Navwar v Skytrex HMS Hood

[pbeccas]

Here's a link that compares Navwar and Skytrex's HMS Hood in 1/3000 scale.

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/minis/3000s.htm

 

[gbierl]

Very interesting article. I'm suprised the author did not complain that the models were not made from the same materials as the original. He was certainly critical of most everything else. Let's face it, we are playing a game. While this game is historical in nature and a certain level of accuracy is expected, it is still a product that is designed to entertain us. Making note that the Skytrex model is not in correct proportion to the actual HMS Hood by whole millimeters is a little too nitpicking for me.

Maybe I'm not an historical perfectionist. I just want to have fun.

Greg

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Very interesting article. I'm suprised the author did not complain that the models were not made from the same materials as the original. He was certainly critical of most everything else. Let's face it, we are playing a game. While this game is historical in nature and a certain level of accuracy is expected, it is still a product that is designed to entertain us. Making note that the Skytrex model is not in correct proportion to the actual HMS Hood by whole millimeters is a little too nitpicking for me.

Personally I feel he was overall very positive about both manufacturers. A mm may not be much in a 1/600 scale plastic or resin kit, but at this scale, it's VERY visible and the relative proportions would be easily notable (I don't have both Hoods yet, I have sent for them as part of a comparison survey). He does say the differences don't really matter, and that both are well suited for gaming. I do already have the Davco Hood, and even as a gaming piece it's not that impressive - although instantly recognisable, which is all I ask.

Wulf

 

[pbeccas]

And they are a good price. I love 1/3000 ships.

 

[Soulmage]

SUMMARY
For the intended purpose these models are recommendable and well suited. Skytrex is a little bit better detailed but also a bit more expensive, but for usage in Wargaming these small difference don't really matter. If you want a well detailed model you are forced to go to larger scales. The 1/2400 (considerably bigger and significantly more expensive) ships are a better detailed alternative, but for real details nothing smaller than 1/1200 will do - at least for commercially available models.

This summary says it all. If he feels it is basically impossible to get "real detail" on 1:2400 models, then this guy is definitely a detail freak! He doesn't want to game w/ his ships, he just wants to have gorgeous models that he gets out and pushes around once in a while.

 

[Bullshot]

You could always play as one of the old timers in our groups says they used to. They used something like 1:700 ships in a parking lot. They were on opposite sides of the lot using binoculars and actual range finders. They also used ship recognition diagrams. That is where you get the real detail in your minis wargames.

Personally, I prefer 1:2400 detail on a table top with air and heat and a few brewskies, not to mention chairs to sit on.

BS

 

[Wulf Corbett]

This summary says it all. If he feels it is basically impossible to get "real detail" on 1:2400 models, then this guy is definitely a detail freak!

I would agree with him. Even 1/1250 miniatures are still simplified for robustness and mould reliability. That's the difference between a 'model' and a 'gaming miniature'. And since he does say "For the intended purpose these models are recommendable and well suited", I can't see how he is in any way wrong! Note that the website is NOT a game site - it's a site dedicated to the real HMS Hood, and the article is one of a series describing all the commercially available models & miniatures of her.

Wulf

 

[gbierl]

Very interesting article. I'm suprised the author did not complain that the models were not made from the same materials as the original. He was certainly critical of most everything else. Let's face it, we are playing a game. While this game is historical in nature and a certain level of accuracy is expected, it is still a product that is designed to entertain us. Making note that the Skytrex model is not in correct proportion to the actual HMS Hood by whole millimeters is a little too nitpicking for me.

Personally I feel he was overall very positive about both manufacturers. A mm may not be much in a 1/600 scale plastic or resin kit, but at this scale, it's VERY visible and the relative proportions would be easily notable (I don't have both Hoods yet, I have sent for them as part of a comparison survey). He does say the differences don't really matter, and that both are well suited for gaming. I do already have the Davco Hood, and even as a gaming piece it's not that impressive - although instantly recognisable, which is all I ask.

Wulf

I will admit that after reading his writing on the millimeter discrepancies of the Skytrex models that I did not continue on to his summation. (Much to my detriment it would appear) But I will say that I label my models with both Ship Class and Ship Name. Because f I set a "Hood" class battlecruiser next to a "Prince of Wales" class battleship, the guys I game with would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I do not assume that a 1/2400th scale model will be "instantly recognisable". Perhaps my guys aren't that schooled on ship recognition, but whatever vessels they put on the table are fought hard and captained well. The fun is in the play, not the playing piece.

Just my $.002.

