Subject: SMML VOL 797 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:26:42 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: CW Benham Class destroyer kit 2: Re: Royal Sovereign/Revenge class 3: Re: CW 1/350 USS Alaska kit + other questions 4: Re: One last PE application hint 5: Re: Oriskany on eBay 6: Re: Best battleship in 1939.....and the winner is..... 7: Re: Musashi 8: Re: Day of Deceit 9: BWN Quad 40mm gun shields 10: Re: Wenches et al 11: Norfolk 12: Illustrious V Essex 13: Various 14: New Illustrious 15: Best Cruisers in WW two 16: Re: Day of Deceit and ESSEX vs. ILLUSTRIOUS 17: Re: New Illustrious 18: HMS Eagle, post-war 19: Re: CW Benham Class Destroyer Kit 20: Building the Matchbox Indianapolis 21: Best BB in '39? 22: Re: JAG Collective 23: Re: PacFront New Releases 24: Re: Royal Sovereign/Revenge Class BB 25: Re: USS Indianapolis 26: Skywave 2000 Catalog 27: Painting 28: Illustrious vs Essex some more 29: Re: Illustrious vs ESSEX 30: Re: Various 31: Battleship New Jersey museum 32: Re: Illustrious the best? certainly not 33: Renwall Essex 34: Re: USS Indianapolis 35: Re: Day of Deceit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Forest Sherman Class DD's 2: Special Pre-Release Offer 3: German U-BOAT Books for sale! 4: Royal Navy Set 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "John Sheridan" Subject: Re: CW Benham Class destroyer kit >> Has anyone built or have any experience or feedback with the Classic Warships 1/350th scale Benham class destroyer kit? I am thinking of purchasing one as my first resin ship kit, and would like some idea as to the quality, ease of built, etc. I wish to build this kit as the U.S.S. Sterett (DD-407), as she appeared at Guadalcanal in 1942. << It is a very nice kit to build (I built mine as the USS ELLET (DD-398) in her 1944 fit). The model represents USS Benham as she appeared when she was rushed to the pacific in 1942. Most of the Benhams were converted from 4 torpedo mounts to two torpedo mounts when they were moved from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Two Benhams (I forget which two) were never converted. Check your photos to make sure your ship was converted or not before they were sent into action. The fix to the ship to change the mounts is a very easy fix and Classic Warships provides more than enough extra material to make the conversion. I highly recommend the kit to anyone who wants a Benham in 1/350th scale. John R. Sheridan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Fernando, Yohan" Subject: Re: Royal Sovereign/Revenge class >> Does anyone besides myself have a serious interest in seeing a 1/700 WW2 Royal Sovereign/Revenge class BB? << Sure! I would love to see one of these in 1/700- along with a large number of other ships (alot of them major combattants)- that have seemingly been overlooked in favor of some more esoteric ships. Among these sadly overlooked ships are the older RN carriers (Hermes, Glorious, etc), the aforementioned R-class ships and USN Sangamon and Commencement Bay class CVEs, and the USS Wasp. (The USS Wichita was on this list, but Steve Wiper has made me very happy by announcing the arrival of this kit in the near future!). I would rather see new kits for any of these ships over another repair ship... I just continue to be patient! Yohan Fernando -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "John Sheridan" Subject: Re: CW 1/350 USS Alaska kit + other questions >> I've recently ordered this kit from Pacific Front and would like to hear any opinions on what it's like. Things like the accuracy, casting quality, quality of white metal parts, detail, ease of construction etc. From the photos on the CW webpage it looks amazing, especially the photetch detailing, more than I've ever attempted! Also, with regards to decals, does the kit come with a custom sheet including the hull numbers, name, flags, aircraft insignia? << I am building the CW Alaska right now as USS Guam (CB-2). In fact, I just applied the Ocean Gray camouflage to the hull last night! The kit is a really nice build since Classic made the superstructure seperate parts from the hull (makes painting so much easier). The photoetch is really the treasure in this kit! Steve went way beyond any sane person would in creating the frets and packed tons of goodies - including the 40mm clip retainers for the gun tubs! The SK radar has 16 parts alone and I still have nightmares about putting it together . As for the decals; the kit comes with one of Classic's generic USN sets for the ship only; no decals for the aircraft are provided. The kit also comes with a 1/350 scale drawing of the USS Alaska complete with her camouflage scheme. I would recommend that you also purchase the Floating Drydock plans for the USS Alaska: TFW-CB1/8 USS ALASKA CB1 1945 1/96 $30.00 TFW-CB1/16 Same as above in 1/192 $18.00 This kit will take you quite a while to build because of the amount of detail packed into the kit. You will not be disappointed in purchasing this kit because it is one of the best 1/350th resin shipmodels on the market today. John R. Sheridan What I do to Spammers: http://microscale.com/images/N2.jpg I am not a Member of the Lumber Cartel (tinlc) and I am not Unit #631 Last last place on earth I would look for the Lumber Cartel(tm) is http://come.to/the.lumber.cartel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: One last PE application hint I failed to mention yesterday that when applying PE parts to ship models it's always best to begin at the top and work down. Otherwise you may put your hand into the delicate PE below your hand. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Oriskany on eBay For those of you who can't wait to be abused by a model kit, I saw a Jim Shirley Productions 1/700 Oriskany model on eBay yesterday. Starting bid was $99.00. But seriously, I built the kit and it goes together pretty well if you can get by those &#%%#@!& rotten instructions. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Edd Pflum Subject: Re: Best battleship in 1939.....and the winner is..... >> To determine what battleship that was the best one in 1939 it is obvious that the different battleships must had meet each other in a gunfight battleship vs. battleship. As I see it it's only two factors (if we exclude good luck) that would determine who the winner is and these factors are GUNPOWER and ARMOUR (what you give and what you could take). << There analysis' are a lot of fun, and I am enjoying the discussion, however it is not really as simple as saying 8 x 16 beats 9 x 15, or 8" or armor beats 7". The true factor is effective hits on target. The diameter of the projectile, it's weight, design and construction, fusing (if any), rate of fire and fire control system all have impact on how many shots can be placed on target in a given time, and how effective those hits will be. Likewise, the construction of the armor belts, thickness, angle incident to incoming fire, alloy and hardening all contribute to how well a ship can survive hostile fire. I don't have any hard knowledge on any of the above (sorry!), so someone else will have to fill in the blanks. With respect to the "Best CV" thread, the anecdotal evidence seems to prove that design is actually a much lessor factor than circumstances surrounding the particular encounter (seamanship, size of opposing force, etc.). The "best" ship doesn't always win, and the factors considered important at design time don't always apply in service (that's alright, we'll design the next class to fight the previous war ). Edd -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Joe Costanzo Subject: Re: Musashi I built this kit OOB a couple years ago. As far as Mike's observations go, the Musashi is accurate with respect to the altered AA fit which is representative of when she went down in the Sibuyan Sea. This ship is another one of my future rebuild projects, after I finish with Iowa and St. Louis (victim of an unfortunate matress-moving incident by a parental unit, don't ask) Joe Costanzo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: SJantscher@aol.com Subject: Re: Day of Deceit Hi All, This question was answered in an article published in the December issue of USNI's Proceedings. In the article, Stephen Budiansky refutes the specific arguments made in the book Day of Deceit. He gives a brief chronology of the success and setbacks in ONI's attack on what would be called (later) JN-25. I suggest you get a copy of that issue (Dec. '99) and read what Mr. Budiansky has to say. I did find a few contradictions in the article with other cryptologic histories I have read, but I think Mr. Budansky makes the definite point that there is no evidence that we read any incriminating evidence from JN-25 indicating that an attack on Pearl Harbor was planned. On a separate, but related subject, I just finished an excellent book called The Story of Magic by Frank Rowlett. It tells a very personal story of how the attack was made on Japanese diplomatic message traffic Red and Purple cypher machines. Hope this helps those interested in the "surprise attack" debate Steve Jantscher -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Joe Costanzo Subject: BWN Quad 40mm gun shields Not too long ago, I acquired some Blue Water Navy 40mm quads for my 1/350 Iowa. The mounts and barrels are very good, but I'm very surprised at the shields. As assembled, the face plate has no inclination at all! This is fixable with some knife surgery, abeit a pain (sigh, 19 or so mounts?) but I'm surprised at this given the quality of their other recent releases. Does anyone who's built these know the story? Is this a silly gaffe or was there a reason for it? Joe Costanzo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "J. London" Subject: Re: Wenches et al I too had a chuckle at this typo and it brought to mind one I had shown to me from a Scottish newspaper from the 19th Century (sorry guys no ship connection). It described the opening of a bridge in Scotland by Queen Victoria. It was written in the typical flowery language of the day describing the gallant gentlemen and beautiful ladies in attendance. The high point of the day... "Her Majesty descended from the coach, cut the ribbon and then, amid the cheers of the assembled populace, pissed slowly over the bridge". I wonder how long the editor of that newspaper kept his job! Michael London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: Norfolk Hi John There is actually no clear evidence as to who actually knocked out the Bismark's fire control. Most indications point to the Rodney being the ship that disabled the fire control because she was hitting quite effectively and had opened her A arcs at the time. However, no one really knows. I agree with the comments about the Counties, they've always been one of my favourite class of ships as well. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: Illustrious V Essex Hi Joe Well it seems that no-ones has tired of the discussion so I will rejoin it and add more comments to the debate. There seems to be a misunderstanding of how a fuse works. This depends on whether the bomb is AP or HE. An armour piercing fuse like a shell fuse is designed to detonate in contact with a substantial structure (ie armour plate). Frequently they are also timed so that the shell or bomb penetrates and explodes behind the armour (thats the theory). I'm not going to go into shell breakup etc and fragments as this only complicates matters more. Now its quite clear that an Essex type deck is at a disadvantage faced with this kind of fuse. It won't have the structure to initiate the fuse and should be penetrated easily. The fuse though would be initiated by the hanger deck (a more substantial structure) and so explode there. This is quite a serious problem especially as the Essex hanger was not an enclosed space like the Illustrious hanger. The armoured flight deck will initiate the AP fuse and may even prevent it from entering the hanger (though this is not assured). Both types of deck will initiate an HE fuse but the armoured flight deck will perform better in preventing damage. You also seem to overrate AA defence. Even with the new 3 inch gun kamikazes would still have hit carriers. No one has yet designed an AA system that can effectively stop everything and even the excellent American AA coupled with CAP's could not prevent kamikazes getting through. It is also mistaken to regard the threat as dying out, if the war had continued with the invasion of Japan the kamikaze attacks planned would have dwarfed everything that had gone before. The USN battleships, cruisers and destroyers played an incredibly valuable role in protecting the carriers (especially the destroyers) but still could not keep them out. The value of the Illustrious's armour scheme was clearly demonstrated by the number of casualties she incurred in her bombing (killed and wounded). These were 183, I believe the figure for Franklin was 989 with just 2 hits. The USN recognised the value of armour when they designed the Midways. You might need a stronger deck when your carrier is bigger but you do not armour plate it just for strength but for protection as well. The reason that the kamikaze was such a threat to US carriers is precisely because they did not have an armoured flight deck. Remember the Illustrious's when hit by kamikazes were able to resume operating their airgroups very quickly. No Essex had that advantage. A hit by a kamikaze (or bomb) meant a trip to the repair yard and an airgroup out of action. This level of survivability is the main reason that the Illustrious class were the better design. It doesn't matter how big your airgroup is if you can't use it. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Phil Gollin" Subject: Various Just criticising various bits of the non-modelling threads; a: Re. Edd Pflum - day of deceict; I haven't ever been able to understand why the Americans castigate their leaders so much over Pearl Harbour. I agree they should have been on a state of heightened alert - especially after the oil embargo was imposed, knowing their would HAVE to be a reaction. HOWEVER, why should the leaders have expected such a large attack. Yes, the codebreakers in Washington messed-up big-time, but why is everyone else, both politically and Naval, thought of so badly?????? b: Best Battleship of 1939 :- Having given the basic statistics, Reidar Berg shows that the Nagatos 3 statistics were the same as the Hoods, then throws the Hood away. After the extra armour was worked into her during building the Hood was more a fast Battleship than a Battlecruiser (bearing in mind when she was built) - She was a dangerous ship in 1939, but with KNOW weaknesses. c: Best Battleship of 1939, David Summers :- Admiral King as Naval Minister - AWFUL - someone who couldn't contol his personal feelings (inferiority complex regarding the Royal Navy) to do his job (e.g. Lack of coastal convoys early 1942, lack of control of logistics to Southern Pacifics in 1944/45, etc....). d: Re. Joe Costanzo; I've never understood the praise heaped on "the Fast Battleships" as carrier AA ships. YES, they were very good at decoying aircraft away from the carriers (thus showing the poor training and discipline of the Japanese pilots who were instructed to go for the carriers). In terms of cost effectiveness and slightly larger version of the Atlanta class with better range, more fire control and more ammunition storeage would have been much better, more numerous and could steam by the carriers, instead of being a totally separate target. e: Finally, on a more positive note - Hooray for the praise for the Norfolk - again, a greatly underated class. Lets do the Models. Regards, Phil Hi Phil, I made the comments on the fast battleships, not Joe. Regards, Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "Peter Sketchley" Subject: New Illustrious Hi Chris, I am in the process of converting the "Ark Royal " into Illustrious and no it is not to difficult. Good reference photo`s can be found as follows: Winter 1999 edition of JETS magazine, excellent bow and stern views. Warships International Fleet Review, Autumn 1999, p 30. Warship World Vol 6 No8 (autumn 1999) Navismagazine Invincible walkaround November 1998 issue. You will basically need to re-model the ski- jump, plate in the foredeck,add starboard deck extension(after deleting the Sea Dart launcher),re-model main mast, raise the funnels approx 1 mm, add 3x Goalkeepers, enlarge starboard Goalkeeper platform,various boat changes, antenna mods and add detail to your taste. Also get rid of the raised deck lining. Additional Sea Harriers and Sea Kings look good (available from WEM). Oh! and the weapon on the prow is a Goalkeeper CIWS. This is not definitive but I hope it helps. Best Regards Peter Sketchley Cambridge UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Best Cruisers in WW two The Counties. but for nothern waters only; superb seaboats, able to keep up with bigger ships in almost any sea state, good machinery, great endurance, guns that worked, etc, etc. American ships of the same type in northern and artic waters, not so good, lousy seaboats, lack of freeboard and so almost always wet, not able to lay on target in heavy weather, counties much better at this, not so wet in same sea state. Best cruiser for long range patrol work, no question. The reports on both navies pros and cons while working together on Artic convoys makes fascinating reading. I could expand on this but it would upset people. The Counties; not so good in the Med, too large a target, unable to turn the way the small cruisers could, and not the acceleration needed to maintain station in action with the destroyers. Large enough to accomodate all sorts of additions without much cost to ship features. SHIP FEATURES COME FIRST, ALWAYS COME FIRST! Essex in Northern and Artic waters, takes huge wave, flight deck lifted up like a sardine can being opened, this happened to the escort carriers while in northern waters. Essex has to go the States (NYNY) for repair, crew go on leave, meet large numbers of Brit crews from ships that have been damaged as a result of actual combat. Encounters begin, Yank to Brit "do you know the Dunkirk retreat?". Reply to Yank "no, but I know the Pearl Harbor Blues". Winners? All too drunk to ascertain. Illustrious in Northern and Artic waters, takes huge wave, piece of cake mate. To those who would dissagree,---------"EAT MY SHORTS". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: Day of Deceit and ESSEX vs. ILLUSTRIOUS Regarding the theory that an alerted Pearl Harbor would have resulted in less loss of life and material, I dispute that. Alerted, the Fleet, certainly the battle line would have sortied with the result that most of the BBs would likely have been sunk at sea, beyond salvage, and with heavier loss of life. We'd probably have lost some of the CAs and CLs as well. End result: more loss of life and material. Regarding the effectiveness of the BBs as antiaircraft platforms in escorting the Essexes, have a read of Lundstrom's _The First Team_, wherein one of the USN CAP fighter pilots recounts his view of the AA put up by WASHINGTON (I believe) during one of the attacks. His view was from the air, and he describes how the BB would shift fire and move an entire box of flak around the sky. He was VERY impressed. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Mike Dunn" Subject: Re: New Illustrious Chris wrote :- >> I was just taking a look at the Illustrious pic on the RN site: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/today/index.htm and I was thinking about converting my Ark Royal to the Illustrious. << OK Shane, I take your point re frames - I had to dig a little to get to this piccy! If I remember correctly, aren't White Ensign Model's producing a conversion kit for the 'Vince to Illustrious? No doubt the gorgeous Caroline will correct me if I'm wrong! (See http://www.smml.org.uk/help/people/smmlpix.html for details!) Seeing as the Revell Ark Royal V (I assume this is the kit you are using) is the Revell 'Vince revamped (see the review of the 'Vince kit and the differences between the 'Vince & Ark Royal V in the Reviews section of the SMML web site: http://www.smml.org.uk/Reviews/index.html), to start converting to Illustrious you will need the 'Vince/Illustrious PE fret (ref PE 716), the Sea King 'copters (AS 7004) & Harriers (AS 7005) from the 700 Airstrike range (you just don't get anywhere near enough in the kit) OR get the fret & ALL Sea Kings & ALL Harriers in PRO 7025. Also needed is the Upgrade Set One PRO 7026 (come on Caroline - when's this due?????) as well as the promised Illustrious Conversion PRO 7041. Assuming the deck vehicles are the same on all 3 of the class, Upgrade Set Two (PRO 7043) will be a must. I would also highly recommend the plan & profile of the 'Vince - OK, based on the 1982 layout, but it is a fantastic piece of artwork, and has the right paint job too! Available as P 001 - I'll be getting this framed, it's that good! Personally, I'm chomping at the bit for these sets..........I need them......NOW!!!!!!!! I just have to be able to build all three through-deck cruisers (to give them their proper title)!!!!!! I'm hoping that WEM are also producing a new forecastle, seeing as there's a hell of a lot of changes between these ships as launched/1984 refit and the latest changes for the GR-7. Chris continued :- >> ...and what weapon is it sitting on the prow? I can't tell from the pic? (lousy at IDing weapons) << Well, assuming I'm now looking at the same image, I would say that this is the Phalanx gun system. I seem to recall that the Sea Dart missile system was removed from in front of the island to make room for the Harrier GR-7 (this couldn't turn on the then available deck space, Some notes: the Illustrious (R06) has a lesser displacement than the Ark Royal (R09), but the same as the Invincible (R05) after her circa 1984 refit, at 19,810 tons. The draught is 1 foot less than R09, but the same as R05. I personally would use the 'Vince as the starting point....... If you want some imagery of her while she was being built, please contact me off-line, unless others are interested in this as well? I have a few photos of her & the Ark Royal taken by my late father-in-law, as he worked in the yard. Interestingly, the husband of my wife's cousin was contracted in to do the rewiring when she was in for refit in the mid 90's.......guess I have quite a few connections to her! Mike PS - Caroline, if Chris does buy these, do I get a commission?????? ;-Þ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Mike" Subject: HMS Eagle, post-war Hi all, Lynn here. I'm after a model of HMS Eagle, post-war circa 1955. Does anyone know of a model company that makes this vessel? I'd really like one, as my Dad was on her abuot this time. Thanks, Lynn Dunn Hi Lynn, Happy Birthday for yesterday ;->>>. Fujimi makes one in 1/700, along with the Ark Royal as well. I don't know how good they are. Regards, Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: AZJOE1445@aol.com Subject: Re: CW Benham Class Destroyer Kit Devin, I recently purchased a Gridley from CW through Pacific Front. After opening the box and looking around I was amazed at the quality. Would you believe me if I told you that all the bollards were intact? Anyway, the kit is fairly basic as far as building difficulty and the white metal parts are good. My only complaint is that the