I'm considering a predreadnought (Swedish Sverige Class or Japanese Tsukuba Class) versus HMS Dreadnought for my next 1/144 hull mold project. Sverige Class models would be quite light at about 6 lbs. (LOA 33")versus about 11 pounds for the Tsukuba/Ikoma on a 6" longer hull. Both have 3.5 units in the IRCWCC and Treaty formats despite the considerable difference in size and displacement. Tsukuba would be the easiest of the 2 to build, though there are no detailed superstructure plans available to my knowledge. Dreadnought would be about 4" longer than Tsukuba, weigh 5 pounds more, and have another 0.5 combat unit. Speeds of all three ships are similar in each R/C Naval Combat format. Dreadnought exceeds the maximum dimensions (one meter) that Canada Post will ship, so it would have to go by Fed Ex or UPS. Ralph Coles tells me those shippers now require personal ID about the American purchaser (Social Insurance number I think), which some people may not be willing to give out. This seems to be due to new 'security measures' at the US border. This means that if I make the mold shipping hulls to Americans could be a problem. Sverige and Tuskuba hulls can be shipped by Canada Post with no such problems(so far). Any preferences for which of these hulls I should build? Bob P.
I'd like to see the Tsukuba out there.... but I have no plans to buy one in the near future, so I understand that my vote is not important.
My vote would be for Dreadnought. After all there are really not a lot of British Class 4's out there
I'd like to weigh in with the suggestion of the Mikasa over the Tsukuba. I don't know how the ships compare under the fast gun rules, but I know that they would perform very similarly in big gun (minimum warship speed, medium armor, same caliber guns, Mikasa has a couple more small caliber guns). Mikasa played a very active role in the Russo-Japanese War, especially as Togo's flagship during the Battles of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait, was preserved by the agreement of all major nations in the Washington Naval Treaties, was bombed in WW2, and was restored as a museum ship that can still be visited today. Dreadnought, of course, is famous for setting off a revolution in ship-building. She is also a pretty cool ship to arm as well, though the amidship turret will be a pain in big gun. Would it be possible to build Bellerophon, the immediate successor to Dreadnought, on the same hull? I prefer the look of Billy Ruffian's two masts to Dreadnought's one, and she's part of a noble line of ships that wore the same name (take a look at the actions of the 74-gun frigate).
The late Dan McGuffin of the OAF completed a Settsu hull mold several years ago and brought it to Halifax to show me. I assume someone in the OAF has the mold now and recall seeing a Settsu in their fleet list. A Dreadnought hull could be used for the Bellerophon Class. The Bellerophons were virtually repeat Dreadnoughts, with 6" more beam, funnels of equal size and tripod masts ahead of the funnels versus a single tripod aft of the fore funnel in Dreadnought - nicer looking ships IMO. Bob
Of the choices you listed, I think HMS Dreadnought is probably going to garner more interest, and thus would be the better choice from an interest stand point. In the Fast gun clubs (IRCWCC/MWC) they should be excellent 4 unit ships, and with dual rudders should give the Axis pig boats a taste of their own medicine. I'm not sure the pre-dreads would be as interesting to those two clubs as they are basically slow cruisers. If you do the pre-dread I kind of prefer the Sverige simply because it's neutral and can be used for either side.
Good point on the neutral part. I would like to remind everyone, that the Tsukuba would be allied, and that depending on the ship most Japanese ships can go both sides as the Japanese were on the side of the Triple Entente in WWI. The Tsukuba blew up in 1917, and therefore never participated in any Axis schemes. Although of course, it's not a big deal depending on your club.
The IRCWCC was simply Japanese = axis and made no distinction based on ww1 ships being allied and ww2 ships being axis. I'm pretty sure Treaty is the same way.
The best plan set I have is in the 'Anatomy of the Ship' series book on HMS Dreadnought, so that's a plus for building that hull mold. However, I don't need one for myself as I have several completed models and more interesting hulls awaiting construction. I do like the Sverige's ability to battle on either side as a Neutral, and enjoyed operating two neutral ships in the past (Spanish predreadnought Espana and heavy cruiser Canarias). I have a nice set of hull sections sent by Mike Deskin years ago, and a Sverige mold would be an easier and quicker build than Dreadnought. Bob
As much as I love pre-dreads, and the Tsukuba especially I would say Dreadnought would be the better choice.
Sorry buster, those look like "wing turrets" not "casemates". And no, they would not be cool to have on your boat. They would be REALLY cool. Next time, don't leave out the REALLY part.
LMAO WELL! The thingy under the wing turret would get all to have all shorts of solid material under the IRCWCC rules. Nothing like bullet proof areas on your boat.
I'd pay good money to see a crew of 1/144 pygmies repairing a ship. I'd immediately hire a crew to man the guns on my boat!
