GHQ Models Forums

Personal Opinion of 2009-2010 Micronaut Schedule

I didn’t do very well this time. Not a single one of the top twelve on my wish list made the schedule. Some of the scheduled releases are of very little interest to me.

On the other hand, there are some interesting items on the list that I will certainly get. Besides that, the list of ships that I already intend to purchase from GHQ will take years to complete on my entertainment allowance. Maybe by the time I’m finished with that, GHQ will have fulfilled some of my wishes.

Here are some personal comments on the individual 2009-2010 Micronauts:

GWS5: DD Cassin class – This is not a bad choice, but somewhat disappointing considering the many British and German destroyer classes that saw much more combat (including the all-important Battle of Jutland) and have not yet been produced. Although some of the Cassin/O’Brien class ships did see action in combating U-boats, they were never involved in a major surface battle.

GWS6: BB-22 Minnesota (Connecticut class) and
GWS8: BB-38 Pennsylvania – I am puzzled by the choice of these two classes before producing BB-26 (South Carolina) and BB-36 (Nevada). Although none of these four classes saw combat in the Great War, BB-26 and BB-36 were historically much more significant. BB-26 was one of the first “all-big-gunâ€￾ battleships and BB-36 had the first “all-or-nothingâ€￾ armor scheme. I will certainly purchase some of the Pennsylvania but the Connecticut class is far in the future if at all.

SUN6: CA Maxim Gorkiy and
UKN42: CA Canberra – These are definitely on my purchase list. I would have preferred Hipper, Pola, Modified Fiji, or Indianapolis but I will be satisfied with these two cruisers for the time being.

GWR6: BB Imperator Pavel – Not near the top of my list, but at least interesting because they did take part in combat during the Great War. Perhaps I will do something hypothetical with this, the Connecticut class, King Edward class, and Pommern class.

GWS-7: CS-1 Chester – This is a really puzzling choice. Even the US Navy considered these ships as having little worth by the time of the Great War and their only combat was as targets for German submarines. As with the Cassin class destroyers, I would have preferred one of the many British and German classes of light cruisers that engaged at Jutland and have not yet been modeled. (One of which was named “Chester.â€￾) By the way, Chester was never identified as “CS-1.â€￾ The term “scout cruiserâ€￾ had gone out of use well before the US Navy started using two-letter designators for its ships. When the system was introduced, Chester was “CL-1.â€￾

GWR7: AC Rurik – This is the only one of the ships on this year’s list that I had evaluated as a “10â€￾ in its group. It didn’t make my top 12 list because I’m more interested in WWII than in the Great War.

UKN43: DD V-W classes – My evaluation of this offering is going to have to wait until I can determine the specific version(s) included. I would hope for one each of the WAIR, long-range escort, and short-range escort conversions. The worst case for me would be three of the unmodified versions. Even these would be useful to me as they could be used for either late in the Great War or during WWII.

GWB26: CV Furious – Since this is identified as a “CVâ€￾ it seems to exclude the all-gun version originally designed but never completed. As a CV, it could appear with a forward flying-off deck and single 18â€￾ gun aft or with separate landing deck aft and forward flying-off deck. The later version with a full-length flight deck appeared only long-after the end of the Great War. Neither of the war-time versions is especially interesting to me; they were both ugly and ineffective. The all-gun version and the post-war version appeal to my taste for the weird.

GWR8: CL Aurora (Pallada class) – This is a moderately appealing item for me. Ships of this class did see significant combat and Aurora is historically important. Although not one of my favorites, it is definitely a better choice than the US Chester.

USN85: CVE-26 Sangamon – Since I am more interested in gaming surface warfare, aircraft carriers are not high on my wish list. [Choice of the Sangamon class seems a bit unusual because they served primarily in the Atlantic. Therefore, their combat was pretty-much limited to anti-submarine activities.] {I need to make a major correction here. My initial memory of the Sangamon class combat history was badly in error. All of the ships of this class experienced significant combat, both during Operation Torch and in the Pacific. For example, Sangamon herself was at Tarawa, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Saipan, Guam, Leyte, and Okinawa in addition to the North African invasion. Sangamon received eight battle stars during the war and all of the other ships of this class received more than eight. It seems that the Sangamon class was a good choice after all.} If I were to pick an escort carrier to model, it would be the more numerous Bogue class. Then, it could serve as a British Ameer or Attacker.

It looks like the fans of post-WWII ships get disappointed again. Although it’s not my time of interest, I feel that there is justification for those suggesting ships from the Falklands/Malvinas conflict.

Outside of my area of Micronauts, I would like to comment on two other items:
- I really think there should be a Microarmor model of the Matilda I.
- Why shouldn’t GHQ make a line of hypothetical 1946 German fighting vehicles? After all, we Micronaut types have Graf Zeppelin and H-39. (How about some Z-1944 destroyers to escort these ships?)

Well, that’s it for now. Looks like Maxim Gorkiy, Canberra, Pennsylvania, and the V&Ws go near the top of my shopping list. The rest get relegated to the long stack of “after I get everything else I want.â€￾

Hey Don - nice summary! By the way, the Furious went back to the builder's yard in December of 1917 and emerged in March 1918 with flight deck aft and flying off platform forward, and no 18" guns. Since she never saw active service with the aft 18" gun turret (only trials) she will probably be built as she appeared in March 1918. In this configuration she saw combat in June against a pair of seaplanes, in July she raided the Zeppelin sheds at Tondern and then saw service in the Baltic in 1919.

Canberra should be good for three ships - herself, Berwick and Cornwall. Maxim Gorky should be good for four - herself, Molotov, Kaganovich, and Kalinin.

I myself am very glad to see Canberra and the V/W's make the list. Now to lobby for some of the others that made the top spots in your survey from the past year. Was surprised to see not one of the big German ships get picked. I think this year was the end of the initial build-up for USN and Russia for WWI and Soviets for WWII. I'm thinking we're going to see no new fleets for 2009-2010 and some of the most wanted getting filled in. Then perhaps 2010-2011 will see Italy WWI and Austria WWI. Who knows!

Chris

Gentlemen:

Only a couple of my wants were on the '08 - '09 Micronauts list, but I'm pretty happy with what came out. However, I love to talk, so here are a few comments:

My reprint of Janes WW I book appears to list the launching dates for many ships. These dates seem to indicate the following:

1. DD Cassin was one of the "1000 Tonners," the group of DDs built just before the Four pipers, a class that GHQ has already produced.

2. Rurik and Aurora were the most recently-built Russians of their type before WW I, and

3. CS-1 Chester was the most recently-built pre-WW I U.S. cruiser.

If this is right, it looks like GHQ was following a pattern of choosing the most recently-built ships of their type (considering that Cassin was the most recent unmodeled DD, since the four pipers were already available) to accompany with their BBs.

The Minnesotas and Imp. Pavels also follow GHQ's pattern of providing one pre-dreadhought class for each WW I fleet.

GHQ has been concentrating on the Russians/Soviets. Maxim Gorky is the perfect fill-out for the Soviet Fleet. If they continue this line, I would expect to see the Type 7U DDs in a year or two. I'd lose no sleep if the Soviets never appeared, but I have brought sets of each ship - and will buy the new ones. Don't know when I'll get around to assembling and painting them, but that'll come.

Nearly all of their new ships seem to follow some plans. Only Furious doesn't, and that may only mean that they thought it was too weird NOT to model. I kinda hope that they do the first version with one 18" turret, but I don't expect that they will.

The Canberras and V-Ws are important UK classes. The English have so many classes of cruisers and DDs that GHQ will probably be releasing one or two a year for the rest of eternity.

The only '08 - '09 model I may not buy is the U.S. Sangamon class. Just last year I painted four of them - two in Ms 17 and 32 patterns. I really don't want to have to do them over so soon, even if they do look better than what I have. OTOH, I have no complaint about them coming out this year.

It'll be fun to see if I can predict what they'll come up with in '09 - '10. If I were to guess right now, I'd expect the following: 1 or 2 U.S. WW I BBs, Soviet type 7U DDs, a Russian WW I DD/TBD (if there were any), an English CL, and possibly a U.S CVE, (probably Bogue) if the Sangamons sell well.

My crystal ball is clouding up, so I'll have to close this up and start some deep thinking.

Mikee

My feedback to Mikee's 2009-2010 Micronaut predictions:

The prediction of one or two US WWI battleships seems reasonable. I am rooting for South Carolina and Nevada.

The Soviet type 7U destroyers also seems a reasonable choice. I would like to see these. Other choices for a Soviet WWII warship include the weird heavy cruiser Krasnyi Kavkaz, the beautiful destroyer leader Tashkent (unfortunately, only one completed), and the late war Ognevoi (Project 30) class destroyers. All these are also on my want list.

The Russians certainly did have destroyers during WWI. GHQ already produces the Type 4 (Lt. Ilin, Orfei, Gavril class). The Novik (later identified as Type 1) was recognized as the most powerful destroyer of its time. Unfortunately, only one was built. There were six to nine of the Type 2 (Beshokoiny class), Type 3 (Izyaslav class), Type 5 (Gogland class), and Type 6 (Kerch class)

Since GHQ already produces a destroyer class, I am inclined to predict that their next GWR release will be a light cruiser; probably the Svetlana class. This would also be useful for WWII gamers, as several survived (essentially unchanged except for addition of AA guns) to the 1940s.

I agree that a British light cruiser is a good possibility. There are several good choices for both the GWB and UKN series. For WWI, one of the "C" class or Chester (Birkenhead class) would be nice. For WWII, I would like to see a Modified Colony class, Scylla & Charbdys, Enterprise & Emerald, Delhi (unfortunately, only one converted), or an unconverted "D" class. There are also several Kent class heavy cruisers that have not yet been modeled in their wartime appearance.

A CVE is likely and Bogue sounds reasonable. Another possibility is the British Colossus class light carriers.

The above add up to six items (seven if there is both a WWI and a WWII British cruiser). Recently, GHQ has been releasing about twelve items per year. What about the other six (five)?

As Mikee mentioned, GHQ has now produced armored cruisers for the Germans, British, and Russians. The US Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, CA-4) class or Tennessee (Memphis, CA-10) class would seem to fit into this pattern.

Another possibility for Great War models is that GHQ starts producing French, Italian, and/or Japanese ships. Bretagne or Courbet classes in their original appearance or the pre-Dreadnought Danton class (which actually saw more combat than the Bretagne or Courbet) would be reasonable for the French. The Italians might get Doria or Cavour classes in their original appearance or Dante Alighiere. Japanese possibilities include the original appearance of Ise, Fuso, or Kongo classes or the Kawachi semi-Dreadnoughts.

For WWII, there are several US heavy cruisers that have not yet been modeled in their late-war appearance. USS Indianapolis would be my favorite.

Another WWII possibility is the long-awaited appearance of a German pocket battleship other than Graf Spee or a German heavy cruiser other than Prinz Eugen.

Only 355 days (more or less) until announcement of the 2009-2010 releases!

Don S.

In defence of the Sangamon class, they provided (along with Ranger) the carrier component for Operation Torch (invasion of North Africa in 1942). Not just "escort carriers"; note that Morison lists them as "ACVs", indicating their temporary elevated status.

Lots of interesting "what-ifs" in connection with French or Itialian opponents.

In defence of the Sangamon class, they provided (along with Ranger) the carrier component for Operation Torch (invasion of North Africa in 1942). Not just "escort carriers"; note that Morison lists them as "ACVs", indicating their temporary elevated status.

Lots of interesting "what-ifs" in connection with French or Itialian opponents.

Something wrong with the boards here? I was supposedly editing the initial post to correct the spelling of "Italian". ??

I have edited my original posting in this forum, correcting my initial statements about the combat experience of the Sangamon class CVEs.

In response to mark.hinds' comment about the initial designation of ACV indicating an "elevated status," the opposite is true. In the USN designation system, an initial "A" indicates that a ship type is an "auxiliary" - i.e., not a combat ship. The first escort carriers were designated as "ACV" because they were built on oiler (AO) hulls. Once it became clear that they were truly combat types, they were redesignated as CVE.

Don S.

In response to mark.hinds' comment about the initial designation of ACV indicating an "elevated status," the opposite is true. In the USN designation system, an initial "A" indicates that a ship type is an "auxiliary" - i.e., not a combat ship. The first escort carriers were designated as "ACV" because they were built on oiler (AO) hulls. Once it became clear that they were truly combat types, they were redesignated as CVE.

Actually, the first US CVE was the Long Island, converted from the C3 cargo ship Mormacmail. She never was much more than an aircraft transport (and pattern for other conversions). Her initial designation wasn't ACV-1, but AVG-1, being redesignated an ACV in 1942 and a CVE in 1943. While the Sangamons also began life as AVGs, they were very successful conversions and were arguably the USN's favorite escort carrier class, being slightly faster and less cramped than other US CVEs, as well as having a larger air group (up to 36 aircraft) and still able to act as fleet oilers when necessary. Once the need for numbers of CVEs built quickly was met by the Casablanca class, the last escort carriers built for the USN, the Commencement Bay class, were pretty much refined and improved Sangamons.

DarrylH: You are correct about the Long Island. I did not consider this one-of-a-kind ship in my earlier posting. The designation "AV" was generally used for seaplane tenders. I have no idea what was the significance of the "G." One of my sources indicates that (before commissioning) Long Island was to be designated as an "APV" The other APVs were pure aircraft transports with no landing/takeoff deck.

Don S.