Old versus New

[dreadnought]

I have always been more impressed and in awe of the pre-radar dreadnoughts regardless of which masts they have. Seeing massive tripods or cages towering over hulls, guns and sailors to me ...is far more impressive than those mundane looking towers of the North Carolinas on up. Everyone always seem to make a huge stink about the Iowas and the Yamatos ...I am more impressed with Jellicoe's & Scheer's dreadnoughts and Beatty's & Hipper's Battle cruisers. Long columns of steel castles lumbering along and belching swirling cones of thick black smoke on the high seas. Massive rows of high tripod or cage masts defying the wind as they flutter a mass of signal and identification flags from their many halyards. Heavy grey hulls dipping in and out of swells, waves breaking on and over bows as massive heavy calibre guns train mercilessly on distant targets barely visable with the naked eye ....now to me, thats what being a dreadnought enthusiast is all about!

What about all you battleship gurus? What do you prefer?

[Timmy C]

I like the newer ones, just purely because everything looks much more centralized and streamlined. With them pre-radar dreads, the tall tripods/cages stick out and makes it look bumpy and slow.

[ArizonaBB39]

I like them both, but I voted for early Cage/Tripod Masted ships. I just love the American Drednought ships Nevada-Colorado class ships are my favorite, followed by Iowa Class, then the others. Especially the Pennsylvania class ships. I'm building (slowly, very very slowly) a 1/192 USS Arizona with her Tripod masts, I've given thought to doing a couple versions of her, cagemasted included! Currently my background on the computer is this: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013911a.jpg

[GWB]

I like em all, Flat tops too!!!!

Marty

[Werner]

I certainly like Arizona in her original fit, before she dressed in gray English worsted wool (tripods).

I would have to say that the 1914 edition of Jane's shows them to be majestic and powerful looking warships, especially compared to some of the more cluttered European designs.

W

[C T]

Gentlemen,
The preradar ships had a flair to them. Be it tripod or caged those masts gave the ships character.
C T

[Filipe Ramires]

I choosed both types of battleships but that also depends of what Navy does the battleship belong!!!!
Flatops!?!?! Sunk them all!!!

[Gone Asiatic]

You should have included one more selection in your poll following the "Flat Tops" choice:

CRUDES RULE!!

[Anonymous]

Always thought cage masts looked just a little flimsy, but having said that, I've never met a BB that I didn't like..

[Tracy White]

I have to agree with Marty on this one. I like the Arizona's tripods and the Iowa Classes look... AND flattops!

So put me down for all of the above.

[zach b]

definately before all the anti aircraft clutter, and dainty fragile radar. I like the stripped down look. Only one mission, sink the enemy with guns.

Flat tops have no character.

[JH]

The sleek lines before the Radar era of box like ships and AA guns for exampe like the Hood in early fit or even the early nelson.



JH

[Rob]

Predictably, I voted for the older variety even if I'm not such a fan of basket masts as they are a pain to model and don't have enough rigging.

Give me a Radeztky class, an Orion class or a KEVII class any day!

Cheers,

Rob

[Dave Wooley]

I have my moments and now its carriers. I suppose it depends on the type of ship I'm building or about to build {KIEV}. But I have a long term interest in the Victorian navy particularly the Royal Sovereign and Majestic and the early armoured cruisers such as the Orlando class, Blake�s, Edger�s and Powerful and Terrible. But the paradox is I also find the stealth features of the latest generation of warships such as the Burke's and the Type 45s very interesting. In a nutshell if it�s a warship then it�s got my vote.
Dave Wooley

[RNfanDan]

I popped for pre-radar (which then, led the poll) but I am not much on the "bookend" years---before 1911 and after 1942. I don't mind some radars, especially those of British patterns like the 271 "lanterns", but not the wind-rakes like CXAM and German FuMo mattresses.

Cage masts? OUT! Even the BB's with reversed tripods (like those of Arizona/Pennsylvania) looked better than with the hideous cages, which thankfully were replaced.

Ships buried under piles of AA and radar fittings? OUT! Clean, graceful lines tend to conflict with bristling radar and AA weapons, like overgrowth on a Mayan temple.

Tripods are okay, towers not bad, but each has examples both ugly and pleasing. What I really like, are the symmetrical bridge designs of Nelson/Rodney, the reconstructed Idaho class (esp. USS New Mexico), Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Warspite, and the KGV's.

Combination block/tower designs such as those of Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Yamato/Musashi look good, too.

The last battleship, Vanguard, doesn't do much either way for me.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Prefer battleships to carriers.

Prefer WW2 Battleships to WW1 ones

and I don't like all Navies Battleships, and the catagories chosen above really describe USN ones which I don't like in any period.

Give me a tripod mast any day over caged or pole ones.

I prefer Tower bridges also, so Nelson class, Renown reconstructed and the KGV class for me are my faves there, not as keen on Vanguards one.

[JWintjes]

Pre-radar dreadnoughts for me, please; in that respect, Iron Duke is among my favourite WW2 BBs...

Jorit

[Mark Petersen]

The pre-radar ships with their tripod masts, range clocks, long baseline range finders, less clutered hulls being derift of multiple small caliber AA weapons just seem more manly and workmanlike. They scream WARSHIP not weapons system. Although in fact that is what they were.

[bengtsson]

So sue me! I voted carriers. But that only means in a World War II context. As for any other period. Give me the Grand Fleet in 1916 and the High Seas Fleet too. Tiger, Warspite, Orion, Lion, Derfflinger, Sydlitz, K�nig, How could it ever get better than that ??

Bob B.

[MichelB]

The castles of steel of the First World War have a majesty and awe-inspiring radiance that no ship after or before can match.