login   |    register
General Ship Modeling
Discuss modeling techniques, experiences, and ship modeling in general.
Hosted by Todd Michalak
New 1/350 kits from Trumpeter
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 19, 2019 - 06:11 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Well I think the plan for them to have everything done in 2020 is realistic.



Jacob, thanks for the response. I agree with your mention of "same class/ship" manufacturing efficiencies but only up to a point. You speak to efficiencies in the design phase, but in the end meeting schedule comes down to production resources. We really don't know how much capacity Trumpeter has in terms of their large size injection molding equipment capable of producing accurate and detailed 1/350 ship model parts. Unless they plan to retire some kits currently in production, it is hard for me, just personal opinion, to see all 23 releases complete by 12/2020.

As to design efficiencies, Littorio described well in his post above some of the significant differences in the county class that will affect the molds. I add that HMS Kent was the only one of the class to have a stern walk. As to the Austro-Hungarian battleships, first & fourth (last of class), there are major differences: 4 screws vs 2 screws affects hull parts, Szent Istvan unlike Viribus, had a searchlight platform that extended from the bridge to second funnel, and had a much larger vent square vs. round cowl forward of its mainmast. I'm not saying that are no design efficiencies to be gained but just that there is still much uniqueness to be dealt with. And as others have mentioned, given modifications and rebuilds, other variations can creep into parts you might think would be common and reusable, given the year the model is suppose to represent

As to what one sees at a show, that can be just a cleaned up test shot using prototype molds - actual volume production of a quality finished kit may still be far to the right on the time line.

I'll post later about some more about the interesting differences with classes and between difference years of the same ship for those warships mentioned in the Trumpeter catalog. The three Dido class AA cruisers are interesting choices in terms of spanning the range of variations that class saw.

Kip
warshipbuild
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Friday, October 18, 2019 - 10:43 PM UTC
I think the Langley and Vittorio are already available here in the UK.
No idea what happened to the Nelson Class kits.
No sign yet of the County version of Kent. It was supposed to be this month but my bet is that it'll be Xmas before it hits UK shores. I think I have seen the Tashkent available too.
Naseby
Visit this Community
Slovakia
Joined: October 15, 2010
KitMaker: 819 posts
Armorama: 246 posts
Posted: Friday, October 18, 2019 - 08:13 AM UTC
Well I think the plan for them to have everything done in 2020 is realistic. Bismarck and Viribus Unitis were shown already in Osaka, so that make 4 ships, british cruiser was also shown as nearly complete built. Tashken, Vitorrio, italian cruisers and US CVs are just versions of what is already on the market. Onlu thing that we havent seen yet are the Nelson/Rodney duo and Baltimore class. Not sure about those JMSDF cruisers, if they are just a version of something thats already out there..
d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,648 posts
Armorama: 587 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2019 - 11:27 PM UTC
Kip,

Thanks for the update, I have the Langley on pre-order. The Nelson or Rodney would be the only other ships I would be interested in at this time.

Wasn't Trumpeter also suppose to release a Langley as a collier before she was converted?

Mark
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2019 - 12:20 PM UTC
I recently found myself at 35000 feet with a laptop and not much to do, thought of this Trumpeter topic and did a little research visiting the usual places for kit announcements and Trumpeter catalogs.

The 2019-20 Trumpeter catalog lists 29 new 1/350 ship kits. Four are generally available now (York, Littorio, Tashket '40 & Schleswig-Holstein '08). Two are announced and available only by pre-order in the US. (Kent and Langley CV1). Leaves 23 left to go in the next roughly 14 months catalog span remaining. So, clearly, with just 4 new kits on the street in ~9.5 months the release pace is slow. To no ones surprise we'll probably not see all 23 kits left to by 12/20 unless Trumpeter ramps up their manufacturing capacity.

But I never considered this or any other model catalog definitive for delivery dates. I find it of use in planning future purchases in terms of what in it fits my collection and what doesn't. So here is the breakdown by Navy and type of the remaining 23:

Battleships: 7
Heavy Cruisers:4
Predreadnoughts: 0
Destroyer: 1
CV/AV: 3
DDG: 2
Battlecruisers:2
Light Cruisers: 5

DKM: 4 Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau
JMSDF: 2 JNS Myoko, JNS Chokai
KM: 2: SMS Viribus Unitis, SMS Szent Istvan
RM: 3 Fiume, Goriza, Vittorio Veneto
RN: 7 HMS Calcutta, HMS Colombo, HMS Naiad, HMS Argonaut, HMS Scylla, HMS Nelson, HMS Rodney
USN: 4 USS Baltimore, USS Pittsburgh, USS Langley AV, USS Ranger '44
VMF: 1 Tashkent '42