Greg

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I do not assume that a 1/2400th scale model will be "instantly recognisable". Perhaps my guys aren't that schooled on ship recognition, but whatever vessels they put on the table are fought hard and captained well. The fun is in the play, not the playing piece.

I have a problem telling a Tribal class from a Narvik (or a Town class, or a J/K/N, etc), but cruisers & above I'm OK on. I know there's a difference between Japanese Aircraft Carriers... but which is which name, I have no idea! I've never learned much about ships - but I have played a load of naval games, and built a load of models, so I know what they look like. Get the right mini, and you'll soon have the eye for it. The Hood is especially easily recognised in a WW2 emvironment - there are far more WW1 ships similar in configuration.

Wulf

 

[Soulmage]

Why is the Hood so freakishly big for a battlecruiser?? Its larger than most battleships!!

 

[gbierl]

I do not assume that a 1/2400th scale model will be "instantly recognisable". Perhaps my guys aren't that schooled on ship recognition, but whatever vessels they put on the table are fought hard and captained well. The fun is in the play, not the playing piece.

I have a problem telling a Tribal class from a Narvik (or a Town class, or a J/K/N, etc), but cruisers & above I'm OK on. I know there's a difference between Japanese Aircraft Carriers... but which is which name, I have no idea! I've never learned much about ships - but I have played a load of naval games, and built a load of models, so I know what they look like. Get the right mini, and you'll soon have the eye for it. The Hood is especially easily recognised in a WW2 emvironment - there are far more WW1 ships similar in configuration.

Wulf

Perhaps as my group gains experience we will develope your eye for the models. VaS is the first historical miniatures game I have been able to generate interest in with my group. We played a few games of General Quarters II years ago, but it never really caught on.

With VaS we are having loads o' fun.

Greg

 

[Reaverman]

Why is the Hood so freakishly big for a battlecruiser?? Its larger than most battleships!!

Because it was SOA in WWI, and then big was better. The bigger the ship, the more guns (and bigger guns) you could pack on it. This all changed, when the Washington treaty was signed. With a lot of British Warships scrapped, to meet the requirements.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Why is the Hood so freakishly big for a battlecruiser?? Its larger than most battleships!!

From the same website:

Between the fall of 1915 and early 1916, multiple battleship designs (differences/variations in length, beam, draught, armour, machinery and performance) were prepared. About this time, the requirement was changed at the behest of Admiral Jellicoe, from that of a fast battleship to a large battle cruiser. This change was influenced in part by recently confirmed reports of German plans to construct a new class of "super battle cruisers".

In February/March 1916, the Admiralty narrowed the choice down to two very similar designs by designer E.L. Attwood. These were further developed and evaluated until April 1916, when the better of the two designs was chosen. The ship was to be large – 860 feet in length, with a displacement of @36,000 tons. The long graceful hull, coupled with light armour and small tube boilers would permit the vessel to reach speeds up to and possibly exceeding 32 knots. In short, the ship would be large, light, fast and pack a fearsome punch – the ultimate battle cruiser.

Due to her extreme size, superb speed, large calibre armament and somewhat "larger than life" legend, she is often referred to (by modern day historians) as being not necessarily the last British battle cruiser, but the world's first true modern "fast battleship." This view is understandable when one compares Hood's protective armour and weaponry to contemporary battleships such as the Queen Elizabeth class, Hood was indeed a better armed and better protected ship. Of course, when one compares her armour/protective arrangement to those of the true fast/modern battleships that appeared in her latter days, it is clear that she was just a "super battle cruiser." Indeed, she always held an official designation of battle cruiser- the Admiralty knew full-well of her potential armour deficiencies.

Wulf

 

[DM]

Why is the Hood so freakishly big for a battlecruiser?? Its larger than most battleships!!

The short answer is "very, very big engines to meet the enormous power requirement to achieve her design speed"

 

[Fitzwalrus]

You could always play as one of the old timers in our groups says they used to. They used something like 1:700 ships in a parking lot. They were on opposite sides of the lot using binoculars and actual range finders. They also used ship recognition diagrams. That is where you get the real detail in your minis wargames.

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

Our old group never quite got to the 1/700th scale, binoculars-and-rangefinders level ( :shock: ) but we did play full-scale-range 1/1200th range estimation in one fellow's father's gas station parking lot on Sundays when they were closed. The battlelines would stay way back and lob shells at long range, and the cruisers and destroyers would steam in and out between the gas pump islands trying to ambush each other. We had to block off the driveways, because people driving by would see us in the lot and pull in to the middle of the game to buy gas....

At that point (mid to late '70's) no one had ever heard of 1/2400th ships. You played 1/1200th, and your choices of minis were pretty slim: the old (OOP) Comet line (if you could find any) which were nice clean models but had very little fine detail, the Superior Models range which had a large selection of ships and better detail but were more expensive, or Merten 1/1250th ships from Germany which were amazingly detailed, came assembled and partially painted (base colors), and were very expensive, at least twice the price (or better) of the Superior ships.

Today, the GHQ 1/2400th ships have almost the same level of detail on them as the old Merten's did, and on a model half the size. (The frikkin' PT boats have life rafts on the deck, fer cryin' out loud!) They really stand out when placed on the table next to other ships (nice as some of those are), which is why I both like them so much and am glad they came out after I had collected most of my fleet. I'd be a much poorer man today if they'd been available earlier! :lol:
I can see someone who was comparing gaming minis to larger models (like the Hood author) thinking 1/2400th's were lacking in comparative detail, but I have a really tough time envisioning a model in this scale (or Gawd forbid, 1/3000th which is even smaller) getting much more detail onto the mini than the GHQ's do.

 

[Bullshot]

You could always play as one of the old timers in our groups says they used to. They used something like 1:700 ships in a parking lot. They were on opposite sides of the lot using binoculars and actual range finders. They also used ship recognition diagrams. That is where you get the real detail in your minis wargames.

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

Our old group never quite got to the 1/700th scale, binoculars-and-rangefinders level ( :shock: ) but we did play full-scale-range 1/1200th range estimation in one fellow's father's gas station parking lot on Sundays when they were closed. The battlelines would stay way back and lob shells at long range, and the cruisers and destroyers would steam in and out between the gas pump islands trying to ambush each other. We had to block off the driveways, because people driving by would see us in the lot and pull in to the middle of the game to buy gas....

At that point (mid to late '70's) no one had ever heard of 1/2400th ships. You played 1/1200th, and your choices of minis were pretty slim: the old (OOP) Comet line (if you could find any) which were nice clean models but had very little fine detail, the Superior Models range which had a large selection of ships and better detail but were more expensive, or Merten 1/1250th ships from Germany which were amazingly detailed, came assembled and partially painted (base colors), and were very expensive, at least twice the price (or better) of the Superior ships.

Today, the GHQ 1/2400th ships have almost the same level of detail on them as the old Merten's did, and on a model half the size. (The frikkin' PT boats have life rafts on the deck, fer cryin' out loud!) They really stand out when placed on the table next to other ships (nice as some of those are), which is why I both like them so much and am glad they came out after I had collected most of my fleet. I'd be a much poorer man today if they'd been available earlier! :lol:
I can see someone who was comparing gaming minis to larger models (like the Hood author) thinking 1/2400th's were lacking in comparative detail, but I have a really tough time envisioning a model in this scale (or Gawd forbid, 1/3000th which is even smaller) getting much more detail onto the mini than the GHQ's do.

Glad I could drag up some good ol memoreies for ya! I don't think I can really comprehend a game that takes an entire parking lot to play in. Might be interesting, though.

BS

 

[Fitzwalrus]

Glad I could drag up some good ol memoreies for ya! I don't think I can really comprehend a game that takes an entire parking lot to play in. Might be interesting, though.

BS

We didn't play all our games that way - usually we just took over the floor space of the FLGS across the street from the gas station, and reduced our range scale. (In 1/1200th scale 1"=100 feet, so in a true-range game a BB firing at 30,000 yards could shoot a target ship 75 feet away. For true-range 1/2400th, reduce that by half.)

Playing a game at those ranges isn't something I'd want to do every time either, but it does give you a real feel for the relative distances at which the historical battles were fought and the size of the targets they were trying to hit. At 75 feet away even an Iowa looks small: people would have to stand over CLs and DDs and point so the other side could see where they were to range in (I guess that's where the binoculars come in... :lol: )

I think it was that size factor that finally led to the introduction of 1/2400th ship models and their eventual dominance of the hobby. I still have some of my old 1200ths, but nice as they were games are just so much easier to do in the smaller scale.

The same thing has happened in the traditional tabletop games like Napoleonics, Ancients, and WWII: there are still folks who build and play 25mm armies in all these fields, but far and away at most cons you see 15mm armies predominate because you can get so much more for your money and do so much more in the same gaming area with the smaller scale. The quality of sculpting and production has increased greatly as well, just as in the 1/2400th minis. I am constantly amazed at the level of some of the painting excellence I see online being done with 15mm miniatures, and would swear some of those figures must be at least 25's if I didn't know they were 15's. That level of quality, as well as the savings in cost and space requirements, has done a great deal to increase acceptance of the smaller scales over the years.