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: 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

d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,617 posts
Armorama: 583 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
Naseby
Visit this Community
Slovakia
Joined: October 15, 2010
KitMaker: 815 posts
Armorama: 243 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
Littorio
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,675 posts
Armorama: 499 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.
d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,617 posts
Armorama: 583 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
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: 1,617 posts
Armorama: 583 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: 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: 1,617 posts
Armorama: 583 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
Naseby
Visit this Community
Slovakia
Joined: October 15, 2010
KitMaker: 815 posts
Armorama: 243 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..
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.
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