don't even have fighting tops. Behold, I present the most beautiful battleship, the Mikasa:
    [​IMG]

    They just don't make 'em like they used to...
     
  16. buttsakauf

    buttsakauf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Posts:
    695
    Location:
    Waycross, GA
    You and your soft spot:) it is a fantastic vessel
     
  17. AdmiralBangerBang

    AdmiralBangerBang Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Posts:
    180
    Location:
    Long Island
    Modern shipswise, I love the Nimitz classs. The grand old ladies
     
    NASAAN101 likes this.
  18. Beaver

    Beaver 2020 Rookie of the Year Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Posts:
    3,674
    Location:
    Central PA
    Combining the old with the new, USS Zumwalt is a sight to behold!
    94b5126c7ebac6eb0e4d7c5329f0ef49.jpg
     
    rcaircraftnut likes this.
  19. WillCover

    WillCover -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    658
    Location:
    Harrison, Michigan
    that picture is missing the tow cable and tug needed to get her underway
     
    NickMyers likes this.
  20. buttsakauf

    buttsakauf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Posts:
    695
    Location:
    Waycross, GA
    No way... that is full power trials. After dozens of millions spent to get it out there and throw band aids on things:whistling:. I know a few things about that dynamic. I’m stationed on LCS-2:(. AKA... building 2 pier 5 Naval Base San Diego, lol. We are 6months into trying to get to sea. 2 years tied up. It is contractor permeated misery.