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.
Again, I have not heard or read about any Japanese cruisers ever capsizing, though the torpedo boat ‘Tomozuru’ did, and because of this, one of the primary Japanese warship designers (Admiral Fujimoto) was sacked, and many Japanese heavy cruisers were modified by the addition of hull bulges to improve stability (and of course, the ‘Mogami’ class had to be almost entirely re-built because of bad welding). The big problem was not so much the original designs, but the General Staff kept insisting on additions in weaponry that overloaded the heavy cruiser designs. The addition of hull bulges solved this problem, though it did slow the ships down by a knot or two (these were extremely fast ships in their day, with top speeds approaching 35 Knots!). I have not heard of the same complaint regarding Japanese light cruisers regarding stability, and they were never bulged.
Where Japanese light cruisers fell short was in armament and armor, but that was because these ships were not envisioned to fight as warships like those in the West, but to act as leaders of destroyer flotillas (basically, ‘super destroyers’ of a size sufficient to carry the additional command staff needed to direct a flotilla of destroyers). To the best of my knowledge, the only Japanese light cruisers that had much of a chance as a warship ‘standing in the line’ with heavier ships were the modified ‘Oi’ and ‘Kitakami,’ which were rearmed with some 40 ‘long-Lance’ torpedo tubes (and never was such a ship more needed than in the Guadalcanal campaign, but instead, these ships were kept in Indian waters the whole time!!)…
Waiting for that LHD WASP class to come out.
Hello searat12 as a former tin can sailor I personnaly can tell you ther,s a whole world of difference between a FLETCHER , GLEAVES , SUMNER and GEARING . The GEARING I was on , the U.S.S. OZBOURN D.D.846 was a GEARING LONG HULL . (yes, there were even hull length differences ) I would say probably wartime and almost postwar . The OZZIE was the epitome of the design . She had (originally) 4 five inch 38 twin mounts . She had 40 mm. antiaircraft mounts(6) and (4) 50cal. Two stacks between which was a five shot torpedo launcher . Aft at the fantail SHE had two depth charge racks .Aft of midships ,port and stbd were (4) k guns which I never saw fired . Forward on the 01 deck and slightly aft of mount two ,port and starboard were two hedgehog launchers . We carried two motorwhaleboats . Then came FRAM (LOSE mt 2 and 3 ,torpedo launcher and ALL the antiaircraft weapons . Between the new heightened stacks an ASROC launcher and command ctr . Aft at 01 level ,twin helo hangar ,flight deck and retractable refueling system .And you shoulda seen the NEW enlarged c.i.c. and radar array . This ship was still a GEARING and the new stuff seemed to exacerbate her worst habit , which was to roll port or stbt and right sharply with a corkscrewmotion in heavy seas . She was stricken and sold to argentina and rechristened as the ALMIRANTE BRION after that I lost touch with my seagoing home (my first one ) tankerbuilder
hey searat12 do you think that anyone is ever going to do a H.M.S.RODNEY in 1/350 ? I would like to see that one because of their unusual gun and deckhouse arrangement . Plus ,if you looked at the RODNEY and her sister from dead above they looked exactly like big watermelon seeds in their shape . tankerbuilder
I haven’t heard anything definitive about HMS Rodney and Nelson yet, just rumors from Trumpeter (in my view, both REALLY ugly ships, and the ‘Richelieu’ is a much more elegant solution to produce the same effect!), but as for the destroyers you mentioned earlier, I did indeed admit my mistake and (temporary!) historical slackness to Tracey White, which you will note if you scroll back far enough…
tankerbuilder, according to navsource, ozbourn is same length as gearing & had same number of 5" turrets at 3. even shows a broadside of her with the 3 turrets. i don’t think none of the gearings had 4 turrets because weight.
I actually like the appearance of HMS Nelson and Rodney, and would very much welcome their appearance in 1/350 (full hull) scale. I never really appreciated waterline kits. And, I don’t think that Richelieu has the same visual effect as the British ships; Richelieu’s funnel is downright hideous and the three forward turrets in the Nelsons is very unique among battleships.
Bill Morrison
I can see your point about the Richelieu’s funnel, perhaps I shoud have suggested the ‘Dunkerque’ instead! If you like HMS Rodney, you must REALLY like IJN Tone!
Tone is okay but not my favorite. I agree with Dunkerque/Strasbourg . . . they are most attractive ships. But, if it were up to me, there would be a 1/350 full hull model kit of every battleship/battlecruiser/heavy cruiser in every possible configuration. That is probably why I would be a failure as a business executive!
Bill Morrison
Ha ha!! Yeah, it IS tough to decide ‘where to draw the line’ and establish production priorities, and that’s a fact!! No matter WHAT ship you might want to ‘push to the back of the queue,’ there is always SOMEONE that is a particular fan of that ship, and will not be convinced otherwise! So Touche’! I hold myself humbled!