"Starting a small naval project. Advice on ships?" Topic

Hi all

After watching the Hornblower series again I got the itch. I wish to built a small foce of ships to fight naval actions between the Russians and British during the 1800 League of Armed Neutrality. I will be using Kiss me Hardy for rules.

My idea was to get one British Frigate and one 64 gun and one Russian frigate and one 64 gun.

My question is: For a first time small sailing ship modeller what is your suggestion for manufacturer? I have experience with 6-54 mm Figurines, and I have sratch-built 1/900 pre-dreadnaughts, but I have never tried my had at sialing ships.

With Respect
KTravlos

See this thread:

TMP link

My contribution to it shows an image of a 1/2400 Spanish 40-gun(ish) frigate. BTW, I still recommend black .010" Beadalon wire for standing rigging for this scale, but don't get it from the Amazon link I posted (not honest).

MH

Ahh missed that one in my search. Thank you!

I'd go with Rod Langton's 1/1200.

link

Click on ships and then scroll down to the Russian/Swedish Baltic fleets.

If I remember correctly Rod actually visited the Museum in St Petersburg to get the Russian ships correct.

Best source book for the Russian Navy – Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates by John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev.

Best regards,

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

Valiant Minis 1/2000th ships – buy them in the bulk packs, for additional savings, e.g. about 50% off.

I will second the Langtons. If you only need a few ships they are wonderful models. (Very addictive though…)

Third for the Langtons, especially if you are only going to game with one or two ships per side.

1/1200 makes the American 44s ~2" long, and even the HMS Victory is all of 2.25" long. I wouldn't want to go much smaller than that, because it makes the little ships far too small.

GHQ also makes 1/1200 ships, which aren't quite as nice as Langton. However, if you watch the exchange rates you can snag Langton for the same cost as GHQ (if the pound is less than $1.52 USD).

With respect to 1/1200 GHQ versus Langton, from an old thread:

GHQ is of a different "style" from Langton, IMHO. Langton is less detailed than GHQ and a bit over-scale (if you compare to plans). Also, the Langton stern window part is much more crudely made, and requires more modification to get an equally neat result. However, Langton hulls are good enough, and they have a very good mast/sail "system", and the painted examples on their website are much more skillfully executed than on GHQ's. GHQ has more in-scale hulls, with scale (lower) waterlines, but the mast/sail "system" is much more restricted. BTW, you can use Langton masts with GHQ if you want.

Here's a comparative image: I had to add a piece of plastic on the bottom of the GHQ "Leda" frigate on the right, in order to get it to look compatible with the Langton "Indefatigable" on the left. I also reduced the Langton freeboard to the bare minimum. (Yes, I know that the real Indefatigable had a higher hull, being a cut-down 64. However, pre-modification, the Langton model was too high, from a scale perspective, as are most of their 1/1200 ships. To bring the 2 lines closer together, I chose to make the GHQ model a bit "too high", since most of my 1/1200s are to be Langtons.)

MH

Not revisiting the whole previous discussion, but I prefer Langton's more direct and bolder lines. It is a matter of choice as to which style you prefer – that and I know Rod well and how hard he works to get the detail right …

I have given several wargames demos with only 2 or 3 Langton ships on the table and they always draw good comments and interest. Here's a shot of a British frigate and the 64 Africa in company as they sail to engage a US frigate squadron in the War of 1812 at our last outing.

Each ship will take you a week of evenings if you paint and rig at the speed I do.

Best wishes,

Mark Barker

link

Thank you all!

On a peripheral topic, I have found contemporary illustrations useful in deciding how model wargame sailing ships should look, with respect to such things as the height and angle of the masts, etc. I have decided to model my ships where possible under fighting sail, meaning that I leave off the royal masts and yards when calculating the height, which is what you get with the Langton "fighting sail" masts. (From lowest to highest I believe the sails were named course, topsail, topgallant sail, royal, and skysail. So "main course" was the lowest sail on the main mast. Mast elements and yards had related names. Remember that sailing ships were capable of partially disassembling their masts at sea, and frequently did so, at least for the upper 3 elements mentioned above.)

If you can find them, there was a 5-volume set covering the French Revolution / Napoleonic / War-of-1812 naval period which was particularly good for contemporary illustrations of sailing ships, with one on practically every page. They were published by Chatham / Caxton / Naval Institute Press about 10-15 years ago, and can still be obtained at locations such as this:

link

If you get just one, the "Naval War of 1812" volume might be best.

MH

well I ordered two frigates. White metal sails and brass ratlines

Good call.

White metal sails are easier to paint and have a more "billowy" look to them than than brass in my view (unless your name is Brad Bailey and then they look a dream …)

The metal ratlines give real rigidity and strength to the model.

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

Since you chose 1/1200, you will probably want to rig your 2 frigates. At that scale, it looks funny if you don't. Langton sells a small ring-bound booklet describing in detail how to do this. I strongly recommend buying this booklet, called "A Guide to Assembly, Painting & Rigging of Napoleonic Naval Models in Scale 1:1200".

MH

Yes I will rig them.This is why I decided to go with small fleets. I will have to think about the book. Buying the two frigates blew my self-imposed wargame budget for the next 3 months. Except if someone buys my HOTT army, the rigging book with have to wait.

Thank you for your suggestions!
KTravlos

My minis have arrived! Excellent service from Waterloo minis! They really look great!

Well if you get to the rigging stage before you can afford the book, there's a lot of stuff on the Internet. Here's an outline of standing rigging, for example. You would use a black or "scale black" color for this, to represent the tarred rope. You would probably simplify things quite a bit on your model from the real thing. So, 1 or 2 backstays per mast instead of 4, etc. The nice thing about the Langton book is that they already have figured out which rigging can be left off while still giving the illusion of a fully rigged 1/1200 model from a distance.

link

Running rigging (non-tarred, and normal "rope" color) descriptions can be found also.

MH

well I "finished" one of the frigates

link

Not too bad for a first try.

2 comments are (1) I think your colors need to be toned down a bit (just my personal preference; I like the colors on the Langton website; others may differ), and (2) some of that rigging needs to be tightened up a bit.

Also, for the next ship, one guy on these boards had the idea of pre-stretching the rigging thread by hanging a weight from it overnight.

MH

I've been following this thread with interest particularly the discussion regarding GHQ v's Langton and white metal v's brass sails. I made two 1:1200 30 years ago as a teenager when the Skytrex models first came out. I made my own brass sails as none were then available.

Of course like everybody else I marveled at images of the made up Langton ships but always thought something didn't look quite right about them especially when seeing the Victory model. Reading this thread has nailed it, they do sit too high as if the guns and ballast hasn't been loaded and the masts and bowspit are too heavy/thick. I now can't look at them without thinking they are wrong…

I'm now hoping the Sails of Glory models will be 'right' and compatible with GHQ.

Reading this thread has nailed it, they do sit too high as if the guns and ballast hasn't been loaded and the masts and bowspit are too heavy/thick. I now can't look at them without thinking they are wrong…

True that Langton hulls look too high unmodified, but if you are a modeler you can lower the hulls by filing/sanding down the waterline. Too bad I didn't show a "before/after" side view of the Indefatigable hull on the left side of the above image. The one in the above image should look fine when rigged. Remember that the real Indefatigable had a higher hull than a regular contemporary frigate.

With respect to "Sails of Glory", the prototype I saw had masts which were about 25% too high compared with the length of the hull. At least with the separate Langton masts, you can make a custom height/length aspect ratio to match a contemporary painting.

MH

Thanks

Is there a preferred method for filling them down to give a nice even result? Are the hulls solid or do they have a portion removed 'inside' to make this operation a bit easier. Is it a case of getting a big file and perhaps locking this into a bench vice then holding the hull using the file to remove the excess while trying to preserve your fingers?

So how come Langton got this critical aspect so wrong?

Any other thoughts on the two lines. I'm drawn to GHQ as I like sharp clean castings but obviously Langton have a wider range. I think I'll use white metal sails having used brass in the past I don't want this to turn into a model making project. The ones I did in the past were Skytrex and they seemed to sit nicely as well.

One aspect of using contemporary painting is that they aren't always accurate. Certainly those that Turner painted, whilst stunningly beautiful paintings, are in no way accurate.

Sails of Glory – I guess we wait to see however, the hull did look to be sitting correctly even if the masts are wrong.

To mind my mind GHQ 74 looks spot on, just really beautifully done. No 'nets' to simulate shrouds and ratlines – just the shrouds. The whole thing is an essay in getting the balance of everything just right.

ghqmodels.com/store/131.html

Timmo,

I was fooling around with superimposing the model image over a NMM side-view plan, and I may have over-reacted to your post. The GHQ Leda/Shannon, prior to my adding the plastic spacer, seems to have been very close to what I infer is the normal load waterline on the plan… So you were right. Sorry about that.

Note in the image below, the upper horizontal line is what I think is the "normal" load waterline. With my spacer, I have extended the amount of exposed hull down to the next horizontal line on the plan, which is presumably less correct. It does more closely correspond to my "lowered" Langton models though, so they look like they both come from the same universe.

With respect to filing down a hull, I first bend the hull to make any desired sheer line adjustments. Then, I clamp a sharp metal file to my workbench, and then move the model hull against it, holding the hull with my fingers. I periodically put the hull on a small flat surface held up to eye level to check for listing.

The Langton hulls which I have are solid, and appear to be cast from a high lead-content alloy. I have had to use a dremel tool to hollow them out from the bottom, to reduce their bulk sufficiently to allow me make sheer line adjustments. Since this sprays lead dust all over the place, I do it inside a clear plastic bag to confine the lead dust. Basically, the model and my right hand holding the dremel tool are inside the plastic bag, and my left hand is outside, and holds the model through the plastic. A rubber band holds the mouth of the plastic bag tight around my right wrist. Of course this contaminates the dremel tool with lead dust, but it can be run for a bit outside, and then wiped off with alcohol. Of course, the hand in the bag should be washed immediately upon removal.

Yes, contemporary paintings are approximations. What I have done is look at a large number of them for a particular class of ship, and then "average" their appearance in my mind to get what I hope is the correct proportions. There are also a few surviving spar plans which one can use to check against.

FYI, here is another superimposed image – this time of a French 74. One sees that the overall GHQ freeboard is close, but that ideally one should bend the hull to correct the sheer forward, file it flat, and then add a piece of plastic to regain the freeboard. I guess it just depends on how picky you want to be.

IMHO, the Langton cast sails look better than the brass, unless you figure out a way to bend the brass in 2 dimensions. Most people just bend them in one dimension, and then they look wrong from the side.

MH

Thank you for showing this, it really is excellent. Don't worry about your post I couldn't read any over reaction in what you said even with a second reading of it!

You've clearly gone to an awful lot of trouble to gets this right. For me it it looks right to my MkI eyeball then I think it'll past muster.

I am interested though in your comments regarding GHQ verses Langton in general, eg casting quality ease of painting etc. For example, I've often wondered about soldering up new mast from brass rod to scale but this creates all sorts of extra work and after I'm in this for the gaming no the model making. You obviously are happy to use both GHQ and Langton along side each other with you conversion work. If I mainly used GHQ would reducing the freeboard of the Langton models be a broadly acceptable solution, if I wasn't be too picky?

I do have a full workshop (used for vintage car restoration) at my disposal so doing 'things' that requires tools, drill stands etc is all possible. Lead dust sounds nasty and one to wear the full face breathing mask for?

At this stage I really can't decide which way to go. Do make up some fleets reasonably quickly in 1/2400 and get playing. Do I start building kits in 1/1200 or do I wait god knows how long for Sail of Glory to launch. I'm doing nothing while I ponder this question.

Timmo,

With lead, I think the best thing to do is contain and safely dispose of the dust as you create it. A little advance planning goes a long way. Always work with lead in a localized area, and clean up as you go. Use hand tools in preference to power tools, whenever possible. Keep in mind that you can get it on your hands and clothes, so wash your hands, and if necessary, change clothes. Spraying it all over your work area and wearing a mask sounds like a bad idea. Don't spray it in the first place.

With respect to 1/1200 sail modeling standards, remember that unmodified Langton, if built tastefully as on their website, looks better than the nominally better-proportioned ships depicted on the GHQ website. I think that because the overall impression is more a function of color and how you do the masts and rigging, than of how high the hull is. In other words, the masts and rigging apparently contribute most to the overall impression of shape. If you (as I have) decide to go one better and try to lower the Langton freeboard a bit, then they will look even better. Remember that you may not be able to go all the way down; you don't want the gunports on the waterline, for example.

I wouldn't bother hand-making masts. The Langton masts (and even the GHQ masts) are viewed in the context of the overall 3D space taken up the masts/rigging, and should look fine if positioned, painted, and rigged properly. I assume you have looked at the pictures on the Langton web site. Don't you think their masting system looks pretty decent in that context? The GHQ website pictures look much less good, possibly because the builders have used overly "contrasty" colors.

MH

MH

Thanks for the tips on working with lead. Sounds nasty stuff but your plastic bag method sounds good. I expect I'll do as you have done and set up a long file in the bench vice, wear gloves and reduce the hulls like that. I think I'll wait to see Sails of GLory before deciding.

I do think you are right about the way GHQ and Langton finish and display their models. As you write Langton are masters at colour and rigging. However, I have always preferred the standing rigging to just depict the shrouds and not the ratlines, in other words I've never been convinced that black net looks right since there are so many cut edges and the shrouds don't taper together as they should. When I first saw the real HMS victory at a distance the natural hemp rope of the thin ratlines disappears and all you do see is the heavier black tarred shrouds. This is borne out in nautical art.

There is a rigging PDF online that shows how to rig like this and the GHQ ones are done in this way.

One of the other things I've noticed is that when the models have too much rigging on them then the impression of bulk of the hull is lost. The big Skytrex 1/700s get over this issue by their sheer bulk and greater scale fidelity but they are too big for my space and too costly. However, with fine enough rigging and just the right amount of it then I think in 1/1200 the hulls can still have presence and character. In my view most on the Langton sight have too much rigging whereas the GHQ link to the French 74, that I posted above, look spot on, and is what I aim to mimic.

Thanks for discussing this it's been very helpful.

I'll do as you have done and set up a long file in the bench vice, wear gloves and reduce the hulls like that.

Better to clamp the file at the edge of the table top with a C-clamp. You could use special gloves, but I just wash my hands afterwards. Keep any lead dust/filings localized to one spot on your workbench, and periodically sweep them up carefully and dispose of them.

Hmm; I just noticed that you may be right about the ratlines. Below is a sketch from the 1840s of a British 80-gun ship of the Napoleonic era (ex-French Hoche, captured 1798), done by a RN officer when such ships still existed in the RN. She seems to be showing a lot of copper and riding high in the water. Maybe we could use this as an excuse for model hulls being a bit higher.

Below is a comparison of a Langton French 80-gun 2-decker with a NMM plan. Looks like it needs a bit more sheer and the bulwarks (railings?) at the weather decks to be lowered a bit more.

MH

Well I "finished" both ships

link

Nice job! Sorry we hijacked your thread. MH

No problem! Hijack freely!

Well done on completing your models. Are you going to do any more? And sorry from me as well, it just kinda of happened but I hope the information MH is generously offering is of interest to all.

Yup the Langton 80 is well over, for me the first thing I noticed was the bow and how out the top of it is. In fact when you see them like this they really are out, and where's the rudder gone… I'm presuming from your earlier comments that a GHQ is closer when aligned on a NMM plan? One other thing I've recently noticed is GHQ have more detailing under the channels than Langton.

The G clamp makes more sense – thanks.

The water colour – you never know what's been done in the meantime to the ship. The French guns may have been replaced with lighter calibre British pieces bringing her up in the water. She might have little ballast, water etc

The myriad of Trafalgar paintings are what I've been looking at and generally the ships are painted sitting low showing no or very little copper. Given the wind was so low it's quite a good action to use as a guide as the ships won't be healing at all. My observation rightly or wrongly is that surely the widest part of the ship would be at the waterline isn't this the first strake?

The smaller single decker in the distance is riding nicely though.

I know this is a modern painting but the Royal Sovereign looks right to me here:
link

Timmo UK. The information is quite useful. I will built some more (enough to be able to host 8 players), but very slowly.

Where's the rudder gone ?

Easy – under the waterline ! When you base the Langton 80 you take the waves up to the cast rudder (just above your waterline cut-off) and the problem goes away. I've moved to using Citadel's water-based Green putty and it works a treat …

As previously noted on these posts which range you go for depends on personal preference – I find GHQ nicely detailed, crisp etc yes but just a bit anaemic. The Langton ships give an impression of real power – along the lines of the Geoff Hunt pictures.

Here's my French 80 (rigged and painted by Langton when they did such things) in a spot of bother at Trafalgar ..

Would not swap that for GHQ for the world.

By the way there was no much wind at Trafalgar but there was a tremendous swell, so the Combined Fleet would have been heeling badly as they were hit broadside on by this rolling motion. Often forgotten this – and critical to considering the damage suffered by the British fleet on the approach …

Best wishes

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

Just to make this clear, I think that both Langton and GHQ have good points, and there is a place for both in the hobby. I'm just exploring ways to make them visually compatible, and in some cases more accurate, for those like myself who are interested in doing minor modifications.

With respect to rudders, they are easy to add by inserting a piece of plastic card in a slot cut in the hull.

MH

Vive la difference! I think the thing that strikes me when I look at any nautical art is just how thin the masts, spars and bowspits are. Obviously this is very difficult to replicate in such small models.

For now I'm going to remain on the fence until the Sails of Glory models come out. Only then will I be able to make a decision although I already suspect I'll be using parts from all. Having used Skytrex hulls and masts with home made sails I'm not adverse to doing so again.

I made the pair shown here very many years ago when I was 17 years old. Time has slackened the rigging in places, yellowed the varnish and made things a bit 'wobbly'. Bare in mind this was before Langton even existed so there was nothing really decent to aspire to. I just did a little research in pre internet days. They don't stack up to what I think I could do now and I'd use far less rigging a second time around.

Those look great!

Actually I think these look pretty good.

I've got an idea for getting the proper compound curve in brass sails, but I haven't tried it yet.

You need something like a vinyl-topped folding table (or a thick piece of leather) and a marble. It's really a poor-man's English Wheel, so you make the top-to-bottom curve first, and then push down and roll the marble the length of the curve, back and forth, to get the amount of 'belly' in the sail you want. It takes time to make that kind of curve, though.