My 3 favorites probably are:
1. U.S.S. Alaska. I had been collecting Superior and CinC ships for some time, and had never heard of the Alaskas. I was reading something one day about a DD undergoing trials in the Caribbean, got caught in a hurricane, and "saw the Alaska in the distance." I knew about BBs, CVs, CAs, CLs, DDs, etc., but the name "Alaska" didn't fit into into these lists at all. Took me a while to find out that the U.S. also had two battlecruisers during WWII. MY fleet, however, has four (along with six Iowas and five Montanas). They've all got "snertzy" camo patterns painted on them!
2. R.N. Bolzano. I agree that the Italian ships are beauties. Bolzano is my favorite, though, because of its camo pattern. That one was a real "bear" to paint, & I don't think I could do it now.
3. H.M.S. Prince of Wales. Like the Bolzano, the camo pattern on this ship makes it stand out for me. When GHQ first put out this ship, I painted 5-color patterns on 3 of them; one (the best, of course) for me & the other two for a friend. Incidentally, I've already got Anson, Howe and the Duke - in camouflage. - in my fleet I modified 3 KGVs by cutting off the gegaussing cables, adding small main deck gun tubs (using 20mm tubs from a U.S. ship) and,if I remember right, putting multiple pom poms cut off Queen Elizabeth superstructure deck pieces.
Your 3 fave ships
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
Noble713
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 3:10 am
- Location: Okinawa
IJN Yamato.....no explanation needed with this crowd, I think . 
ROK Sejong the Great DDG (it's like an Arleigh Burke's ** CENSORED ** lines but with more missiles)
HMS Victory (1st-rate ship of the line for some Age of Sail variety, and this is probably the most famous ship of it's type)
Honorable mention: China's new Type 055 heavy DDG might supplant the various Burke-derivative ships as the ** CENSORED ** modern warship afloat.
ROK Sejong the Great DDG (it's like an Arleigh Burke's ** CENSORED ** lines but with more missiles)
HMS Victory (1st-rate ship of the line for some Age of Sail variety, and this is probably the most famous ship of it's type)
Honorable mention: China's new Type 055 heavy DDG might supplant the various Burke-derivative ships as the ** CENSORED ** modern warship afloat.
-
cinctim
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:29 am
- Location: Fort Wayne
1. USN Fletcher class DD's, the 5"/38's, 10 Torpedo Tubes, Speed & Numbers.
2. IJN Shimakaze DD, all those Torpedo, can you imagine if they had built more,
even if the Carrier Squadrons would have taken care of them too?
3. Tied...USN Cleveland class CL's & Baltimore class CA's, not the best possible
designs, but they did the job.
2. IJN Shimakaze DD, all those Torpedo, can you imagine if they had built more,
even if the Carrier Squadrons would have taken care of them too?
3. Tied...USN Cleveland class CL's & Baltimore class CA's, not the best possible
designs, but they did the job.
-
Mikee
- E5
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:32 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Fireball,
If I remember right, the U.S. called the Alaskas "large cruisers" or something like that. I read at one time that the navy didn't want this class, but that FDR insisted on it to match a rumored Japanese class also armed with 12 inch guns. I think they would have been more than a match for the Sharnhorsts, which have usually been called battlecruisers. I wonder how they would have fared against the Kongos.
I read somewhere that the Alaskas cost around 70 million to build, and the Alabamas cost about 77 million. If so, another 10% or so of building funds (per Alaska) could have brought the navy a much more powerful ship. (Ya' know, its tough being nearly 80 yrs. old. I've been reading so much stuff for so long, that I can't remember any more if articles like this were in Naval Institute or Mad magazines.)
If I remember right, the U.S. called the Alaskas "large cruisers" or something like that. I read at one time that the navy didn't want this class, but that FDR insisted on it to match a rumored Japanese class also armed with 12 inch guns. I think they would have been more than a match for the Sharnhorsts, which have usually been called battlecruisers. I wonder how they would have fared against the Kongos.
I read somewhere that the Alaskas cost around 70 million to build, and the Alabamas cost about 77 million. If so, another 10% or so of building funds (per Alaska) could have brought the navy a much more powerful ship. (Ya' know, its tough being nearly 80 yrs. old. I've been reading so much stuff for so long, that I can't remember any more if articles like this were in Naval Institute or Mad magazines.)