1/350 ship updates

No idea about the jap stuff you mention, but the latest rumour is that Trumpeter have a 1/350 Nelson/Rodney coming out in 2010!

searat12 wrote:

Just stumbled across this site: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37762&start=0   A couple noticeable things here in the 1/350 column, Hasegawa is apparently coming out with one of my favorite Japanese light cruisers this Autumn, IJN 'Agano,' and Aoshima is coming out with IJN 'Nagara' as well.  There is also talk about the Academy Graf Spee, and Dragon is working on some sort of WW2 American aircraft carrier (hope it is USS Sangamon, or similar!).   Something I never understood about the 'Agano' design; why, after removing all those 6" triple turrets from the Mogami class, the Japanese did not use them as a foundation for the Agano's??  Yeah, I know they DID use a couple of the turrets for the 'Oyodo,' but it would have made much more sense to put them into the 'Agano's'........ Of course, part of the problem was the Japanese concept of using light cruisers strictly as Destroyer Leaders, rather than proper combat units in themselves (and I think it was only the Japanese that did this), but STILL!

You forgot this

Fujimi

Shokaku carrier

Yeah, we talked about the Shokaku in a number of other posts, and it was announced before Christmas.... These are new ship announcements......

warshipbuilder wrote:

No idea about the jap stuff you mention, but the latest rumour is that Trumpeter have a 1/350 Nelson/Rodney coming out in 2010!

I know they have their fans, but really, I think those two must be just about the ugliest battleships ever built!  I wish Trumpeter would crank out a few British (and more American, for that matter!) cruisers!  I guess it will depend on the economy...... Has anyone seen any more about the 1/350 Graf Spee supposedly being produced by Academy?

 With regards to Searat12 website listing, this is what they have come out with:

    Academy Graf Spee confirmed with a Photo of the box art.

   Trumpeter 350 HMS Repulse for May ETA and The PrinZ Eugen with no confirmed date. Also, possibly a 1-35 LCAC.

   Hasegawa is bringing out the Agano in the latter half of the Year.

   Fujimi is to bring out a Shokaku Class Carrier. No further details.

   Fine molds is to bring out a Fubuki Class Destroyer. No further details.

   The Airfix Illustrious os due out later in the Year.

   And finally, a 1-350 Nagara is due out in June/July.

   If all true, it will wet your appetite and will start some serious home extensions.    

  

 

Yes, I have seen the Academy box art for Graf Spee, but it sure looks a lot like a Heller-style box, which leads me to suspect it is mostly a repackaging of an expanded Heller Graf Spee.  I guess we will just have to wait for more info to come out.... I wonder how many of these 'announced kits' will actually make it to the shelves?

We can now officially discuss Dragon's upcoming 1/350th Plastic Gearing class destroyer.

1945 Pacific fit.

And??? How is it significantly different from the USS Buchanan, for instance?

Tracy White wrote:

We can now officially discuss Dragon's upcoming 1/350th Plastic Gearing class destroyer. 1945 Pacific fit.

Now you've got me listening, when is this happy event coming? This is one that I will love to see, there were so many different versions of them. I spent a  little time on the USS Theodore E. Chandler, DD 717. There were a few idiosyncracies that I remember on that tin can like the fifty cals on the bridge wings and the herculite railing trim on the upper works.

They all look very similar to me. Sumner, Gearing, Fletcher, Livermore.

Which are the two which have the most differences in terms of physical appearance?

It's a bit like many of the RN ones. Apart from either 1 or 2 funnels, and slight differences in length/beam, all the classes look pretty much the same.

How much in-depth knowledge would you need in order to tell any two of these apart if they were put on a shelf next to each other but unnamed?

I tyhink these all look a lot alike too, with various modifications made at different times of the war (more AA late, etc).... Still, it's better than nothing!  Probably the best way to make them distinguishable is different camo paint schemes (and certainly there is a LOT of variation there!).

warshipbuilder wrote:

How much in-depth knowledge would you need in order to tell any two of these apart if they were put on a shelf next to each other but unnamed?

Well hey, if all you need to think one ship is another is the hull number then you're not going to care much.

Searat, in response to your question, all I can say is "um... dude, it's a different class of ship???"

Twin 5" mounts (turrets if you prefer) instead of singles, larger hull, different superstructure,the possibility of FRAM'd ships that served into the 1970s, and foreign-flagged ships that were around into the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gearing_class_destroyer

http://www.destroyerhistory.org/sumner-gearingclass/gearingclass.html

Some guys can't tell the difference, and if you don't care, more power to you. But for those of us who do, this is a Good Thing. (TM)

Tracy White wrote:

warshipbuilder wrote: How much in-depth knowledge would you need in order to tell any two of these apart if they were put on a shelf next to each other but unnamed? Well hey, if all you need to think one ship is another is the hull number then you're not going to care much. Searat, in response to your question, all I can say is "um... dude, it's a different class of ship???" Twin 5" mounts (turrets if you prefer) instead of singles, larger hull, different superstructure,the possibility of FRAM'd ships that served into the 1970s, and foreign-flagged ships that were around into the 1990s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gearing_class_destroyer http://www.destroyerhistory.org/sumner-gearingclass/gearingclass.html Some guys can't tell the difference, and if you don't care, more power to you. But for those of us who do, this is a Good Thing. (TM)

Hear! Hear!

You are right, I have stepped on my weinie!  I was thinking in terms of the Gleaves/Laffey, etc.  Gearing is quite a different ship, more akin to a Fletcher, but with double mounts 5" guns...... Apologies to all!

No worries!

And to be clear, I'm NOT disparaging those who don't care about the details so much... I don't try and dictate how people enjoy their hobbies.

There's some good stuff in the pipeline.

subfixer wrote:

Tracy White wrote: We can now officially discuss Dragon's upcoming 1/350th Plastic Gearing class destroyer. 1945 Pacific fit. Now you've got me listening, when is this happy event coming?

 

"Dragon Models have announced that they are in the advanced development stages of releasing their 1/350 USS Gearing 1945 . This is extremely exciting news if the price and options are similar to the most recent Dragon Models Buchanan/Benson/Gleaves releases. It will be doubly exciting if Dragon Models maintain their previous business practice of releasing further versions.

Precise details as to the kit details, availability and price are yet to be confirmed by Dragon Models"

http://www.modelshipwrights.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5006

 

If you want up-to-date information on the Gearing I would recommend checking ModelWarships.com as several of the team members who are working on the project are active there an dthe news is most likely going to go public there first. In fact, there is a link to the test shots here.

Photos of an assembled test shot have now been posted on ModelWarships! Looks like a beauty!

Sweeetttt!!!! Hope Dragon also produces a 50's version and some of the FRAM versions. 

I just saw in the March issue of Model Magazine International  a pic of a NEW 1/350 Tamiya "Mogami"...sweet looking...

Yeah, I'm looking forward to getting one, as I have always been fond of Tamiya kits.... gotta make some more money first though (curse the economy!!!!)!

 Now if we could just get some british carriers, besides the airfix illustrious.

Yup... HMS Ark Royal at a minimum!  Personally, I rather like the more whacky British carriers (kinda like some of the Japanese carriers, really!). HMS Eagle is a good one, as is HMS Hermes and HMS Furious....

 Dont forget HMS Glorious Searat. I wouldn't mind seeing 1-350 Kiev for the Modern at heart. Maybe and Independance Class light carrier or one of the jeep carriers from WW2. To throw another couple Ships into the mix HMS Fearless or Intrepid from the RN in the 1960's. They would look great with their rear launching wells opened up with a few barges thrown in a diorama. AAAHHH!!! The fun of dreaming.  

Academy 1/350 Graf Spee - from their 2009 catalogue - Says it's 'New Tooling'.

I sure hope so..... Let me know when one appears 'in the flesh!'

 Hey SEARAT ! the reason the japanese didn,t do what you suggested is made clear in a book I just finished . The design was so squirrely that they,re ships , well MOST of them had STABILITY problems from the git-go . The treaty ,(of which japan was not a signatory ) limited size (tonnage ) and that was a trick to overcome . Less armorplate would allow more and HEAVIER guns , Then if hit they had a nasty habit of rolling over after being hit hard . They also were very WET ships and had the same problems with the forward batteries as the germans did . Yes, the bismark and others were handsome warships ,as were many of the japanese ,but they had these fatal flaws , The english had problems to ,in sacrificing armor in certain areas  (the HOOD ) they had virtually NO protection against falling shot .         tankerbuilder

Well, there is something in what you say, as the Japanese did have stability problems with a number of their heavy cruiser designs.  However, by the time the Agano's were conceived, these issues had been dealt with quite effectively (as in the Tone class), and were never really that much of an issue with their light cruiser designs, even the earlier ones.  Also, treaty obligations meant nothing to the Japanese by the time the Agano's were in the design and production phase, so they could be any size or shape they wanted (they were building the Yamato's at this point, and had already completed the Mogami-class cruisers with the triple 6" turrets).  As far as rolling over, I have never heard of any Japanese cruiser rolling over in any seas, or in any battle either, though there was a typhoon that revealed structural issues with a number of the larger ships (particularly in welding) that happened in the early '30's.  The Japanese heavy cruisers WERE wet boats forward in heavy seas, but this was really only an issue up in Alaskan waters, and certainly never affected the combat performance of any Japanese cruiser in any of the battles they participated in, nor was this an issue with their light cruisers.  In other words, there was NO good technical reason why the Agano's could not have been designed to be equipped with the former 6" turrets of the Mogamis..... As far as the German ship designs are concerned, that is a wholely different kettle of fish, and don't even start me on the issues of British battlecruisers...

One of the reasons that may have cropped up about the stability of Japanese Heavy Cruisers would undoubtably have a lot do with their low freeboard and their pagoda style bridges. Some of the earlier heavy cruisers were very top heavy. the design evolution goes back even to 1920's. Japanese Naval Architecs had a happy nack of trying to cram to much into some of the light cruiser hulls similar to the Nagara. On one occassion, A Light Cruiser from that period turned turtle because of that design feature. Maybe, that is where these origins came from about Japanese Heavy Cruiser Stability.