So, if this in some small way helps you plan your future hobby purchases, it will have done its job as a postscript to this topic
d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,648 posts
Armorama: 587 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 03:12 AM UTC
I am only referenceing from when Hitler took power. The Washington Treaties was only to stop new construction and was design not to effect the tonnage of ships already being built at the time, aka the Nelson class and Colorado class. United States didn't build any new battleships until the North Carolina Class which her designers knew came in over the treaty limits even though she was reported at 35k. Then there are the Lexington and Saratoga, two aircraftcarriers allow to exceed the 27k ton limit to 33K ton but finished out a 36K long tons. The british was wondering how the americans could build a longer ship with 16" guns that met the treaty when they could not. So began the building of the King George V class at 42K tons plus. That escalator clause sure came in handy.

So after Hilter came into power all bets were off no matter what treaties were in placed at the time or in the future. Ships were being planned or on the building stays that would exceed those treaties and they are going build as many as they want.

Mark
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 02:24 PM UTC

Quoted Text

and when Hitler voided the Treaty of Versailles, no one worried about tonnage limits anymore.

Mark



18 USN Heavy "Treaty" Cruisers, 9 USN Light Treaty Cruisers, 15 RN County Class treaty Heavy Cruisers, 18 RN Treaty light Cruisers, 6 USN 35000 ton battleships, 5 RN 35000 ton battleships, better than 200 US and RN destroyers under 2000 tons, and USS Wasp CV7 reduced to 14,700 tons to meet the treaty contradict your statement and speak to *many* people being worried about tonnage limits. All listed vessels built later 20s and through the 30s, all, as designed, met treaty displacement limits.

Further, Germany was grossly violating the Treaty of Versailles long before Hitler came to power January 30, 1933. The Weimar Republic funded multiple rearmament programs culminating in a 1931 (two years before Hitler became chancellor) $480 million reichmarks program.

Note also that:
- Z1 Class design 1932, first laid down 1934
- Mowe Class, WW1 design (H145 class) laid down 1923
- Konigsbergs 1924 design, first laid down 1926
- Bluchers 1934 design, 1936 first laid down 1936
- Deutschland class design 1928-1930, 3 laid down before 1933
- Scharnhorst class design 1932 - 1934
- Bismarck class design start 1934

So most of the major German navy units predate Hitler taking power.

CTK2
d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,648 posts
Armorama: 587 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 07:41 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Germany was never a signer of any of these treaties and when Hilter voided the Treaty of Versailles, no one worried about tonnage limits anymore.

Mark



Not quite right.

Germany didn't sign the naval treaty as they were not involved due to the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles:

"The German navy was allowed six pre-dreadnought battleships and was limited to a maximum of six light cruisers (not exceeding 6,000 long tons (6,100 t)), twelve destroyers (not exceeding 800 long tons (810 t)) and twelve torpedo boats (not exceeding 200 long tons (200 t)) and was forbidden submarines."

In October 1933, following the rise of Adolf Hitler and the founding of the Nazi regime, Germany withdrew from The League of Nations and the World Disarmament Conference. In March 1935, Germany reintroduced conscription followed by an open rearmament programme, the official unveiling of the Luftwaffe, and signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement that allowed a surface fleet 35% of the size of the Royal Navy. The resulting rearmament programs was allotted 35 billion Reichsmarks over an eight-year period.



Hitler, Never had any intentions of honoring that agreement for as soon as he realized that France wasn't going to do anything after dropping out of the treaty and moving into the Rine. He renounced the treaty in 1939 when they started on the Bismark class. It was just a ploy. Hitler instructed the Kriesmarine to design ships they wanted. The problem at that time was the Kreismarine had no idea what they wanted and the builders had no idea how to build them. It took them several years to work it out. I can't think of one treaty ship the Nazi build that met any treaty. When the Nazi took power they changed the design their 20 year old cruiser replacements, aka the Graf Spee. It was classed a cruiser but came in over 4,000 tons above the treaty, so it was dubbed a pocket battleship by everyone but the Germans. The allies knew what was going on but did nothing.

Mark
Littorio
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,683 posts
Armorama: 501 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 06:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Germany was never a signer of any of these treaties and when Hilter voided the Treaty of Versailles, no one worried about tonnage limits anymore.

Mark



Not quite right.

Germany didn't sign the naval treaty as they were not involved due to the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles:

"The German navy was allowed six pre-dreadnought battleships and was limited to a maximum of six light cruisers (not exceeding 6,000 long tons (6,100 t)), twelve destroyers (not exceeding 800 long tons (810 t)) and twelve torpedo boats (not exceeding 200 long tons (200 t)) and was forbidden submarines."

