missing ships - need look a likes...

[Der Kommandant]

so panzerschiffe makes most of the ships for the US navy but there are a few that i cant find by name directly.

i was hoping that one of you ship buffs here could help me find panzerschiffe replacements for the following...

clemson class destroyer
new orleans class cruiser
and
new york class battleship

here is the link to panzer if you need it.
http://www.panzerschiffe.com/American_Warships_from_World_War_II.html

thanks in advance!

 

[Soulmage]

Not a historical expert, but I have done a lot of looking at the Panzerschiffe catalog and VaS rulebook lately!

I don't have the rulebook here, but I believe it says that a Clemson class destroyer is just a slightly tweaked Fletcher class. So you could use the same model for both.

The New Orleans class cruiser is A004.

The New York class battleship is B116. Its old enough that it is listed with the WWI era ships.

As I've been assembling my fleets, I've noticed that Panzerschiffe has ships by name, not necessarily class. So you might have to do some digging to match the classes in the rulebook with the names in the Panzerschiffe catalog. To complicate things further, I think I've found at least a couple instances where the class name in the rulebook isn't the official class name, or represents a "sub-class" that Panzerschiffe lumps together because they look essentially the same.

Maybe I will post the listing of Panzerschiffe catalog numbers for everything I have bought for the benefit of others. We'll have to see if I have some spare time,. . .

 

[DM]

The Clemson is more like a Wilkes, one of the old "4 stackers". The Fletcher was a much more modern design.

 

[Der Kommandant]

thanks guys, i appreciate it.

i think i found the match for the clemson, D-001, something they call a flush decker. the notes that they have seem to match too talking about the number that were sent to G Britain and such.

good call on the wickes class DM. the clemson is a wickes redesign.

 

[DM]

I'm well acquainted with the 4 stackers, having made a master for one (including Campbeltown mods) for SDD in 1/600 (which I think they lost :evil: ), and since one of them was named after one of my ancestors

 

[E Nicely]

Is Panzerschiffe 1:2400? If thats your scale try GHQ.

 

[Soulmage]

I don't think he wants to pay $10 - $15 a ship. . .

 

[Der Kommandant]

ya hit it on the head soul.
im more of a 1.50-5 dollar a ship guy.

so far im pretty happy with what panzer has to offer. after searching USN and IJN they have everything except 2 IJN subs that im a bit confused on.

 

[E Nicely]

The sculpts on the GHQ models make them worth every penny IMO.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

The sculpts on the GHQ models make them worth every penny IMO.

Not quite so relevant with little toy boats, but I've always been of the opinion that GHQ overdo the detail for the scale. I've gone off their little toy tanks (1/285), because the details are exaggerated for visibility. In reality, at distances that would give the same visual size as the model, you just would'nt see that much detail. Of course, masts and such would be visible, and frequently are entirely missing from simpler, cheaper, minis, but generally I just no longer actually like GHQ...

Of course, I collect 1/3000 anyway, so I'm not even tempted...

Wulf

 

[Breten]

I'm buying GHQ as well. It's more of a convenience thing for me. My LGS carries GHQ, and I don't like ordering online, because when I want a model, I want it now, not a month from now.

Plu I like detail on my minis. Lots of it.

 

[E Nicely]

^like seeing the "planks" of the decks in fine detail? I love them.

 

[Breten]

^like seeing the "planks" of the decks in fine detail? I love them.

That is pretty cool. They also lend themselves to quick paint jobs. There is detail to drybrush and recesse to wash.

 

[DM]

I recall reading something when I began making 1/1200 scale models many years ago that said that you should view your models from a distance of 12" to get the correct impression, and that if you couldn't see the detail at that distance you were really wasting your time. Of course it was a rule I tended to ignore, but in the heat of battle its surprising how one's highly detailed models and the lesser detailed ones tend to merge i terms of visual appeal I was wondering if there was a minimum "viewing distance" for other scales, or whether 12" was more related to human perception and thus covered all?

 

[Soulmage]

I don't think 12" is even far enough TBH. When the models are sitting on the table, you're generally going to be looking at them from 3' - 4' away. IMO, the ships ought to be modeled/painted with that in mind.

That is why I just can't imagine playing at 1/6000 scale. While they might be beautiful up close, I can't see the ships as looking like anything but little clumps of metal on the table!

1/3000 is about as small as I would ever consider, even that is pushing it.

Thus, I am happy with 1:2400 from Panzerschiffe that does't have a huge amount of detail that is just going to get lost anyway. But then, my ships aren't intended as display pieces that I put on a shelf when I am not using them. They are representative models for the game, nothing more.

 

[Breten]

Yeah, I'm a painter before gamer so I'm all about the painting. Though in the last 6 months I've been gaming a hell of a lot more than painting.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I was wondering if there was a minimum "viewing distance" for other scales, or whether 12" was more related to human perception and thus covered all?

They say the ideal viewing distance for 1/72 scale is 2-3 feet. I'd certainly not be playing VaS only 12" away from the ships - and certainly not from ALL of them!

Wulf

 

[BuShips]

I'm well acquainted with the 4 stackers, having made a master for one (including Campbeltown mods) for SDD in 1/600 (which I think they lost :evil: ), and since one of them was named after one of my ancestors

And what ship would that be? I hope it was after a long life too, for to have a warship named after you meant you had to be a hero and most of them died in the process :roll: .

 

[E Nicely]

I'm a painter (god I wish I had time to paint evrything I own) I'll pick up a model, put it right up to my nose and look at it. I do it with mine and other people's. I've won painting competitions before and thats what people that judge those things do. Detail is important.

 

[Soulmage]

My wife is arguably one of the best non-"pro" painters in the state. She pretty much always wins "best painted" award any time we go to a tournament. Since she paints my stuff too. . . so do I! LOL!! :lol: But she draws a careful distinction between "army painting" and "competition painting."

Competition painting is exactly what you described. . where folks pick up your models and scrutinize them at very close range so that they can discern subtle distinctions between high quality models for judging purposes.

OTOH, if you are painting pieces that you intend primarily to game with, you have to take a more exaggerated approach. Fine details do not show up at all at "gaming distance" and tend to blend together in a mash. So you have to deliberately paint the models so they reach out a grab you from several feet away, rather than awe you up close. A totally different approach.

While my wife is good at competition painting, she just doesn't like to invest that type of time in one model generally. There probably aren't many at all who are better at army painting than she is though.

She also excels at speed painting and can turn out a model in 1/2 hour that is better than most folks can do no matter how long they take. At GenCon, she will generally make it into the speed paint finals, where she will be one of the few "unknowns" in the match, competing against all the big names who are widely known and frequently make a living through their painting skills. She looses to them of course, but even making it into competition with them is quite an accomplishment in my book!

I love my wife!!