Subject: SMML04/11/99VOL719 Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:26:05 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: RMS Mauretania 2: On Resin vs. Plastic kits 3: Re: Pennsylvania progress report 4: Re: HMS EMERALD 5: Revell Seaplane Tenders & 1/480 Yorktown PE 6: PE for Revell Enterprise 7: Re: Cases from the head ship judge (one last time) 8: Accurate Image San Fran 9: Destroyer escorts 10: Re: RN Camouflage. 11: Re: RN Camouflage. 12: German/Russian paint schemes 13: Cases rule: an update 14: Re: Plastic cases 15: Russian Naval History 16: SOVIET SAM KOTLIN DESTROYERS 17: Re: Cases for models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Trivia 2.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "EXT-Herron, Chris H" Subject: RMS Mauretania All, I am planning to build up the Airfix Mauretania (currently $7.99 from Model Expo !) as she was when wearing that colourful dazzle paint scheme from WW 1. (I think the paint job is going to be a real challenge !) Are there any significant differences from the kit to the real ship at this time? Was she carrying any armament and if so where and what type ? Any help from out there would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: On Resin vs. Plastic kits I want to discuss a little philosophy; I fear I may step on some toes, but I have no intention to. I appologize in advance if anyone is put off by what I have to say; it is motivated only by genuine curiosity. Is our hobby not large enough to support plastic kits of some of the subjects now available only as (expenisive) resin ones? I have nothing but respect and admiration for the effort the resin producers put into their products and the quality of the products themselves. They have filled many, many holes in the list of available ships. However, I cannot afford most of them. And limited runs make it impossible to acquire many of those I can. Certainly, I understand why resin kits cost so much, and I don't begrudge their makers proper return on their efforts. But it seems to me that we have proven there is enough demand for more ship models to induce the injection-molding companies to give us more variety (and larger scales) than is currently the practice. Where are the plastic Alaskas, tinclad treaty cruisers, interwar destroyers, just to use US examples? Where are decent plastic versions of the fleet carriers, the standard BBs, the 'phibs, and the auxillaries? Surely there are enough of us to support economically viable runs of these things in plastic. Again, I in no way wish to disparage the comtributions the resin producers have made toward expanding the hobby and providing the highest in quality. Am I wrong about the size of the market or the economic viability of large runs of newly-tooled kits (recent Tamiya experience tells me I'm not wrong, but I sure could be)? Am I being unrealistic about wishing for "odd" (really, they are "odd" only in not having been done yet) AND affordable kits? Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: Pennsylvania progress report >> Soon I'll reach the point where I'll have to start spraying some paint on the model. Here I could use some help from those of you experienced in US Navy matters. I need to apply Ms21 to the kit. That means Navy Blue vertical, Deck Blue horizontal, right? But how litteral is that to be taken? Things like turret tops etc? Also what about the bridge platforms? Deck Blue for them too? << Hi Jean-Paul, You're correct in being very literal: Deck Blue (20-B) on all horizontal surfaces, including turret tops, bridge platforms, tops of gun barrels, etc. Keep us all posted on your progress. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: HMS EMERALD >> In 1939, the cruiser Emerald was painted in a camouflage style, described as "surreal". Later in the same year the sceme was altered and described as "even more surreal". Does anyone have any visual data for this period? << Oh lordy, the images of half-melted watches oozing from the main deck and dripping down the hull.... Salvador Dali does camo! Sorry, WR, couldn't resist. John Snyder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Loren Perry Subject: Revell Seaplane Tenders & 1/480 Yorktown PE To Steve Allen - The Revell seaplane tender kits (Pine Island, etc.) are very accurate down to the waterline. The flat bottomed hull is definitely a problem for those wanting a full hull display. However, making the model a part of a diorama setting solves this problem - you can simply cut the hull's underwater portion off and then proceed from there. For the Revell carriers, Gold Medal Models offers a highly detailed and versatile PE set for the 1/480 WW2 Yorktown, Hornet, & Enterprise kits. It provides island and mast details, aircraft parts, fittings for guns, and the usual rails, ladders, and crew figures, all relief-etched in 3-D brass. Fully illustrated instructions are included. Order GMM set number 480-4 @ $36 plus $1 postage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Felix Bustelo Subject: PE for Revell Enterprise Hi Steve, Gold Medal Models has a pe set designed for the 1/480 scale Revell WW2 carrier kits. I haven't seen it yet, but if it is a nice as the 1/540 carrier set. it should be a beauty. Regards, Felix Bustelo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Cases from the head ship judge (one last time) Believe me I understand the concerns of everyone who wishes to display their models with the cases in place. There is one aspect here that no one has brought up. What we (the Contest Committee) allow for one model we must allow for all models in the room. If the case rule were changed allowing them to remain on the models during judging it would greatly limit the judges access to everything from AC to autos. Those models must be picked up and inspected on the bottom. Especially if the voting is close where we have look for the tiniest flaws. I'm not arguing the point if a model should be picked or not (save that for another day). I am currently working on an exception to the case rule for the ship categories, but it will take time to work out if it can be passed. I'll keep you informed. Rusty White IPMS head ship judge http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Jeff J Herne Subject: Accurate Image San Fran Steve, The AI San Francisco ' 44 was acquired by Commander's Series/Iron Shipwrights. It can still be had from ISW directly (1-877-IRONSHIP) or thru Bill Gruner at Pacific Front. Best, Jeff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "de447" Subject: Destroyer escorts Hi I'm looking for model of a destroyer escort BUTLER series at lest 20" in size. Any info would greatly be appreciated Thank You Kenneth clausen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Tim Stoneman Subject: Re: RN Camouflage. DECOY certainly wore a multi-coloured scheme in the Med. 'British Destroyers in World War Two' (Warship Illustrated No 4) shows a starboard side view of her in Alexandria with a 3-coloured scheme - however, I haven't seen a port side view, and my understanding is that many of these schemes were not the same on each side. LEDBURY is less easy - there is an undated shot in 'The Russian Convoys' (Warship Illustrated No 9) in one of the standard WA schemes, and one dated 5.43 in 'The Hunts' (World Ship Society) in what appears to be an Admiralty light disruptive pattern - but she had been in dockyard hands twice between PEDESTAL and mid-43, so could easily have been repainted since the convoy. Tim Stoneman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Sven E Dorsey" Subject: Re: RN Camouflage. In Warships Illus # 14 pgs 57,58 there are 3 photos of the Ledbury in a light camo scheme these are as she and the Penn are pulling into Malta on 15 August. SE Dorsey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Bob Zobal Subject: German/Russian paint schemes Falk, thanks for a well researched and thoughtful reply to my question. I have also been puzzled by the gray hull/light gray upperworks cited by Groener. I don't see it in the photographs or paintings in Hansen's "Ships of the German Fleets 1848-1945", except during the Reichsmarine period, in photos of the predreadnoughts taken in the 1920's. I wonder if Groener was unknowingly describing the interwar practice, if his article was written in 1933. On the subject of the Russian fleet at Port Arthur, I recently came across a photo in a pictorial history of the Russo Japanese War, published shortly afterward, of part of the fleet in the harbor, which I've not seen anywhere else. A couple of the ships, including a gunboat, were clearly still painted a brilliant white, but the rest were uniformly a slightly darker color. This reinforces the observation by several authors that the Russian fleet adopted a brownish gray color for it's ships, at least during hostilities. Some of the individual ship studies I've seen, published in Russia, show this scheme on their cover illustrations, for example, the one on the cruiser Askold. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Cases rule: an update All right, all right!!! I hear you. The IPMS(USA)Contest Committee Chairman has agreed to put the cases rule on the agenda to be discussed at the Nats in Dallas. I'll reflect your arguments at that time. No promises. I have to get a majority vote. IF it passes, the rule will have to be officially rewritten. IF the rule is changed, it won't go into effect until the IPMS(USA) 2001 Nats in Chicago. Please continue to forward suggestions and complaints to me concerning the ship categories. After all, I represent all ship modelers. Rusty White IPMS(USA) Head ship judge http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: Re: Plastic cases >> In short, you just can't properly judge all surfaces of an aircraft without picking it up and inspecting the bottom for flaws in construction. Dental mirrors just don't work because you can't put light where you need it to inspect the construction, masking, finish, etc. If we didn't look on the bottom it would encourage poor construction there. << Excuse me if I seem puzzled by this argument. (I make models strictly for my own enjoyment and don't enter contests. But I do attend competitions to pick up pointers.) By the time a contestant made it to the top for a placing I would believe that that modeller is skilled enough whereby basic flaws in construction would practically be non existent. I can't imagine a situation where a model would be immaculately finished on the dorsal size and then slacked off on the ventral details. What would have been the point? A 'quickie' to enter the contest? - what a waste of time and effort to have to correct those errors later. >> You're now asking "what the hell does that have to with ship models"? Like aircraft, we have to look at the model from below (to make sure the bottoms of those overhangs are painted) and all other angles. We have to get close because of the scales involved, which is why the cover rule is there. Try inspecting the rigging techniques on a 1/700 destroyer from five inches away and you'll see what I mean. Small construction requires close inspection and we owe everyone in competition to be judged equally. << Same argument as above. I can see pretty well at 5 inches away. As a modeller and an equipment freak I would have spotted any inconsistencies and inaccuracies in construction or finishing right away and I don't need to handle the item. If as an expert and a judge you could not have discovered them without a microscopic examination then its unlikely the average viewer could have seen the "fault." The modeller has made a valid point - to reproduce a good three dimensional miniature of the prototype. If the parts that cannot be seen are not as well finished does that really matter so long as the model looks good when viewed with ordinary vigilance. And that means one doesn't turn the model belly up to look for faults. Examine any piece of furniture or equipment in your home, your car. The surfaces are well finished only where they are noticeable. As for covers on ship models, frankly I am more impressed with exhibits with covers. They look more valued and finished. And these models look as if they are meant to be viewed and enjoyed for a long time. >> Small construction requires close inspection and we owe everyone in competition to be judged equally. << The best judge of the worth of a model is the general public and I believe their judgement is usually correct if you care to hear their comments and also observe the number of viewers around interesting models. When you get complaints about unfair judging its usually from other contestants and this is where nit picking comes in - like not having an equally good paint job in areas un-noticed by anyone else and the judge didn't notice it because of the cover. Kelvin Mok -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Craig Martelle" Subject: Russian Naval History Shane: The honorable Chuck Duggie asked me to post this to the ship modelers mailing list. I live in Moscow and am able to get a number of books (as well as ship models, actually). I just picked up a book on Line and Battleships in the Russian Navy. It is a 312 page hard cover, b/w pictures and line drawings of all Russia’s ships – sorted by ship type, then name. It covers all warships from the mid 1800’s (keel laid) to after WWII. The book is completely in Russian, but with a transliteration table (I provide), even non-Russian speakers can break out the ship name and all dates are readily identifiable. I can send the book to folks in the U.S. for $20 postpaid and outside of the continental U.S., just add shipping (actual cost – I send first, then give you an exact total). I’ve found sailing ship models (20” plus in length) for about $20 too. I don’t have a list, and the selection isn’t broad in any case (sailing ships from Peter the Great and on, made by a Russian Company), but the ones in stock come from high quality molds – good sharp lines and the parts seem to fit together well. They include a French Ship of the Line, English, sloop, frigate. The one I bought for myself is the Goto, the very first Russian Ship of the Line. Thanks for your time, and if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to e-mail me. Craig Martelle Major USMC American Embassy Moscow PSC-77, DTRO-M APO AE 09721 The Gauntlet U.S. http://www.garrison-clubs.org/gauntlet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Dengar Subject: SOVIET SAM KOTLIN DESTROYERS Hi, SMML, Can anyone suggest where I could perhaps find scale drawings,also details of the wasphead radar and guns. Any help would be very appreciated. Regards, Gary McGee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Kenneth H. Goldman" Subject: Re: Cases for models Hopefully we're not beating a dead horse here. I sense Shane is about ready to terminate this thread.(Nope: Shane) That said... Robert Lockie made some excellent points and got me thinking some more. If the only way IPMS judges can judge models is to pick them up and turn them over, what happens with dioramas? If they are to be consistent, then they should be prying the aircraft and tanks off their bases, so they can look underneath. Then again, if they can judge the component parts of a diorama without tearing the thing apart, why can't they judge a ship model in a transparent case?! Ken Goldman THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER http://www.wman.com/~khgold/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Jeff J Herne Subject: Trivia 2.3 I gave you guys a few exrta days on this one...and yes, we possess a book entitled "The World's Most Abstract Maritime Trivia" , it's been out of print for some 120 years....actually, at least for me, I'll have a vague recollection of a ship, person, or event, then I have to track down the data and turn it into a viable question...most of the ideas come off the top of the old cranial structure, but the books confirm the data....anyway.... Name 3 liners operated by each of these companies during the years (9 points) 1905 Northwest Steamship Company Limited - Victoria, Pennsylvania, Olympia, Edith, Oregon, Santa Clara, Santa Ana, Excelsior, Dora, St. Paul, America. Harvestor, Peters and Goss were barks. 1897-98 Empire Line - Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illnois, Conemaugh 1910 American Line - St. Louis, St. Paul, New York, Paris Bonus Question: What 3 liners were considered to be "Ballin's Big Three?" (3 points) Vaterland, Bismarck, and Imperator Correct responses were from: r2brown@bc.sympatico.ca - 12 points KeithButterly@bc.sympatico.ca - 12 points jjrule@idirect.com - 9 points douglas.j.martin@email.msn.com - 3 points KHgold@wman.com - 3 points myhrman@gol.com - 3 points Since I don't know how to count ( the points were updated), here are the standings through 2.2 r2brown@bc.sympatico.ca 18 KeithButterly@bc.sympatico.ca 18 jjrule@idirect.com 15 douglas.j.martin@email.msn.com 8 KHgold@wman.com 8 johnsnyder@macnexus.org 6 sanartjam@aol.com 5 mike.leonard@erols.com 5 minadmiral@aol.com 5 jmalondon@home.com 4 work@il.net 4 billkaja@pop.tiac.net 4 myhrman@gol.com3 3 Question #3: Name the first warship to be fitted with Triple Expansion engines (3 points) What was the Length and Displacement of this vessel? (2 points) Bonus #1: This vessel was sunk in combat. Name 5 battleships that were sunk during this same action. (5 points) Good Luck! email all replies to: mailto:warships@juno.com DO NOT SEND EMAILS TO JHERNE@HOTMAIL.COM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume