RE: Australian Beauties II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

carll11 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/21/2021 12:56:30 PM)

I always thought the Japs had the best all around DD design in a sleek, well armed and speedy Shiratsuyu class, of course the Long Lance made any jap DD a serious contender.

Heres the Shigure ( Summer squall)in 1939 as a nod Capt.T. Hara, who commanded her in all her engagements especially the furious fire away flanagans re; Tokyo Express around Guadalcanal up to 44, not losing a man. His Bio. Jap. Destroyer Captain is imho, a must read.




[image]local://upfiles/33396/A24E0CD3BAE04FAAA6DD6D4039D218D4.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/33396/DF60998D74BE4EF9B6356FB026887096.jpg[/image]



Erik Rutins -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/21/2021 1:18:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Beating South Dakota to my personal no. 1 in the warship dept. is of course the most famous, the most incredible, and - as per the point of this thread - the most beautiful battleship of all time.

HMS Warspite.


She's a grand ship and my favorite British BB. [:)]



Twotribes -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/21/2021 1:26:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carll11

I always thought the Japs had the best all around DD design in a sleek, well armed and speedy Shiratsuyu class, of course the Long Lance made any jap DD a serious contender.

Heres the Shigure ( Summer squall)in 1939 as a nod Capt.T. Hara, who commanded her in all her engagements especially the furious fire away flanagans re; Tokyo Express around Guadalcanal up to 44, not losing a man. His Bio. Jap. Destroyer Captain is imho, a must read.




[image]local://upfiles/33396/A24E0CD3BAE04FAAA6DD6D4039D218D4.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/33396/DF60998D74BE4EF9B6356FB026887096.jpg[/image]

Japanese Destroyers lacked a robust anti air and anti sub arsenal



ncc1701e -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/21/2021 2:33:15 PM)

Another cat killer, the IS-2 tank.

[image]local://upfiles/46661/B7770A8550A44C0DBF3813D0A6773757.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/21/2021 3:53:10 PM)

The best looking battlecruiser in IMHO.

[image]local://upfiles/24234/6814F3525FE242B4BE1D58EEE944D0ED.jpg[/image]



warspite1 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/22/2021 8:39:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The best looking battlecruiser in IMHO.

warspite1

+ 1 billion. You certainly know how to find beautiful pictures Emperor.

The very antithesis of SoDak and Warspite (even in her WWI guise). HMS Hood was startlingly pretty. Like a cat walk model or a mannequin, the perfect body to be drapped in - in Hood's case - some of the finest weapons of war (her 15-inchers). But she was a fragile and ultimately a tragic beauty in the mould of Vivien Leigh.


The most beautiful battlecruiser ever built; HMS Hood
[image]local://upfiles/28156/6CB456A5601549D7B666938FFD0E51EE.jpg[/image]



warspite1 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/22/2021 8:56:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

And a picture of a real beauty. Liked the look of this ship already as a young kid. First WWII ship model I ever bought. And built.

[image]local://upfiles/29130/7FCC1A185DF140EDABAF369451704038.jpg[/image]
warspite1

Battleship or battlecruiser? A difficult one to slot into either category. As a child I always thought of her as a BC, but her small (relative) armament and high levels of protection are the opposite of what a BC should be. So I personally place the Scharnhorst in the BB class - albeit an under-gunned one.

As she first appeared, she would not even make my top 10. But after fitting the Atlantic bow and the capped funnel, the ugly duckling became a swan; a ship of mean and purposeful Tuetonic beauty.

Successful when operating with Gneisenau, these beautiful 'ugly sisters' proved effective. But when they became separated, the successful careers of each came to a sticky end.

Top 5 candidates for the BB-class in my book.

Scharnhorst
[image]local://upfiles/28156/0325375A8C6A40C98AF2B246A3570E3B.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/22/2021 7:14:58 PM)

IMHO, the best looking battleship.

[image]local://upfiles/24234/8CD41D30F87C417290272763BCA7DE38.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/22/2021 7:17:32 PM)

And another view, pre 1944

[image]local://upfiles/24234/9C28D32765A94DD18F49C2DE1F20104B.jpg[/image]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/22/2021 8:23:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

And another view, pre 1944

[image]local://upfiles/24234/9C28D32765A94DD18F49C2DE1F20104B.jpg[/image]

Getting repeatative around here. (See post #24).



ncc1701e -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/22/2021 8:32:20 PM)

Something new then, The Entreprise. The only one.

[image]local://upfiles/46661/2E303C366738400B9B9D0C4896135415.jpg[/image]



warspite1 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/23/2021 11:52:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Gotta rule the waves:

warspite1

With Warspite No.1 and South Dakota No.2, I need to find three more battleships to round out the top 5. Scharnhorst is a contender, and so is Yamato. She certainly has character - with that step in the main deck just aft of her second turret - and bristles with weaponry that is largely housed within a small area of the ship. Definitely another contender.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/8C200A1A922A410BB28AB08D975033F0.jpg[/image]



warspite1 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/23/2021 11:58:57 AM)

One ship that should be a contender for a top 5 place is the Littorio. But there is one feature of this ship that really spoils the asethetic. Her aft main turret is too high up. If she had a fourth turret it would be fine, but she doesn't and so it gives her a slightly odd apppearance....

[image]local://upfiles/28156/6F59682D15C5462980C1E6129EFF81D6.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/28156/9751108BEAFE42BFB81BCC5F2E2D864B.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/23/2021 5:07:10 PM)

Not pretty, but her sister kicked the crap out of Bismarck

[image]local://upfiles/24234/5DC2288AACE84B7998A0760AC04F1200.jpg[/image]



AllenK -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/23/2021 7:51:15 PM)

In honour of a much loved great uncle who served in her. HMS Belfast. Dazzling in dazzle.



[image]local://upfiles/47730/E8F7B6DF687142D18E5B2FBEC99155C1.jpg[/image]



Orm -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/25/2021 9:11:30 AM)

Valiant looking good here. No surprise really. As she is a foxy, younger sister, of a renowned beauty. But who is she followed by?

[image]local://upfiles/29130/5590870A402B447CB2E035AD9EA9DB4E.jpg[/image]



warspite1 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/25/2021 1:05:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Valiant looking good here. No surprise really. As she is a foxy, younger sister, of a renowned beauty. But who is she followed by?

[image]local://upfiles/29130/5590870A402B447CB2E035AD9EA9DB4E.jpg[/image]
warspite1

Richelieu - so presumably in the Indian Ocean?



RFalvo69 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/25/2021 6:43:47 PM)

The Kirov, the most beautiful Cold War warship in my book. And she was armed with everything.



[image]local://upfiles/45341/A44D9B5D25284106862FBA8DB33B910B.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/45341/06AF0F0EA18B48FEB2E566B557A76ED6.jpg[/image]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/26/2021 1:42:02 AM)

Let's correct this oversight:

[image]local://upfiles/14086/7EA847F401534DA3899554D9F468C6CC.jpg[/image]

Sporting 4th Fighter Group colors. (My father's outfit. It was formed from the Eagle Squadrons)



RangerJoe -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 2:40:26 AM)

I want to complain about the nose art on that aircraft. It violates the standards according to the original Australian Beauties thread - wherever that thread is . . .



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 3:07:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I want to complain about the nose art on that aircraft. It violates the standards according to the original Australian Beauties thread - wherever that thread is . . .


On a wargaming board historical accuracy trumps all other considerations. You would no more want aircraft without historically accurate nose art than you would a Tiger II that can't handle a Sherman.



warspite1 -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 11:23:08 AM)

Runner-up to HMS Hood in the battlecruiser category (yes I know they were re-classified before WWII but they were still BC's in my eyes) is Kongo.

Beautiful lines that even the pagoda tower couldn't ruin. In fact the pagoda was actually not bad looking on these ships. The different funnels don't spoil the aesthetic either.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/7A73537F1031479A809ED8C8391E4434.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 12:07:48 PM)

Kongo class Haruna 1916

[image]local://upfiles/24234/E0DF89B308FE4FEABFB48EA8F1799250.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 12:16:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Runner-up to HMS Hood in the battlecruiser category (yes I know they were re-classified before WWII but they were still BC's in my eyes) is Kongo.

Beautiful lines that even the pagoda tower couldn't ruin. In fact the pagoda was actually not bad looking on these ships. The different funnels don't spoil the aesthetic either.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/7A73537F1031479A809ED8C8391E4434.jpg[/image]


Kongo after her first reconstruction after which she was classified as a battleship

[image]local://upfiles/24234/D3A0CCD37704410AB2843A936B21A867.jpg[/image]



Aurelian -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 10:19:33 PM)

One ugly battleship. October Revolution

[image]local://upfiles/24234/C83D032EF9334ECEA06531594019D6AF.jpg[/image]



RangerJoe -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/28/2021 11:50:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I want to complain about the nose art on that aircraft. It violates the standards according to the original Australian Beauties thread - wherever that thread is . . .


On a wargaming board historical accuracy trumps all other considerations. You would no more want aircraft without historically accurate nose art than you would a Tiger II that can't handle a Sherman.


That nose art violates the standards according to the Australian Beauties thread. It does not matter if it is an original or a faked replica, it still violates the standards as set for in the original Australian beauties thread as well as the "Gary Grisbys Next Project???? " thread.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/29/2021 2:57:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I want to complain about the nose art on that aircraft. It violates the standards according to the original Australian Beauties thread - wherever that thread is . . .


On a wargaming board historical accuracy trumps all other considerations. You would no more want aircraft without historically accurate nose art than you would a Tiger II that can't handle a Sherman.


That nose art violates the standards according to the Australian Beauties thread. It does not matter if it is an original or a faked replica, it still violates the standards as set for in the original Australian beauties thread as well as the "Gary Grisbys Next Project???? " thread.

I don't really think you're serious, but the difference is between gratuitous salaciousness for the sole purpose of arousement, and art for the purpose of adherance to historical accuracy.

Great picture no matter what, though!



RangerJoe -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/29/2021 5:19:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I want to complain about the nose art on that aircraft. It violates the standards according to the original Australian Beauties thread - wherever that thread is . . .


On a wargaming board historical accuracy trumps all other considerations. You would no more want aircraft without historically accurate nose art than you would a Tiger II that can't handle a Sherman.


That nose art violates the standards according to the Australian Beauties thread. It does not matter if it is an original or a faked replica, it still violates the standards as set for in the original Australian beauties thread as well as the "Gary Grisbys Next Project???? " thread.

I don't really think you're serious, but the difference is between gratuitous salaciousness for the sole purpose of arousement, and art for the purpose of adherance to historical accuracy.

Great picture no matter what, though!


I am serious and if you want historical accuracy then a better picture to post would the be P-51B "Ding Hao" with its story plus the story of its pilot who was born in then Canton, China, and who had been in a movie plus had been a mercenary.

“He who rides a tiger cannot dismount.”

[image]local://upfiles/52896/2E5B9B308AA44C139362B02D7BB3CBC5.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/52896/0B1D997939FA4265BB6BEC8C8DE6DDC5.jpg[/image]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/29/2021 6:35:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I am serious...


Not buying it. Nice try, though.



RangerJoe -> RE: Australian Beauties II (12/29/2021 7:04:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I am serious...


Not buying it. Nice try, though.


Your choice . . .



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875