Subject: SMML VOL 795 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:20:30 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: USS Mississippi c.1954 2: Re: Most Successful Class of Major Combatant 3: Re: PT 109 camo 4: Re: Bollards and such. 5: Re: Iron Shipwright service 6: Re: Paintintg & Other Ship Model Techniques 7: Re: CV-6 8: USS Springfield 9: Re: Resin hulls and bollards. 10: What I'd like to know about Essex's 11: Re: Separate bollards and barbettes (metal please) 12: Re: CGN Virginia BaD 13: Cast parts and Noles 14: Re: Olympia as source of parts (was USS West Virginia (ACR) 15: Re: SS FRANCE and SS ILE DE FRANCE 16: Forrest Sherman kit 17: Poseidon Nanuchka 18: Photographing navy ships 19: Warship 2000 20: Re: Day of Deceit 21: Re: CGN Virginia BaD 22: APA USS Montrose 23: Re: Seperate bollards & barbettes (metal please) 24: Thanks and Viking Answered 25: Airfix Magazine HMS Repulse article 26: Re: CGN Virginia 27: Battleships in 1939 28: Illustrious vs. Essex? 29: Lt. Bush and Battle of the Philippine Sea 30: Re: Warning Sea Tec Models 31: Tamyia Musashi 1/350 32: Scharnhorst 33: Illustrious the best? Certainly not! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: FS: Ship plans 2: Tirpitz 3: CV-6 site Announcement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: USS Mississippi c.1954 Out of curiousity, has anyone ever attempted to do a model of the USS Mississippi as a Terrier test ship? I was looking at the drawing in Breyer's earlier tonight, and it struck me as being an interesting naval oddity subject. That and/or using that as the basis for a "what if" project by doing a similar mod on a Tennessee or West Virginia as a hybrid Amphibous Fire Support and Air Defense ship (given their top speed of 21 knots, they wouldn't have been suited as fleet defense ships). I don't think anything like this was even thought of on the grounds of cost vs the age of those ships. Given my interest in the old US BBs though, the concept facinates me. It's also different in comparison to the stock "replace the aft turrets with a flight deck" studies that were actually done for the SoDaks and Iowas. Go ahead, tell me I'm a loon (I already know that). Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: James Corley Subject: Re: 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. << Do Destroyers count as Major Combatants now?!?! I always thought this term was synonomous with Capital Ship and as such would be limited to Cruisers and larger. If you want to include DDs, why not the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing superclass of ships, many of which are still in srvice nealy 60 years later. As a design, this hull has proven it's success by sheer longevity. And each class/subclass can stand on its own, too. AFAIK, these are the last WW2 ships still in active sevice anywhere. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: ALROSS2@aol.com Subject: Re: PT 109 camo >> I just skimmed the chapter on camouflage in my copy of the book and saw no reference to "Forest Green." << I think Donovan, in his book PT 109, uses the term "forest green" Al Ross -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Mark Shannon Subject: Re: Bollards and such. Just to put my USD $0.02 in, I don't have a problem with scratching bollards, it's making sure that they are properly aligned that takes the time. If we agree that bollards and other peg-like fittings on the deck are not easily molded in resin, subject to easy breakage, and are best scratched from extruded plastic rod or brass wire, then maybe the best approach is to have the mold-makers include the proper sized seating holes for the rod, or at least a pilot point hole. That, the proper diameter to use information, and easy instructions for those new to resin ship kits ought to fill the bill for these fittings, which would take about 30-45 minutes, all told, to install. Considering that it is not unusual to scratchbuild all or part of the masts, this is too easy to spend a lot of time worrying about. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Iron Shipwright service In my posting yesterday I mentioned the fact that a number of IS small cast parts had air bubble problems. They do, but I want to clear the air here to prevent any misunderstandings. I contacted IS about replacement of several large parts that suffered from the same problem. They quickly replaced them, no questions asked. Ted also offered to replace ANY other defective parts I came across during construction. Being on a deadline to deliver the model, I just didn't have the time to wait for the mail to deliver the replacement small parts. It was faster to repair them than to have them replaced. I just wanted to make that clear. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: John_Impenna@hyperion.com Subject: Re: Paintintg & Other Ship Model Techniques Hi Shane, Thanks for the reply. I have found that, for me, brush painting worked in the smaller scales, but I need to spray in the larger scales. In fact, I have recently taken to spraying everything as I can't seem to avoid streaks and only brush paint wooden decks to achieve the plank effect. I don't know if it is me, the paint, the way I'm painting, or the aligment of the stars....... As for photoetch, I am still trying at this. I'm also a novice and still can't figure out whether it is better to add rails last and paint or what. In 1/700, I have added them last for example and brushed painted them after them after the CA set. John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: CV-6 To say that Enterprise, for example, was "bombed out of the war" is a little disingenuous: the last timne she was significantly damaged, was only a couple of months before the end of the war. And she could have been put back in service much more quickly had it been necessary (as it was off the 'Canal some time earlier). Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: USS Springfield Hi Tim There's a short history in Steve Ewing's American Cruisers of World War II and a nice photo of her in Measure 33/24D in the Squadron/Signal publication US Light Cruisers In Action. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Fernando, Yohan" Subject: Re: Resin hulls and bollards. I've been quite surprised with the number of people who would want the bollards, and other little deck fittings cast seperately from the deck mold. Sure, I'm come across the occasion broken or incompletely formed bollard. Never bothered me in the least. Simply cut off whatever is there, sand and replace with a tiny bit of plastic rod. No problem. For all the parts that are well cast and not broken, a couple of tiny bits that need replacement is inconsequential. I also would not want to spend my time cutting, trimming, painting, aligning, gluing, etc handfuls of little bits that stud the decks when they can be cast on the deck mold and touched up with a 00000000 brush. I could not think of anything more tedious and disheartening than having a plastic baggie with approximately 60 tiny 1/700 scale ammo lockers that had to be trimmed, painted and attached to the hull. Casting quality is so high these days with companies like WaveLine and WEM, that you don't sacrifice any detail on the molded on parts either. It's easier for the manufacturer and the modeler to have these pieces cast onto the hull. A little required cleanup on the modeler's part is not too excessive an assumption to make. To expect a kit, especially a cottage-industry one, to always be 100% without flaws is expecting a little too much, in my opinion. There are always going to be pieces you trim, sand or replace altogether, on any kit- even the newest Tamiya release. Be happy- replacing broken bollards are probably the easiest thing to fix. Just my two cents worth. Yohan Fernando -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Ken Durling" Subject: What I'd like to know about Essex's Has anyone contemplated, attempted or achieved a conversion of the Tom's axial Essex to an SCB-125 ship? Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Kenneth H. Goldman" Subject: Re: Separate bollards and barbettes (metal please) >> My kit includes lots and lots of tiny vents, ""wenches"", open chocks and other do-dads that attach to the deck. << Sorry, Rusty, I couldn't resist pointing out the typo in your post -- especially since I got such a good laugh from it this morning. I just love it when a typo actually makes a weird sort of sense. I suppose it's only fair that the tiny sailors who crew a 1:350 ship get to have some fun on liberty. Ken Goldman THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER http://www.wman.com/~khgold/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Kenneth Perry Subject: Re: CGN Virginia BaD You might try The Scale Shipyard. I don't know if they have this particular hull, but they seem to have quite a few hulls to chose from. Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Joe Damato" Subject: Cast parts and Noles Bob O'Connor wouldn't know a major combatant if it bumped him from behind...just kidding! Bob makes a good point (dispite his questionable support for the Seminoles..Go Cal!!!) what constitutes a major combatant. I would suggest anything that can sink somthing as big or bigger would qualify. Those of us who are Vets would argue a VC with a pistol could qualify as a major combatant if he's pointing it at you. Destroyers and subs constituted more tonnage during WW2 than the Cruisers/Battleships ever did...but what do I know.. As far as cast metal deck detail parts go, as a manufacturer I have to consider the bottom line. Profit, quality, delivery and product line are major factors. The more parts, the more molds, the more casting the increase in price. The problems are compounded by the leaps in quality provided by manufactures today (this is a good thing!). I try and make all my parts scale, but must consider what it is going to cost to produce and how it is going to ship. The problem is more an issue of pattern making and shipping. If some of those fittings were just a bit thicker, (not enough to distract from the overall scale effect) this wouldn't be an issue. Reviewers and patrons push us to new levels of detail, as they should, but there comes a point where someone has to pay for the detail....and the manufacturer most likely won't. You must also consider the limitations of the media we are working in and remember what it was like to put Renwal kits together!!!! A few broken parts don't look so bad on that kick ass Classic Warships San Francisco on my work bench. Best, Joe Damato JAG Collective Inc mailto:JAGCOLLECTIVE@MINDSPRING.COM P.S. When driving back up I-95, he's one of those guys hiding behind the palm tree with radar... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "Kenneth H. Goldman" Subject: Re: Olympia as source of parts (was USS West Virginia (ACR) The answer to the question is no. Although the Revell Olympia can be built into a nice model (with the addition of PE parts), I doubt there is anything really useful that comes with the kit to use on another hull. Ken Goldman THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER http://www.wman.com/~khgold/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Jean-Paul Binot" Subject: Re: SS FRANCE and SS ILE DE FRANCE >> I need some help locating plans. Does anybody know if builder style plans are available for the liners FRANCE, as built in 1961, and ILE DE FRANCE, as built in 1926. Any leads in any scale would be greatly appreciated. << Darren, The French magazine MRB (Le Modèle Réduit de Bateaux) sells many plans (mainly for building sailing models). They feature some famous (mainly French) liners, including France (but not Ile de France, surprisingly). France 1/200 Ref 233 (Now happily sailing as the Norway) Normandie 1/400 Ref588 (the most illustrious victim of the United States Navy) Liberté 1/200 Ref 835 (formerly the Europa) Paris 1/600 Ref B298 (1921 three-stacker) United States 1/225 Ref826 (that one isn't French but shared the fate of the France...) Most of the plans cost about 100 French francs. MRB Rigel Editions 82, rue Curial 75019 Paris France The Musée de la Marine in Paris sells copies of plans from the models they have on display. I do not remember seeing one set for the Ile de France, though. Jean-Paul -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Wjp18086@aol.com Subject: Forrest Sherman kit The person looking for the Revell Forest Sherman Kit should be aware that there is also another kit out there the USS DECATER DD936 that was produced by a company called AHM. This company used the molds from the Revell kit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Dean_A_Markley@armstrong.com Subject: Poseidon Nanuchka Back around Thanksgiving, someone mentioned that a hobby shop in Norway had a kit of a Russian Nanuchka in 1/150 scale. I tracked them down and just after Christmas, the darn thing arrived! What a nice surprise! Poseidon is apparently a Czech company. The kit is molded very well and includes a nice sheet of photoetch! Cost was about 550 Kronor (~$50?). Instructions seem to be in every Central European language except English. No matter, there are pictures to follow. Now, if I can just find the time to work on it..... Has anyone else heard of this Poseidon? Dean -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Kenneth Perry Subject: Photographing navy ships Hello, I'm finally pleased to report that my luck with photographing current navy ships has changed for the better. Unlike my not-so-good experience trying to take photos of USS Nicholson, my experience with USS Gonzales, DDG-66, was very good. USS Nicholson threatened to confiscate my camera if caught taking pics, even though they were opened for public tours. USS Gonzales was opened four tours this weekend and they were very hospitable, letting me take pics anywhere the tour went, including, inside the bridge and CIC! Needless to say, I ran out of film before the tour was over. Our "tour guide" would even wait to proceed if it looked like I was still busy snapping pictures. They also let us go into the mess and also shop in the on board store. I thank the crew of the Gonzales for their hospitality. Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: "Malcolm N. Waite" Subject: Warship 2000 Hi Shane Just had an e-mail from my regular book supplier at long last they have Warship 2000, no details yet. This does give me one problem, for the rest of my life I will keep looking at my shelves and wonder why I never got 1999. As I enter my dotage I may even scan second hand book lists, put it on wants list etc. Some publishers have no consideration! Malcolm Waite Liverpool UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Suvoroff@aol.com Subject: Re: Day of Deceit Gordon R. Prange's _The Verdict of History_ is an excellent antidote to this pernicious conspiracy theory. I recommend reading it. It thoroughly refutes all the usual arguments. Yours, James D. Gray -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "Bill & Kaja Michaels" Subject: Re: CGN Virginia BaD IRT the question about a 1/96 Scale USS Virginia (CGN) hull: If anyone had one, it would be the Scale Shipyard. They have a huge listing of (mostly USN) fiberglass hulls in 1/96. They're on the web, too. Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: "hugh1lottie2" Subject: APA USS Montrose Colpar Hobbies has the LooseCannon 1/700 USS Montrose APA [Haskell class] Attack Transport. The Haskell class was the largest class of APA built during WWII and was in use through the Viet Nam era. Photo etch brass is included as always and it also has rope ladders for disembarking those tiny troops. There are rows and rows [30] of landing craft with a multitude of gray resin parts. Price is $50.00 plus shipping and Colpar ships free in USA for purchases over $100. colpar@dimensional.com Hugh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Seperate bollards & barbettes (metal please) Rusty... I haven't seen ISWs Hood, but the TN/CA kit comes with all the main deck fittings molded on instead of cast seperately. As Jon explained, this was done to simplify matters for novice modelers so they would be more inclined to build the kit rather than let it gather dust on a shelf or putting it up on ebay (due to the initial intimidation factor that comes from too many parts) I found a one of these (full hull) kits on ebay for $150 right after I bought mine. If I had the bucks at the time, I would've bid on it (considering it went for the minimum bid). IMO, the kit's worth the price they're asking for it, and picking one up for less than ISW is asking for their 1:350 Nashville... The question is raised though, why sell off a $325 kit for $150. The kit had only been released a few months prior (so we're not talking surplus stock), and it was put up for sale by an individual. Perhaps the person ran into a financial snafu and had to raise money fast. Or, perhaps they considered it too daunting of a kit. As stated before, I'm a complete novice when it comes to resin kits, yet IMPO this one looks like a fairly easy build. TBK, it looks to be a heck of a lot easier than correcting all the probs inherent in the 1:350 Tamiya Yamato kit I got a few weeks later (that one is scary). OTOH, I'm looking at this after having built quite a few ship models in the past. I've seen friends flench at some of the aircraft models I have. For example, I picked up a Revell-Monogram 1:72 F-104C a few weeks ago and a friend comment "...look at all those parts. You're going to BUILD THIS?" Then (with a devlish grin) I pulled out the California. She turned white as a sheet, took a number of deep breaths, shook her head, and declared "You're crazy!" On that basis, I can understand why the ship model manufacturers try to cast in as many parts as possible to reduce part numbers and hence intimidation factor. Yes, it would be easier if the deck fittings were seperate parts, but I understand why they aren't usually molded as such. The way I look at it...it's not a ship model unless you have something to cuss like a sailor over. Grumble, capstans. Gripe, barbettes. Gritch, teak wood decks. Grrr, 20mm's. Gah, razzle dazzle. It's part of the experience (and gives you first hand experience in understanding why sailors drank like fish while off duty). Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: "Russell Smith" Subject: Thanks and Viking Answered First my thanks to John Snyder and Bill Smallshaw for their information on the PT 109 I passed it on to Andy. A few weeks ago I mentioned that I had a problem with my Viking USS TEXAS and the lack of certain parts. In the interest of fairness, I did finally get a email from a officer of that company and they sent a package of parts. Not all of the ones I needed, but most. Now if they would only pay Rusty White! Russ Smith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: "Tony Mollica" Subject: Airfix Magazine HMS Repulse article I have a copy of an article on HMS Repulse that appeared in the October 1983 edition of Airfix magazine. Unfortunately, I'm missing the front page of the article. Would anyone be able to supply me with a copy of the missing page please. Thanks Tony Mollica -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: mprager@juno.com Subject: Re: CGN Virginia James Morley wrote: >> Does anyone know of a maker of 1/96 fibreglass hulls for USS Virginia (CGN)? - I'm not sure I can face plank-on-frame!!!! << You might try THE SCALE SHIPYARD, 3727 166th Place S.W., Lynnwood, WA, USA 98037-7072. Phone: (425)743-1434. They carry a large selection of modern warship hulls and fitting in 1/48 and 1/96 scales -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: "Peter & Donna Mispelkamp" Subject: Battleships in 1939 Come on guys! A battle between the Hood and the Scharnhorst would not be a cake walk because: A: In speed they were about even - but the Scharnhorst was newer and slightly faster. B: Armament: no contest, the Hood in main armament, offset slightly by the Scharnhorst's advantage in secondary guns C: Armour - no contest - the Scharnhorst was better protected - remember that there are some people who believe that that it was a hit from an 8" shell from the Prinz Eugen that did the Hood in. D: Radar/Gunnery control - advantage would depend on when they met - so far as I know the Hood was only equipped with a 284 set in April 1941, while the Scharnhorst mounted the DeTeGerat as early as 1940. Bottom line - the -xfactor - lady luck or whatever you wanted to call it would have played a significant role in any such battle - assuming that the Scharnhorst would have been willing (allowed?) to slug it out with the Hood in the first place. The Bismarck: Yes her armoured deck was penetrated by up to four/five 14" and 16" shells, but it would be a fallacy to say that her armoured belt was "repeatedly" holed by British 14" and 16" - see Ballard's Discovery of the Bismarck - in which he has only identified one hole in the main side armoured belt that the British BBs were firing at. In any case, the short range that she was being pummeled from certainly exceeded the designer's expectations. Her upper works were wrecked, but the hull is remarkably intact. BTW since she was not completed until August 1940, she should not be considered as a candidate for the 'best in 39" award. My choice for best operational BB/CB of 1939 would have to go - surprise, surprise - to the French Strasbourg - which was better armoured than her sister and could out-run every ship except the British battle cruisers and the Scharnhorsts. However, once the newer generation of BBs entered service in 1940-41 she was totally outclassed. Sorry for the long post. Now, can we get back to modeling!!!! Peter K. H. Mispelkamp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: "Linda & David Orzel" Subject: Illustrious vs. Essex? Dear Shane and others: An interesting thread that unfortunately seems to have shed as much heat as light on the subject. Please allow me to throw in my two cents as well, and I promise to be brief. It seems that ALL the correspondents have omitted one absolutely crucial fact (factor). An armored flight deck is of absolutely no use against a torpedo, and the Essexes carried arguably the best torpedo bomber of the war in the Avengers (only the Kates come close), and carried enough of them plus fighter escorts to get through both the Illustrious' CAP and a Task Group's AA, with still enough fighters for a more than adequate CAP back home. Consider Prince of Wales and Repulse and Operation Pedestal. Although I do not profess to be an expert in the relative merits of the anti-torpedo defenses of these classes, I believe the Essexes were not markedly inferior materially, and the USN had the best damage control of any navy in the war. Note Ark Royal and Courageous which were lost after only one and two torpedoes respectively. It would also seem that given the damage the Illustrious class ships took in the Med and Pacific, the Curtiss Helldiver's 1000 pound AP bombs could also do considerable damage, although admittedly not an equivilent amount as the same number of hits would cause on an Essex, if there were enough planes in Illustrious' attack to get through the CAP and AA. It all goes to the threat each was designed to both pose and counter. I'd rather be on Illustrious if in the Med. in 1942-4, but anywhere else, or ship to ship (which really doesn't happen) give me an Essex. (Or even more to the point, 4 Essexes to 4 Illustriouses.) Luckily, our countries were on the same side in the war and both sides learned from the other. Midway got the armored flight deck and the capacity of the Essex (really more) and the Indefatiguables and Eagles/Ark Royal2s got greatly expanded air groups that Admiralty recognised were needed. As someone in another thread wrote, no one had a monopoly on good or bad ideas or designs. Both of these were good for their intended missions. David Orzel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: "Michael C. Smith" Subject: Lt. Bush and Battle of the Philippine Sea Can anyone confirm for me that Lt. George Bush (future president) was one of the pilots that had to ditch his torpedo bomber (he was in VT-51) on the way back to his carrier USS San Jacinto (CVL-30) after the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944? I know he was shot down attacking the Bonins in September, but so much attention gets paid to that that I just now got a clue that he was forced to ditch after this earlier battle as well when I was surfing the Naval Historical Center's web site. Can anyone confirm this? I have a query out to the Bush Library, and I need to know for some research I'm doing. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael Smith Marshall, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Warning Sea Tec Models >> 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. << Would this company be located in the Bremerton, WA. area? Please post the answer on the list, because if this is so I know who is behind all of this, and it is time to take care of this problem, once and for all. Steve Wiper - Classic Warships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) From: "Scheckenbach, Alan" Subject: Tamyia Musashi 1/350 Chaps, I was given this address as the home of happy and helpful ship modellers. Having just purchased the ship and not being hugely experienced in ship modelling, I thought I'd look for some construction reviews on this kit. I can't find any. Can anyone assist? Looking at Jim Gordon's site and his reference to the Lifelike Yamato: http://warship.simplenet.com/Yamato%20JG.htm I wonder are there any detail bits I should buy to add on while I'm building? Cheers Alan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) From: "John Sutherland" Subject: Scharnhorst Hmm, James said "HMS Duke of York, blew KM Scharnhorst out of the water in December 1943 in a remarkably one-sided duel", True, but like most things there is more to this than meets the eye. It had little to do with her only having 11in guns. Examine the battlefield - one damaged battlecruiser vs one battleship, 1 heavy cruiser (also damaged), 3 light cruisers (1 damaged) and 8 destroyers. Not very even odds. In addition it was at night and in appalling weather including visibility. DoY and the cruisers all had operative radar, Scharnhorst - as a result of a very definitely NOT one-sided fight with Norfolk - had no radar (destroyed by 8in shell hit). Scharnhorst litterally drove into DoY's lap who blasted her at what is officially described as point blank range. She took the punishment, and a lot more that followed, and ran and nearly made it out of DoY's range before the damage finally affected the boilers. Her main arnament was destroyed in the fight. She was then finished off by the cruisers and destroyers. I am NOT saying Scharnhorst was a better ship than the KGV class, but one needs to be careful about what evidence one uses to support a case. There are often other circumstances that need to be taken into account. It was rare for their to be a genuine straight fight between heavy units which could be used for comparative basis. Most fights were usually many to one or many to a few. One of the few genuinely conclusive fights was between Hood and Bismark. By the way, it is interesting how ships get fame for something. In the North Cape battle generally DoY and Jamaica are the ones that get the kudos when, IMHO, the Scharnhorst would never have been sunk if not for Norfolk's excellent shooting. (Q. why is WEM modelling Norfolk in 1941 fit rather than Dec 43 fit (her finest hour) Caroline?). PoW didn't get much credit for the damage that caused the Bismark to run for France for repairs either. On the most meritorious warship - how about Furious? She steamed more miles than any other warship and participated in just about everything except the Pacific and Eastern Fleet campaigns. By the way, Enterprise didn't just miss the last campaign, she also missed Coral Sea. John Sutherland In a very hot Wellington. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) From: tom Subject: Illustrious the best? Certainly not! In 1935 the RN asked the RAF for an estimate of the largest bomb any potential opponent was likely to deploy in the next 10 years. True to their tradition of rendering disservice to naval aviation the RAF guessed 500 lbs... and thus the 3 inch flight deck armor of Illustrious. Fast forward to January 1941... Illustrious takes 4 hits and a damaging near miss. Three bombs hit the after lift well, one explodes outside the ship forward and the only bomb to actually hit the deck armor penetrates to explode on the floor of the hanger deck below. Repairs take 11 months. So much for deck armor... and the RNs reconsideration of the compromise is quite clear as later ships in the class sacrifice armor for increased hanger space. The final two ships in the class had two full hanger decks and the armored decks had been reduced to basically heavy splinter protection. Also relating to a recent quip about Essex class carriers and the Luftwaffe (who were in fact mere chickens at sea)... The one time the RN faced IJN Carrier Air's elite "first team" cadres of 1941-1942 the IJN put on a dive bombing exhibition, sinking Dorsetshire and Cornwall, then Hermes and Vampire each in a few minutes... putting an estimated 2/3 of their ordinance on target against maneuvering warships in open water. IJN Naval Air made such an impression on the RN that as late as February and March 1944 the news that the IJN had moved Shokaku and Zuikaku to Singapore caused Admiral Somerville to vacate the Bay of Bengal and move his fleet west of the Maldives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: CokerRE@aol.com Subject: FS: Ship plans The Following Items are FOR SALE SHIP PLANS Japanese Warships from Tokyo Ship Model Group, each plan set consists of plan, profile, sections, and deck details. All redrawn from official plans with crisp lines and excellent details Yamato 1941 1/200 $80.00 Nagato 1/200 80.00 Akagi 1941 1/200 80.00 Suzuya 1/200 60.00 Ushio 1/100 35.00 Maru Series $25 each # 14 Ashigara, # 17 Fubuki, # 22 Suzuya, #34 Tenders, Kwai & Associates ship model magazines $30 each in Japanese with excellent photo and drawings # 10 with 1/150 model of cruiser Tama, 1/200 Takao, details on Tone # 11 Tama continued, 1/200 Shiranui, more Tone information, 1/100 Nachi, # 12 1/200 Yamashiro, more Tone, start of 1/50 model of Yamato & crane details # 13 1/200 Yamashiro, 1/100 Suzuya details, more Yamato details, 1/200 Nachi # 14 1/200 Hatsuznki, Tone research, more Yamato details, 1/50 127 mm AA Many more are available and will be offered as interest indicates. Please contact PC Coker off list @ cokerre@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Tom & Carolyn Harrison" Subject: Tirpitz HELP! The Tamiya 1/350 Tirpitz kit represents what time period. I want to make sure our detail set has the correct radar units. Please respond directly to me at: tomsmodelworks@att.net to lighten the traffic on the SMML page. As an FYI the Bismarck detailing set is in being filmed now, will post when available. Tom Tel/Fax: 408.777.8667 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Schiefet@cs.com Subject: CV-6 site Announcement The USS Enterprise CV-6 web site has added a ship's store link. They sell CV-6 related items including books. All proceeds go to the ship's organization. Also, the webmaster would like to provide more information for model builders. If you have any suggestions or questions, please contact the web master at www.cv6.org Steve Singlar Pelham, NH Wind chill is -41F -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume