Australian Beauties II

[ncc1701e]

Something new then, The Entreprise. The only one.

[warspite1]

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.

[warspite1]

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....

[Aurelian]

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

[AllenK]

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

[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?

[warspite1]

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?

warspite1

Richelieu - so presumably in the Indian Ocean?

[RFalvo69]

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

[Curtis Lemay]

Let's correct this oversight:



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

[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 . . .

[Curtis Lemay]

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]

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.

[Aurelian]

Kongo class Haruna 1916

[Aurelian]

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.

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

[Aurelian]

One ugly battleship. October Revolution

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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.”

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I am serious...

Not buying it. Nice try, though.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I am serious...

Not buying it. Nice try, though.

Your choice . . .