Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Most handsome BB/BC of WW2?

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Brutal Truth, May 6, 2021.

  1. Brutal Truth

    Brutal Truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2021
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    41
    I know that it may sound weird to consider weapons "handsome" or "beautiful" but I indeed do. A lot of people consider cars beautiful. I don't much care about cars but tanks or warships... well, everybody has his own quirks I guess ;)

    As for my list:
    Nr 1, not surprisingly considering my Avatar, is HMS Hood. Then, in no particular order, HMS Repulse, the Twins, the Yamato class and the V.V. class. I also like the Alaska class but they are considered cruisers, even if some consider them BCs.
     
    Half Track likes this.
  2. Thumpalumpacus

    Thumpalumpacus Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2021
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    31
    Hood was a pretty ship.

    It always confuzzles me why Alaskas were considered cruisers, but the Brits called the Ugly Sisters "battleships". Both classes seem to be battlecruisers, to me.
     
  3. Prospero Quevedo

    Prospero Quevedo Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2021
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    77
    I liked the Alaskas too but thought what a waste battle cruisers were phasing out of most navies old BCs being up armored and upgraded to battleship class, I always thought the Italians had great looking ships the Roma class and those completely rebuilt BCs, but they never used them effectively against the allies. Like what good is a navy that won't go to combat. The Iowas svelte cc c were good looking I want to take some old Iowa kits, since new tooled kit have come out you can find deals on the old ones. Want to try and make a Montana from drawing and what I've read says she was simply a stretched Iowa with a forth turret to match the amount of fire power against the Yamato class. I also liked the looks of the Jean Bart and the Richelieu rather interesting design along with the Rodney and Nelson.
     
  4. Brutal Truth

    Brutal Truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2021
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    41
    The Alaska had intermediate armament and protection between a heavy cruiser and BB. To me the most obvious and simplest classification seems battlecruiser too, but the Amis decided to call them "large cruisers". Well they call the 16 000 t. Zumwalt a destroyer instead of a cruiser so one shouldn't be surprised. I wonder if they will reclassify the new Ford supercarriers as "aircraft carrying destroyers" or maybe some weird acronym :D The Alaska were built as an answer to a rumored class of Japanese supercruisers, and while the latter never materialized, they were good escort ships for carrier groups with a powerful AA armament, and useful heavy guns for amphibious support. If they had been kept mothballed I suspect they would have been a better choice than the older and larger Iowas for the 1980s refit.
    The Ugly Twins were Beautiful Twins IMO. I think they were light battleships because their armor was on battleship scale. Their belt was thicker than the Bismarck class.

    Prospero Quevedo: I disagree about the Italian Navy not fighting. Their battleships did see little use, but that was not uncommon in WW2, and Italy was hampered by fuel scarcity. Their cruisers and destroyers however fought hard and suffered horrendous losses. I think the navy was maybe the best Italian service but the top leadership was not very brilliant.
    I like the Montana too, but they were never built. If we consider the Never Were projects, I think the Soviet designs were very handsome and interesting too.
     
    Thumpalumpacus likes this.
  5. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,791
    Likes Received:
    323
    Before and during WW2 a "cruiser" could be anything from a gunboat sized craft up to the aforementioned Alaskas. It was a catchall type of class.

    My vote for for handsomest was the Bismark class.
     
  6. Thumpalumpacus

    Thumpalumpacus Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2021
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    31
    That makes some sense, even if their armament was awful light for a 1939 battleship. They'd have problems punching through the belt of any modern battleship of the era -- they'd probably have to use speed to maintain distance to ensure plunging fire for any hope at all against a KGV or South Dakota-class BB.

    I didn't mean to imply that I thought Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were ugly, I was just using one of the nicknames they had amongst the Brits. Especially once fitted with the clipper bow, they were very handsome indeed.
     
  7. Prospero Quevedo

    Prospero Quevedo Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2021
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    77
    Yeah I remember that battle several cruisers and destroyers played 2400 scale waterline war gaming had Italian ships, US, British and French and some IJN. I thought the recognition strips was a bit much I know it was so friendly aircraft could know you but I thought it was also something that would attract enemy planes. Looked great though in miniature. Also had hundreds of 285 scale armor. Lol had a friend in armor logistics said the military bought thousands of them all types of vehicles and aircraft and set up huge war tables to visually play out a battle scenario. Said they'd play out if the Russians attacked Western Europe how the would deploy and repell. Anyway it was all modern warfare my hundreds of armor was wwi german, American, British, Italian, Russian. Went over board could field 50 tiger 2s 70 panthers, 60 Sherman's, there was six of us and I probably could have taken on all the others combined and still fielded more fire power. Most built on the company level I was more on the battalion level looked kewl with trays with lines of Sherman's or tiger 1&2s Panthers had some really painted up great German three color schemes some solid some wash effect so the looked spray painted. Sold most of my painted stuff since I don't game anymore. Need to find my notes and rewrite and print it out. We used the angriff I used a lot of my armor books gunnery tables and just about doubled the weapons tables and added a lot of vehicles. Back then you asked me a vehicle I could tell you the armor thickness oblique speed weapon performance. I have files all packed away months like two years worth of work want to pass that on to my grandnephews, lol bet my niece will be mad at me teaching them war games. Oh in our naval war games I was usually the Italians
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2021
  8. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,769
    Likes Received:
    588
    There were a number of lovely ships in the WWII generation, but I have to go with the Iowa class. I live in the Philadelphia area, so I frequently see the New Jersey across the Delaware River from downtown. Visited her several times, including the "belly of the beast" tour, which I recommend to anyone who can manage ladders and confined spaces.

    I would consider both Iowa and Montana followons to the South Dakota class, taking two different approaches. Iowa was essentially a stretched SD, freed from the 35,000 ton limit but not the 110' of the Panama Canal, with the principal change being a 5-knot increase in speed. The 28-knot Montana carried on the design philosophy of SD, longer and - the big change - wider to provide the desired armor and underwater protection. Montana would also have been a bit longer than Iowa - 34' - but would have needed a less powerful propulsion plant - 172,000 shp vs. 212,000 - helping to free up space for the additional turret. The length between #2 and #3 turrets would be about 40' less in Montana.

    Side note - another option when the 35,000-ton limit was raised to 45,000 might have been a stretched, 12-gun South Dakota. Iowa was 207' longer than SD, most notably at the bow, some at the stern, some amidships to accommodate the larger engine plant. Suppose the increase was concentrated amidships, providing ~100' to accommodate an additional turret and perhaps a slight increase in engine power to maintain speed at 28 knots (or not, a longer hull is generally more efficient even at the same hp).

    Norman Friedman described the Alaska as a heavy cruiser freed from the Washington treaty restrictions.
     
  9. Brutal Truth

    Brutal Truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2021
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    41
    The Iowas had (actually have, they are still there after all) an elegant profile but I don't like their bulbous prows.

    Definitions are always a matter of semantics but the Alaska-class size and armament were in the range of a light battleship. I think that Friedman's description fits more the Des Moines-class. Btw, the US Navy considered the DMs for refit instead of the Iowas but they concluded that the hull was too small to accommodate all the needed systems and the rebuilding would have been almost as expensive.

    The decision to arm the Twins with 280 mm guns was political, to avoid upsetting the Western powers too much. They were planned to switch to dual 380 mm turrets like the Bismarck, mounting three of them, but the conversion was never carried out.
     
    Thumpalumpacus likes this.
  10. Prospero Quevedo

    Prospero Quevedo Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2021
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    77
    For British it would be the prince of Wales or queen Elizabeth after her modernization.
     

Share This Page