06/24 Posted August 15, 2018 Share Posted August 15, 2018 Hi all, although I've built aircraft and armour subjects for years, I've never really built a ship (I did build an Airfix submarine once, not sure that counts...) So I'm after suggestions - if i want to dip a toe in these waters, where should I begin. Ideally WW2 I guess, but more modern subjects wouldn't be out of the picture. And what scale? I partially blame credit @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies for creating this interest in a hitherto unexplored area, since he's releasing new paint sets and info! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshanks Posted August 15, 2018 Share Posted August 15, 2018 (edited) ' Scratchbuild ' 😉 If you've not built in micro scale using nano photo etch, how about sticking the proverbial toe in the water with an Airfix Vosper or Air Sea Rescue Launch? !/72 scale, modest cost and builds a reasonable replica out of the box. If aftermarket is reqd, you can get a leg up from http://coastalcraftmodelsuk.com/. Plenty of help available in this area of the forum ….. HTH Kev Edited August 15, 2018 by longshanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted August 15, 2018 Share Posted August 15, 2018 Hi Jon, All I'd chime in with is that the biggest difference from planes and tanks is that the build/paint sequence is different. To that end, I'd recommend something/anything with 21st century parts fit such that you don't need to wrestle with clamps and sledge hammers and can focus your efforts on figuring out the best way to build it, without having your plans screwed by finding some horror in parts fit after you've put together and painted a sub assembly. If you fancy a ship rather than a boat, there is more choice than ever right now. The choice is far better in 1/700 and Flyhawk has popped up out of relatively nowhere (they started as a photoetch aftermarket company) and they are consistently humiliating hitherto worshipped-and-could-do-no-wrong brands like Tamiya. The detail in the box is incredible, the parts fit is incredible and the price makes Tamiya look like a rip off considering the previous too points. They also have a nice selection of Royal Navy subjects (since you mentioned this in your post) out with more on the way. By contrast, 1/350 has less choice but the models are impressive without being inconveniently big. All I would recommend against as a first ship is a battleship, and especially a late WW2 fit of a battleship covered in AA guns. This will wear you down pretty quickly. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 15, 2018 Share Posted August 15, 2018 (edited) My only query is whether the latest superb kits might not be a trifle overwhelming for someone new to the game. Lots and lots of tiny tiny parts... For something rather simpler as a first step into 1/700 RN, I suggest the Tamiya Vampire which is fairly straightforward and rather nice. Also a simpler camouflage to start with. The Tamiya O/P destroyer is older and cruder, and less accurate to boot. If you could find the CVE HMS Tracker that would do nicely - at the moment it is being sold by Tamiya as the USS Bogue but the plastic is the same. Edited August 15, 2018 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 Thanks all three for your suggestions. I'm rather partial to the idea of that RAN destroyer - off to google. I've heard great things about Flyhawk so one to bank for any follow up. As for Vosper's I'm afraid that @Longshanks' splendid effort has rather dampened any enthusiasm I have to build one. They just look like they need so much work to bring up to scratch. I have an Italeri 1/35 in the stash but nowhere to store it if i build it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 Don't be sad Kev - your work is inspirational, just not where I'd dare to start! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 So what did my LHSs have in stock? A start by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr Graham's comments about the O class destroyer are noted, but it was relatively inexpensive and will do to cut my teeth on. The LBG Hunt was an impulse buy, it has a small etch fret so I foresee magnifying glass and squinting in my future. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshanks Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 8 hours ago, 06/24 said: just not where I'd dare to start! We all have to start somewhere mate Looking forward to seeing some work in progress Kev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 2 hours ago, 06/24 said: So what did my LHSs have in stock? A start by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr Graham's comments about the O class destroyer are noted, but it was relatively inexpensive and will do to cut my teeth on. The LBG Hunt was an impulse buy, it has a small etch fret so I foresee magnifying glass and squinting in my future. Nice one! Photo etch isn't hard but there are some definite tips and tricks that help! Have you used it before? If not, exchange of tips before pinging off and mangling bits rather than after might be of use P.S. that O class is a scheme often screwed up: It's a C.B.3098(R) scheme and the colours are: White base Medium-Dark tone = G.20 Geometric panels on bow, bridge and funnel = G.45 Everything above main deck level AFT of funnel = B.30 These are often seen with two-tone greens, olive drabs, electric blues and similar combinations of colours the RN didn't use. The actual camouflage "map" however is there or thereabouts HMS Middleton does look to be about right as per the IBG box art of a G.45 base colour with B.15 for the darker toned disruptive shapes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 Ta, etch tips gratefully received, I have used etch before, but in rather larger scales - I soldered a working 1/43 scale pannier tank out of the stuff, but these little ships would have fitted inside that! I have unsurprisingly been pottering about the Colourcoats web presence in search of paint. I had lighted on the Western Approaches 1943+ set but I see that's not quite right - I'll go back and rethink. You mentioned the build/paint sequence as being different - can you elaborate for the hard of thinking (me!) please? I've made a gentle start on one of the Tamiyas (didn't realise there were two in the box) and I doing think I've committed any obvious faux pas yet, but you never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 There was a bit of a sink mark on the bow 1/700 O Class destroyer by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr Dry fit of superstructure 1/700 O Class destroyer by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr 1/700 O Class destroyer by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Aye you suspect right. The Western Approaches scheme is this sort of thing: To avoid confusing between ships and not knowing what you have in mind for your second O-class yet, what you'll need for the one on the box art is some white, black for the funnel cap, G10 for the decks and horizontal surfaces (NARN21), G45 (NARN22), G20 (NARN30) and B30 (NARN37). As for painting, there is no one right way but a particular feature of ships that isn't usually the case on aircraft and armour is that vertical and horizontal surfaces are usually different colours. This can make painting after assembly a pain in the neck. For example, your dry fitted superstructure shows several different adjacent vertical and horizontal surfaces. I personally find it easier making sub assemblies that limit masking as far as practicable and spray them separately. I, for example, would avoid the issue of "managing" the colour demarkation between the main deck and the bridge bulkheads (vertical walls) by painting them apart and joining them later. Anything that gets stuck to the main deck like a gun turret, funnel or small piece of deck furniture I'd paint separately and add later. All that said, I go to great lengths to avoid a paint brush (I absolutely loathe brush painting) and don't much like masking either, hence any way of assembling stuff in such a sequence that allows self masking or avoiding creating a demarkation to mask is a good thing! You may arrive at totally different conclusions, but I take great pride in my laziness and the above works for me "There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 Oops! I have since cemented the two larger pieces of superstructure but can see the logic of your approach. A brush will be my get out clause! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Tis ok - you've still got two more destroyers to hone your personal techniques 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 A number of the O class did have the Western Approaches scheme. I understand that the Tamiya kit also comes with the high-altitude mounting for the main guns, as fitted to the P class (and some O, I think - would need to check.) With the second kit, you are now running into the problems that not all ships in a class were identical, and even if they started that way minor fits such as secondary armament and radar (or even masts and primary armament in the case of Petard) changed, let alone which camouflage was carried when by each. Annoyingly, you only get the one torpedo tube which was not always the case. Just to make life even worse, the kit is only correct for Onslow - for all other vessels in the two classes the fo'csle break was further forward so a small amount should be removed from each side. You can actually see that in the camouflage drawings above. I told you to get Vampire... which only comes in standard post WW1 fit rather than the WW2 one anyway - but none of the above presents any great difficulty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 Thanks, you did indeed warn me, but it was cheap (even cheaper now I know there are two!) and I'm happy enough to build one as Onslow, haven't decided on the other yet. It does seem to include both types of gun. If I build this one as Onslow, then Jamie's first illustration looks about right i think for the Barents Sea action? This photo was apparently taken on the ship's return: HMS ONSLOW BACK HOME AFTER NORTH CAPE CONVOY BATTLE. 4 FEBRUARY 1943, AT SCAPA FLOW. HMS ONSLOW, ONE OF THE BRITISH DESTROYERS WHICH SUCCESSFULLY ENGAGED VASTLY SUPERIOR ENEMY NAVAL FORCES OFF NORTH CAPE NORWAY, ON 31 DECEMBER 1942, IS BACK IN A BRITISH PORT.. © IWM (A 14337) IWM Non Commercial License Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Yes, that's the scheme for Onslow - and the kit has the correct hull! Something to consider for your second destroyer is that limitations in the moulding process result in over-thick edgings to superstructure decks. This can be alleviated by filing to make them thinner and (to greater effect, I think) getting rid of the draw angle. Or just remove them and add railings, of course. I've just noticed that both the camouflage drawings above are appropriate for a P class destroyer with two torpedo tubes and a 3 inch (I think?) in Y position. Just one example of the variations open to you, but given that the drawings are representative, I'd check that the schemes were right for that particular fit. IIRC one of the Ps was supposedly in Mountbatten Pink, and I've yet to achieve painting a model in that scheme. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamwalker Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 The Middleton is a very nice kit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 7 hours ago, 06/24 said: Thanks, you did indeed warn me, but it was cheap (even cheaper now I know there are two!) and I'm happy enough to build one as Onslow, haven't decided on the other yet. It does seem to include both types of gun. If I build this one as Onslow, then Jamie's first illustration looks about right i think for the Barents Sea action? This photo was apparently taken on the ship's return: HMS ONSLOW BACK HOME AFTER NORTH CAPE CONVOY BATTLE. 4 FEBRUARY 1943, AT SCAPA FLOW. HMS ONSLOW, ONE OF THE BRITISH DESTROYERS WHICH SUCCESSFULLY ENGAGED VASTLY SUPERIOR ENEMY NAVAL FORCES OFF NORTH CAPE NORWAY, ON 31 DECEMBER 1942, IS BACK IN A BRITISH PORT.. © IWM (A 14337) IWM Non Commercial License Just to confuse matters, the 1943 B & G series paints weren't promulgated until May 1943, so we need to translate the scheme to the earlier MS & B paints. One thing that I immediately noticed was the rearrangement of the tones on Onslow there compared to the standardised 1943 design. By that, I mean the geometric shapes are darker than the aft part of the hull. This implies a rearrangement of colours as well. Let me think on that for a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 17 hours ago, 06/24 said: There was a bit of a sink mark on the bow 1/700 O Class destroyer by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr That shot of the waterline plate reminds me - isn't the Skywave/Tamiya O Class a bit fat at the bow? The kit's flare has always looked suspect to me because of it. Mike. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 No idea. You may well be right. I shan't let it worry me for now. I suspect this first attempt may yet end up as paint mule when better substitutes are built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Naughton Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Hi, I'll be interested in seeing your HMS Middleton build. I recently bought an ORP Krakorwiak and ORP Kujawiak kit from the same company with the hopes of maybe trying to back fit one into looking like a reasonable facsimile of a Batch I Hunt for comparative purposes. But I haven't started anything yet. 🙄 Pat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 Not sure I'll do it justice, but I'll try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06/24 Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 While I can't comment as to the accuracy of the IBG Hunt, it's a striking indicator of how much kits have improved over time. IBG 1/700 Hunt II destroyer/escort by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr IBG 1/700 Hunt II destroyer/escort by Jon Gwinnett, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now