Subject: SMML VOL 792 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:43:43 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: HOGA 2: Re: resin hulls and bollards 3: Re: JFK kits 4: U.S.S. Catapult YV-1 5: Essex Class Deck differences 6: More on Essex vs.Illustrious class 7: Pt 109 Camo 8: Re: BaD Ship Models 9: Re: Floating Dry-dock Twinnig source 10: Copper plate underwater? 11: NavSource 12: Advice solicited! 13: Illustrious class 14: Re: FD Alfred Wolf 15: ORP Mors & T-43 Radar picket ship 16: Illustrious class versus Essex Class 17: Re: Things with wings 18: Re: Armored Cruisers and BB48 19: Best Navy? Best carrier? Best anything? 20: Re: Armored Decks vs ESSEXs 21: Re: Armored decks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: New uploads -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "John Snyder" Subject: HOGA While not specifically a ship modeling item, I thought I'd forward this from another naval list I'm on: Tug-of-war Over Pearl Harbor Tug By BRUCE DUNFORD Associated Press Writer PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii (AP) -- The USS Hoga did yeoman duty in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, fighting oil-fed fires, maneuvering ships to safer locations and picking up survivors. Now the 100-foot tugboat needs to be rescued itself. The Hoga -- the last surviving Navy vessel from the 1941 attack that plunged the United States into World War II -- is mothballed in San Francisco Bay, salt water thinning its steel hull. The tug, its name the Sioux word for fish, and its 11-man crew were credited at Pearl Harbor with helping to tow the heavily damaged USS Nevada to shallow water, preventing it from sinking and blocking the harbor's entrance. It also pulled the repair ship USS Vestal away from the burning and sinking battleship USS Arizona, and for three days poured water onto the Arizona's flaming superstructure. The Hoga later spent 40 years fighting fires for the city of Oakland, and was retired in 1989. The tug, built in 1940, is considered inactive by the Navy, which wants to scrap it. The boat is on the National Register of Historic Places and listed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of the nation's 11 most seriously endangered historic places. There is interest in saving it, but there are no firm offers. A Hawaii group and the National Park Service in 1995 tried to raise money to return it to the islands but came up short. The Navy League's Fort Lauderdale, Fla., chapter would like the tug for a floating World War II memorial. The Walt Disney Co. recently expressed interest in using the Hoga for a proposed $145 million movie about the attack. And backers of the proposed Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., have been approached about using the tug for visitor rides to the riverside library. No one, however, has formally applied to the Navy's Ships Donation Office, which would evaluate plans for financing, mooring, maintaining and displaying the tug before making a recommendation to the secretary of the Navy, deputy program manager Gloria Carvalho said. "We want it to be a static display," said Carvalho, who believes Pearl Harbor "would be the perfect place." If it weren't for bad timing and a slow Hawaiian economy, the tugboat might today be refurbished and resting at a berth here next to other World War II memorials that draw 1.4 million visitors a year. Frank McHale, a marine construction project manager, headed the Hawaii effort that raised only $5,000. His effort was overwhelmed by the campaign to bring the decommissioned battleship Missouri--on which the Japanese surrendered-- from Bremerton, Wash., this year. "Funding support for the Hoga was lost. It never got a fighting chance," said Daniel Martinez, historian at the USS Arizona Memorial Visitors Center. "It's an opportunity missed." Without a corporate sponsor, the chance of bringing the Hoga back to Pearl Harbor is slipping away, Martinez said. "It's such a shame that the little vessel that did so much is not part of the national history we have here at Pearl Harbor," he said. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: James Corley Subject: Re: resin hulls and bollards Gene Larson wrote: >> I received a 1/350 hull a week ago, an update to a kit. When it arrived I noted that eight of the bollards were broken off. The manufacturer has offered to send another hull. Is it really worth that effort? The manufacturer states: "The broken bollards has been a problem but they can be easily replaced with a short length of .030 plastic rod." Is the suggested "fix" acceptable? << >> Gene: I have had the same problem and have replaced missing bollards with brass rod rather than styrene but I am sure either is acceptable as no strength is involved. I have also removed some molded in bollards and replaced them with the brass rod just to get rid of the draft taper (to ease removal from the mold )on the molded bollard. I considered the molded in bollards as good "locators" for the brass replacements. It's good that the mfg is willing to replace the hull, but I think the fix is quite acceptable and the mfg did good by suggesting the easy fix. << As a manufacturer (wasnt me), as well as a modeller, I was refreshed by your comments. Indeed there are a few of those dying breed left, the modeller. Somebody who realizes everyhting in the world is not perfect and is willing to correct a few small problems himself. I am sometime guilty of expecting a perfect kit, especially when I have spent a couple of hundred dollars on a ship, only to find the hull warped and the halves with differing lengths. We have all come to expect Tamiya quality and demand Lindberg prices. But I have recieved good and bad treatment from retailers. Had a guy just call saying his kit was missing the photo-etch and several key parts out of the parts bag! I will of course send him replacements, but based on where he said he got the kit (a hobby shop of questionable reputation I am told by others in his general area), I have a feeling I know what happened to the kit. Somebody bought another one, bolluxed it up, returned it as defective and the shopkeeper simply put it back on the shelf. As far as I know, none of my kits has made it out my door with parts missing, except for the Nautilus with having to redo a small resin fret, and then I put a note in the instructions to contact me. This sort of thing happens almost everywhere. A few weeks ago my mother had bought a $30 poster from from Target, when she & I returned it it was on the shelf BEFORE we made it back to that part of the store to get another one (this store does refunds only, claiming it is easier on everyone than exchanges where people have to stand in line twice, and I agree)!! We know it was the same because it had a corner of the plexi broken, either that or they have a terrible idea of what QC is. The offer of another hull was excellent customer service. After all, Gene now knows that whoever it was will stand behind their product no matter how small the defects are. Caroline said the cost would be prohibitive and force price increases. But think about it, Caroline, we both know a manufacturer who would rather accuse his customers of stealing the parts than simply replace warped hulls and missing photoetch. What would the price have been to the manufacturer who refused to stand behind his product....."that so-and-so is a cheat, and I'll NEVER buy anyhting from him/her again!" We have all heard this comment in one context or another. Sure, the hull would cost the producer a little bit of money, but refusing to satisfy the customer would cost more. Pick any one of your customers and subtract his payments and see how much you would loose. Now take that amount and triple it (the word-of-mouth effect) and see how much you've lost. Products are only as good as the people who support them. James Corley Nautilus Models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: James Corley Subject: Re: JFK kits For Alan Simon - the Monogram Kitty Hawk is wrong in two respects- 1) it is actually the JFK, complete with the slanted smokestack 2) although the box says 1/600 scale, it is actually 1/800 I haven't seen their JFK but would assume they have decided to box the same kit under its correct name. This kit has been issued, at various times, as all of the "class." Just add decals & boxes. And it is bigger than 1/800, compare to the Arii kits, but much less detailed. James Corley Nautilus Models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Keith Bender" Subject: U.S.S. Catapult YV-1 This has been a difficult subject to research. The U.S.S. Catapult YV-1 was a converted LSM. She and her sister the Launcher YV-2 were converted to be a drone launching vessel. This was carried out late 40's. They're well decks were covered over and a small superstructure was fitted over the well deck area. A small area aft was for the portable catapult to launch drones. Anyhow I've been trying for years to come up with some good info on their redesign in hopes to build a model for my father. He served on Catapult from 1957-58. (note) This must have been great sea duty. Dad tells me in 1.5 years he was aboard they only stayed out overnight just once. It was always out and in by liberty call. Must have been nice because when the ol' CV's get underway you Know your out for awhile. So my point is, I need help locating drawings of her conversion from LSM to YV-1. She was LSM 445 before the conversion. I have a few photos