Stephen Nulty Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 About 20 yeara ago, I was with my late grandmother in Liverpool looking at a ship that was open to the public (its name escapes me). She said "The last time I stood on a warship in this river, it was His Majesty's Ship Rodney, the finest battleship this country has ever made". Two of her brothers served on the commissioning crew and she had been on board as part of an open day in the 1930's. If Rodney's good enough for her, it's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltoro1960 Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 I like HMS Repulse personally, this her 1917 apparently entering the Firth of Forth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 I like HMS Repulse personally, this her 1917 apparently entering the Firth of Forth Looking at that picture REPULSE will take some beating for WW1 era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 That is a very good-looking ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Seymour Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 Repulse or Derfflinger? Undoubtedly - Repulse! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 12 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 12 March , 2007 What`s that white stuff on her anchor? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 Take a look at Renown here, turning in about 2 lengths at a hell of a lick. Handsome is as handsome does - if Titanic could've turned like that, the iceberg'd've been a footnote in the Watch Officer's log... http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/...000/g385067.jpg Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 12 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 12 March , 2007 Why couldn`t Titanic turn that fast? Was its rudder much smaller? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 12 March , 2007 Share Posted 12 March , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Mar 12 2007, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why couldn`t Titanic turn that fast? Was its rudder much smaller? Phil B Renown had 4 shafts and I think 2 rudders, well offset from the centreline - more leverage. Basically it's economics - if you're spending on a luxury liner you'd rather put money into grand staircases and crystal chandeliers than into manoeuvring flexibilty you never expect to need. You don't want shafts going through potential cabin spaces either. A warship designer can skimp on crystal chandeliers (well, maybe one or two for the wardroom ) but all the practical capabilites of the ship have to be as good as they can be - they might save it from destruction one day. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Didn`t the US have any nice ships? Or did those tripod mast contraptions spoil them all? Phil B Here's the USS South Carolina which was the first dreadnought with superimposed turrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Mar 12 2007, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Didn`t the US have any nice ships? Or did those tripod mast contraptions spoil them all? Phil B Nah, it was us that used the tripods. Uncle Sam used a funny kind of basketweave, not (AFAIK) seen elsewhere. See Gyrene's SC above - have to say, it wouldn't get my cigar in any beauty contest, but 'eye of the beholder' and all that... Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 14 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Uncle Sam used a funny kind of basketweave, not (AFAIK) seen elsewhere. MikB Yes, that`s what I meant, a sort of geodetic, basketweave latticework. What did they call it? Must have been a b*gg*r for the matelots to scrape and paint! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 HMS Hood get my vote. Of ships that actually served in WWI, I'll go for HMS Renown & her sister Repulse. Generally, I find German ships to look menacing, American purposeful & British, apart from Nelson & Rodney, elegant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Mr Saunders, any chance of e-mailing me the picture of HMS Repulse? My uncle, last one on my signature, served on her on the China Station in the late 1920's; would be good to have a picture of the ship he was proud of serving on next to his on the sideboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 HMS Hood get my vote. Of ships that actually served in WWI, I'll go for HMS Renown & her sister Repulse. Generally, I find German ships to look menacing, American purposeful & British, apart from Nelson & Rodney, elegant Probably many would agree about Hood. It seems to be important to elegance to have a tall bridge/compass platform superstructure, preferably capped by a racy but spacious foretop. Skulking about in a low armoured citadel like Fritz or Uncle Sam, quite apart from being seriously different from the British way, can only make one despair of how on earth these chaps thought they could see what was going on. No wonder Scheer got his T crossed. And no wonder they went on to build the great towers they used in WW2. The Nelsons may have lacked classic elegance, been difficult sea boats and had limited arcs of fire, but it was Rodney that punched Bismarck's teeth out. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrieduncan Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Interesting thread - the navy has never been something I have been that interested in. Some of the pictures posted have been fantastic. I quite like the look of the Royal Oak personally, but Repulse is hard to beat. Cheers, Barrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Mr Saunders, any chance of e-mailing me the picture of HMS Repulse? I would do but it is actually John Duncan with the original! I just did a "reply" and it posted the pic again. Regards, Jon S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Moretti Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 I'd vote Renown or Repulse for a ship that actually served in WW1, Hood for a ship belonging to the WW1 era (since she was actually designed during it). HMS Vanguard, the last of the Brit battleships, was very nice too (she has Courageous & Glorious's turrets; there's the WW1 link for you). I wonder what the G3 battlecruisers would have looked like, had they been built (artists' impressions are just NOT the same!). Longer, slimmer and more elegant than the Rodneys, that's for sure. And... then there's the ultimate drawing-board battlecruiser. Fisher's dream, the "Incomparable." A thousand feet long and six 20-inch guns - that would have been a magnificent piece of machinery, whatever its design flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffsreg Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 I know not Great War, but the US could build beautiful ships, USS Chicago illustrates my point; Regards, Ivan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 John D and John S, thanks for the picture; much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 14 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2007 How many anchors does Royal Oak have? (Post #41) I must be mistaken but can we see 5 on the one side? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrieduncan Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Looks like there might 2 on each side, so i'd say at least 4 in total - although isn't there usually a spare anchor located on the deck at the bow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 14 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Isn`t there one under the first gun turret? The two at the front looked double to me, but I see they`re not. It was the practice in Nelson`s time to have anchors of differing weights & I thought the one under the turret might be the light one? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 14 March , 2007 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2007 Interesting shot of Iowa:- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted 14 March , 2007 Share Posted 14 March , 2007 The evolution from basketweaves to tripod masts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.29d4195f801e5a5004f52840449366a7.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now