I actually think some of the heavy cruiser and battlecruiser designs were more beautiful than the full battleships, but if I'm picking one battleship for aesthetic appeal, I'd go with the Italians' second Littorio-class battleship, the Vittorio Veneto.



The design of my favorite part, the four secondary 6" triple-turrets, isn't as visible in that photo, and the best angled-shot I could find that shows them is low quality, so I'll "hide" it.

What an outpouring of "Piss Off"... Love it  

Actually I love the more excentric design. Such as this one, with batteries on two floors.

(September 27, 2015 at 3:39 pm)Spooky Wrote: What an outpouring of "Piss Off"... Love it  

No, you misunderstand, Spooky. We love your library... so now we're talking about other things that make us happy.

Never seen a hijacked thread before?

---

(September 27, 2015 at 4:06 pm)abaris Wrote: Actually I love the more excentric design. Such as this one, with batteries on two floors.

It's true... some of the WW1 designs are amazing to consider. They weren't sure what worked and what didn't, so they went with a lot of really neat configurations before the WW2-style battleship emerged.

I love the dreadnought HMS Agincourt. Fourteen 12" guns in seven turrets.

(September 27, 2015 at 4:08 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: No, you misunderstand, Spooky. We love your library... so now we're talking about other things that make us happy.

Never seen a hijacked thread before?

Negative sir, it is you who misunderstands. The outpouring of piss off is how I describe the ship. I love the look of the ship.

Carry on

Actually, nothing worked as far as battleships are concerned. The Bismarck could sink the misdesigned Hood but fell victim to swordfish torpedoes. Battleships were beautiful, but they were outdated anachronistic freaks from the get go.

For beauty in warships, I think HMS Hood has it. Pity she had a glass jaw.

That was actually the king of the day.



Side note, as Americans you probably know that Sound of music bullshit. Trapp was commander of this one. One of the most successful Austrian submarine commanders.

(September 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm)abaris Wrote: Actually, nothing worked as far as battleships are concerned. The Bismarck could sink the misdesigned Hood but fell victim to swordfish torpedoes. Battleships were beautiful, but they were outdated anachronistic freaks from the get go.

Agreed, in general, but I think their "failure" stemmed from everyone except the Japanese failing to realize that the battleship was not so superior as to make it invulnerable to the newfangled things-that-flew. The battleship kills all on the sea, including other battleships, and that is its sole purpose. Failure to grasp that it required carriers and/or land-based aircraft support to operate effectively wasn't a failure of the concept "from the get-go". It was only after the ability to kill even the most heavily-armored ship with aircraft and guided missiles that it because non-cost-effective to build the armored monstrosities.

It's like saying a main battle tank is an "anachronistic freak" because of the invention of antitank missiles. They still dominate the battlefield, if properly supported and protected. But, like the expensive and huge battleships, they are being increasingly augmented by relatively unarmored, more-mobile light vehicles such as the LAV-25.

---

(September 27, 2015 at 4:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: For beauty in warships, I think HMS Hood has it. Pity she had a glass jaw.

I almost went with Hood as my example, as I agree she's one of the loveliest designs, which is odd given that the Brits tended to favor function entirely over form; she's one of the reasons I mentioned cruisers as my preference. But since she wasn't a battleship, I decided to stick with the dreadnought-type ship.

---

Abaris- That's so cool... I didn't know that about von Trapp.

(September 27, 2015 at 4:29 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's like saying a main battle tank is an "anachronistic freak" because of the invention of antitank missiles. They still dominate the battlefield, if properly supported and protected. But, like the expensive and huge battleships, they are being increasingly augmented by relatively unarmored, more-mobile light vehicles such as the LAV-25.

No, it's more like an Abrams tank compared to a Sherman. The submarines and other torpedo carriers had all the advantages over basttleships. The Battle of the Skagerrak was the only real battleship battle in history. And it ended with a stalemate.

Actually, come to think of it, the battleships were on the same lines of outdated tactics as the land battles with blind charges were. Technology had moved on, but the thinking of the strategists hadn't.