Subject: SMML VOL 791 Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:31:33 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Twining thanks 2: Essexes and armored decks 3: FD DD540 info 4: Re: Copper plating ? 5: Camouflage of HMS Penelope 6: Re: Essex, Illustrious and armored decks 7: Re: Resin Hulls and Bollards - a possible solution? 8: Copper Plating 9: Re: Great Models of 2000 10: Re: Essex's and armoured decks 11: Re: Bollards 12: Re: Essex's and armoured decks 13: Request: SS Mayaguez, White Falcon, Santa Eliana, SS Sea 14: Copper plating and Anti-foulings 15: WPC 154? WSC154 Vigilant 16: Best BB in '39 17: Re: Armored Decks vs ESSEXs 18: Resin Hulls and Bollards 19: 1/96 Model Source 20: Re: DD 540 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: FS: Various 2: Nautical Research Guild Website Update 3: Warship Update 4: CAMOUFLAGED NUKES, AND MORE DOCKYARD MATEYS.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Twining thanks I want to thank EVERYONE who sent information and informed me of the name of my model. I have more info on the ship now than I could have hoped for. Once again, thanks to all. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Michael C. Smith" Subject: Essexes and armored decks Now here's an interesting topic to debate! Chris, I have to disagree that the Illustrious class were "better" ships, just different, as you say. I don't think that the Essex class couldn't have "survived" what the Illustrious class ships could - I think the Franklin underwent a much worse scenario with a couple dozen warheads going off (all but one from her own aircraft, of course) but survived essentially undamaged below her armored hangar deck. The key is what you have after the attack. As you correctly point out, the Illustrious ships just hosed down the flight deck and resumed flight operations in a mater of hours. The Essex class had hours of firefighting, extensive casualties, and could be essentially destroyed above the flight deck, requiring a trip to a repair yard, as you say. The tradeoff is that the Essex class ships had three times the aircraft complement, allowing them to operate in an serious offensive capacity, whereas the Illustrious class ships could not, even taking into account that they could go light on combat air patrol. You could substitute cruisers and destroyers for inferior fighter protection, but you couldn't get additional striking capacity without tripling the number of carriers, which would have substantially delayed any Pacific offensive. Assuming the ships cost the same, which do you want - better protection and a delay if offensive capability, or better offensive capacity and quicker offensive capability? To me, the British decision was best in the Atlantic, where you were constantly operating within reach of land based bombers, and could expect to get bombed repeatedly, and had to be able to operate even under these conditions. The American decision was arguably better in the Pacific, where there was rarely any significant land (or carrier) based air, with the unanticipated and short-lived exception of the kamikaze attacks. I think the limitations of the Essex design was where it had to go up against significant land-based air attack. It couldn't withstand much damage without being put out of action, (which kamikazes could do relatively easily) and from what I understand, its striking capacity, even en masse, didn't do a lot against land targets - they really needed large bombers. Had the war continued, I wonder how long we would have tolerated the kamikaze attacks before withdrawing the fleet and opting for full scale land-based bombing attacks until the seas were safer. Or maybe they'd already peaked - I'm not really sure what the facts are here (but I'm enjoying the discussion). Up next - IJN Taiho v. USS Essex - which was the better design? Michael Smith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Ken Durling" Subject: FD DD540 info Eugene wrote: >> DD-540 was USS TWINING, not ALFRED WOLF. Never did understand how Floating Drydock let that one slip by. << Just wondering what FD pub you're referring to - the Fletcher Plan Book correctly identifies her. Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Pieter Cornelissen Subject: Re: Copper plating ? >> There is one big but though, it can't be used on iron or steel hulls, because of the electrolytical effects involved. The hull and the plating just erode away. That's one reason that ocean going vessels had a wooden hull far into the 19th century, because of the lack of good anti-fouling paints made iron-hulled ships very un-economical in use. << Most of my sources on British cruisers in the 19th century indicate that they were coppered. A layer (sheath?) of wood was put between the hull and the copper plating to avoid problems with electrolysis. I doubt if Potemkin ever had this layer because of the extra water-resistance that came with it. A more realistic assumption would be one of the many types of antifouling paint that were tried on warships at the beginning of this century. At least one other navy in the mediterranean area (Austro-Hungary) used bright green antifouling paint. Pieter Cornelissen Delft, The Netherlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Camouflage of HMS Penelope Penelope had, just prior to the brown and white scheme, a disruptive design of unofficial origin, details are sparse with a description of the colors only. Of the pattern itself there is NO record. Another piece of history lost forever. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Joe Costanzo Subject: Re: Essex, Illustrious and armored decks I'm afraid Chris is quite wrong on this point. The design of the Illustrious was not as structurally sound as it seemed. For a better explanation than I can give, go to this link: http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-030.htm This is an excellent essay on why the design of the RN armored deck carriers was ultimately a failure. Joe Costanzo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: QuanMT@gvl.esys.com Subject: Re: Resin Hulls and Bollards - a possible solution? Hi to All, I have followed the discussion as started by Gene Katz with interest. I understand the concerns of both consumer and manufacturer. With all due respect, might there be a solution that meets both party's requirements? I suggest that a possible fix would be to engineer future resin kit hull castings to eliminate the bollards completely, substituting a smooth rectangular recess or a locating spot on the deck the size of the bollard base. This would render moot the vulnerability of protruding bollards to damage from wrap and transit shock. Perhaps this might even ease the manufacturer's hull casting rejection rate from bollard bubbles? Bollards would be supplied as separate parts, (i.e. as now available from WEM in their Professional range of bits), in the kits and be glued on separately. Spares could be supplied to account for parts broken in transit, much as spares are now provided for delicate gun barrels and such by the more quality oriented resin kit producers. Savings might accrue for the manufacturer from having to tool but once for this part, and modelers would appreciate the uniformity in bollard size and shape this change would result in. Perhaps the bollard usage might even stretch into quantities that justify tooling up these items as "hard" tooling for mass-quantity injection molding? The same logic can be applied to deck bitts and/or fairleads. Just my two cents... It sure beats having to scratchbuild all the bollards & bits if they're not included or featured at all in the kit! ah, but we all love the smell of resin (in the morning), don't we? cheers, Mike Quan Republic of Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Duane Christensen" Subject: Copper Plating The USN actually contracted the first three Pennsylvania Class Armored Cruisers (ACR 4-6) with copper plating. The steel hull was to be covered in wood, then coppered. The plan was dropped before construction was begun. This accounts, in part, for the difference in hull dimentions between these first three ships and the last three (ACR 7-9). I believe coppering was also considered for the first three Virginia Class Battleships (BB 13-15) contracted at the same time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Alan Simon Subject: Re: Great Models of 2000 Congrats to John Collins on FSM's recognition of his fine 1/700 HMS Repulse. Have seen (that is, studied) John's Repulse from every angle on two occasions. It's a beaut! Keep up good work, John. Alan Simon Atlanta, Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: Essex's and armoured decks >> It was precisely because of the armoured flight decks that the Illustrious class were the better ships (an Essex could not have survived the pounding the Illustrious took). Four of the class were hit by kamikaze but all were able to operate aircraft after a few hours. Contrast this with the Essex class where a kamikaze hit meant a trip to a repair yard. Whereas a big airgroup was very useful it was not sufficient to guarantee the safety of the carriers, even when interceptor compliment was greatly increased. << Hi Chris, It seems we SMMLies have taken to debating lately :-), but I really don't want to drag this out. I'll post a few rebuttals--you're of course free to do so, too--and then I'll "cease fire" :-). No Essex was lost despite fearful poundings; in fact, Enterprise took as bad a pounding as Illustrious and survived. It is true that the resulting damage forced ops to cease longer than that of RN carriers, but the RN carriers suffered worse long-term damage. Their construction--the armoured box--was prone to significant and permanent misalignment of the hull girder. The strikes they suffered may have been relatively easily overcome in the short-term, but they also condemned the ships to a much shorter life. In any case, I stand on the assertion I made earlier: there is only one standard of carrier excellence, and that is how many a/c they can efficiently and effectively operate. This is not my opinion; it is the professional judgement of the men who do this sort of thing for a living. That RN carriers may have more easily dealt with damage is pointless if they cannot then damage the enemy, and their too-small air groups crippled them in Pacific ops. While the USN admired their flight decks, they also universally condemned them as next to useless in offensive ops: too few a/c, too little a/c fuel, too few sorties. They could not carry enough a/c to both mount an effective and escorted strike AND defend themselves. In fairness, the RN, with decidedly inferior carrier a/c and training--thank the RAF for that!--had to build their carriers that way, but the result was ships that could no do what US carriers could: carry the war to the enemy. It would have taken two to three times the number of RN carriers to do what the US carriers did. As for which design was best overall, consider their postwar lives: the Essexes served longer, more, and in more roles, and that fact is not soley the result of UK politics. That did not, however, keep the RN from pioneering the characteristics that made modern carrier ops possible, and it's not their fault they couldn't exploit them. I'll stop, now, before this gets 'way too long. Best Regards, Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Bollards I agree with all the comments regarding broken bollards. I have had to repair my share. I usually drill them out and use a bit of brass rod stock to replace the broken off part. Caroline commented on some of the problems regarding, in paricular, bollards. I can see her point, and am concerned over increased kit cost that might ensue from having to replace ohterwise good kit hulls. A possible solution might be to do away with the cast in bollards. How about just molding in the deck pad and some small indents to allow positioning of a drill to drill out a hole to insert a pin or bit of plastic or brass rod. May be an easier solution! Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Joseph W. Reyna" Subject: Re: Essex's and armoured decks While the fact that by war's end the large MIDWAY-class carriers were being constructed with armored flight decks gives evidence of the Navy's acknowledgement of the superiority of armored flight decks, I also recall that the ESSEX carriers took pounding after pounding by Kamikazes and bombs, but frequently had their decks made serviceable by the wholesale replacement of bomb-damaged flight deck sections with replacement 2 x 4's. Its seems that the ESSEX's were capable of being moderately damaged but were still repairable in situ, making it possible in emergency situations to keep them on station. Does any one have any historical perspective on the ESSEX-class ships handling battle damage? Joe Reyna Certified Plastic Model Shipwright Kits for Sale at: http://members.home.net/jreyna/ForSale/KitSale.html mailto:jreyna@home.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: John Warren Subject: Request: SS Mayaguez, White Falcon, Santa Eliana, SS Sea Hello, I am conducting research for a documentary film on the Mayaguez Incident (May 1975) for the Discovery Channel. We are looking to contact members of the crew (in May 1975) of the Land-Sea Services Inc.'s Merchant Marine Ship the SS Mayaguez and others with intimate knowledge of the details of the incident. We are also looking for any photos or moving images of the ship (or a sister ship), it's crew, or other aspects of the incident. I have included a list of specific men who we would like to contact for the purposes of interviewing for the film - naturally, we would also be interested in hearing from others not on this list. I have also included information about the ship. Please feel free to contact me at 703.908.4242 (fax: 703.243.4023) or mailto:jwarren@henninger.com. Best regards, John Warren Henninger Productions Crew members we are searching for: Bayless, Gerald Coombes, Burton (3rd officer) English, David (3rd mate) Faria, Americo Greenlin, Vernon (1st Engineer) Guerrero, Carlos (fireman) Harrington, Clifford Lopez, Gerardo Matthews, Tyrone Minichiello Miller, Charles (captain) Myregard, Jared Clifford (2nd Mate) Newman, James Patric Omer, Munasser Thabit (Officer's Messman) Rappenecker, Alfred J. (3rd Engineer) Salah, Kassman Sanchez, Juan Pacheco Sereno, Anastacio (Seaman) Information about the ship: The ship, a C2-L cargo vessel, was built by the North Carolina Shipbuilding Company of Willmington, NC, in 1944. It has operated under the names White Falcon, Santa Eliana, SS Sea, and finally Mayaguez when it was acquired by the Sea Land Services Company from the Grace Line in 1963. In 1977 the ship's bell and copies of her logs were placed on permanent display at the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center. The Mayaguez was decommissioned in June 1979. VIN No. 245546 Call Sign: WSZK Hull No. 114 Built: 1944 Dimensions: length 480 ft. breast 74 ft depth 39.7 ft 10,485 gross tons Flag: USA Hi gang, This message was forwarded by Rob Mackie. If you have any info, please reply straight to John Warren. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "EJ Foeth" Subject: Copper plating and Anti-foulings Fouling is still as big a problem as it was 150 years ago. The british first applied copper plating to a frigate, as it is poisenous for the fouling. Fouling is made up from three components, slime fouling, growing everywere on the wetted hull, weed fouling, growing on the sides (were the sunlight never shines) and goose barnacles. Ship resistance can increase 50% or more if it isn't removed on time. Sometimes, thousands (!) of tons are scraped of large ships, such as tankers. Initially, copper plating was used, later replaced by anti-fouling paints, containing toxins. The toxin used today, is tributyltin (TBT), a highly toxic substance killing of all fouling, and unfortunately, all other smaller forms of life as well, such as small sea snails, who are getting more and more disformed. The toxin is not only restricted to harbours, but also busy shipping lanes and other locations. TBT has destroyed complete oyster populations in france, putting the local fisheries out of work. TBT has been restricted slowly there after. Fouling growth rates are particularly alarming in tropical waters, but also in arctic waters, though it grows more slowly. Even with TBT, a ships hull needs to be scraped every 3-5 years. However, the International Maritime Organisation is going to ban TBT after 2008, and between 2003 and 2008, it may no longer be applied. Alternatives are being researched, but none of them are as effective as TBT paints. Ship owners fear that their ships need to be docked more frequently as a result. Also, even a 0,5kt speed decrease results to a loss of 2 weeks of shipping time for tankers. The US navy has relied on copper based paints for the last 15 years, and the rest of the shipping industry is considering this paint type as well, although it might be as toxic as TBT, and ship owners are already complaining it might be banned soon as well. A good alternative is a foul-release coating, with a very low surface roughness, so its extremely slippery. Silicon and Teflon paints are already in service, and fouling is washed off of the hull, but only with speeds excessing 15kts. It's also very expensive and mainly used for high speed ferries. The slime fouling, being very close to the hull, is not washed off at any speed. But there are more alternatives. Some companies are again trying to laminate the hull with copper by spraying it only the hull. Some systems use electrical currents to kill off the fouling. Even underwater carwashers have been tested with succes for small craft. Small remotely operated vehicles have been developed as well, scraping off the fouling without the need to dock the ship. The foul-release coating are sometimes scraped of as well, and they difficult to repair. One of the reasons iron was used only after 1860 or so, was the brittlenes of the steel/iron and its tendency to crack. Especially for warships, steel proved to be disastrously damaging to the crew when hit, reacting far worse than wood, so wooden armour was still used. Foeth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Sven E Dorsey" Subject: WPC 154? WSC154 Vigilant According to Coastguard Cutters and Craft of WWII by Scheina Your WPC was in fact a WSC 125 foot cutter she served from 41 to 45 in the Gulf Sea Frontier stationed out of Ft Pierce Fla. Most Cutters I believe followed the USN Camo practice and I would suspect she did also ...So you need to pick a time and research the Assigned Camo to the area and time. The photos I have of the Marion and theKimball appear to be a darker hull than Superstructure. Hope this helps Sven E Dorsey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Alan Lindstrom Subject: Best BB in '39 All of this recent talk about the Nelson class reminds me of a question that interests me - what was the best battleship in the world on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland? I suppose the candidates would be: Great Britain: Hood, Nelson class, Queen Elizabeth class USA: West Virginia class Japan: Nagato class German: Scharnhorst class Italy: Cavour and Doria classes France: Dunkerque class I like this question because it gets us away from the inevitable arguments over the Iowas v. Yamatos. The Hood certainly had the best combination of speed and armament, but was it best overall as of that date? Or would it be the Nelsons or Nagatos. The West Virginias were probably too slow, and the others undergunned. Other than speed, how did the Hood compare to a Queen Elizabeth? Any comments out there? Alan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: Armored Decks vs ESSEXs The ILLUSTRIOUS Class would have been better ships had they weighed in at twice the tonnage, say 45,000. As it was, they tried to cram too much into a small tonnage to really be successful. The weight devoted to protection was misapplied also. Armor the flight deck, but leave the elevator surface unarmored is not very sensible in the long run. Had ILLUSTRIOUS had more 'aircraft carrier features' and fewer 'battleship features', she might have had an adequate size air group with real fighter aircraft, (not fighters adapted from light bomber designs), and been better able to defend herself. As for ESSEX Kamikaze damage automatically leading to long stays in the dockyards, not true. See the Technical Board on Warships of the World. Keep in mind that where the Kamikaze hits is the key. One might examine the 'self inflicted Kamikaze' damage suffered by HMS FORMIDABLE. (An F4U landed when the after elevator was in the down position - the resulting damage burned out her hangar deck). Of the armored deck CVs, only one made it into the jet age as an operational aircraft carrier. The same cannot be said of the ESSEX class. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Michael D'Silva" Subject: Resin Hulls and Bollards Gene, I also experienced this phenomenon when I received my first resin kit a few weeks ago. While the overall quality of the kit and casting is excellent, most of the bollards were missing. There were no remnants to be found even in the bubble wrap, so obviously, this state existed before the hull was even wrapped. The manufacturer has the same reasoning. It's just one of the anomalies of resin casting. The fix suggested by the manufacturer was as follows: 'Regarding the bollards, I'm afraid this is pretty standard on resin kits, due to small air bubbles being trapped in the moulds at the top of the bollard posts. However, they are easy to repair simply by replacing the missing posts with short sections of plastic or brass rod. You may wish to drill the bollard baseplate to take the replacement posts in order to provide extra strength.' I have withheld the manufacturers name as I don't feel it's relevant or appropriate. However, I must add that I have just received another resin model in 1/350 scale (from another manufacturer) and the casting is quite exquisite. Nigh perfect! Every bollard is there. Hmmm.... Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: 1/96 Model Source My apologies if you already know about this. This is something I stumbled upon by accident tonight. Those interested in larger models might be interested in looking into this further. Go to: http://www.marylandsilver.com/badship.htm for more information. Brooke class Frigate, 1/96 KIT # BSM-FBC $184.99 Garcia class Frigate, 1/96 KIT # BSM-FGC $184.99 Glover class frigate, 1/96 Kit # BSM-FGL $169.99 Knox class Frigare, 1/96 KIT # BSM-FFK $213.99 Perry class Frigate, 1/96 Kit # BSM-FGP $228.99 Tacoma/Ashville class Frigate, 1/96 kit # BSM-PF $249.99 Buckley class Destroyer Escort, 1/96 Kit # BSM-DEB $254.99 Charles F. Adams class Destroyer, 1/96 Kit # DSM-DGA $263.99 Forest Sherman class Destroyer, 1/96 KIT # BSM-DFS $279.99 Fletcher class Destroyer, 1/96 Kit # BSM-DDF $289.99 Butler class Destroyer Escort, 1/96 Kit # BSM-DEJ $254.99 Ticonderoga Aegis Cruiser, 1/96 Kit # DSM-CGT $352.99 Virginia class Nuclear Cruiser, 1/96 KIT # BSM-CGV $381.99 Spruance class Destroyer, 1/96 Kit # DSM-DDS $339.99 Gearing class Destroyer, FRAM I conversion, 1/96 Kit # BAD-DDG $299.99 Sumner class Destroyer, FRAM II conversion, 1 /96 Kit # BAD-SUM $313.32 LST (542) cl of WWII, 1/96 kit # BSM-LST $293.32 Hamilton Class Cutter, 1/96 Kit # BSM-HUH $230.00 Gato/Balao Class submarine, 1/96 Kit # BSM-SLF $122.00 Landing Ship, Medium, 1/96 Kit # BSM-LSM $142.00 Arliegh Burke class Destroyer, 1/96 Kit # BAD-DAB $265.00 Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: DILIANE@aol.com Subject: Re: DD 540 For Rusty, he wanted to know the name of the DD540. According to my Conway it is the Twining. It was launched 07/11/43 and turned over to Taiwan 10/06/71. Probably one of many returns, but what the hey? Jim Campbell Chippewa Falls, WI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: CokerRE@aol.com Subject: FS: Various I have the following items for sale: Ship Plans/Royal Navy HMS Culgoa 1947 1/8" scale $15.00 HMS Wairs 1942 DD 1/16" " 10.00 Sloop Wild Goose by Lambert 1943 " 15.00 Daring DD by Ough 1930 1/16" 15.00 Ross Heron, motor trawler by MacGreg 15.00 Books/Royal Navy Archibald, the Metal Fighting Ship $30.00 Coronation Review 1937 souvenir pamphlet $20.00 Harding, Grey Ghost, RMS Queen Mary in WWII $20.00 Lambert, the Faimaile "D" Motor Torpedo Boat $20.00 The Warrior $25.00 Lynch, Canada's Flowers 1939-45 $20.00 MacGregor, Merchant Sailing Ships vol.I& II $20.00 each The Tea Clippers 1972 $25.00 McKay, the 100-gun ship Victory $25.00 White, the Frigate Diana 1794-1839 $25.00 Please reply off list to P.C. Coker at cokerre@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Vincent McCullough" Subject: Nautical Research Guild Website Update I've just completed two major additions to the NRG's web site. At last fall's NRG conference in San Diego, a number of us were admiring the design on the deck of the captain's cabin in John Kopf's model of the Royal Caroline, and wondering how he did it. The answer appears in a new shop note, "MARQUETRY FOR SHIP MODEL BUILDERS," that John prepared for us, and which can now be found on the NRG's web site. The workmanship is truly amazing, as I'm sure you'll agree with you see the note. The other addition is the table of contents for the latest Nautical Research Journal, which is mailing at this time. It's got several particularly good articles this time, several of which are shop notes in and of themselves. This issue also includes something that we haven't done in a while: a fold out plan of the USS Kearsarge of 1864. And as a bonus, we've included in our web addendum the text of two letters from Kearsarge crew members describing the final battle with the Confederacy's raider Atlanta. You can find the NRG web site at: htp://www.naut-res-guild.org. The information on the latest NRJ, along with the addendum, appears in the table with the heading "THE GUILD." The shop note, along with many more, can be found at the bottom of the NRG's home page. By the way, we are always looking for new shop notes. If you have any that you would like to contribute, please do! Vince McCullough NRG Webmaster Chantilly, VA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Rob Mackie Subject: Warship Update I've updated the Warship (http://warship.simplenet.com ) site with the following items: In-the-box review of the following resin kits: L'Arsenal 1:400 Late Flower Class Corvette L'Arsenal 1:400 Type A-69 D'Estienne d'Orves Class Corvette (modern) L'Arsenal 1:400 Early (1941) Flower Class Corvette Rob Mackie Warship http://warship.simplenet.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Caroline Carter" Subject: CAMOUFLAGED NUKES, AND MORE DOCKYARD MATEYS.. Hi Guys, Well, we're unbelievaby busy at the moment.. just released the 1/700 DOCKYARD MATEYS U.S. and American-made WW2 U.K./European subjects, and are frantically compiling back orders for everyone... most of these will be shipped on Monday. If you are interested in building a 1/700 Scale diorama with dock sections that simply butt together... buildings, vehicles, trains (U.S./Euro or British wartime..), and dockyard furniture, to give your 1/700 Scale ship model a realistic setting, then you MUST check out my updated pages! http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/dock/dock.htm Also, being released VERY soon, WEM's first ever submarine kit I hear the Sub-Committee's ears prick up here..). This model is 1/350 scale and can be built either as a waterline OR full hull kit. It is interesting, as the subject is a nuclear hunter-killer, with a rather superb camouflage scheme for shallow water operations! I have just prepared a feature on the WEM K 3541 HMS TRENCHANT with photos of her port and starboard schemes. The kit also carries a rather nice photoetched brass detail set. The pattern and etch are by Peter Hall. Please click the link below.. http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/trenchant/trenchant.htm We have just received the new Photoetched brass detail set for the AIRFIX 1/600 HMS REPULSE. This is code number PE 620. Although the kit is out of production, Peter Hall had one to build, and he'd designed the brass anyhow for the 1/350 Scale WEM kit of the same subject, so, figuring that there are other folks out there who would like to build their AIRFIX kits, we decided to commit ourselves to a fret. It is available now at 16.13 pounds (around $25.00). To take a look at what you get (as well as FOUR full pages of step-by-step, fully illustrated instructions), please http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/wembrass/wempe620.jpg ALSO, received this week, the WEM PE 4001 1/400 RAILS and LADDERS fret, for any 1/400 Scale kit, a huge amount of high-quality rails, ladders, awning supports, and more! The price is 11.08 POUNDS ($18.00) post free worldwide! http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/wembrass/wempe4001.jpg We also have the same fret in 1/350 SCALE right here at 12.72 Pounds (around $20.35) Post Free THANKS! Caroline Carter http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models White Ensign Models, for a fine range of photoetched brass for 1/600, 1/700 and 1/350 scale kits, and THE finest warship kits and upgrades in the world! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume