Small ships in a small scale and the Dutch.

Now that the Fleet Review (and oh yes, the wedding that went with it) is out of the way I have posted two somewhat more serious discussions of 1/2400 miniatures and how I go about figuring out how to paint them. (And screwing up at that.) The first post is on the Dutch East Indies squadron:







The second post discusses the small ships, namely some coast guard cutters and fleet tugs I picked up:







And last but not least a little bonus: some terrain I've been working on in the company of two updated Panzerchiffe tugs, a Hog Islander previously discussed, and two U.S. destroyers stationed in the Philippines . . .

 

Respect again !
I feel honored that you modelled the Dutch navy. Any chance that you find the one and only Karel Doorman flightcarrier the Dutch navy had?

 

I really admire you guys...the skill to historically reproduce this stuff....Puts it on a par with any re enactment folk...I'd rather spend a few hours walking around dioramas like this than go watch re enactment stuff...Kudos.

 

As usual, nice job! I've never modeled smaller than 1/700th scale, and that's hard enough for me. I can't imagine building in 1/2400th (let alone scratch-building)!

 

Ruud,


I'd be a little more likely to model the first Karel Doorman as Nairana, since she didn't commission as Doorman until just after the war, but it is a question I've thought about some. She was a handsome ship. The proposed Dutch battlecruiser is another ship I've considered. If I expand into territory with Graf Zepplin and Aquilla then Karel Doorman might commission early. Maybe I'd just cut straight to the second Doorman, since it was a fairly large class. Perhaps the 1942 design was expedited when the Germans got serious about carrier warfare and Dutch schoolchildren held a subscription campaign, saving their guilders to buy Her Majesty Wilhelmina a respectable carrier. But what do you name it if Doorman doesn't die fighting in the East Indies? (I firmly believe that ships should not be named after people those still living who might, after all, do something unworthy of maritime memorialization.) In any case, the Netherlands will have a larger navy . . . eventually. When the budget permits. (Which probably sounds awfully familiar.) And if I ever get into age of sail stuff you'll have a very nice navy indeed.

In any case, thank you. I am honored that you like my work. The Dutch Navy is an august institution with a long and noble history. I'm proud to make my small contribution to remembering that.

URQH,

Thank you very much indeed.

 

George P.,

I haven't scratch-built much in 1/2400, only one small carrier. But it was less intimidating than I thought. Since it's so small you can carve the hull from a single small block of wood and build up from that with stock styrene, cardstock, balsa, or what have you. Further, as long as the gross dimensions are close the small scale is fairly forgiving. One doesn't need so much detail to look proper and more of that can be done with paint. Still, thank you. I am well pleased that you like my work.

 

Very impressive!

If I could pick a small nit with regard to USCGC Ingham, I don't think the US ever had an AA 4"; the AA guns added to the Treasuries were 3"/50s. Later of course they replaced both 5"51s and 3" with DP 5"38s. One of history's most successful classes IMO.

 

Oh, the 5"/38s were unquestionably magnificent guns. There must be a reason the Navy is still using them to this day, albeit with many spiffy new automation features. The 4" I was thinking of is most probably the 4"/50, which I incorrectly believed to be DP. I've edited the blog-post to reflect what you've said, taking out the AA reference. I apologize for posting what was most likely assumptions about the fit. I should really know better. I thought I'd researched it, but I can't find it now, so I probably just guessed from the photo. However i got there I was under the impression that the lowest forward mount was the original 5"/51, the next two up were both 4"/50s (probably landed from retired/converted destroyers) and the two aftmost beam mounts were 3"/50s. If the forward mount is a 5"/51 then the two mounts immediately astern are clearly smaller, but the two aft look even smaller still, but they look more substantial than a 3"/23. Do you have any thoughts?

 

No biggie. I'm quite sure both the upper guns forward and the sided ones aft were 3"50s, even if they look a bit different in the photo. #1 gun is indeed one of original 5"51s. #2 position was also originally a 5"/51 but has been changed for a 3"/50.

 

I'll learn one of these days. Thank you.