In October 1933, following the rise of Adolf Hitler and the founding of the Nazi regime, Germany withdrew from The League of Nations and the World Disarmament Conference. In March 1935, Germany reintroduced conscription followed by an open rearmament programme, the official unveiling of the Luftwaffe, and signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement that allowed a surface fleet 35% of the size of the Royal Navy. The resulting rearmament programs was allotted 35 billion Reichsmarks over an eight-year period.
Naseby
Visit this Community
Slovakia
Joined: October 15, 2010
KitMaker: 819 posts
Armorama: 246 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 05:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Germany was never a signer of any of these treaties and when Hilter voided the Treaty of Versailles, no one worried about tonnage limits anymore.

Mark

Works on Prinz Eugen started in 1936. I guess it would be difficult for that one to pass as 10k cruiser
d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,648 posts
Armorama: 587 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 04:46 AM UTC
Germany was never a signer of any of these treaties and when Hilter voided the Treaty of Versailles, no one worried about tonnage limits anymore.

Mark
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 01:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The naval historian H. Trevor Lenton estimates that despite the best attempts, none of these ships stayed within the treaty limits; Kent's full load displacement was 14,197 tons, indicating a standard displacement of around 10,600 tons. Lenton expresses doubts whether the Admiralty ever informed the Government of these excesses, as with war imminent, "there were more pressing demands on their time"



An interesting treaty side note is that in 1938 the US, UK and France signed a protocol amending the 1936 2nd London treaty that raised the treaty battleship displacement limit to 45,000 long tons. I suggest that after this event, and given the obvious over tonnage of the Japanese and Italian heavy cruisers already built, none of the three signing parties really cared much any further about adhering to the 10000 ton cruiser displacement limitation.

What can be said is the UK and the US, to their great credit, gave the 10,000 ton limit their best effort. For all classes, design standard displacement was less than 10,000 tons, although margins were razor thin. Illustrating this commitment is the cutting down in 1935-1936 of Cumberland and Suffolk by one deck aft to compensate for adding the hanger. I don't know enough about French CA displacement to make a comment.

(But those Myokos, Takaos, and Zaras make great models.)

Kip

SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 12:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

As Kip mentioned, Trumpeter need a "Someday Section" for things like the Rodney/Nelson and Baltimore/Pittsburg



On a side note, Scalemates website announced the Trumpeter Langley and the Kent county class heavy cruiser in September but with a "Future" tag.
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 12:01 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I for one hope they will continue with the 1/200 but with different subjects. I recently built the Pegasus class and its a little marvel. I wish they would do some DDs in 1/200.



I have the Hobby Boss 1/200 Pegasus - a nice kit of a unique vessel. Were I not so far down the collecting road of 1/350 scale small ships (WWII DD and below, roughly)I would be more inclined to purchase any such future releases. Bring on the Loch, Bay, River, and Tacoma class frigates; the Black Swan sloops, DEs and the corvettes and others - all fairly sparsely represented in the 1/350 scale - and I *might* be tempted to go more 1/200. But, generally, the 1/200s coming too late for me.

In the end, it becomes a matter of space as well.

Kip
RussellE
#306
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 3,482 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 09:28 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Yes I see they are listing the 350 Nelson/Rodney and Baltimore/Pittsburg as new this year. Seems they have had the BB's as going to be released for what 5 years now? The CA's for 3. Sigh wasting our time with yet another Bismarck kit. I wont be holding my breath on seeing any of them this year. Keep hoping maybe they will quit placing so much emphasis on the 200 line. Those that do buy them pretty much limit due to size.



As Kip mentioned, Trumpeter need a "Someday Section" for things like the Rodney/Nelson and Baltimore/Pittsburg
Naseby
Visit this Community
Slovakia
Joined: October 15, 2010
KitMaker: 819 posts
Armorama: 246 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 02:12 AM UTC
I for one hope they will continue with the 1/200 but with different subjects. I recently built the Pegasus class and its a little marwel. I wish they would do some DDs in 1/200.
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 05:17 PM UTC
Yes I see they are listing the 350 Nelson/Rodney and Baltimore/Pittsburg as new this year. Seems they have had the BB's as going to be released for what 5 years now? The CA's for 3. Sigh wasting our time with yet another Bismarck kit. I wont be holding my breath on seeing any of them this year. Keep hoping maybe they will quit placing so much emphasis on the 200 line. Those that do buy them pretty much limit due to size.
Littorio
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,683 posts
Armorama: 501 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 03:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

So is there many differences between the Cornwall and the Kent, or is it the same kit with different camo?