but no plans. Any help is always appreciated. Thank you, Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Robert OConnor Subject: Essex Class Deck differences SMMLies- Thought I'd add a little to the ESSEX class controversy by letting you know that there are specific differences in the starboard deckedge elevator arrangements on some ships. I did extensive research on the class a few years ago, and used Terzibaschitsch's book for a basis. It seems that several of the ships were modernized with the large aircraft/cargo crane aft of the elevator, and some with it forward. Elevators were placed at different locations relative to the island. If the elevator was placed far enough to the stern, the crane was mounted forward of it. Be sure to check photo references prior to modifying kits. The Jim Shirley kit of Oriskany is correct(aft), but the Revell kit depicting a variety of ships over the years (ESSEX, Wasp, Yorktown,etc) is only good for those ships with the crane aft. I think that kit has been marketed as Intrepid in the past, too (crane forward). According to Mr T's ship photos, here is the breakdown by relative position: Crane Aft of elevator: : ESSEX -CVS-9 HORNET-CVS-12 TICONDEROGA-CVS-14 RANDOLPH-CVS-15 WASP-CVS-18 ORISKANY-CVA-34 SHANGRI-LA-CVS-38 CRANE FORWARD OF ELEVATOR; INTREPID CVA/S-11 TICONDEROGA CVS-14 HANCOCK CVA/S-19 LAKE CHAMPLAIN CVS-39 UNKNOWN CRANE/ELEVATOR RELATIONSHIP(any help out there?) BONNE HOMME RICHARD CVS-31 BENNINGTON CVS-20 YORKTOWN CVS-10 This makes the ESSEX class even clearer, huh? And as for the comparisons to the RN's armoured deck carriers, it's the same old story...a tradeoff of weight and space. The RN types gave up aircraft stowage for protection of the overall asset. The U.S. was able to build more of the assets in anticipation of loss, but with the intent of utilizing the deckspace available to it's optimum. Fortunately, no Essex class ship was lost and the most seriously damaged, U.S.S. Franklin (CV 13), made it back to the East coast from the south Pacific, only to finish out the war in port, never to be repaired. In retrospect, both classes of ship had their strengths and weaknesses, and it was the next generation of carriers which incorporated the best of those traits - Midways, Eagle/Ark Royal, and on. The Essex class by and large sailed on into the 70's and was the backbone of US naval antisubmarine warfare, not to mention their significance as attack carriers used to supplement the developing supercarrier force of the 60's and 70's. Had it not been for these ships, the USN would have been SOL ..No wonder the ESSEX class is called the most successful class of major combatant vessel ever produced!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Robert OConnor Subject: More on Essex vs.Illustrious class One of the previous writers mentioned that the Essexes could not have survived the pounding and damage that an armored CV took. That opinion is echoed, or perhaps initiated, in Terzibaschitsch's book, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OF THE US NAVY. The simple fact is that of all the Essex class ships damaged during WWII,only the Franklin suffered damage severe enough to prevent air ops for more than 3-4 hours. Granted, some yard work was required for other than deck damage, but that is the nature of ships at war. Essex ships carried extensive flight deck planking stores below deck for just such emergency purposes.Fire and bomb damage was generally quickly repaired, due to the necessity of resuming air ops and self protection. Hope this helps to further muddy the waters on who's flattop was better. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Russell Smith" Subject: Pt 109 Camo A friend asked me today what camo the PT 109 was wearing at the time of her sinking. I don't have a model of anything smaller than a destroyer so have neglected to gather any knowledge of the smaller ships. He thinks it was a green camo and wants to know if the deck would have been painted in it too or one solid color. Also are there any references he could buy that cover this subject. Thanks in advance. Russ Smith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: BaD Ship Models Be aware that, unfortunately, they do NOT sell individual castings, fittings, or parts (except for selected shaft struts). Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Floating Dry-dock Twinnig source >> Just wondering what FD pub you're referring to - the Fletcher Plan Book correctly identifies her. << This isn't Eugene, but I started the thread. I painted my model from drawings in the Floating Dry-dock book "Camouflage 1 of the WW2 Era." The caption below the illustration states that only DDs 540 and 559 are known to carry this scheme. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: GrafSpee34@aol.com Subject: Copper plate underwater? Further to the copper plating question, I had a look at a photo of the contemorary builders model of Petroplavlovsk, Makarov's flagship as C-in-C, Pacific. Like the Potemkin model, the underwater hull of this model is painted dull metallic copper. The props and rudder are brass. I would say (especially due to the scarcity of better contemporary color information) that the builder's model is a good, though not 100% reliable, reference source. And there are other pre-dreadnought builder's models at the Central Naval Museum in St. Petersberg with this copper paint on the bottom. If actual copper plating is far-fetched, consider the possibility that the Czar's Navy was making use of an anti-fouling paint containing powdered copper. If it were painted over an insulating layer of lead based paint, reaction with the hull's iron would be avoided. Easy to apply, does not increase water resistance, and perhaps had the anti fouling characteristics of copper plate. Consider also that red painted hull bottoms look "normal" to us simply because modern anti-fouling paint is conventionally red. But as Pieter Cornelissen pointed out, there were other colors in use at the turn of the century and since then. For example, the German navy in WWI and WWII used a grey anti fouling paint on submarines more frequently than red. Bottom line, if I were to build the 1:400 Potemkin using the references available to me at this point in time, I would paint the under water hull dull metallic copper. Would look pretty nice against the black hull. Cheers Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: CharlieJarvis Subject: NavSource Hi All: Does anyone know what happened to the NavSource site? I have the URL as: Http://www.NavSource.Org/Naval/home.html but get a File Not Found Error when I try to get in. Has it moved, is undergoing refurbishing, etc.? Thanks: Charlie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: tom Subject: Advice solicited! Earlier this week I was in my local hobby store and came across a nice resin 1/350 scale four-stack destroyer kit at a reasonable $50. I have previously restricted myself to 1/700 but I have a weakness for "flush decks and four pipes" so... Then I notice on the shelf the 1/350 Tamiya Fletcher marked down to $17. What could I do? I had no choice... and the two finished models bow to bow will make an interesting study of destroyer development between 1920 and 1940. Finally near the checkout I see the 1/350 Tamiya BBs on sale. Soon afterward I flee the store before more damage can be done but I am left with a dilemma... what 1/350 US BB kit could best counterpoint the Missouri in the same way the four-stacker compares to the Fletcher? I am thinking of something in 1916-1920 configuration, cage masts, etc. Best regards Tom Kremer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: Illustrious class Hi all Michael I agree with a lot of what you say but a warship also needs to be able to 'take it' as well as 'dish it out'. The Essex class wasn't able to do so in the same way and what frequently saved them was superb damage control. This is what saved the Franklin. It is also interesting to note that the Illustrious's did extremely at Palambang, so much so that the USN wanted them as part of the 5th/3rd fleet. Interestingly areas where the RN were better than the USN were fighter direction and torpedo bombing. Joe I've seen the article you refer to, unfortunately, its irrelevant, the reality of combat shows how effective the armoured decks were. Steve Enterprise did not receive the same level of damage as Illustrious. In fact, the number of bombs and near misses was nowhere near the amount Illustrious received from more proficient foes than the Japanese at that time. Survivability is a frequently neglected factor and this was especially noticeable in the Essex class. The major factor in carrier operations is how well you use your equipment not the size of the airgroup. Otherwise by your argument the escort carriers were also not effective whereas they performed better at Leyte Gulf than the Essex class. You're right that the decision to retire the Illustrious class was not entirely politics it was also economics and a mis-interpretation of strategy (one famous paper declared that the manned aircraft was obsolete). No Illustrious class was sidelined because of battle damage (though this may be because of the lack of carriers in the RN) but the Enterprise, Sarratoga and Franklin were basically bombed out of the war. Another point to note is the number of carriers that the USN had, they could absorb carriers being damaged wheras the RN could not. Personally I think that the Essex class reflects well on the USN. They were second rate ships but the sailors and aircraftsmen who crewed them were turned out wining performances. My point is that it doesn't matter if you're airgroup is half the size of another country's its how you use it and that is the most important factor in warfare. Joseph With regard to damage, an Essex class carrier frequently had to retire to effect repairs taking out of operations for a period of time. However, no Essex was actually sunk and frequently this had everything to do with excellent damage control. Almost as if someone thought 'OK our carriers aren't that robust, how are we going to get round this?'. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: FD Alfred Wolf My copy of the FD Fletcher Plan book refers to DD-540 as ALFRED WOLF, both in the index and in the photographs. I got the book when it first came out so maybe FD proofed it before reprinting. Its a great book, although mine is getting a bit ragged from use. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "feed" Subject: ORP Mors & T-43 Radar picket ship does any one have information about ORS MORS a polish minesweeper and russian T-43 RADAR PIKKET SHIP. Pictures if possible. Thanks in advance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "Phil Gollin" Subject: Illustrious class versus Essex Class On balance I agree most with Michael Smith, rather than Chris. On what they were called to do in the Pacific the Essex class were better suited than the Illustrious class were. I would draw people's attention to ; British Carrier Aviation - by Norman Friedman (a wonderful book), and American & British Carrier Development, 1919 - 1941 by Hone, Friedman and Mandeles. The Essex's were good, but relatively late in appearing (remember HMS Victourious got to the Pacific first). They were 'lucky/fortunate' in that their design would be good for post-war improvements, however as the second books show they were great designs for OFFENSIVE carrier warfare, not DEFENSIVE, which is what the Illustrious class were designed for and good for. On only one point would I dissagree with Michael on - in the Pacific the Illustrious / Indomitable / Indefatigable classes were regularly carrying 56 - 60 plus aircraft, versus the Essex 92 - 106-odd. The two points I would make concern the plus points in the RN Carriers, both in 1943 and 1944/45 when the RN Carriers came to the Pacific the USN learnt more about Fighter Control and AIO/CIC organisation, an area the British invented and kept ahead for many years. And, although there are problems of explosions within the Illustrious Armoured Box, the Essex's were just not designed for absorbing punishment, an Essex task-force versus the Luftwaffe would have been a massacre. Likewise, British aircraft were not always the worst, the Spitfire III, whilst having awful landing characteristics, was regarded as the best low-level naval interceptor of the war, Swordfish, followed by Barracuda were the best night-time torpedo aircraft and Fulmars. followed by Fireflies the best naval night-fighters (although the Hellcats weren't far behind). The HIGHBALL mosquitos were possibly regarded as too good to use, and the Griffon engined Seafire and Sea Mosquito would have been outstanding in 1946, but thankfully weren't needed.. Hooray for diversity and free-thinking. Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "jmaze" Subject: Re: Things with wings From: "John Snyder" >> Well, let's see, prior to Vietnam you could find the USAAF flying Spits and Mossies in US squadrons in US markings in WW2. Then there were the S.P.A.D.s and Nieuports the Air Corps flew in WW1, and the Nieuports that the USN flew off of BBs in the post-WW1 period.... << I'm going to jump in on this a little late (that's how far behind I am in my reading). The person who said the Harrier was the first non-US a/c purchase since 1917 was, of course, wrong. However, the SPADs and Nieuports are included in his statement (though 1919 would be more accurate). The Spits and Mossies IIRC were only loaned, not purchased. The Canberra was heavily redesigned, with the exception of the basic aerodynamics (ie, airframe shape) and was built here. Not really what I would call a purchase of a foreign a/c, though the basic structure design was. The Caribou then becomes the first foreign a/c purchase since WWI; the Harrier, the second. Notably, the US took the lead in taking the design to the next level - Harrier II. The US failure to produce a completely indigenous VSTOL fighter design is perplexing, though I attribute it to lack of desire (only the Marines REALLY want one) and a pre-occupation with esoteric designs like the XFV-12. The Osprey, which someone mentioned in this connection, is not a fighter or attack a/c design, but the next level in helicopter design, which the US has been a leader in since the late 40's. (I won't say the "best" because I don't wanna start down THAT road.) Our next shot at a VSTOL fighter, actually STOVL, is the JSF derivative, though I can't figure out how the lift/cruise concept has suddenly become more viable than it was 20 years ago. Sorry for the rather long OT post, since I'm not a ship "enthusiast", we finally hit on a topic I had something to say about. One more thing...the member who is looking for help on a DC-3... you can contact me offlist with questions, as I am mainly an a/c modeler. JohnM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "jmaze" Subject: Re: Armored Cruisers and BB48 SMMLies, My belated thanks to all who helped me with my questions on the West Virginia ACR and the various BB48 kits. This was a great boost in my search and made the likelihood of my completing my project - a collection of the vessels which bare/bore that name - more likely. The hardest part being the ACR scratchbuild, can anyone suggest any injection (preferably) or resin kits that might provide me with appropriate pieces-parts and save some scratch work. (I'm thinking something like Revell's Olympia might be useful - comments?) Also, someone sent me info on some titles which I have misplaced. If they could resend the ISBN for "US Armoured Cruisers", I would appreciate it; I'm trying to get this by inter-library loan (used ones I located were over a $100!!) and having the ISBN would help. Thanx, again! JohnM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: "Jens H. Brandal" Subject: Best Navy? Best carrier? Best anything? Oh boy. Oh boyoboyoboy... So we've gone from Best Navy award to Best aircraft carrier, have we? I was sad to see that Dave Baker has decided to leave the list because of inflammatory remarks made to him in private. Sure, everybody is entitled to his or hers own opinion, but the comment he made was thoughtless, and he apologised for it. Not all people who make thoughtless remarks have the decency to do that. His insight into naming US ships was interesting, and his experience made him a valuable resource for this list. In order to prevent more people dropping out and futile barbeque (as in not quite flame:)) wars, perhaps we could a) put our brains in gear before releasing the mouth, and b) not confuse facts with truth when planning to make controversial statements? Facts can be measured against a set of objective criteria, whereas truth is peoples' interpretation of facts. I don't intend to sound arrogant, but these "mine's better than yours but we can't prove it" debates serve no purpose than raising the temperature. On a different note, the discussion about the configuration of Richelieu etc. vs. "conventional" configurations of battleships has been interesting and informative. Jens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: James Corley 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. << The RV built 2 to these specs called EAGLE & ARK ROYAL, while USN built that design and named it MIDWAY. The EAGLE class was more or less a growth version of the ILLUSTRIOUS class. She was almost as large as an ESSEX and weighed as much empty as a fully loaded ESSEX. The MIDWAY class was designed to accept the IOWA/MONTANA propulsion system and general hull shape and adopt the RN armored deck. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: tom Subject: Re: Armored decks >> 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 massive damage to Franklin was caused by two conventionally delivered 450 kg semi AP bombs that went right through both flight deck and armored hanger deck. Of course the bombs would have easily penetrated the armored flight deck of the Illustrious as well. Tom Kremer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Mike" Subject: New uploads Hi all, Just to let you know that we should now have ALL the back-issues uploaded, and indexed. However, if you do find a broken link, please let me know, as we have had a little problem with some of the uploads. Also, we now have a picture of the Listmaster & Mistress available online!!!!! Mike Hi gang, First of, my apologies for the amount of time it's taken me to get full archives online - it only took me 8 months :-(((. I'm sure most of you were taking my promises re this with a huge grain of salt of late. Mike's doing a great job of looking after the site & I want to again thank him for all the effort he has put into it. I'd also like to take this opportunity to once again thank Jeff Hearne for setting up the original site. Now Mike, I'd like to know how the hell you found that pic - which SMMLie do we have chastise ;->. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume