#11
|
|||
|
|||
I'll cast my vote (again) for the CL class - extra points for the CL-48 (Honolulu). Extra Extra points if it comes with an alternate parts sheet depicting her with the bow shot off. You could also include the (thankfully dud) torpedo she took up the a## end.
By the grace of God, she survived Pearl, went on to fight in every major WWII Pacific battle, and always came back for more. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Scott K. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
IJN cruisers that I can think off the head that exist in paper... The list is actually not as small as I thought it was
Kitakami (heavy torpedo version) Yubari Akitsushima Yahagi Oyodo Myoko Nachi Takao Suzuya Tone (+Agano from barry) Classes missing altogether: Tenryu Nagara Sendai Kako Aoba Mogami 1944 Now it would be helpful to provide a similar list for USN and RN...
__________________
"The world is big" On hold: Fuyuzuki, Zao, Zara, Akizuki, Past works: XP55 Ascender, CA Ibuki, Seafang F32, IS-3, Spitfire V, J-20 |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
For what it's worth, once I finish the Montana-class BB I've been working on, it is my intention to do the Northampton Class CA in 1/200. I might, if I can find some decent blueprints (hint, hint, hint) try my hand at some other classes of warship, but I've just got to make some headway on this dang battlewagon first.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know of a Brooklyn class kit ( to cover Honolulu), but Hammersmith puts out Helena, which eibwarrior is building and which Padre is converting to Phoenix (Brooklyn class and sister to Honolulu).
USS Helena CL-50 - 1/200 Scale USS Helena/Phoenix |
Google Adsense |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
hi i have called in a favor from a friend who makes wargame models he has a brooklyn class cruiser and i asked him to send me a copy of it
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
The Houston is in the Watkins lineup (which I do have), and it seems to me that I've seen a Pensacola somewhere. I know there's also a nice San Francisco out there, too, so the Treaty cruisers are actually pretty well represented.
Has anyone heard of a Baltimore in card? If not, that would be another good potential subject. I've considered using a Maly Independence class carrier hull as a start to one of the Clevelands, too. Scott K. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Here are some photos of the Helena I made from an enlargement/redraw of the JSC kit. Scale is 1:250.
__________________
It's not good to have too much order. Without some chaos, there is no room for new things to grow. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
You certainly turned that JSC kit into a superb model of Helena. I love the lines of the Treaty cruisers. The Brooklyns, St Louis/Helena, and Wichita were the transition to the modern Baltimores and Clevelands. These powerfully armed ships served the United States well in both Europe and the Pacific. I recently addressed this in a review to be published soon in Global War Quarterly:
“. . . actual discussion of the impact of the treaty is limited to the statement that “the disarmament treaties . . . had virtually stripped the U.S. Navy of any meaningful offensive power . . .”[1] This is debatable, for the treaties had beneficial as well as deleterious effects. The strictures of the 1930 London Treaty, for example, led to the development of “light” cruisers that were indistinguishable from “heavy” cruisers except for their six-inch gun armament. As a result of Navy efforts to maximize the firepower of these cruisers within the treaty limitations, the U.S. Navy entered the war with a class of light cruisers each mounting fifteen six-inch guns, roughly equivalent to a battalion of 155mm artillery. These ships provided outstanding service as naval gunfire support ships throughout the war. Ansel commanded one of those formidable light cruisers, USS Philadelphia, when it helped suppress German artillery at Anzio and Southern France. Daugherty notes that “Ansel applied the lessons on naval gunfire he had written about fourteen years earlier at Quantico with deadly effect,” but fails to mention that Philadelphia with its deadly armament was in part the result of the naval limitation treaties.[2]” [1] Leo J. Daugherty III, Pioneers of Amphibious Warfare, 1898-1945: Profiles of Fourteen American Military Strategists (Jefferson, NC, and London: McFarland & Co., 2009), p. 302. [2] Ibid., p. 317. For a synopsis of the complex interrelationship between the naval treaty restrictions and the development of U.S. warships in the 1930s, see Thomas C. Hone and Trent Hone, Battle Line: The United States Navy, 1919-1939 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2006), pp. 1-18, and Norman Friedman, U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1984), pp. 4-5, 109-111, 163-168, and 217-18. For the development of the Brooklyn and St. Louis class heavily-armed light cruisers (of which, Philadelphia was one) see Friedman, pp.183-198, 203-207. Friedman argues that “It is clear from contemporary documents that there never would have been any Brooklyns had it not been for a radical change in treaty rules occasioned by the London Treaty for 1930” and that the major wartime cruisers (designed and built free of treaty restrictions) “were evolved directly from the Brooklyn design.” Friedman, p. 183. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Lex,
Indeed, a FURUTAKA or AOBA would be nice to build !!! or the old time Japanese cruisers, like TONE (1) etc. ! John. |
Google Adsense |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|