Help support TMP


"Pithead Miniatures" Topic


15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Naval Gaming 1898-1929 Message Board

Back to the Ironclads (1862-1889) Message Board


Areas of Interest

American Civil War
19th Century
World War One

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Brother Against Brother


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Profile Article


Featured Book Review


2,425 hits since 19 Aug 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP19 Aug 2016 10:54 a.m. PST

Many of you have noticed the postings by wargamer6 about Pithead Miniatures' proposed masters for 19th C. ships, such as the 1/1200 vessels of the 1860s Triple Alliance war and the more recent 1/1200 Confederate gunboats.

Have you noticed all the other sets proposed, but not yet made into masters?

There are proposals for other South American and European fleets in 1/1200, placeholders for 1/2000 scale pre-dreadnoughts from 1880-1910, and British and German WWI miniatures in 1/6000.

Pithead admits up front that it is not in the business of naval miniatures, this is just a limited run to indulge the sculptor's fancies. Many of them will never be produced if there are insufficient responses from the gaming community. If you like the sound of any of these, please contact Pithead and express your interest.

I did so, and even went as far as to suggest (well, plead actually) that some of these to be made in different scales than proposed. For instance, I'd much rather see the ironclads all the way through the 1890s produced in 1/1200 scale instead of 1/2000 scale, because it's a better scale for showing off the weird designs, still small enough for gaming, and it would let me use my huge ecosystem of existing 1/1200 scale bits, like forts, buildings, boats, harbors, farms, copses, fields, and 1/1200 ships of all sizes from earlier periods that can serve all the way through the 1800s as auxiliaries, targets and coastal decorations.

- Ix

Schlesien19 Aug 2016 11:48 a.m. PST

I am happy that someone is making miniatures for ships that are lacking in any scale. The quality is there as well. Based on my recent dealings with Pithead, I hope to make some more purchases in the future (probably non-ship though).

Tom Scott20 Aug 2016 2:05 p.m. PST

Definitely would go for 1/1200. 1/2000 is too small for pre-dreads (imho, of course).

wargamer620 Aug 2016 3:06 p.m. PST

"1/2000 is too small for pre dreads"

I have to disagree with you there Tom , check out the French Pre dreadnoughts that I have already made , they have plenty of detail and only take up half the space. You have to go with scales that reflect the rising gun ranges and ship sizes or you end up with the same problem you get with 1/600 Ironclads.

link

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP20 Aug 2016 10:28 p.m. PST

I agree that 1/2000 should be fine for pre-dreadnoughts. Long shots in the SAW and RJW were at 10-14000 yards, and it's nice to have maneuver room outside that so the admirals can choose their lines of approach and adjust fleet dispositions to suit the tactical situation.

In my opinion, actions involving ships built before 1890 probably do deserve a larger scale like 1/1200. Ranges were shorter, speeds were lower, the number of vessels involved in a battle would often have been smaller, and the greater size shows off the odd shapes and features. Some of those earlier designs will need to be in the smaller scale as well, to serve in battles alongside the pre-dreadnoughts.

- Ix

Tom Scott21 Aug 2016 12:26 p.m. PST

Those are excellent models, without question. Tempting, even. Still a personal preference for slightly larger models: 1/1200 civil war vs 1/2400; 1/1500 vs 1/2400 for 1890's.

I am interested in ALL of your 1/1200 Ironclad proposals.

colkitto21 Aug 2016 2:11 p.m. PST

Just adding my tuppence worth -

Those 1/2000 models look very nice. I'd be really interested in a Lissa range in 1/2400 or 1/2000.

And I'm curious about the 1/6000 WW1 suggestion. My own thought on that is that there is already a range in that scale, although it's not cheap. I find that scale just a bit too small, but I would be extremely interested in a 1/4800 range, if that was a prospect …

wargamer621 Aug 2016 3:23 p.m. PST

I have not come across 1/4800 scale. You may have a point as models should be as large and as detailed as possible after taking into consideration the gunnery ranges. I will certainly try making a sample in that scale when I get round to making the WW1 ranges.

Bozkashi Jones21 Aug 2016 4:04 p.m. PST

Those look fantastic Wargammer6!

valerio22 Aug 2016 1:20 a.m. PST

These look indeed fantastic.. Any chanche you produce a couple of Italian ships as well? Our naval policy at the time was "prepare for war against France", so you could legitimately play interesting what-ifs

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP22 Aug 2016 10:52 a.m. PST

I have not come across 1/4800 scale. You may have a point as models should be as large and as detailed as possible after taking into consideration the gunnery ranges.
I agree with colkitto on all points, and 1/4800 is a good suggestion. The Figurehead 1/6000 line covers WWI and the pre-dreadnought periods pretty thoroughly (including designs that never left the drawing board), but in 1/4800 WWI is still an open field.

If you've never seen 1/4800 miniatures, you should look into them. They are pretty small, but done well they can show off the major design features of large ship designs, and they fit on a table really well. AFAIK this scale started at C-in-C, but never grew past the original offerings of UK/German North Atlantic WWII vessels (plus convoy fodder). I had no idea there is an ever-growing Shapeways ecosystem of 1/4800 miniatures to supplement this range until this posting by Kniaz Suvorov. His picture collection alone has nearly caused me to throw out my entire 1/2400 WWII collection and start over in 1/4800, several times. Kniaz Suvorov even has his own Shapeways store to sell the designs he has produced.

- Ix

wargamer622 Aug 2016 11:34 a.m. PST

To be honest I can't make 1/4800 scale ship masters by hand with as much detail as those printed models so perhaps we had all better go to Shapeways for our ships . Whats the going rate for one battleship.

colkitto22 Aug 2016 11:50 a.m. PST

Mick Yarrow still has a very old range of 1/4800 WW1 and WW2 stuff, but it's variable in quality and at best it's … OK. But the size is an excellent compromise IMHO.

Captain Gideon22 Aug 2016 6:12 p.m. PST

I think the perfect scale for Pre-Dreadnoughts has to be 1/3000th I was able to do Tsushima on a table using 1/3000th scale and it worked out fine.

I also have a small but decent number of 1/2400th scale which is very good for WWII games.

In addition I have 1/6000th scale which I have the entire German,Japanese and Italian WWII Fleets(including never built ships)plus I have some American.British,French and Dutch ships as well.

Finally I do have a small number of 1/1200th scale Japanese and Russian Pre-Dreadnoughts but there more for display rather than gaming.

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP23 Aug 2016 3:51 p.m. PST

To be honest I can't make 1/4800 scale ship masters by hand with as much detail as those printed models so perhaps we had all better go to Shapeways for our ships.
Heck, I don't even know how you make such nice models in 1/1200! Those 1/2000 pre-dreadnought masters look pretty nice too.

- Ix

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.