Kent and Cornwall are the same sub-class of County class the only difference will be down to year/fit plus Kent didn't have a hanger just a catapult.

From Wiki:
The initial seven ships Berwick, Cornwall, Cumberland, Kent, and Suffolk, built for the Royal Navy, and Australia and Canberra for the Royal Australian Navy formed the Kent class. All were ordered in 1924 and commissioned in 1928. It was quickly found necessary to heighten the funnels by some 15 feet (4.6 m) to clear the flue gasses from the aft superstructure. The Australian ships, Australia and Canberra had them raised a further 3 feet (0.91 m). Between 1930 and 1933 the aircraft and catapult were added, as was a high-angle HACS director for the 4-inch guns. Kent received an additional pair of 4-inch guns in 1934, and she, Berwick and Cornwall each received a pair of QF 0.5-inch Vickers machine guns added abreast the fore funnel.

By the mid-1930s, the British Kents were due for modernisation. However, there was little surplus weight for the designers to work with while remaining within the Treaty requirements; they were between 150 and 250 tons under the treaty limits and it was estimated that a further 200-odd tons could be gained through various savings. A 6-foot-deep (1.8 m) armoured belt, 4.5-inch (110 mm) thick, was added amidships, extending down from the armoured deck to 1 foot below the waterline. Cumberland and Suffolk had the aft superstructure razed and replaced by a large hangar for two aircraft and a fixed athwartships catapult. A crane was fitted on either side of the after funnel, and the rear gunnery, navigation and control positions were relocated to the hangar roof. The single 2-pounder guns were removed, and quadruple mountings, Mark VII, were added on either side of the bridge. The 4-inch guns were relocated, and the rearmost pair were replaced by twin mountings Mark XIX for the QF 4-inch Mark XVI. To keep weight within acceptable margins, the hull was cut down by one deck aft of "Y" turret. Berwick and Cornwall were similarly converted, but with more weight in hand the hull was not cut down; all four 4-inch mounts were twins and the 2-pounder guns were octuple mounts. By 1939, the torpedo tubes had been removed in all four ships.

Kent had less weight available for improvements and therefore was not given such an extensive modernisation. While she received the 4-inch armour belt and the double 4-inch gun mounts like her sisters, she retained the rotating catapult and after superstructure, with an additional fire-control position mounted on a distinctive lattice structure aft. Her anti-aircraft armaments were improved as for her sisters, but the multiple 2-pounders and their directors were carried aft, by the lattice structure. The naval historian H. Trevor Lenton estimates that despite the best attempts, none of these ships stayed within the treaty limits; Kent's full load displacement was 14,197 tons, indicating a standard displacement of around 10,600 tons. Lenton expresses doubts whether the Admiralty ever informed the Government of these excesses, as with war imminent, "there were more pressing demands on their time"
ghauser
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: March 07, 2011
KitMaker: 158 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 03:31 PM UTC
So is there many differences between the Cornwall and the Kent, or is it the same kit with different camo?
Littorio
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,683 posts
Armorama: 501 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 02:36 PM UTC
Yes I have a little bit of help with the Tribals as I have the WEM pe set which has the different mast sets and radar for different fits, but a little bit of scratch and/or AM parts and your ready to go. Black Cat coming out with twin Lewis guns was a major help as pe ones don't look right.

Yep nice catch Kip, I read that the turrets were not strong enough to take the weight of the catapult and aircraft that's why they dropped the plan.
I've just got a huge pe and wooden deck set for Exeter most important part is the wooden deck covers the deck area around B turret that Trumpeter forgot to make as wood.

Anyway all that can wait as I need to get a serious start on USS Mackinac AVP-13 and start a build thread, although that normally spells the Death Knell of any of my builds. Just finished reading 'Eyes of the Fleet' all about the US navy seaplane tenders during WWII, great book!
RussellE
#306
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 3,482 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 02:21 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Ah, ok didnt know that they stopped producing kits. However I dont think the molds were scrapped. That would be something that no company dealing with kits would do I think. Anyway I guess its a good thing I picked up the Ark and Enterprise as long as they were available.




Quoted Text

Fear not - Merit don't actually make their own stuff - it's done ny Trumpeter. Ark was a Trumpeter kit but branded under the Merit badge. I got an Ark at a good price a couple of years ago and I'm sure there are still some about on ebay.



Depends on who owns the molds and what financial obligations they have/had and whether receivers moved in to recover their debts...


Quoted Text

Regarding the Tribals with a little bit of research and some scratch /AM parts there are loads of options for different fits, just don't forget to get rid of that 8 barrel pom-pom as no Tribal carried an 8 barrel mount they only carried quad pom-pom mounts.

For me I have Eskimo which I'm back dating for Narvik, another Eskimo to build HMAS Arunta or Warramunga and a HMCS Huron as herself.

The Counties I've left the Cornwall as I want Kent to complete the 4 Kent's of the 20th Century:
Combrig - Monmouth class armoured cruiser
Trumpeter - County class heavy cruiser
Atlantic - County class Guided missle destroyer
Trumpeter - Duke class Type 23 Frigate

Room prevents me buying both Nelson and Rodney so I'll settle for Rodney. Exeter and York both had interesting if short war service and are different from each other as pointed out by Kip plus the catapult was different on each of them, York having a rotating one also Yorks funnels and masts were racked while Exeter's were straight. Not checked if Trumpeter got that correct but have brought both, hmm need to check that when I get home from work in the morning.



Any of the Tribal kits can be modified to represent any of the class at any particular time period if enough AM is thrown at them...

As for the Nelson Rodney kits, well the Trumpy catalogue lists Nelson as 1944 fit, but no mention of what fit for Rodney, but likely to be exactly the same kit
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 02:10 PM UTC
Luciano,

Some great adds on the "B" type Counties. As I recall, York's tall bridge structure was driven by the original plan to put catapults on her two forward main turrets, forcing the bridge to be at a high level. Turned out the catapults on the turrets was a bad idea and when the Exeter was built several years later, her bridge was lower and the catapults were after the funnels. Lesson in warship design learned.

But the best part of your post was your statement about we can make variants of kits with scratch building and after market parts. Nice post!

As I have the Exeter kit close at hand, I can confirm funnels are straight, pole masts with high top masts and top yards. The kit provides a sheet anchor - I'll have to research that as many ships did away with the sheet anchor to save weight so that more AA could be added.

Kip

Littorio
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,683 posts
Armorama: 501 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 01:32 PM UTC
Regarding the Tribals with a little bit of research and some scratch /AM parts there are loads of options for different fits, just don't forget to get rid of that 8 barrel pom-pom as no Tribal carried an 8 barrel mount they only carried quad pom-pom mounts.

For me I have Eskimo which I'm back dating for Narvik, another Eskimo to build HMAS Arunta or Warramunga and a HMCS Huron as herself.

The Counties I've left the Cornwall as I want Kent to complete the 4 Kent's of the 20th Century:
Combrig - Monmouth class armoured cruiser
Trumpeter - County class heavy cruiser
Atlantic - County class Guided missle destroyer
Trumpeter - Duke class Type 23 Frigate

Room prevents me buying both Nelson and Rodney so I'll settle for Rodney. Exeter and York both had interesting if short war service and are different from each other as pointed out by Kip plus the catapult was different on each of them, York having a rotating one also Yorks funnels and masts were racked while Exeter's were straight. Not checked if Trumpeter got that correct but have brought both, hmm need to check that when I get home from work in the morning.
SpurnWater71
#504
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: July 06, 2019
KitMaker: 76 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 01:04 PM UTC
Dave,

Exeter and York had very different appearances. Bridges, funnels, masts are among the most prominent differences.

As to the Tribals, I went and retrieved them from my stash to be sure but all three have difference as I suspected: masts, armament, and some structural differences. The PE is different in all three kits (a nice lattice foremast for the Huron) and Huron has a sprue G rather than the sprue F of the other two. Sprue E contains two different versions of the aft superstructure deck. E4 is unique to the Huron, E3 graces the other two. There's probably some other small details I might have missed.

Am by no means trying to be critical or corrective - please don't interpret these comments as such. Just trying to let everyone know that there is some interesting variations in these kits.

Kip
warshipbuild
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2019 - 10:54 AM UTC
Fear not - Merit don't actually make their own stuff - it's done ny Trumpeter. Ark was a Trumpeter kit but branded under the Merit badge. I got an Ark at a good price a couple of years ago and I'm sure there are still some about on ebay.

Tashkent sprue shots are up - I think on HLJ?

HMS Kent is not due until October as far as I know.
No idea what happened to the 1/350 NelRod kits.

I don't really know what to get next.
I have fallen into the trap before whereby I buy 2 or more kits of the same class only to find that they are pretty much identical. Examples would be the Trumpeter Tribals - I have all 3 yet there are no real differences between them.
Same with Exeter and York - I have Exeter so am not bothered about adding a York. Same again with the Counties. I have Cornwall so am not bothered about Kent.
Am thinking I might just add one kit from each class they release in future.