Subject: SMML VOL 793 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:27:18 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Bollards 2: Re: Best BB in '39 3: JFK 1/800 or 1/600 4: Essex Class Differences 5: Advise Solicited 6: Re: USS West Virginia (ACR) 7: Re: Advise Solicited 8: Re: Resin hulls and bollards. A possible answer. 9: Re: FD Alfred Wolf 10: Re: Potemkin model photo 11: Re: Pearl Harbor Tugboat 12: Re: PT-109 and Advice solicited! 13: Most Successful Class of Major Combatant 14: Re: Navsource 15: Independence 16: Re: Essex class 17: Re: ESEX Class Deck Differences 18: Re: ESSEX vs ILLUSTRIOUS class 19: Re: IJN Akitsushima color 20: Essex and Armored decks 21: Re: Essex Class Deck differences 22: Re: PT-109 Camo 23: Re: Illustrious versus Essex 24: Re: Advice solicited! 25: Dilemma 26: 2nd Rate Essexes??? 27: Camoflaged Nukes 28: NavSource 29: USS Franklin 30: USS Missouri Pics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Bib, BaD & wooden. 2: Warning Sea Tec Models 3: 1/700 USS Wichita -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Bollards Not that I have a lot of experience in this department, but this is my two-cents on the matter. I tend to agree with Mike that it might make more sense to cast deck fittings (not just bollards) as seperate parts. Yes, it adds to the manufacturing process, but it seems to me that once the inital parts are patterned and the molds cast, many of these parts would become in effect "universal" parts that could be included in a number of different kits. From what I understand, these parts (along with tubs, etc) also represent a trap for not only bubbles, but for the hull sticking to the mold and tearing it - requiring the production of a new mold (and the associated cost of doing so). The flat "blank" space would seem to negate this problem. This represents another trade-off I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion as of yet. Having the deck fittings as seperate parts would add to the complexity of the construction and painting of the kit, by adding to the number of parts that have to be shipped and assembled, and that have to be cleaned up and painted. OTOH, by ommitting the deck fitting, it would greatly simplify the painting of the decks on ships with elaborate arrangements of deck fittings. I still remember all too well the long hours spent trying to paint around all of the deck fittings, tubs, barbettes, etc on battleship decks (and the subsequent touch ups needed to fix areas where I'd screwed the pooch, and the touch ups needed to fix where I messed up again, et. al). It seems at times to be an endless task. IMHO, it would be a LOT easier to paint and glue on all the associated fittings than it would to plow though the paint, touch-up cycles. All that said, I can also see things from the viewpoint of a novice modeler faced with a zillion parts. On this, I can speak with experience. Upon cracking open the parts box to my ISW California the first thing that came out of my mouth was "OH MAH GAWDS!" (at which point I forced myself to start breathing again). There's a very simple mathmatical formula here that states to the effect that the more of parts in the box is direcly proportional to the intimation/frustration factor. Add to that the need to rework the way instructions are currently written/drawn to provide clear cut yet simple explainations of what all these microparts are and where they are to be attached. I haven't seen instructions from all the resin ship manufacturers, so I'm somewhat at a loss here. Needless to say though, from what I understand, writing instructions seems to be the bane of resin ship kit manufacturing. Therefore, adding umpteen dozen microparts to the mix would probably only compound the problems that are already inherent in this department. For example, pulling out ye old 1:350 California, if all the deck fittings were removed (not including gun tubs, superstructure bases, barbettes, catapult/crane mounts, etc), it would equate to 53 additional parts to the kit. Pulling out my 1:700 Naval Works '41 California I counted at least 84 parts (and I don't think I counted all of them). Ladies and Gents...for a beginner, we're talking pucker factor (and subsequent chair extraction). It's a real mixed bag, and there's no ready solution out there to solve the overall problem. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Best BB in '39 Mind you, this is coming from a Johnnie Reb (never refer to a Son of the South as a 'Yank') Personally, I find it hard to compare the old BBs to newer ships such as the Scharnhorst, Dunkerque, etc because they belong more to the next generation. Yes, they were in service in '39, but represent a different school of philosophy in design. That said, I don't think any of the old US BBs would rate as "best" in '39. All of our ships suffered from strict adherance to treaty limitiations on reconstruction and lack of available funds during the interwar years. Of our newest ships, only the New Mexico's come close as rating in this contest, owing to their radical (for the USN at least) reconstructions during the 30's. The Tennessee's and Colorado's were better armored than earlier US BBs, and the Colorado's were amongst the most heavily armed ships in the world. Their armor protection was good, but lacked in horizontal protection. Their speed was amongst the slowest in the world at that time. They suffered from being limited to mild refits that led them to being extremely top heavy. Underwater protection, need I say, was at best poor. Mild blistering was planned, but only Maryland and Colorado received that refit prior to Pearl Harbor -- and then it was really only intended to correct the problems related to the ships being dangrously overweight. The cagemasts produced vibrations that posed a serious limitation to accurate fire control. The USN's insistance on maintaining two tall towers, after they had largely been dropped by most of the world's other navies is IMO, akin to the Admirals of the days of sails insisting that masts and sails be installed on early steam driven ironclads as an insurance measure. Another fact that isn't commented on too often is that the New Mexicos, Tennessees, and Colorados suffered from the shift over to a clipper-style bow from the earlier cleaver-ram style. The reduction in boyancy this cause led to them being rather wet in heavy seas (as almost all of their successors tended to be). In the North Atlantic, they would've suffered from the same problems in this regard as the KGV ships did. None of the Big-Five had a very effective AA battery to cope with the aircraft of the day. They lacked small, effective, rapid fire weapons (50 cal MGs don't count), which was compounded by the cagemasts obscuring the skyarcs of their 5-in/25-cal and 3-in/50-cal guns. Consider it didn't take very long for the USN to start chopping down those "Cherry Trees" in the months after Pearl Harbor. Then there was the insistance on maintaining older 5-in/51-cal weapons - whose rate of fire was low to begin with, and which could not be utilized as AA guns. Granted, these are among my favorite ships. They were very handsome IMHO, and fitted in well with the sharp appearance the USN endeavored to present during the 20s and 30s. Unfortunately, looks don't count in a sea battle. So yes, I CAN bash the snot out of my beloved California. ). It comes with the territory of accepting strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, most of what I've read about are weaknesses (sigh). That said, I've also read about a lot of problems/weaknesses with British, French, Italian, and Japanese ships serving during the same time frame. Now, all this said... There was a chart I downloaded from I believe www.battleship.org that compared a number of these ships on the qualities of Protection, Firepower, and Speed. These are the ratings given to the ships listed by Alan (that were included in the chart). Scharnhorst 274% Tennessee 242% Hood 227% Fuso 214% Queen Elizabeth 213% Nagato 211% A perfect score on that chart was 300% (which only the Iowa cl received, with the Yamato's coming in at 295%). I thought it odd the Tennessee's would rate as high as they did, but yet there they are, second from the top. Dunkerque was not listed, nor were any of the other French or Italian dreadnoughts. The chart and accompanying article can be found at..... http://www.battleship.org/builda.htm Another comparison study that's definitely worth looking at can be found at... I http://www.skypoint.com/members/jbp/baddest.htm This one only addresses newer battleships though. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: JFK 1/800 or 1/600 The JFK has been changed on our website to be 1/800 scale. When you buy from us we also send along the GMM decal set for 1/700 Carriers that has the deck numbers and the name for the fantail JFK to add to this kit. Thanks for pointing it out. Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Essex Class Differences Robert... From photo's I've seen, Ticonderoga had her crane forward (not aft) of the starboard side elevator/lift. You listed her twice, so I thought I'd mention this. After -125 refits, both the Bennington and Bon Homme Richard had their cranes mounted aft of the elevator. All of this per photos in JFS. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Advise Solicited In the 1916-1920 timeframe, there's only one 1:350 US BB kit that I know of that would fit the bill, and that's Tom's Modelwork's 1921 cagemast USS Arizona. There are other 1:350 US BB kits of ships that were around during that general timeframe - CWs USS California (commissioned 1921) and Tom's USS West Virginia (commissioned 1923). However, both of those kits represent the ships as they appeared at Pearl Harbor. As such, you'd have to do some serious backdating to make them look as they did when first commissioned. The 1921 Arizona kit also has the advantage of being modified to look like Pennsylvania (with some work I believe) - which was the US Fleet Flagship during that time. That's my 2 cents on the topic. Hope it helps. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: USS West Virginia (ACR) John IMO, the Olympia and West Virginia are so different from one another that it would be easier to build the WV from scratch than it would be to convert the Olympia kit. Although they share a few of the same features, the WV was a later design, that was longer, had more funnels, had different style main gun turrets, different style casemates, different style masts, etc. IOW, I wouldn't suggest it on a bet. This is based on photos of the ACR California (which the West Virginia belonged to the same class). Other's here might advise you differently, but that's my take on the situation. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Rod Dauteuil" Subject: Re: Advise Solicited To Tom Kremer, looking for a counterpoint for his Tamiya 1/350 scale Missouri: Have you considered a Glencoe USS Oregon? I think it's larger than 1/350, maybe 1/225, but that could work. There was even an article in FSM once where they made the USS Massachusetts (the original one) using this kit, building a cage mast, and detailing it. It came out really nice, and I almost bought the kit right then and there. Good luck. Rod. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Resin hulls and bollards. A possible answer. Caroline Carter has quite eloquently stated the reasons for occasional casting defects in resin model kits regardless of the cost. Why not educate the customer a far as what to expect in a resin cast kit? It's as simple as adding this explanation to all the instruction sheets. If you inform the modeler that there will be some small casting problems from time to time, perhaps that will educate the modeler as to what to expect from resin models. Suggestions referring to repairing these problems should be included as well. Lets face it, most folks who spend that kind of money on a model are advanced modelers who will have no problem repairing simple defects. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: SHIPMDLR@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. << Over 30 emails so far say it's the USS Twining. One stated that the FDD book is inerror which I believe may be the case here. I also want to mention that the caption under the photo stated that research was continuing, but as of that printing only DD 540 and 559 are the only two DDs to have carried this scheme. However, DD 540 is without a doubt the Twinning. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Potemkin model photo I built a Heller Potemkin some years back. Mine is painted very similar to the suggestions mentioned on this list. If you wish, I can send a scan of that model to anyone who may want to use it. It may help. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor Tugboat >> 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. << In case there are no firm offers to preserve the tugboat may I suggest an alternative to those parties who are fighting for its preservation. Hold an auction for the artifacts from that boat and set aside the proceeds for a fund to preserve the next historical boat that comes up. I am sure artifacts like the ships compass, instruments, portholes, steering wheel etc. would fetch much more that they would as scrap. With the proper documentation they would be valuable collectors items in years to come. Its a shame that historically significant ships like the WWII Enterprise and many other have so little left of them that can be identified as historical artifacts. Kelvin Mok (klmok@home.com) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: PT-109 and Advice solicited! The 109 boat appears to have been in overall green. One source I've seen suggests Testor's #1913 Medium Green as appropriate. She may have been in MTB Green which we haven't matched yet, or she may have been in one of the 1942 or 1943 greens included in our USN Set 2 paint chips. A 1/350 counterpart for MISSOURI? How about Classic Warships' just re-released CALIFORNIA with her cage masts. Or you could go with Tom's Modelworks ARIZONA and backdate it with cage masts.... John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Most Successful Class of Major Combatant There is absolutely no question but that the most successful class of major combatant was --------- THE V&W CLASS DESTROYERS. EVERY subsequent class regardless of navy copied the principal features of the V&W design concept into the post WWTwo era. The V&W class performed very well through two major wars, beat seven colors out of the Russians ships just after WW One. Had reliable machinery, weapons that always worked, good sea boats, big enough to accept conversion and modernisation, did fleet, mine, asw, and aa work, oh yes, and they saw more actual combat than any Essex by a mile, no, make that ten miles. Top that, or as they say in NYC, ----- " eat my shorts". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: NAVYDAZE@aol.com Subject: Re: Navsource On the request for Navsource: his URL is: http://www.navsource.org However, his site is down for the moment. Comment: I have not found any better source than Paul's photos of ships - it is the best! On decks for Essexs: I was just over to the HORNET last weekend and she appears to have large sheets of metal (or something) over the landing and catapult areas of the angled deck. The rest of the deck is wood with a nonskid coating. Who has the best Carriers: They all served their purpose and perhaps if their areas of operations where different then they may not have been the best. They are only considered the best based on their performance in the areas. If we go the "would ifs" then they may not have been. But I do believe if you consider it in the historic side then you would have to go with ships like ENTERPRISE and ARK ROYAL and so on. Oh and being faithful to my local - also the HORNET But again you cannot determine the best based on design because in most cases they were not subjected to all of the possibilities that could be presented to a carrier in war. Almost forgot and SMML is the best source for information for not only model builders, but historians and artists like myself Michael Donegan Naval & Aviation Artist http://members.aol.com/navydaze/INDEX.HTML -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Miguel Costa" Subject: Independence Does anybody knows if is any manufacturer has in stock or have in poject to do the USS INDEPENDENCE (CVL), in 1/350 scale, because the ship apart from the US version is suitable for French and Spanish carriers. Thanks Miguel Costa Mallorca, Balearic Islands Spain "Five islands one place" mailto:mcosta@jet.es -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: ogilvietv@webtv.net (Donna Ogilvie) Subject: Re: Essex class Dear Chris: I could not disagree with you more strongly on your comment about the size of the air group not being important. The size of the Air Wing and the deck crew have a direct effect on the ability of the carrier to remain on station and carry out its mission.. As a former Electrical Officer on the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) I can tell you that when the crews get to tired that accidents and fatalities increase dramatically as fatigue increases. The size is not as important if you are conducting limited operations such as convoy escort or hit and run operations, those only involve a small portion of the crews for a long period, or everyone for a very short period. In the Pacific we were conducting pre and post invasion support requiring very long on station times without the benefit of land bassed air support . In that environment you must have large Air Wings and deck crews, plus additional carriers to rotate into the the battle line as even the lager ships air / deck crews get fatigued. If you want some sea stories of what happens when the air /deck crews get to tired contact me off list. Best reguards Greg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: ESEX Class Deck Differences Robert's three unknowns, (YORKTOWN, BENNINGTON and BON HOMME RICHARD), all had the aircraft handling crane aft of the #3 elevator. The three angled deck ships having the crane forward of #3, (INTREPID, TICONDEROGA and HANCOCK), were the first 27c mod ships with axial decks. The #3 elevator was located farther aft on them than on the 27a mod ships. When they got their angled decks, the elevator/crane arrangement remained unchanged. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: ESSEX vs ILLUSTRIOUS class The new book, 'American and British Aircraft Carrier Development' by T. C. Hone, N. Friedman and M. D. Mandeles sheds lots of light on how the two Navies developed their carrier concepts. It is fascinating reading. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: ogilvietv@webtv.net (Donna Ogilvie) Subject: Re: IJN Akitsushima color I noticed a post on this ship recently and this is the first chance that I've had to reply.I did quite a bit of research on her to build the Naval Works kit of her a few months ago.Firs there are some good photos of her in in the Ships of the World publication "History of Japanese Aircraft Carriers". The photos include a good portside photo of her camo scheme, a shot of her quaterdeck an overhead shot and one of an Emily being craned on board. There is also a good article on Japanese Warship Camouflage in the Warship magazine. I can't give you the date or Issue as I loaned it to to John Sherridian(sp) for his ships camouflage web page. The article describes the camouflage,though pay no attention to the drawing. My conclusion on the colors were white for the bow / stern wave . light green (1/3 S&S type 2 green with 2/3 white) for the light stripes and dots. The main hull color may be gray,however it was a custom scheme designed and mixed by the ships CO and the naval contractor for the South Pacific Islands. The hull may have been green. From the description in Warships (leaf green) article I would hazard a guess at the type 2 green in the S&S color chips. The sea plane deck, linoleum based on photos of the Quaterdck and the area where the plane is being craned on board, and gray elsewhere. Note: this is the exact opposite of the deck scheme shown on the Skywave box. Look at the photos of the deck under a magnifying glass and draw your own conclusions. Again this is bassed on verbal descriptions in the article,photos,the ships intended operational area and some degree of guess work. Hope this helps some. Sorry for the long post. Greg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Joel Labow Subject: Essex and Armored decks I have been hanging out on the list for a while.....I am very impressed by the modelling expertise displayed but the level of knowledge about naval architecture and design displayed in the ongoing string about 'whose navy/ships/weapons were "best"' could do with some improvement! First of all, the term 'best' when used in isolation is truly meaningless. 'Best' in terms of what? Comparing the Essex and Victorious class carriers in isolation is apples to oranges.The Essex class was a displacement-limited design which evolved as part of a strategic plan which contemplated independent offensive operations over the vastness of the Pacific. The USN planners in this setting chose a large airgroup over flight deck armor and IMHO this was clearly the right decision. In order to meet the enormous mass-production goals of the pacific war the USN designers froze the most recent prewar design to facilitate production in multiple civilian yards.....even if it had been indicated a radical redesign would not have been possible. Further, the USN had the Wildcat and Hellcat fighters which were capable of providing a superb combat air patrol. A RN liaison officer assigned to an Essex class ship was quoted as saying that "USN carriers appear to be designed in defiance of the science of aerodynamics!" This may have been so, but with available resources, airframes and powerplants the USN had the luxury of so doing. The RN armored-deck fleet carriers had a very different mission. They were primarily defensive systems whose mission was to protect fleets in operations conducted close to land-based airfields populated by the Luftwaffe. Further, owing to the domination of naval aircraft design by the RAF, both the offensive (the elderly, slow 'stringbag') and the defensive (the fragile and short-legged Seafire) capabilities of the RN carrier air wing were far below their USN counterparts in quality as well as quantity. In this setting emphasising the defensive characteristics of their ships with flight deck armor made perfect sense. In sum, each was 'best' for the concept of operations that they were created for. Once displacement limitations were no longer a factor the USN amalgamated the best of both classes in the FDR class (but significantly even with their enormous shipbuilding resources only managed to get 3 built, and none in time for the war). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "William B. Smallshaw" Subject: Re: Essex Class Deck differences I had an opportunity to board the Bonne Homme Richard while she was in the scrap yard in San Pedro, CA. From the photographs that I have it would appear that the crane, which had been landed, was aft of the elevator. A photograph of Yorktown that appears in Jane's 1961-1962 (p.315) clearly shows the crane aft of the elevator. Bill Smallshaw -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: "William B. Smallshaw" Subject: Re: PT-109 Camo PT-109 at the time of her sinking would have been an overall forest green. A definition of this color can be found in the Lambert & Ross book, Coastal Forces of WWII volume 2. Bill Smallshaw -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: Joe Costanzo Subject: Re: Illustrious versus Essex I think this comes down to the nature of a Carrier's role. An aircraft carrier is by nature an offensive weapon. As such it should be able as many aircraft as possible to a practical limit. The Illustrious may have been better protected but it's offensive ability was much impared relative to an Essex. More aircraft also allow more operations to be performed at once and more regularly, like scouting, CAP, etc. In this case I'd rather have aircraft versus armor. This is ignoring the fact that the Essex's were much more structually sound and expandable than the RN armored flight deck carrier -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: Mike Connelley Subject: Re: Advice solicited! Howdy: Wow, that's a fairly impressive collapse of self denial! I wish I could do that some day. So did you buy the Mo' while you were there or did you have that already...I'm not quite clear on that point. Anyway, about the solicited advice. If you want a nice 1920's battleship then I'd recommend the Tom's Modelworks 1920 USS Arizona. It's the only 1920's era BB kit that I can think of off the top of my head, is quite reasonably priced especially for a 1/350 resin battleship, and having seen one built up I can say it builds into a very nice model. So there's my advice. Anyway, good luck on the Mo', especially if you're going to do her in Ms 32/22d...I'm still trying to figure out how I'm going to paint mine!!! Cheers Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Dilemma >> 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. << Tom - I think Tom's Modelworks did a WW1 era Arizona in 1/350. But that would be a pricey resin kit... MWL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: pugs99@worldnet.att.net Subject: 2nd Rate Essexes??? Hi All, Weighing in on this debate, I disagree that the Illustrious was a superior design to the Essex-class carriers and that the Essex's were "second rate". The ABSOLUTE BOTTOM LINE of a carrier is its offensive punch; i.e. its airgroup!!! At approx 90 planes, the Essex-class ships were almost 3 times "superior" to the Illustrious. Steve is exactly right on this point. A very interesting question to ask would be if an Essex-class carrier squared off against an Illustious-class carrier, which one would you rather be on during the attack? The Essex-class carried almmost as many fighters as the Illustrious' had planes!!! The Illustrious was perfect for her role in the Atlantic. Extra armor against the greater threat of land-based aircraft attack. She had to be able to withstand Luftwaffe attacks; the goal of the design. The Essex's suffered in that they were massed-produced(relatively) and put into service very quickly due to the dire USN need for CV's. They probably couldn't absorb the same amount of damage as the Illustrious, but they weren't intended to. Their defense was their air group. Yet, as has been mentioned before and is a most significant point, NONE were lost. Ship to ship, there is no contest; the Essex was the superior CV. A CV is an offensive weapon. In the case of carrier ops, no matter how good the "what you do" with your airgroup is, size not only matters, it's the difference. The better offensive weapon is the one with the bigger punch. As far as "most decorated ship", the Enterprise, CV-6, was the USN's most decorated ship. Also, a case can be made that she is probably the most important single ship of the entire war. Former RN sailors(I have asked a couple) haven't even heard of the Jervis. The Enterprise participated in every Pacific campaign except for the last. How many other vessels in any of the comabatant navies can make that claim and show a comparable amount of damage inflicted upon the enemy. Enough debate, now back to modeling........ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: Ed Grune Subject: Camoflaged Nukes Hello SMMLies: I'm sure that by now you've all stopped by Carolines site to look at her photos of HMS Trenchant in a experimental blue camoflage job. If not check it out at: http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/trenchant/trenchant.htm Given that the purposes of ship camoflage include identity, course, speed, and range deception, what do you suppose is the purpose of the Trenchant's paint job. Looking down from above - I think I see a smaller sub - with a lot of blue frothy wake. I think it might be depth and speed deception - when observed from a patrol aircraft. Looking at her port side -- there's a foreshortended submarine with the black slash on the hull aft of the sail the upper rudder. This foreshortening changes the angle on the bow - hence course guess-timation. I'm not sure what I see in the starboard side. Any other opinions? Ed Mansfield, TX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: NavSource Charlie... Try either one of these http://navsource.org/Archives/home.html http://www.cityscope.net/~pry/Archives/ Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: USS Franklin Robert... In your commentary on the Essexes you stated the Franklin was never repaired. There's an article about this in the FAQs at the USS Salem site that states to the effect that contrary to common beliefs, both Franklin and Bunker Hill were completely repaired. Neither were included in the 27/125 programs though because they were being held back as candiates for what is referred to as the Ultimate Reconstruction. Per Mr Toppan... >> "Ultimate" Reconstruction: This was a never-realized program to upgrade Essex class ships to a final, completely modern configuration. The SCB 27A/27C programs were seen as a temporary measure pending development of an "ultimate" configuration for the class. Ships of this configuration would have operated with the "supercarrier" United States in large nuclear-strike groups. The design would have been completely flush-decked, with no island at all. With the death of United States and the development of the angled deck, the "ultimate" plan was reconfigured but probably stayed alive. It is unclear when it was realized that the "ultimate" modernization of Essex class ships should be dropped in favor of SCB 125 and new construction. Two ships were excluded from other modernization programs to make them available for the "ultimate" conversion -- Bunker Hill and Franklin. These ships had been heavily damaged near the end of the war, fully repaired, and laid up in excellent condition. Ultimately they went to the breakers unmodified. << As far as Franklin is concerned, Mr Toppan had to say... >> Served with the Carrier TF during WWII. Kamikazes at Luzon 15 Oct 1944 and 30 Oct 1944. Hit by numerous bombs off Kyushu 19 March 1945 during a raid on the Japanese home islands. Bombs and fires caused massive damage, completely destroying the hangar and flight deck; ship had a serious list due to firefighting water. Over 700 crew died. Temporarily repaired at sea and was able to return to New York Navy Yard under her own power for permanent repairs; most seriously damaged carrier to reach port. During repairs everything from the hangar floor up, except the island and forward flight deck, was removed and replaced. Did not resume flight operations following repairs, decommissioned to reserve 17 Feb 1947. Was in excellent condition and held in reserve for potential "ultimate" Essex class conversion. Redesignated as an attack carrier (CVA 13) 1 October 1952, as an ASW carrier (CVS 13) 8 Aug 1953, and as an aviation transport (AVT 8) 5/59, all while in reserve. Stricken for disposal 1 October 1964, sold for scrapping 7/1966, scrapped at Norfolk VA 1966-1968. << The brief history of the Bunker Hill at this site pretty much says the same thing about her. If you haven't checked out the articles and FAQs at this sight, I would highly suggest them. I've learned a LOT at this sight in the last month. They have a very informative piece in the FAQs about the current naming practice of USN ships. The US WWII Fleet Carriers (Essex and Midway) outlines the SCB and other conversions (for both classes), explains how the Essexes were broken up into different classes as result of the conversions, and has brief career summaries of the various ships. There are also links to photos of most ships available on this page. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: Mike Connelley Subject: USS Missouri Pics Howdy: I was looking around on the net for pictures of the USS Missouri for additional photos of her during her shakedown period since the photos I did have only showed a small part of her very complex paint scheme. What I found is nothing less than the mother load. More photos of her than any other site I've seen plus a lot of color photos I've never seen before...plus many I've seen before but only in b&w. The URL is as follows: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb63.htm Looking for other ships, I found the coverage rather sparse so I just guess I'm lucky here. Among the things I noticed are that the tops of the guns are ocean gray (I thought they'd be deck blue), the deck blue weathered to a dark gray and the ocean gray weathered to a dirty tan kind of gray. There are a number of pictures of the old Kingfishers in color too. Anyone else doing the Mo in Ms32/22d would be interested to check these photos out of they haven't already. BTW, does anyone know of other good sources of pictures of ships on-line? Cheers Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: Bib, BaD & wooden. The Naval Base has been carrying the BaD ship models for quite some time visit us. Look for "Big, BaD Wooden Ships" page Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "David Zimmerman" Subject: Warning Sea Tec Models Dear Brother and Sister Modelers: I am writing to advise you that Sea Tec Models/Richard Cohen are less than reputable. An order was place in July 99 and to date no model has been received nor has the refund been sent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: 1/700 USS Wichita I am now through with the hull, all the deck detail, the first superstructure level, main turrets, all secondary weapons, and all the other small parts for the pattern I am working on. The rest of the superstructure should take about a week to finish. This kit will be available through Pacific Front Hobbies, exclusively, to the first 50 customers, on the first production run. Thanks, Steve Wiper - Classic Warships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume