Subject SMML10/10/99VOL694 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:14:30 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Reviews of "The Navy" & "Australian Warship Review" 2: Airfix book 3: Re: Trivia 4: Re: USS LANGLEY 5: Modeling websites 6: Review, Viking Vietnam era Monitor kit - OOB review 7: Re: Garibaldi heavy cruiser (1st W.W.) 8: HMS Cossack 9: Help me! 10: WR Press Trivia Question - Addendum 11: Re: WR Press Trivia 12: Re: Oi and Kitakami 13: Trivia Question 14: Re: BB aircraft 15: 1/250 16: Re: DOCUMENTATION 17: Atomic Icebreaker "Arktika" 18: Re: Garibaldi!! 19: Re: YAMATO Deck Color/Colors in General 20: Re: F8F Cougar 21: Hawaiian pilot 22: USS Honolulu and Savannah 23: USS MINNEAPOLIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Shane Subject: Reviews of "The Navy" & "Australian Warship Review" Hi gang, Well over the last week, the local newsagent has coughed up these two titles. They are both Australian publications & I don't know of their availability overseas. I'll deal with "The Navy" first. This is the magazine of the Navy League of Australia & is published quarterly. It is currently edited by Mark Schweikert. This magazine has been around since 1938 & gives a very balanced view of the RAN & others, with some very in depth articles. It retails over here for AUD$4.95 & is 40 pages long This issue contains an update on the Collins Class SS as well as answering some of the critics of the recent SINKEX of the Torrens who say that the hull must have been packed with extra explosives for the benefit of the media. Nice three photo spread of the torpedo hitting the Torrens & the after effects. Other articles include the following: A nice article on Rotary air power in the Pacific region. RAN Clearence Diving Teams (CDT) - the roles the CDT play RAN Sea Training Group - Damage Control training - very enlightening Twilight of the battleships - Fate of the Iowas With all the usual news etc. - Highly recommended. The only hassle is that it only comes out quarterly ;-(( Now we come to the new boy on the block - "Australian Warship Review - Australian & International Naval news Pictorial", published quarterly by Topmill Press (Some people may recall I reviewed the first issue last year in SMML18/7/98Vol244). I can't tell you edits it as it's not mentioned. The magazine consists mainly of imported articles from around the world(including one from a "famous" SMMLie who uses the tome he edits for fixing warped resin hulls ;-þ ), with a few home grown ones. This issue has a number of production failures which is annoying: the magazines WP program didn't gel properly with the printer's one & ALL the photo's in the Victorious article are extremely faded. It retails here for AUD$ 8.95 & is 80 pages. River Class Frigates(type 12 FFs) in the RAN by Ross Gillet - Very good with some very nice pics. Just what you need for the Airfix Type 12s Canada's Maritime Forces - taken from Navy 1998 Annual(I assume RCN??) - Very nice short history of the RCN with again some nice pictures. There is a short comparision between the Oberon & Upholder class SS's. Finishes up with an article on MARPAC & the Canadian Oberons. The new HMAS Jervis Bay - Rundown on the new wave piercing Catamaran for the RAN. Again some very nice pictures. Now all we need is a kit ;-). Neustrashimyy class Frigate - By A D Baker III taken from Combat Fleets of the World. Highly recommended withe some very nice COLOUR pictures for all those out there who would like to try their hand at converting a kit, possibly the Skywave Krivak??. Multi Purpose ships for Singapore - by Ross Gillet Interview the CO of HMAS Leeuwin - The RAN's new survey ship Virginia Class SSNs by Barbera Graves & Edward Whitman Fairey IIID HMS Victorious by Trevor Piper - nice article, real shame about the photos USS Ashland - the first LSD Plus the usual news, book reviews (for once they don't review their own titles) & photo spreads. AWR is really a mixed bag, some articles are very well written by well known authors, whilst others look like they're there to fill in space. The magazine is worth the price just for the many photos it contains, but most of the text seems to have been dumbed down for the masses. Don't buy this expecting in depth articles aka W.I & Warship with critical analysis of the various ships etc. I think the subtitle of AWR really sums it up. Regards, Shane - where it's 30C ;-))) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Shane Subject: Airfix book Hi gang, For all the Airfix nuts out there, there's been a book released on Airfix. This apparently compares very well the FROG book published in 1989. Have a look at the following url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jonathan.mock/interesting/airbook.html Regards, Shane - who now has to convince the Mistress to buy him one ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Re: Trivia If Mr Hearne would give me the reference for his answer I will forward the cheapest bottle of scotch that I can find. And if he can tell me why the St Paul capsized he will receive another bottle of scotch, and it must match the answer that I got from a Naval Constructor, one R Nevitt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: SantMin@aol.com Subject: Re: USS LANGLEY >> Perhaps Bob Santos can tell us what plans he used to construct his very convincing model of the ship? << Dave, Thanks for your very kind remark. I used the following (and I admit there were still some "fuzzy" areas). Ed. Wiswessor drawing #161, "Aircraft Carriers of the World", U.S.Fleet Carriers of WWII", "US Navy Fighters", "U.S.Navy Aircraft 1921-1941", "Before the Aircraft Carrier", "US Aircraft Carriers in Action", "Aircraft Carriers of the US Navy", and I almost went BLIND watching "THE LANGLEY", episode 1 of Carriers, a video that I looked at over and over again trying to pick up details. Cheers, Bob Santos -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Alan Lindstrom" Subject: Modeling websites For those of you who want a comprehensive shipmodeling website that updates with new material monthly, I highly recommend that you subscribe to Navismagazine.com if you are not already doing so. It is well worth the $20 annual fee. Alan Hi gang, That's $20.00 US, I believe. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Review, Viking Vietnam era Monitor kit - OOB review Viking Model Products recently released a line of three kits on Vietnam Brown Water Navy patrol craft, among them a PBR and a Coastal Monitor, all in 1/72 scale mixed media. The monitor kit consists of about a dozen resin parts, about two dozen white metal parts and two frets of P.E. brass, along with some iron wire and several pages of instructions. Having just about completed the Monitor, here are my impressions of the kit. Despite a number of problems, the kit can be built up into an impressive model of an unusual subject and I would consider it to be a worthwhile 2 night kit. The hull is rather cleanly molded in one piece with few if any defects. It is a hollow hull, in common with other Viking kits, which certainly cuts costs and saves weight. However, this causes a few problems. First, there was a slight oil canning or dishing of the hull bottom, which was noticeable if looked at carefully however, which would not be noticeable once the model is on a base. More critical however is that the thinness of the hull material on the bottom will preclude any type of pedestal mounting as there is insufficient material to hold mounting screws. A flat base with way timbers is the only way to mount this model. A second problem, particularly if you are a bit fumble-fingered like me is that the resin around the deck well where the mortar sits is very thin. I promptly pushed it in, breaking the well floor from the sidewalls!! All however was repaired by adding a block inside the hull for the floor to sit on, however be forewarned. The remainder of the resin parts comprised the turrets and deckhouse assemblies. They were mostly clean and well molded with the exception of some surface defects on one small turret. The parts cleaned up nicely and had little in the way of flash or pouring sprues to remove. The only area needing careful work was in opening the pilot house windows. Careful work with a dremel and sharp knife was needed. The fittings, i.e. gun barrels, chocks and bitts, rubber tire bumpers, winch and it's mounting etc. were all done in white metal. Herein lies the biggest weakness with this kit; they were mostly trash!!! The misalignment of the mold halves was so apparent as to render many of the parts unusable. With the exception of the 50 cal machine guns which seemed to have come from another source, the parts had a major misalignment step on both sides of the mold line. The gun and mortar barrel all went into the scrap pile, and new ones were made from brass. some of the other parts like the winch frame assembly requires major filing and trimming to clean up. Strangely the props and prop shaft assemblies were ok as is. the rudders needed some cleaning up and the prop/rudder skegs looked to be rather thick and clunkey but useable. Cleaning up or re-fabricating the white metal parts accounted for better than a third of the total kit assembly time. These monitors carried shielding armor consisting of steel rods welded to frames placed around the hull above the water line and around the deck and pilot houses. They were intended to stop small explosive rounds like RPS etc. All of the screen sections were provided in P.E. brass. Additionally, the rod assemblies were also cast onto the hull sides. The instructions stated that the cast on screens could be sanded off and replaced with P.E. or left as is at the modeler's discretion. The screens around the superstructure had to be added from the P.E. The P.E. was very well done, the only problem being the flat effect of parts that should have been round. This is an unavoidable problem with using P.E. in larger scales. I suppose one could try to make the screens up out of brass rod and wire stock, but I for one am not that masochistic! After looking at the hull screens, I elected to leave the cast in ones. First they didn't look bad, and had a three dimensional look which the P.E. replacements lacked. They were a bit rough, though in overall effect looked like they might after a couple of months of taking some incoming, being repaired and suffering the usual run of docking impacts. The P.E. was not bad to install on the superstructure, however, in retrospect, I should have dry fitted some of it before attaching the deck house to the hull as some trimming of the upper deck overhangs would have allowed the sections to fit more evenly. Also, I would suggest that one sand down the bottom of the deck house by about 1/64 lower the upper deck slightly as some of the screens barely made it from the deck to the upper deck overhang. The model is painted hull red below the waterline, olive drab above with some details picked out in black. The radome is white and there is a small mast with 4 signal lights which are painted white, red and green. Flagpoles and antennas were added from wire. A flag and unit pennant would look nice. Overall, not a kit without problems, but one certainly buildable into a nice looking model with a bit of work. Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Richa5011@aol.com Subject: Re: Garibaldi heavy cruiser (1st W.W.) >> I'm looking for the only book I know exists about this cruiser: Modelist Constructor Series 3/1995 (it's written in russian), but I didn't happen to find it. Can anyone help me? also a scanned copy would be useful. Thanks << I'm afraid I can't help with that...but you may also look for a 1978 issue of Warship International which has an extensive article on the Garibaldi's, but focusing primarily on the four Argentine ships...though it does include a number of excellent photos on Nissan and Kasuga as well. Nat Richards -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Richard Foster" Subject: HMS Cossack Can anyone please tell me how the Airfix 1/600 Cossack should be painted using Humbrol colours? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Boris Volkoff" Subject: Help me! Report please, how to organizine a model production from the resin? What components and technologies? My site http://tok.severodvinsk.ru/subm.htm. Thank you! Boris, Severodvinsk (Russia) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: WR Press Trivia Question - Addendum A phone call from WR Press last night adds a strange twist to the fray...originally, it was " what WW2 warship ", but alas, it is now "what US WW2 warship"...a slight oversight on their part I'm sure... The USS Wasp was designed with an asymmetrical hull to conserve weight, no ballast would be required to compensate for the weight of the island. (Norman Friedman's US Carriers, Illustrated Design History, pg 111, paragraph 3) Wasp was also the first US carrier to be fitted with a deck edge elevator...just thought I'd throw that out there... On a side note, I've gotten alot of positive emails about the trivia contest, it seems to be motivating us to crack open the books, and I'm hoping we're all learning a little something each round. I will continue to run with this contest for future rounds if the populus agrees...feedback can be sent to me... On another side note, I've been getting emails bounced, and some trivia contestants have not received their points. I'm making every attempt to cover this, for the next trivia round, I will be using a different email account to insure we don't lose anyone's answers. Shane, are you still getting bounced messages from my mailbox? All the Best, Jeff Only the one so far Jeff. But as I've said before they can take up to a week to bounce. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Chris Neel" Subject: Re: WR Press Trivia >> Well, conventional wisdom would say it was an aircraft carrier, and since no purpose built carriers were built asymetrically that I know of, I would probably think a converted carrier. So...<< According to Friedman's US Carrier Illustrated Design History, page 111: The USS Wasp (CV7) had "several unusual features. To conserve valuable weight, she was designed with an assymetrical hull, so that no ballast would be required to balance the of her island structure." The line drawings in the book appear to show her with a straight starboard side and a much more curved port side.... I'm still waiting for a 1:700 waterline kit of the Wasp - the only WWII era US Aircraft Carrier class not the subject of a kit (pout!). I do still need to obtain the Corsair Armada USS Ranger (budget!) - although I haven't been able to decide if I should model her with P-40's or pre-war marked A/C...... I'm also waiting for a 1:700 USS Midway in the straight deck configuration.... I am currently searching for the Revell kit (now out of production)... but I wouldn't be able to display her with the deckload of aircraft as I would like (F7F's, F8F's, F4U's, and AD6's) unless maybe WEM (Hi Caroline!) would be willing to produce some in the 1:545 (?) scale.... oh well - one of these days... later cn -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Michael Quan" Subject: Re: Oi and Kitakami "John Sutherland" wrote: >> However - Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy - page 107 - shows the Oi as having a completely different layout for her boats - they seem to be along the centre line and inboard of the torpedoes. The stern superstructure is also different with AA guns shown between it and the deck edge. The diagram for the Kitakami is as per the kit. First question - whose got it right - Jentschura, Jung & Mickel or Pitroad? << I am no expert, but having looked at this illustration in Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, (JJM), and corroberated it with the 1970 JJM as originally published in German, I can say that the draftsman certainly must've been "hung over that day"! Both illustrations are the same, and it appears that the drawing of "Oi" - 1941 is a poor interpretation of the toprpedo cruiser as thought of then in 1970, as there was no plan view in the 1970 edition. It's a shame that this particular illustration was not revised or deleted when JJM was translated into English in 1977, and the plan and profile views of Kitakami as a Torpedo Cruiser added. The boats on the centerline would've had no way to be shipped overhead of the torpedos. Similarly, the aft deckhouse was built to house reload torpedos, (per most sources save for Lacroix & Wells), and the plans given in Warship International, No. 2, 1972 and a set of Japanese 1/200th plans for the Kitakami, (sorry - source is in Kanji!), show the aft deckhouse extending almost to the gunwale, allowing almost no room for any light AA abeam. My guess is that JJM screwed up here. >> Second question - the book mention's Oi's 1943 fit as 4 x 5in DP and 36 x 25mm. Anyone one seen a layout of this? << Not that I know of if you are specifically referring to Oi. I would hazzard a guess that an armament layout similar to Kitakami at this time would have been appropriate, as both Oi and Kitakami had been converted to fast transports at this time. Oi however, underwent two further, separate overhaul periods in Singapore where the AA could have possibly been upgraded. The lack of photographic coverage of the time is frustrating, isn't it? >> Third Question - was Oi still in this configuration at time of sinking in July 1944? << Unknown. >> Fourth Question - Has anyone solved the shielded / unshielded debate in terms of the torpedo mounts? Pitroad seem uncertain and the book has a bob each way showing Kitakami's shielded and Oi's unshielded. << Again, John, I am afraid you are on your own opinion as far as how you choose to depict your model. I have asked others on the net about this, and there is no consensus. For variety, I am constructing my Skywave Oi with unshielded mounts, and Skywave Kitakami with shielded mounts. For what it's worth, the older Pit-Road resin 700th kit for the Oi/Kitakami, WL-24, featured only shielded torpedo tubes! cheers, Mike Quan Republic of Texas with nice, 80 degree, sunny weather! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: CCramMiG@aol.com Subject: Trivia Question Check Norman Friedman, U.S. Aircraft Carriers page 111. The USS Wasp, CV-7 had assymetric hull lines. Reason was to save valuable weight so that no ballast would be required to balance the island. Charles Cram -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: James Corley Subject: Re: BB aircraft >> The only US BB that carried SOC's at the end of the war was the Masseschuetts. All otherrs were carring the OS2U Kingfisher and the SC-1 Seahawks. << >> From the department of corrections department: The USS Massachusetts (BB59) carried OS2U Kingfishers throughout her entire wartime career. << Missed the original comment, but according to "Battleship & Cruiser Aircraft of the United States Navy * 1910-1949" by Larkins There were no SOCs aboard BBs in Sept 45 (certainly seems like the end of the war to me) In fact Mass had 1 OS2U-3 & 1 OS2N-1. The last SOC aboard any BB is listed as November 1940 with TEXAS, NEW YORK & ARKANSAS having SOC-3 & SON-1 mixed aboard, all in the Atlantic Fleet, and NEVADA (2 SOC-3 & 3 OS2U-1) and TENNESSEE (3 SOC-3 & 2 OS2U-1) in the Pacific Fleet. The planes were still found aboard several Pacific Fleet cruisers in Sept 45, but no Atlantic fleet cruisers except the AUGUSTA & RALEIGH, which were unassigned at the time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: 1/250 What kits are available of WWII ships in the 1/250 range? TIA, Steve Allen Hi Steve, Well there are the two IJN sisterships who must never be named ;-)) put out by Doyusha & hobbykit. But here's a list taken from my Shiplist. HMS Bligh DD, USS Fletcher & all the other incarnations - Revell HMS Campbeltown - Revell KMS Scharnhorst - Wilhemshaven - card kit USS Buckley DE - Revell I'm sure there's more, but that a nice start. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: John Sheridan Subject: Re: DOCUMENTATION >> A couple of dedicated SMML members have had a disagreement over the past couple of days as to the type of floatplane carried by the battleship MASSACHUSETTS. First one said that she carried SOCs--and provided no documentation. Then the other said KINGFISHERs--and provided no documentation. << Actually, With my hands nothing but bloody stumps from trying to add all those flag codes to the camouflage site, I did not get into detail as to how I came to the conclusion that BB59 never carried SOCs to the best of my knowlege. Here's my evidence: I went to Batlleship Cove; home of the USS Massachusetts and asked the Muesum curators. In fact, I made many trips to the Massachusetts while I was building my BWN USS Massachusetts kit since the ship is only about 20 miles from my doorstep. I still wonder what other visitors were thinking of me while I was crawling around the decks looking for weld marks, additions, and other work done on the ship during her 5 year career as a US Navy Battleship. I did get a chance to bother the USS Massachusetts caretakers many times and I did specifically ask them what type of planes she carried. They told me that she carried OS2U Kingfishers for her entire career as her regular air scouts according to their documentation. Sure, they could be wrong about this but I doubt it considering the amount of records they have on their museum piece. Unless I steal Alan Raven's time machine and check directly, this is probally the best evidence out there that BB59 never carried SOCs as part of her regular scounting wing. I also have photographs of her in 1942 (as commissioned), 1943, 1944, and 1945. All of the photos show her carrying OS2U Kingfishers on the fantail. What's interesting is that there is no record of BB59 carrying any aircraft at all after her late 1945-1946 refit (none that I could find anyways). You see, at least I did try to find out though some offical source rather than spout-off something off the top of my head; Grumph indeed! . John Sheridan What I do to Spammers: http://microscale.com/images/N2.jpg I am not a Member of the Lumber Cartel (tinlc) and I am not Unit #631 Last last place on earth I would look for the Lumber Cartel(tm) is http://come.to/the.lumber.cartel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: B777@worldnet.att.net Subject: Atomic Icebreaker "Arktika" I recently purchased a 1/400 scale injection model of the Russian atomic icebreaker "Arktika." Unfortunately, the instructions and illustrations are pretty poor and probably inaccurate. Does anyone have any photographic reference on this ship or know where I could locate some? I want to verify the external colors of the ship and get some better idea of details of deck rigging and machinery placement, etc. I've had some contact with the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK, and got some narrative description of the external colors, but my contact doesn't have any scanning capability to send me copies of his slides. Any help will be appreciated. You can feel free to contact me directly. Thanks in advance. Eric Olson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: Re: Garibaldi!! >> I have a 1/150 wood/resin/metal kit of italian 1st W.W. Garibaldi (produced as Japanese "Kasuga" from Canav) << Hi Pietro; Where can we get this model? What other ships do they make? Ciao Chuck Duggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: YAMATO Deck Color/Colors in General If YAMATO's decks were of Hinoki cypress, get on down to your well-stocked nursery. Hinoki cypress is a popular tree for bonsai, and you can usually find 1-gallon examples. Buy it, take it home, kill it and skin it. Split the trunk and look at the color. Go from there. Colors in general: all of the comments in the last few days have been well taken, and we put out our color chips in order to ensure an accurate starting point; you don't want USN purple-blues to have a greenish or brownish or yellowish cast, like the late Floquil line of USN paints (and I don't have any problem in not worrying about models matching paint chips exactly--but I do have a problem with purple-blues that are greenish or brownish or yellowish). If you like the full-strength look, use it (my partner Randy uses full-strength colors on his 1/1250 ships, and they look good to me); if you want to lighten for scale effect, do it. Be happy in your hobby. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: F8F Cougar I didn't have too much luck myself in trying to find one of these in 1/48th scale. However, you might want to check out... http://www.imphobbies.com/revell.htm They had one of the old "close to being" 1/48 kits listed for $12 Canadian. http://st3.yahoo.com/internethobbies/f9f8cougar.html They had the 1/72 Hasegawa kit listed for about $10. I was going to suggest finding one of the Monogram 1/48th F9F Panther kits. After consulting with my "The American Fighter" book though, the mods would be extensive (new wings, modified tail, relocated intakes, etc). It would be a RPITA to bash that kit into a Cougar. Hope this helps. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: mitch fisher Subject: Hawaiian pilot I pulled out my Hawaiian Pilot kit and here is what the box art and instructions show (for what it is worth). Home port San Francisco. Hull: Red below waterline, black above. White at bow above main deck level (Forecastle). Decks: Red/Brown is shown on box, called red in the istructions. Instructions call for grey on main deck with higher decks "red". Box art shows red/brown decks. Stack: Blue over buff with large blue "M" in buff area. Instructions call this color light tan. Mast, resistor houses, booms, and kingposts shown in buff forward. Black and buff aft. (I guess so as not to show soot from blowing tubes?) No color is called out for hatch covers. Unfortunately the kit calls for painting the deck winches silver. I would be happy to scan the instructions, boxtop, or decal sheet if you are interested. Mitch Fisher Billybudd@pipeline.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: USS Honolulu and Savannah Why do I suspect I'm going to be walking into a hornet's nest on this one. 1) Does anyone know of any good websites with decent wartime pics of the USS Honolulu CL-48 2) [Opinions]: IS has a 1/350 scale Nashville and CW is coming out with a 1/350 Brooklyn. Which one of these would be the better choice to build both a model of Honolulu and the Savannah. 3) Alternately, has anyone put out a 1/700 Brooklyn that could be used as an alternative to the 1/350th scale kits (I would prefer the latter, but my wallet prefers the former). FTR, I know that neither kit can be used to build the Savannah (post Salerno reconstruction) out of the box, and it will require a good deal of scratch building and aftermarket parts. Given this fact, this is something I'm more or less "pondering the notion of" at this point. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: "John Snyder" Subject: USS MINNEAPOLIS A while back, Ed Grune asked about MINNEAPOLIS and her MS-8 scheme, and the colors used. Sorry to take so long in replying, but I've been a bit busy with my other, regular business. I've now had a chance to check both primary and secondary sources, and here's MY take on the subject. First, MINNEAPOLIS wasn't in Measure 8. Measures 1 through 8 were discontinued in one of the earlier revisions to Ships-2 Sorry, I'm on the road, so don't remember whether it was in the September 1941 or the June 1942 revision, but I read both in researching this answer, and Measure 8 definitely was discontinued long before MINNEAPOLIS was painted into the scheme in question. Also, the official Measure 8 design promulgated in Ships-2 used opposite coloration from this scheme to try to visually turn a 2-stack cruiser into a 2-stack destroyer: Measure 8 called for painting the bulk of the ship in Dark Gray (5-D), and painting the stern area and after main battery turret in Light Gray (5-L) to make them disappear. The scheme in question painted MINNEAPOLIS overall in a light color, and used a line of darker color to simulate the forecastle break and sheer line of a DD, with simulated life rafts painted above it, just the opposite coloration from Measure 8. Now, having said that, I'll turn right around and say that the scheme in question was clearly based on Measure 8 in what it was trying to accomplish. So what Measure number was it, since Measure 8 had been discontinued long before? We'll probably never know until someone goes digging into the records of Mare Island Naval Shipyard, or into the Deck Log and/or War Diary of MINNEAPOLIS, and perhaps not even then. The second half of Ed's question had to do with the colors used and whether countershading was present. I'll take partial issue with what Steve Wiper identified as the colors used, in his MINNEAPOLIS book. I think Steve is correct in identifying Light Gray (5-L) as the lightest color, and Ocean Gray (5-O) as the color on the aft half of the stacks. However, I believe that the darkest color is Dull Black, rather than Dark Gray (5-D). Dark Gray was pretty much out of use by 1943, but Dull Black was very much a part of many of the camo schemes promulgated in the March 1943 supplement to Ships-2. And if you look closely at some of the finely-reproduced photos in Steve's book, you can see that countershading--as called for in the March 1943 Ships-2 supplement--is indeed present on MINNEAPOLIS. And to Steve: If you have documentary evidence of the use of Dark Gray on MINNEAPOLIS in the "Ms-8" scheme, please accept my apology. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys PS: I have one secondary reference source that claims this scheme was also used on SAN FRANCISCO. Steve: any photographic evidence of this? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume