Naval History Forums

Hood
Vanguard
Dunkerque

Probably a few more - most of the rest though I would not describe as 'beautiful' as much as I would "not ugly"... or maybe 'functionally elegant' with some, Iowa, Littorio, etc being a little bit more so and Richelieu, the original S&G a bit less so...

boreatwork:

Probably a few more - most of the rest though I would not describe as 'beautiful' as much as I would "not ugly"... or maybe 'functionally elegant' with some, Iowa, Littorio, etc being a little bit more so and Richelieu, the original S&G a bit less so...

It`s right to say that ANY battleship will call our attention (for "our" I mean all the members of this forum). There is something esentially beautifull in them all, including the soviet Gangut. Size? Power? Their complex superstructure? Their role in the naval evolution? A combination of all those and other reasons? I cannot come forth and say that Iowa is not good looking because, basically, she is GOOD LOOKING: slender, agressive, boldish she is. A friend send me, some months ago, a series of photos of USS North Carolina, and she is so damn beautifull. The only thing I wonder is how really beautifull were all those dreadnoughts that didn`t make it today and were legendary: Bismarck, Yamato, Vanguard, PoW, Hood, Repulse, Warspite, Littorio, Nelson, Richelieu (yes, even Richelieu), Arizona, Nevada, Maryland, etc. etc. etc. etc.

What we can say is that we have preferences of some of them over others, with no diminishing of those "others". It is a political correct abomination argument but nevertheless thruth, at least for me. I like them all. And if I can have the oportunity of visiting those existing, I will. And if some futuristic alien give me the oportunity to travel in time and look at those that aren`t here, there is no doubt that I will go too.

Bismarck is top in the list, obvioulsy.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:yellowtail:

That it was the best battleship of its day,

Yamato, Musashi and Tirpitz were already in comission by then, which make the Iowa No. 2 (or 3) to it´s day.

With the two Jap ships, you could at least make a case - but Tirpitz? Compared to Iowa, Tirpitz is:

- Smaller
- Slower
- Has much less endurance/range
- less firepower - fewer guns, firing much lighter shells
- has an inferior AA setup
- has inferior radar/electronic equipment, no blindfire capability

So I'm scratching my head, trying to think of even one thing that the Tirpitz might do as well as Iowa, let alone better... ?

Oh, got it: she might be better looking to some eyes - that's got to be it!

yellowtail3:

This is not the thread to discuss about the notion of superiority of one BB vs. another battleship. But several "preconceptions" on topics like armor, radar and performance of heavy shells has been discussed and, up to now, they all seem in dispute. No need to start today any discussion, is a beautiful Sunday and, regretfully, I have to go to work.

Warmest regards and enjoy the Sunday.

Indeed we've had that discussion on quite a few different threads already. But if someones going to bring it up they should expect a reply.

My favorite-looking:

- Scharnhorst
- Iowa
- Richelieu

@yellowtail. You may be right in an overall comparison, but there are several features the BS class possessed, which were superior to those of the Iowa. The first that come to mind are the larger bursting charge of the 380mm shells and the double-layered belt armor, which was theoretically impregnable by any shell fired at any range. And, to try to answer your question, I think the BS were tougher ships (that is, they could take more damage) than the Iowas at ranges <20km.

All the best,

alecsandros wrote:@yellowtail. You may be right in an overall comparison...

No maybe about it; definitely right on that subject.

alecsandros wrote:...but there are several features the BS class possessed, which were superior to those of the Iowa.

If you squint real hard and think wishfully... yeah, you might find a couple. Maybe.

yellowtail3:

No maybe about it; definitely right on that subject.

You are ignoring the issues that have been brought, again. An absolute answer, as yours, corners the person that made it.

If you squint real hard and think wishfully... yeah, you might find a couple. Maybe.

In fact there is no need of any wishfull thinking. Again, let`s not discuss this in this thread. There were others for this purpose, but I will not start it.

Best regards,

Karl Heidenreich wrote:yellowtail3:

No maybe about it; definitely right on that subject.

An absolute answer, as yours, corners that person that made it.

I'm pretty comfortable to be cornered on this subject.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:

If you squint real hard and think wishfully... yeah, you might find a couple. Maybe.

In fact there is no need of any wishfull thinking.

See - Karl knows how to squint!

yellowtail3:

See - Karl knows how to squint!

tommy303 wrote:I think Gary is right about the HMS Tiger of WW1. She has to have been one of the most graceful battlecruisers of the war. The Luetzow and Derfflinger were rather nice looking up until they received that awful looking heavy tripod mast (however functional it may have been, it did nothing for looks.)

In her own day, the TIGER was widely regarded as the most beautiful warship afloat and there was a great deal of heartfelt criticism when her fore topmast was removed and replaced by a topmast on the main stump.

I still can't for the life of me agree with folks who say HOOD was a pretty ship. Just looking at how her after third was so low to the water as to be completely swamped in anything but the calmest of seas...

My top 5:
YAMATO
BISMARCK
IOWA
ROMA
SOUTH DAKOTA

Where would you part Scharnhorst if its not in your top five crawfish?

Being that battlecruisers have already been mentioned, although I disagree they are "dreadnoughts", here is my list of the most eye-catching ships (top ten, in no particular order):

HMS Repulse
HMS Renown (post-1930s refit)
Scharnhorst
FN Dunkerque
IJN Yamato
USS Idaho (post-1930s refit)
Bismarck
RM Vittorio Veneto
FN Richelieu
HMS Hood

FWIW

RNfanDan wrote:Being that battlecruisers have already been mentioned, although I disagree they are "dreadnoughts", ...

What do you consider a "dreadnought" to be? A quick check of web defintions shows battleship usually (if not always) included in the defitnion. Of course then we get into what is a battlship vs a battle cruiser.