Micronaut Only Thread

[ww2navyguy]

Chris,

That was exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you for the run down on Canberra. I agree with you that I would also double the Canberra model for the Australia. Unfortunately I already used two Dorsetshire models for the Canberra and Australia a few years ago (both in the Chicago Blue or MS 21 scheme). At the time, I had inquired on the forum which GHQ model would be best for Canberra and Australia and it was almost unanimous from those who replied to use the GHQ Dorsetshire model. So I did.

After the new Canberra model was released, I purchased one to replace my Dorsetshire model of Canberra but still wasn't sure what to do about Australia. So I think I will replace the other Dorsetshire model of Australia for another GHQ model of Canberra to be a brand new Australia.

Not sure what to do with HMS Kent. Is Canberra a safe bet to use on Kent as well?

Thanks agin for all of the great pointers and facts!

Scott

[Donald M. Scheef]

For those that are interested in hypothetical scenarios, UKN42 (HMAS Canberra) is the best model available in 1/2400 scale for County class (especially the Kent subclass) cruisers as built. All the others had significant alterations by 1939. I have the following in my "wish list": (Kent and Australia), (Cornwall and Berwick), (Devonshire, Shropshire, and Suss*x).
Don S.[/b]

[battlewagon]

I'm curious if there would be any interest in "conversion kits" for certain ships that received a major wartime modification, but not enough to warrant creating a whole new kit?
Example 1: IJN Maya (late war) replaced the aftermost bow 8" turret with a mount for multiple 25mm AA mounts - all that would be needed is the AA tower structure

Example 2: IJN Mogami (late war) replaced the two aft 8" turrets with a flight deck - I think the flight deck would be the only piece needed...and maybe some more planes

In all likelyhood, these will wind up being scratchbuilding projects in my "dockyard" but I was curious about the interest level. Any thoughts?

Matt

[Donald M. Scheef]

Although the late-war versions of Maya and Mogami could be done as modifications, I would prefer to see them as new models. The price of a conversion kiit would probably be close to that of a new kit anyway. Both ships are in the Consolidated Micronauts Wish List (but Mogami is off the bottom of the posted listing). If you are willing to accept a slightly lower quality of molding, CinC makes both of these ship versions in 1/2400.

Don S.

[battlewagon]

I'll stay with GHQ and either wait or scratchbuild. I have several ships from the other major 1/2400th scale competitors...they are in a converted tool box in my closet. the GHQ ships are in a lighted curio cabinet in the living room...although, I may need another curio cabinet soon!

[av8rmongo]

I've been working on my modern 1/2400 range lately. Here is an offering from SeaWulf, its their Atlantic Conveyor in ciclian form. They also have Atlantic Conveyor as she appeared and was lost in the Falklands War but I haven't built that one yet. This model still needs some detailing but its a decent addition to my merchant fleet. If anyonr is considering purchasing this one, and you should, I will warn that the container stack is basically devoid of any markings/devisions on the ends and sides. I tried masking it off as best I could given available time and patience.

M/V Atlantic Conveyor.


If anyone has any questions or wants more details PM me.

Paul

[tstockton]

Paul,

Nicely done!

Have you ever considered print-your-own decals? My guess is that the "block" of containers would need to have fairly square edges... or maybe file off the molded-in block and add your own from sheet styrene or somesuch... Then use your computer and a paint program to draw / color the individual containers, print on decal paper, and apply.

In theory, it sounds good...

This is just intended to be "food for thought". But it might be easier than trying to paint the individual containers!

Regards,
Tom Stockton

[av8rmongo]

Tom,

In hindsight I should have scored the sides to mark the containers. I didn't, as you can see. I didn't realize, in my rush to get it glued together and painted, what a mistake that would be. It looks okay on the table top as background "clutter" for a wargame but it certainly doesn't stand up to close inspection.

As far as decals go I'm awaiting the arrival of some decal paper so I can do the ACL company logo that should go on the hull. I will also experiment with some container labels such as MAERSK, HANJIN or whatever to dress up indiviual containers but I hadn't thought of just doing it as a single decal. Maybe if I do third ship... Thanks for the idea.

Paul

[dragon6]

Paul thanks for the picture of the Seawulf model. And the note about the container stack.

Tom great idea about the decal for the container stack

[av8rmongo]

I just received my order from Viking Forge for their new Modern PRC ships. They are quite good and I highly recommend them to any fans of modern ships. Its too bad GHQ decided to stop producing any new models, there are a couple of companies picking up the slack and closing the quality/detail margin every day. Pictures soon.

Paul

[Mikee]

GHQ has put out the WWI cassin class DDs. Their instruction sheet notes that this model could be used for 8 Cassins and 6 O'Briens. I have a 2001 reprint of Janes WWI book. In this book, the next class of DDs is the six ships of the Conyngham class. According to Janes, the Conyngham class is about 10 feet (1/20 inch) longer than the previous class. Other than the length, could the Cassin model be used for this class? My only picture of the Conyngham class is the poor one in Janes, so I can't see if there are other differences that would be significant in a 1:2400 scale.

[Donald M. Scheef]

My recommendation is to go ahead. The ten-foot difference is negligible and there is no other significant difference between Cassin/O'Brien and Conyngham (actually, Tucker class based on USN criteria).

I intend to use GHQ's GWS5 (DD Cassin class) for all the US destroyers between DD-43 (USS Cassin) and DD-68 (USS Shaw). This includes five classes; Cassin, Alwyn (repeat Cassin class), O'Brien, Tucker, and Sampson. Although there are differences, I feel that GWS5 is the best representative available. Overall, these share a common configuration - four stacks, four single 4-inch guns, etc.
Differences include:
* Tucker, and Sampson classes are ten feet longer (315'3" rather than 305'3")
* Cassin and Alwyn classes carried four twin 18" torpedo tubes, O'Brien and Tucker had four twin 21" torpedo tubes, and Sampson class had four triple 21" tubes.

Viking Forge (SeaBattle license) SB045, DD Allen, has four Sampson class ships per pack. These are accurate to the Allen as it was ner the end of its career (in WWII), but do not represent the Sampson class as built and lack the detailed molding of GHQ products.

If GHQ were to make a model of the Tucker or Sampson classes, I would purchase this for these twelve ships, but for now GWS5 is my choice.

p.s. www.navsource.org has multiple photographs of all of these ships - quality varies with the original but some are very clear. You will see that there is little difference in the overall appearance.

Don S.

[Mikee]

Thanks for the information, Donald.

I'm gonna take a look at the Navsource web site now.

Mikee

[av8rmongo]

Here are pictures of the new PRC ships I mentioned earlier.









I highly recommend these.

Paul

[chrisswim]

Paul,

So have you flown over any of these since you've been in Japan?