Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While I don't think there are many good, and accurate pictures of it, I personally have a soft spot for Queen Anne's Revenge. A ship designed for a set number of guns, yet at the last "reliable" record of her, she had "at least" 40, which was double her original compliment.


I also love the look of ships like the Victory. . . just something about the formation and layout of those guns, with the sails. It's all just so elegant.

More modern stuff, I too am partial to the Iowa class battleships.

And, since no one's mentioned it yet:




*edited to fix picture

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
While I don't think there are many good, and accurate pictures of it, I personally have a soft spot for Queen Anne's Revenge. A ship designed for a set number of guns, yet at the last "reliable" record of her, she had "at least" 40, which was double her original compliment.


I also love the look of ships like the Victory. . . just something about the formation and layout of those guns, with the sails. It's all just so elegant.

More modern stuff, I too am partial to the Iowa class battleships.

And, since no one's mentioned it yet:

Spoiler:

*edited to fix picture

A good class of Star Destroyer, but....



The Resurgent and Victory Class are best.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

A good class of Star Destroyer, but....

Spoiler:

The Resurgent and Victory Class are best.

WRONG!

The best looking Star Destroyer has to be the Venator Class:


To get this discussion back on the topic of actual warships rather than made up stuff (cool as it is), I noticed a few people mentioning the Iowa-class battleships (like the USS Missouri and USS New Jersey). I love these ships very much, and the coolest thing I've seen related to them is footage of them firing a full barrage from their guns. The sight of a ship that weighs upwards of 50,000 tons jumping several feet sideways is just an awe-inspiring display of power and energy (and Newton's third law of motion).

The Venator may have been good looking, but it was awfully fragile for a major warship. At least, that's the way it was depicted in the Clone Wars cartoon.

For raw destructive power, nothing beats the Ohio class. Either as an SSBN, or the SSGN refits.

No, I'm not posting a picture of it. That's what makes it even better. You don't know where it is, until it's far too late...

I’ve always had a soft spot for the Midway class; starting as this:



And ending up like this:



That’s one hell of an evolution and it kept them on the frontline for the entire of the Cold War.

And if we’re going fictional, this is the answer:

Look up blood and chrome. It shows the BSG in all her armored glory.

 Frazzled wrote:
Look up blood and chrome. It shows the BSG in all her armored glory.

Oh yeah!

Who needs all that Pegasus fancy eletronic warfare systems and so when you got Armour, sheer stubbornness, a captain who sounds like he eats gravel and a ton of gattling guns.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look up blood and chrome. It shows the BSG in all her armored glory.

Oh yeah!

Who needs all that Pegasus fancy eletronic warfare systems and so when you got Armour, sheer stubbornness, a captain who sounds like he eats gravel and a ton of gattling guns.

If you were unfamiliar with the glories of Commander Adama, this looks like a grammatical error. In fact, it is an accurate description. He does sound like he eats both gravel and gatling guns.

That's what winning looks like for glorious battleships!

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look up blood and chrome. It shows the BSG in all her armored glory.

Oh yeah!

Who needs all that Pegasus fancy eletronic warfare systems and so when you got Armour, sheer stubbornness, a captain who sounds like he eats gravel and a ton of gattling guns.

If you were unfamiliar with the glories of Commander Adama, this looks like a grammatical error. In fact, it is an accurate description. He does sound like he eats both gravel and gatling guns.

Spoiler:

That's what winning looks like for glorious battleships!

Oh yeah...

Picard wishes he had this much sheer gravel and authority.
Make it so...

Ha....
Il just growl at cylons till they die.

I never liked the new version of the Galactica. It looks like something out of an adult 'novelty' shop. You know, 'ribbed for her pleasure'.

 Vulcan wrote:
I never liked the new version of the Galactica. It looks like something out of an adult 'novelty' shop. You know, 'ribbed for her pleasure'.

Cylon Colony likes that statement lol.

Always loved the Alaska class CB. Kinda of like a mini Iowa.

 LordofHats wrote:
And no one has talked about the grandest of ladies? For same;



The original Enterprise (okay not the original exactly but who cares she's the best anyway )

Grey Ghost > Big E IMO. Saratoga was a goodun ('till we nuked her).

The Acheron battlecruiser is one I have long been partial to. It's a lovely precision tool in BFG:A.

The authorized, but never built, Montana class battleship.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship

It would have had twelve 16" mk7 guns(in four 3 gun turrets. One more turret than the Iowa). The mk16 5" guns originally developed for the Montana class were later re-purposed and used aboard Midway class Carriers.

5 ships were planned. Montana, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, and Louisiana. To this day, Montana is the only one of the lower 48 states to NOT have had a battleship named after it. It would also have been the first ship designed for the US navy that was incapable of navigating the Panama canal.

The Montana class was also notable for being the only US ship approaching the power and armor of the Yamato and Musashi. And the Montana class actually would have had a heavier broadside(14,700 kg vs 13,100 kg) because of the 4th turret. The Montana class would have also been the only ww2 US battleship with adequate armor to face guns of similar power as their own.


Theoretically, this design could be revived in light of Railgun technology, as well as advances in AA technology making aircraft and missiles less viable.

Oh boy where to start. IJNS Houshou has a special place in my heart as the first commissioned ship designed and built as an aircraft carrier (technicly the Hermes was started 2 years before but it didn't get launched and commissioned 'till much afterward). As such I have a particular love for the "Mothership".

DD-450 the USS O'Bannon for it's wonderful use of potatoes against IJN submarines

DD-219 the USS Edsall pictured here doing what it did best (sinking)

DDG-1001 the USS Michael Monsoor, alternatively known as the "great monolith" https://gfycat.com/FilthySociableAfricangroundhornbill

HMS Ark Royal, pictured here doing carrier things

IJNS Nagato an excellent design, but as with all battleships of it's era, a design from a different time. Gotta love that Pagoda mast though.

I read an autobiography from a Brit squadron leader fling corsairs in the Pacific. I believe it was Ark Royal. Didn't it have a steel deck?

British Carriers as a whole had armoured flight decks. There were pros and cons, IIRC on the one hand they were more resilient to damage than their US counterparts, however they were much harder and more labour-intensive to repair when they did get damaged and British carriers as a whole carried a smaller air complement because of the extra weight (HMS Ark Royal carried 54 aircraft compared for example to USS Yorktown's 90). Overall I understand the US carriers are thought to be the better design for the time. I stand ready to be corrected however.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
HMS Ark Royal, pictured here doing carrier things

Spoiler:

Reminds me of one of my favourite political anecdotes.

In the wake of the Argentinian capture of the Falklands, Sea Lord Leach was called in to Prime Minister Thatcher's office to discuss preparations for the response. Thatcher said she wanted Ark Royal sent immediately. Leach replied they can't do that.

'Can't? You do not tell a Prime Minister you can't do something.'

'Madam, we can't. You scrapped her three years ago.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

simonr1978 wrote:
British Carriers as a whole had armoured flight decks. There were pros and cons, IIRC on the one hand they were more resilient to damage than their US counterparts, however they were much harder and more labour-intensive to repair when they did get damaged and British carriers as a whole carried a smaller air complement because of the extra weight (HMS Ark Royal carried 54 aircraft compared for example to USS Yorktown's 90). Overall I understand the US carriers are thought to be the better design for the time. I stand ready to be corrected however.

I think it was less about which was the better overall design, and which better suited each fleet's expected engagements. The US expected to fight in the open expanses of the Pacific, where they either sank the enemy carrier or were sunk. So priority was given to the design that could put more planes in the air.

The British expected to fight in the Mediterranean, or in defense of its colonies around the world. So it expected it was much more likely to fight in places where both the British and their likely enemies would have land based planes as well as carriers. So for the British even if their carriers managed a significant advantage through having more planes in the air and that helped them sink enemy carriers, they could still expect enemy planes to have a chance of landing hits on their carriers. Similarly if they had slightly less efficiency on their carriers and the enemy carriers took an advantage, the British still had supporting planes flying from land bases that could be expected to give a significant advantage.

Horses for courses, really.

The USS Omaha. All three of the old ones and the newly announced fourth. First was an 1896 Algoma class Sloop, the second was CL-4 which was a light cruiser used in WW2, third was SSN-692 which was a los-angeles class sub that served in the cold war, and last is LCS-12 a Independence class littoral combat ship. I like them because I live in Omaha and support the ships of my city lol.

 sebster wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
HMS Ark Royal, pictured here doing carrier things

Spoiler:

Reminds me of one of my favourite political anecdotes.

In the wake of the Argentinian capture of the Falklands, Sea Lord Leach was called in to Prime Minister Thatcher's office to discuss preparations for the response. Thatcher said she wanted Ark Royal sent immediately. Leach replied they can't do that.

'Can't? You do not tell a Prime Minister you can't do something.'

'Madam, we can't. You scrapped her three years ago.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

simonr1978 wrote:
British Carriers as a whole had armoured flight decks. There were pros and cons, IIRC on the one hand they were more resilient to damage than their US counterparts, however they were much harder and more labour-intensive to repair when they did get damaged and British carriers as a whole carried a smaller air complement because of the extra weight (HMS Ark Royal carried 54 aircraft compared for example to USS Yorktown's 90). Overall I understand the US carriers are thought to be the better design for the time. I stand ready to be corrected however.

I think it was less about which was the better overall design, and which better suited each fleet's expected engagements. The US expected to fight in the open expanses of the Pacific, where they either sank the enemy carrier or were sunk. So priority was given to the design that could put more planes in the air.

The British expected to fight in the Mediterranean, or in defense of its colonies around the world. So it expected it was much more likely to fight in places where both the British and their likely enemies would have land based planes as well as carriers. So for the British even if their carriers managed a significant advantage through having more planes in the air and that helped them sink enemy carriers, they could still expect enemy planes to have a chance of landing hits on their carriers. Similarly if they had slightly less efficiency on their carriers and the enemy carriers took an advantage, the British still had supporting planes flying from land bases that could be expected to give a significant advantage.

Horses for courses, really.

It was also a slightly more enclosed design than some and meant in harsh areas like atalantic too, North Sea and other areas.

This was a downside as fires in there could be more intense and harder to fight too, so each class had a advantage and disadvantage in there design layouts.

They had lower and smaller hanger decks than the USN, because of there armoured designs however they provided greater protection for the ship and there planes. Lastly, some RN carriers operated a little more independently than others, and under lighter escort.

Being a a little tougher and stronger armour was a precaution they needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The British approach of armoured flight decks was meant as an effective form of passive defence from bombs and kamikaze attacks that actually struck their carriers, while the American carriers primarily relied on fighters to prevent the carriers from being hit in the first place. In addition, RN carriers such as Ark Royal or Illustrious had far heavier anti-aircraft (AA) outfits than their USN counterparts, up to the introduction of the USN Essex-class carriers. Ark Royal, in 1940, carried 16 x 4.5-inch guns, 32 40mm "Pom-pom" and 32 0.5 inch guns against 8 x 5-inch, 16 x 28 mm and 24 x .5-inch guns for Enterprise, in 1940. "In wartime, however, the US Navy found the armoured carriers fascinating. After having examined HMS Formidable in 1940, the US naval attaché commented that, were he crossing the Pacific, he would prefer her to a Yorktown, the closest US equivalent, on the basis that she might carry fewer aircraft, but she would be much more likely to get there".[22]

In contrast
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck

(In addition to larger aircraft complements, the US Navy had larger fleets and more resources, so they could establish destroyer pickets as part of their "Big blue blanket" defense system, and develop dedicated AAW ships such as the Atlanta-class antiaircraft cruisers which would have also drawn attention away from the carriers.) On the surface, the record seems balanced.

US had stronger combat air patrols, more escorts and dedicated AA cruisers and such.

UK carriers had armoured decks for survivability and heavier armament in there defense.

Balenced... It's one way there. And one the other.

Since those who post in this thread might be interested, I spent last week pawing through the private papers of the First Lord of the Admiralty William Palmer (2nd Earl Selborne), and found a few original photographs taken for naval intelligence purposes. They were done by the generally eminent Charles Ottley before his more famous days whilst in Kronstadt in October 1901. They're of the Russian pre-dreadnought ironclad battleships Pobeda and Peresvet under construction. Both were lost in the war against the Japanese when they were trapped and sunk by 11 inch Japanese siege guns at Port Arthur.

The side casement guns on Pre-dreadnoughts always fascinated me.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Nihon Maru:
(spoilered for size)

Spoiler:

The flagship of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. It was a massive floating fortress. That is totally awesome. Those Korean turtle ships were also awesome, btw.

This is my choice. I love the atakebune in general, as well as the Korean panokseon of the same era. Western ships could also be quite beautiful, some xebecs were among the nicest ships I know of, and who doesn't love a good 16th-17th century galley?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Nihon Maru:
(spoilered for size)

Spoiler:

The flagship of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. It was a massive floating fortress. That is totally awesome. Those Korean turtle ships were also awesome, btw.

A massive floating fortress, leading an armada that got its arse handed to it by Admiral Yi and less than 30 ships (plus a chinese armada at the very final battle who messed up Yi's strategies)

If you are into Age of Sail, and are American you might be interested in the Bonhomme Richard. The ship of John Paul Jones when he battled the HMS Serapis. I believe it may have been one of the first ships to fly the famous "Don't Tread on Me" flag.



I think she sank after the battle with the Serapis, who was sailed away by John Paul Jones as a prize. IIRC.

Yup. He took the Serapis and sailed away with it. That’s also where the famous exchange between the captains occurred.

“Do you give up captain Jones?”

“Give up? I have not yet begun to fight!”

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

IJNS Nagato an excellent design, but as with all battleships of it's era, a design from a different time. Gotta love that Pagoda mast though.

Spoiler:

Pagoda masts are wonderful indeed:

IJNS Fusō

My second-most favourite ship, after Warspite, is the Swedish coastal defence ship HMS Manligheten, or "The Manliness" in English (Swedish ships named after nouns are usually in the definitive form). It's the one ship-name I can think of that manages to out-ham the entire Royal Navy. It looks pretty OK too.



Also, PLEASE spoiler your pictures people. It makes reading the thread on a phone so much less painful .

Why didn’t I say this before? The Arkanaut Ironclad: