Allure of a Battleship Loser ?

The unrealized potential?? It's gotta be all those guns!

Shipbuilderjake

I'm probably going to be opening up "Pandora's Box", but I've never understood spending a good chunk of change on ships like HMS Hood, Bismark, Tirpitz, IJN Yamato and such ? Hood was sunk in less than 20min, Bismark was crippled by a WWI relic, Tirpitz sat in a fjord, Yamato was the only one that went out fighting after sitting around in Tokyo Bay for most of the war. I've just never understood the allure of building one of these kits. Perhaps my youth prevents me from understanding the true greatness of those ships ? What is it that gets everyone going on these kits ? The guns ? The size ? The armor ? Just looking for some better insight ?

One possible reason:

all had sleek lines.

I don't know of anyone who views the British Nelson class in the same way

I think it has a great deal to do with history. I'm no ship builder but I think every one holds at least a bit of reverence for these great ships, whether or not they engaged in a meaningful battle and came out on top. Don't forget, many people died when these ships hit the bottom, so this isn't only an interest in modeling but perhaps a bit of remembrance as well. I think their short history and their storied demises have a great deal to do with people's interest. They were state of the aren't, except maybe for Hood, but they were suppose to be naval war winners but turned into goats. All very compelling stories and overall very fascinating ships, as far as appearance and capability goes.

VanceCrozier

The unrealized potential?? It's gotta be all those guns!

What unrealized potential might look like:

 I think alot of it had to do with their PRE war presence..Before WW2.. the Battleship was THE ship of the fleet and the long reach of that countries diplomacy.. They were feared and dreaded... untill their demise..

I think there's probably a lot of complicated stuff mixed up with battleships. 

I think there are plenty of obvious reasons for their appeal...their size, sleek designs, those massive guns. They look distinctive in a way that, in my opinion, cruisers and destroyers and the like just never will. 

There's probably also some hold over for an obsolete way of war. The only difference between battleships and, say, WWII aircraft or armor is that the tactical reality passed battleships by just as they were reaching the zenith of their perfection. So the best examples never got to play and were for the most part "put down".

The continued relevance of big honkin' guns. The Iowa-class battleships were incredibly effective ships up through Desert Storm. Turns out it was in terms of artillery support, not ship-to-ship ownage, but they were very effective nonetheless.

I did a paper on the New Jersey off the coast of Vietnam when I was in college, and came across all kinds of glowing love from soldiers on the ground, an account of the NJ taking out a few positions that years of air strikes had never touched, and ultimately, a report that the New Jersey's removal from the theater became a precondition for continued peace talks.

Tirpitz...

I'm going to oversimplify for fun, but I think that most models' appeal can be seen as the product of three key factors:

Model Desirability = Looks x Ability x Story

Looks: pure aesthetics, uniqueness, or weird appearance (e.g. Soviet T-35)

Ability: the fastest, the deadliest, the most armored - being among the best at what it did (e.g. Yamato)

Story: did the vehicle type play a pivotal role in a battle/campaign, or did this specific vehicle or ship experience an amazing feat / tragic loss or have some other historical connection (e.g. PT-109)

The most desirable models would combine all three and I think a ship like the Bismark would definitely qualify. 

I'll go in a different direction: Tragedy. The great loss of life on these ships and in some cases, the drama surrounding the hunt and destruction of.

Same case could be said for the Arizona. Not much of a wartime career other then losing the most lives in the Pearl harbor attack.

Well, if we were only going to model winners, I guess that puts the end to German armor and aircraft modeling!

Why build them because they lost? Well...in that line of thinking...why build a Jap Zero or a German Panzer...they lost too? I agree with everyone else...people build tings for all kinds of reasons. I just bought Revell`s Arizona...would you build that one if you had it?

Sprue-ce Goose

 

Shipbuilderjake:

 

I'm probably going to be opening up "Pandora's Box", but I've never understood spending a good chunk of change on ships like HMS Hood, Bismark, Tirpitz, IJN Yamato and such ? Hood was sunk in less than 20min, Bismark was crippled by a WWI relic, Tirpitz sat in a fjord, Yamato was the only one that went out fighting after sitting around in Tokyo Bay for most of the war. I've just never understood the allure of building one of these kits. Perhaps my youth prevents me from understanding the true greatness of those ships ? What is it that gets everyone going on these kits ? The guns ? The size ? The armor ? Just looking for some better insight ?

 

 

One possible reason:

all had sleek lines.

I don't know of anyone who views the British Nelson class in the same way

 

I love the Nelson! The ship "built backwards"! Or something like that?

As a beginner you'd only model what you know. I would not expect someone to pick up the hobby and build a proposed plan Z ship from blueprints. They are all famous for one reason or another, and just like real life being famous has nothing to do with how good a person is at something or is.

Of course as anyone with some number of ships under the belt, these ships quickly get boring and you start to look for the more eccentric things.

Oh..and Yamato was busy enough going here and there, but just never really did much gunnery wise. It pretty much did nothing at the end, too, Musashi however went down like the beast it's supposed to be.  Both were ugly ships that are pretty low on my to-do list, despite with about 4 of the class in my stash.  

What is 'true greatness' in a ship anyway?

You might as well ask why build the Titanic, it sank on it's maiden voyage yet it's sold in every store and has probably been built more times than any other model.

It's the history, the tragedy and the potential of what they could have been and done.

For a historic battle what could have happened if the Bismark had reached the open sea and slipped away from the Royal Navy.

If modeling was only about the winners then there wouldn't be to much to choose from.

MrSquid2U

Sprue-ce Goose:

Shipbuilderjake:

I'm probably going to be opening up "Pandora's Box", but I've never understood spending a good chunk of change on ships like HMS Hood, Bismark, Tirpitz, IJN Yamato and such ? Hood was sunk in less than 20min, Bismark was crippled by a WWI relic, Tirpitz sat in a fjord, Yamato was the only one that went out fighting after sitting around in Tokyo Bay for most of the war. I've just never understood the allure of building one of these kits. Perhaps my youth prevents me from understanding the true greatness of those ships ? What is it that gets everyone going on these kits ? The guns ? The size ? The armor ? Just looking for some better insight ?

One possible reason:

all had sleek lines.

I don't know of anyone who views the British Nelson class in the same way

 

I love the Nelson! The ship "built backwards"! Or something like that?

Heck !

Who doesn't like Uncle Fester or Lurch ?!

It's an interesting question, but I would put it in the realm of the question of why mass cavalry charges are no longer effective, and therefore, why modelers recreate Picton, the Old Guard or the Scots Greys at Waterloo.

History

Valor

Power

Why do people model war machines from the 3rd Reich? Morally objectionable, but subscribe to all of the above.

bondoman

It's an interesting question, but I would put it in the realm of the question of why mass cavalry charges are no longer effective, and therefore, why modelers recreate Picton, the Old Guard or the Scots Greys at Waterloo.

 

 

Manstein's revenge

Tirpitz...

Graf Spee, Lutzow

Definitely the size that makes Battleship appealing.... Yamato is such a favourite among ship modeller.

Jake

 The biggest reason for these ships popularity is the model manufactures desire to make a buck. I built a  model of the YAMATO in 1970 and was fascinated by the history of the ship, and it's design. Up to that point in time the only battleships in the model world was Revell's NEW JERSEY, MISSOURI, BISMARK, and ARIZONA. Airfix had a few Battleships released in the 1950-60's era and Pyro offered a fleet of "table top"  of WWII battleships. I'm sure I've missed a few BB kits here but there were no "large"Japanese kits availible in the US. My Yamato was a massive 33" long and was imported to this country by an American distributer. During this same time period the release of the Japanese "waterline" kits appeared and overnight American ship model builders  had a huge array of new, interesting, non American  ships to model. The foreign kit makers picked up on the line's  success and began to offer American, German and English 1:700 scale capital ships. Tamiya bumped up the playing field by  offering a beautiful model of the Yamato, Missouri and other BB's in 1:350 scale. As nothing suceeds like sucess, other kit makers jumped on the band wagon and big gun ships captured the attention of ship builders everywhere. It's true, ships with guns trump non armed ships both in the market place and at every model contest I've attended.  My only complaint is that people get all excited over the "new" release of(pick one) Bismark, Hood, Iowa class, Arizona, etc. How many different scales of the same ship model are going to be released while other "warships" are often over looked altogether?  Plus the manufacturers keep jacking up the price for a model of a ship that has been released (in different scales) before, it's dejar vu all over again.. My feeling is invest in some new tooling and offer some previously un released ship model. But the "bottom line" prevails and I'm sure we'll see more Yamatos, Bismarks, Hoods, etc. on the shelves of our local hobby shop. As long as builders "Ohh and Ahh" over these types of kits you can expect more of the same, the plastic kit makers play to the crowd, give 'em what they want. Oh boy, a new Fletcher class destroyer model( like I never built that  ship before in my life)....          

One more reason is that they all made the newspapers. The Hood was the symbol of the RN through the 20's & 30's. Her loss and the pursuit of the Bismarck by the entire Atlantic Fleet captured headlines around the world. Likewise the other ships were unsinkable monsters that "our boys" had to destroy or we would be doomed.  When model companies began making ship models in the 50's , those were the first kits they thought of designing because they would sell the best.

Isn't the Titanic another symbol of tragedy? I really think people are allured to dramatic events and tragedy, much like a moth to a lightbulb.

The promise, pride and tragedy of these ships is a big draw, I agree.

Look, for a warship, going into battle, you have to look at it this way--someone has to lose.  So, ships like these are as popular, as those that won battles and survived.

To these battleships, I'd add our carriers lost at the beginning of the war, the Lexington and the Yorktown.  Note that there's not a lot of demand for a kit of the Wasp.  Her end is no less tragic, especially to those who served aboard her and to those who were lost, but she was relatively unremarkable in her brief career, so there's not a storied history to celebrate.

Thunder1,

Please don't forget that Aurora offered bizarre kits of HMS King George V, Yamato, Bismarck, and Graf Spee in the late 1950's and early 1960's.  These kits fetch a lot of money on ebay in spite of their frequently fictional detail.

I became interested in ship modeling in 1960 at the tender age of six years old, when I discovered the Pyro Table Top Navy and heard Johnny Horton sing "Sink the Bismarck!"  Then, I discovered my own family's tradition of naval service and I was hooked for life, serving 24 years and modeling the entire time.

I like the beauty of powerful ships such as Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Yamato, et al.  The apparent latent power shines through on examples of HMS Nelson and the American battleships.  I like them all and I wish the manufacturers would take notice that we need more examples of British and Italian ships.

My love of these ships led me to formally study naval and maritime history and to become a history teacher following my retirement from the USN.

Bill Morrison

I like the way they look in my dispay case.I have built Yamato,Bismarck,POW,Modernized NJ,and Mikasa.Not for historical significance,simply because I like their look.

Models of any kind of ship that didn't explode or sink in some spectacular fashion don't seem to be popular. 

Could it have something to do with the allure of sending your newly built Bismark out onto the pond loaded with firecrackers?

onyxman

Models of any kind of ship that didn't explode or sink in some spectacular fashion don't seem to be popular. 

Could it have something to do with the allure of sending your newly built Bismark out onto the pond loaded with firecrackers?

Mansteins revenge

 

onyxman:

 

Models of any kind of ship that didn't explode or sink in some spectacular fashion don't seem to be popular. 

Could it have something to do with the allure of sending your newly built Bismark out onto the pond loaded with firecrackers?

 

Yes...

 

Or lighter-fluid..........

tigerman

 

Mansteins revenge:

 

 

onyxman:

Models of any kind of ship that didn't explode or sink in some spectacular fashion don't seem to be popular. 

Could it have something to do with the allure of sending your newly built Bismark out onto the pond loaded with firecrackers?

Yes...

 

 

Or lighter-fluid..........

no one tested the " Nickel-Chrome"  armor belt ?