New ship kit releases

The Washington Naval Treaty defined the term "Capital Ship" as having 10" guns or greater. The treaty made no mention of armor, including both battleships and battlecruisers as capital ships.

Bill

warshipguy

Mike,

The designation for heavy cruiser in the USN was "CA" not "CH". Also, I have never seen the "BC" designation for battlecruisers, only "CB" for the U.S. Lexington class.

I forgot to add that Trumpeter has listed a 1/350 USS New York,  BB-34 and a 1/350 USS Texas, BB-35 for release this year.  However, with the delays in releasing some of their other 1/350 kits, I am not really sure if they will come out this year or not.  I would like to build one of these battleships in the  near future......  Heck, I would even volunteer to do a kit review for either of them!

Steve

The closest that the manufacturers have come in 1/700 is the USS Antietam, which is an interesting configuration by itself, but is not the SCB-125 conversion. I believe but am not sure that the SCB configuration can be found in resin in 1/700.

Now, if the Intrepid is followed up by a Midway in any configuration, I will be a happy man!

Bill

That's good news about the angled-deck Essex-class kit - though the price is out of my range.  Why on earth are the manufacturers taking so long to do one in 1/700?

Just to keep things straight, the U.S. Navy did operate a big class of ships called "frigates" during WWII. They were officially designated "patrol frigates" (PF).  They were built by the Maritime Commission (which normally was responsible for merchant vessels).  Many of them were manned by the Coast Guard.

warshipguy

Gentlemen,

To add to the list of upcoming new models, Brandon Lowe at Free Time Hobbies has listed a preorder for a new USS Intrepid in 1/350 scale in her SCB-125 configuration to be released soon, and he has informed me that Dragon will be releasing a 1/350 USS Pennsylvania in her 1944 configuration later this year. What a time to be a ship modeler!

Bill

warshipguy

Gentlemen,

To add to the list of upcoming new models, Brandon Lowe at Free Time Hobbies has listed a preorder for a new USS Intrepid in 1/350 scale in her SCB-125 configuration to be released soon, and he has informed me that Dragon will be releasing a 1/350 USS Pennsylvania in her 1944 configuration later this year. What a time to be a ship modeler!

Bill

Gentlemen,

To add to the list of upcoming new models, Brandon Lowe at Free Time Hobbies has listed a preorder for a new USS Intrepid in 1/350 scale in her SCB-125 configuration to be released soon, and he has informed me that Dragon will be releasing a 1/350 USS Pennsylvania in her 1944 configuration later this year. What a time to be a ship modeler!

Bill

Mike,

The designation for heavy cruiser in the USN was "CA" not "CH". Also, I have never seen the "BC" designation for battlecruisers, only "CB" for the U.S. Lexington class.

CapnMac82

For the 20th Century (even with the aberration f the Washington Naval Treaty years) a handy Rule-of-Thumb is that Cruisers have main batteries under 10"/250mm on caliber.  Battle-cruisers and Battleships have larger main batteries, typically starting about 12"/300mm.

"Light" versus "heavy" cruisers  split at the 7"/175mm dimensions; smaller being "light", and larger being "heavy."  USN dimensions were 6" for CL's, and 8" for CA's.

To split the Battle-cruisers (some folk do not hyphenate, and use "Battle Cruiser" to reflect the "BC" designation some use)  from BB's, one can look at the armor belt thickness.  If the armor belt thickness approximates the main battery caliber, it's safe to call the vessel a battleship.  If it's closer to ha;f the caliber, it's probably a BC.

All that being said, the correct term is what ever the 'owners' call it.  We saw this in the Cold War times when USN called ships smaller than Destroyers "frigates."  While at the same time, the Royal Navy was calling vessels larger than DD's but smaller than CL's "frigates."  This water was muddied even further when the navies created dedicated (mostly) "flagship" versions of Destroyer and Cruisers and called them "Leaders."  Since these were ship classes of their own, it meant the "Leaders" were mismatched to the ships they were to "lead."

The closes we have come to commonality was with ships our good Professor mentions above.  Where the stock Spru-can destroyer hull had one more hull section added (mostly, sorta) to make into a Ticonderoga-class cruiser.   This made the Tico's very much a "destroyer leader" in having a similar suite of sensors and weapons.  All of which changed when we needed to add Aegis to our cruiser fleet to better serve Carrier Battle Groups

Or some such thing.

Gentlemen,

Don't forget about the designation by the British and Soviets of the Invincible and Kiev class aircraft carriers as "Through-Deck Cruisers", a most disingenuous designation to get these ships around budgeting and treaty limitations.

For the 20th Century (even with the aberration f the Washington Naval Treaty years) a handy Rule-of-Thumb is that Cruisers have main batteries under 10"/250mm on caliber.  Battle-cruisers and Battleships have larger main batteries, typically starting about 12"/300mm.

"Light" versus "heavy" cruisers  split at the 7"/175mm dimensions; smaller being "light", and larger being "heavy."  USN dimensions were 6" for CL's, and 8" for CA's.

To split the Battle-cruisers (some folk do not hyphenate, and use "Battle Cruiser" to reflect the "BC" designation some use)  from BB's, one can look at the armor belt thickness.  If the armor belt thickness approximates the main battery caliber, it's safe to call the vessel a battleship.  If it's closer to ha;f the caliber, it's probably a BC.

All that being said, the correct term is what ever the 'owners' call it.  We saw this in the Cold War times when USN called ships smaller than Destroyers "frigates."  While at the same time, the Royal Navy was calling vessels larger than DD's but smaller than CL's "frigates."  This water was muddied even further when the navies created dedicated (mostly) "flagship" versions of Destroyer and Cruisers and called them "Leaders."  Since these were ship classes of their own, it meant the "Leaders" were mismatched to the ships they were to "lead."

The closes we have come to commonality was with ships our good Professor mentions above.  Where the stock Spru-can destroyer hull had one more hull section added (mostly, sorta) to make into a Ticonderoga-class cruiser.   This made the Tico's very much a "destroyer leader" in having a similar suite of sensors and weapons.  All of which changed when we needed to add Aegis to our cruiser fleet to better serve Carrier Battle Groups

Or some such thing.

John,

Thanks for the edifying information. I had a feeling that the armament might be the determining factor in what these ships are called. It just seems a bit strange to me since I've always thought of battleships as the largest (excluding aircraft carriers and submarines) warships with cruisers next followed by destroyers. Always like to learn something new.

Mike

There have been plenty of exceptions, but in general warship types are identified on the basis of their function - not size.  And in pre-WWI days, the most obvious clue to function was armament.  The Varyag had a main armament of 6" guns, and thus a cruiser.  The Tsarevich had a main armament of 12" guns, and thus was a battleship.  

Sometimes things do get confusing.  The modern US Navy's Spruance-class destroyers have the same hull form and dimensions as the Aegis-class cruisers.  Some sources call the WWII Scharnhorst and Gneisenau battleships; some equally good sources call them battlecruisers.  Some WWI British battlecruisers were longer, and had bigger guns than some battleships.  And the Weimar Republic built three warships that it called "Panzersciffe," which had no English equivalent, so the British coined the term "pocket battleship" to describe them.

But if you base your description on main armament gun caliber, you're uhnlikely to be far off - unless you're talking about the post-WWII period, in which case all bets are off.

I guess I'm a bit confused as to the appelations of ships of war. I note that the Russian cruiser Varyag was laid down in 1898 and its lengh was 425' 2". The Russian battleship Tsarevich was laid down a year later in 1899 and was shorter in length at 388' 9" than the cruiser. Can someone elucidate a bit about the relationship between war ships' classifications and their size? I'd be grateful.

The above sizes would translate into 14.577" and 13.328" respectively.

Mike

You have good taste.

A small word of warning.

$76 buys you something about 12" long and 3" wide.

I suppose that doesn't really matter but I am a little surprised at the cost.

Megahobby has the Trumpeter 1//350 Tsarevich (1917) on pre-order for $76.45. They say approximate arrival in August of this year. Here's the link:

http://www.megahobby.com/TsesarevichRussianNavyBattleship19171350Trumpeter.aspx

I now have in my stash the following 1/350 kits: Trumpeter's HMS Dreadnought 1915; Revell's S.M.S. Emden; Hasegawa's HIJMS Mikasa, and Zvezda's Russian cruiser Varyag. I very well may get the Tsarevich just to have a Russian battleship of this period. At my age, with the size of my stash, I must be insane to buy it but....

Mike

For what it's worth, the Tamiya 1/700 Saratoga now shows up as a "coming soon item" on the Tamiya USA website.

My Halfzeimer's-afflicted memory played another trick on me.  The Skywave British escort carrier kit is HMS Tracker.

Wikipedia has a decent article about her.  She did wear Western Approaches camouflage (which is shown in the kit).  Her original air group consisted of Swordfish and Seafires; she later switched to Martlets and Avengers.

Bottom line:  it's a nice kit - and even better with the improved weapons in the Tamiya box.

Sorry about that.

B-17?? That'd be a nice little model in Coastal Command camouflage.

Charger would also have the opportunity for a Western Approaches color scheme I believe.

Edit: belay that. Charger fought the good fight as a training ship in Chessie Bay.

Martlets would be the probable complement.

I think it would be hard to find a Helldiver on a Bogue, but I suppose anything is possible. It's an earlier CVE class. Most of them in the Pacific were ferry vessels. Don't be fooled by decks crowded with P-38s.

Of course these models can be dozens of other ships.

In my last post, my too-smart-for-it's-own-good phone decided to change "CVL" to "Cabal."  Sorry about that.  I've changed it.

jtilley

I've got the Tamiya USS Bogue and the Skywave HMS Charger in my stash.  (The Charger was a Bogue-class CVE sent to Britain under Lend-Lease,). The kits are identical with two interesting exceptions.  The Tamiya kit has a upgraded weapons sprue,  and the aircraft are different.  The Skywave version has two aircraft:  a B-17 and a PBY (presumably helping the ship on convoy escort duty).  The Tamiya one has Tamiya Hellcats, Helldivers, and Avengers.  (I'm pretty sure the SB2Cs are wrong for a CVE.). Otherwise the parts are identical.

I've also got a Dragon Independence.  It's a completely different kit representing a different ship type.  (Cabals were considerably bigger than CVEs.). My vague recollection is that it started out as a Skywave kit; it certainly looks like one.

I don't think my stash is as big as a lot of people's, but it's embarrassing. So many fine kits, so little time....

I've got the Tamiya USS Bogue and the Skywave HMS Charger in my stash.  (The Charger was a Bogue-class CVE sent to Britain under Lend-Lease,). The kits are identical with two interesting exceptions.  The Tamiya kit has a upgraded weapons sprue,  and the aircraft are different.  The Skywave version has two aircraft:  a B-17 and a PBY (presumably helping the ship on convoy escort duty).  The Tamiya one has Tamiya Hellcats, Helldivers, and Avengers.  (I'm pretty sure the SB2Cs are wrong for a CVE.). Otherwise the parts are identical.

I've also got a Dragon Independence.  It's a completely different kit representing a different ship type.  (CVLs were considerably bigger than CVEs.). My vague recollection is that it started out as a Skywave kit; it certainly looks like one.

I don't think my stash is as big as a lot of people's are, but it's embarrassing. So many fine kits, so little time....

Yeah I know but Skywave is in partnership with Trumpeter Like the new Fujimi kits Skywave actually passed Tamiya's kits in quality and parts count. On to the Bogue class carrier that looks like the old DML USS Independence carrier they put out in the 90's.

jtilley

The machinations of kit manufacturers are really beyond sorting out.  I wasn't aware that Skywave had a Lexington or Saratoga - but it doesn't surprise me.  

All I know for sure is that the Fujima and Tamiya versions of the Missouri are completely different kits.  Beyond that I think I'd better keep my mouth shut,

The machinations of kit manufacturers are really beyond sorting out.  I wasn't aware that Skywave had a Lexington or Saratoga - but it doesn't surprise me.  

All I know for sure is that the Fujima and Tamiya versions of the Missouri are completely different kits.  Beyond that I think I'd better keep my mouth shut,

The Tamiya Saratoga according to freetime hobbies show it is in stock but I don't know what it looks like but I can assure you it is not a skywave kit. The Skywave Saratoga is the Trumpeter Saratoga and I have the Trumpeter Lexington and that is the skywave lexington.

I've got the Tamiya 1/700 Missouri and the Fujimi one.  They have absolutely nothing in common.  The Tamiya version, for instance, has a three-piece hull (port, starboard, and bottom), and the deck planking seams are countersunk.  It's a beautiful kit.  I'm pretty certain the Tamiya Shokaku was a completely original tooling as we'll.  (I believe it was reviewed in FSM.).  I'm not aware of any Tamiya ship that's an actual copy of a Fujimi one.  If Mikey knows of one I'd be curious to hear about it.

Some Tamiya kits are reissues (sometimes modified a bit) of older Skywave kits.  Examples include the Bogue-class escort carrier, the German Z-class destroyer, and the British O- class destroyer.

jtilley

If Mikey's right about that, it's disturbing.  That old Fujimi kit was pretty bad - even by the standards of its day.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Tamiya  Shokaku is a completely new tooling - as the Iowa- class battleships certainly are.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  I have real doubts as to whether Tamiya can beat Trumpeter.

If Mikey's right about that, it's disturbing.  That old Fujimi kit was pretty bad - even by the standards of its day.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Tamiya  Shokaku is a completely new tooling - as the Iowa- class battleships certainly are.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  I have real doubts as to whether Tamiya can beat Trumpeter.

jtilley

Surfing around the web I found a couple of announcements of new kits.

Freetime Hobbies is taking pre-orders on a Tamiya 1/700 Saratoga (CV-3).  This seems slightly weird.  I've got the Trumpeter version, and it seems like a mighty nice kit - especially with the addition of any of several photo-etched sets available for it.  Last time Tamiya did an aircraft carrier (the Yorktown [CV-5], it was a disappointing dud:  a very slightly modified version of the company's almost-40-year-old Enterprise.  If Tamiya can do a better Saratoga than Trumpeter, great - but I'm not holding my breath.  Anyway, here's the link:  http://www.freetimehobbies.com/1-700-tamiya-uss-saratoga-cv3-aircraft-carrier/ .

The more interesting release is from Trumpeter:  a 1/350 Russian World War I battleship, the Tsarevich.  You have to give that company credit for picking subjects that modelers wouldn't have dreamed of ten or fifteen years ago.

Trumpeter also is announcing a 1/200 Iowa.  There's no information other than the box art, but it appears to be in the ship's initial configuration (with the open bridge). 

Here's the Trumpeter link:  http://www.trumpeter-china.com/a/en/news/20140411/2633.html .