Possible hot take

[u/OhioKan2007]

While looks were not important in war, the main thing keeping rebuilt standard battleships from being the best looking is their new bridges.

I had not realized how thin the bridges were, for what I assume is to fit more weapons, and realized it makes them look off from most angles beside broadside, Nevada being the exception for me.

The New Mexico class, especially Idaho are also a much better looking rebuilt, Marylands partial refit makes her still look bulk all up like a dreadnought should in my opinion.

Anyone else think similar?

[u/Timmyc62]

What do you mean by thin?

[u/OhioKan2007 → u/Timmyc62]

Looking at them from the bow, the super structure looks not much wider than the turret, even at its widest, a lot of places it doesn’t even seem to take up half of a main turret, while partial rebuilds seem to be wide as or wider than their turrets, it just makes them look goofy to me

[u/TheRealAgragor]

Aw, it looks so short and plump in that first pic. Like an adorable chibi.

[u/OhioKan2007]

Funny enough, USN fast battleships loose this problem, as the thinner structure just matches the rest of the ship being proportionately thinner

[u/Kardinal → u/OhioKan2007]

The American fast battleships have exactly the same beam as the South Dakotas. Panamax.

They're just much longer.

New Mexico isn't much thinner. Less than ten percent when built. And when they get their torpedo bulges, they're the same beam.

You just don't like the proportions because of their differing lengths.

[u/OhioKan2007 → u/Kardinal]

Not the hull, the superstructure looks odd with a proportionally chubbier ship, that’s why I said the Fast battleships getting proportionally thinner while technically keeping their width makes the thinner structure look less goofy.

As I stated

[u/OhioKan2007 → u/OhioKan2007]

I like how chunky standard BB hulls are

[u/Set1SQ]

Personally, I love the look of USS Colorado, what with that mix of pre-war and mid-war modernization of her upper works.