forward 5"/38 mounts are cast in metal and they are lacking. I'll most likely use some resin ones I have from another kit. You might also want to get another whaleboat, my kit came with one and I believe the ship had two. I have built kits from Toms, Iron Shipwright and Blue Water Navy in my opinion the CW kit has the best resin casting quality. I don't know to what detail level you build so I'll say that the photoetch fret is complete,there is not much more you should need. So, I'll close by saying that the kit would be an excellent addition to your collection. Joe Kreutz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Procladius@aol.com Subject: Building the Matchbox Indianapolis Lawrence- I am working on the Indianapolis too. I believe the kit represents the Indy in her final configuration. It would probably be fairly easy to modify the kit to represent Indianapolis any time after her mid-1943 refit. The kit has been around for a while and is fairly crude by current standards. I have not checked dimensions. It seems to build up nicely and should make a fine model with the addition of photoetch and other aftermarket details.' The best reference is Warship Pictorial 1, USS Indianapolis CA 35; published by Classic Warships. It is photos and illustrations covering the ship in all its configurations. Lots of close up shots taken in port to help you add the deck and bulkhead details missing from the kit. At around $10, It is a steal. You will want to to add phototech. Several manufacturers make railings and ladders. Tom's Modelworks has a Northampton-Indianapolis detail set (#716) that has a nice mainmast and crane. Goldmedal Models has a U. S. cruiser-destroyer set with catapults, crane and an SK radar for the mainmast. I am going to use the Skywave USN detail sets to replace the secondary battery, AA guns, searchlights, boats and other small fittings. The kit parts are pretty crude by comparison. Several manufacturers make photoetch 20mm if you are so inclined. If you are doing Indianapolis at the time of her loss, the 20mm mounts should be twins. I believe that White Ensign makes these. I am also going to drill out the portholes. Incidentally, the small square structures molded on the stern apparently represent stacks of supplies or ammunition that were temporarily stacked on deck while provisioning in port. See the photo on page 42 of the Warship Pictorial. Those are my thoughts- since I am building this kit too, I am very interested in hearing from others on the subject. Charles Watson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: Mike Connelley Subject: Best BB in '39? Howdy: Thought I'd throw a well aimed wrench into this discussion. Gun bore and armor thickness are certainly two significant factors. I'd toss in speed too since it never hurts, it helps manuverability, and to enter or leave the field of battle faster than your opponent is always an significant advantage. I'd also consider quality of the armor plating as well as fire control. The Brits and US had some of the best naval armor around. And while the Yamato may have had the most armor, a well placed armor piercing bomb put a big crater in the face plate of the #1 turret at Leyte Gulf which points at the comparatively low quality of Japanese armor. Precise fire control is also a necessity, and since '39 is before the days of radar I presume we're talking optical rangefinding. I heard that the Japanese and Germans had among the best optical rangefinders (as the Hood and POW found out), which gives them an advantage...and I'd say more of an advantage than poor armor is a disadvantage. So, haveing thrown this up for discussion I'll surrender the soap box. Cheers Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: JAG Collective >> SMMLies, I was pleased to see Joe DAmato's(JAG Collective) post here in yesterday's issue.In spite of his support of a California team( the CAL Fruits and Nuts), he's got a first class resin model production operation going, and is addressing a niche in shipmodeling which is lacking in kits, but certainly not in subject matter.He has put together a team of absolutely great guys( to make himself look good), which has resulted in some outstanding ship kits of the mid cold war era. << I was asked recently to look at some of the JAG resin waterline submarines (Sturgeon, Permit and Skipjack class). I really, really hate to say this, but they were way off in scale and detail. I really welcome new model outfits, and am always grateful when someone issues new submarine models. Unfortunately, they missed the mark on these. More's the pity, since superb scaled drawings are readily available of all three classes from, e.g., Deap Sea Design. Tom Dougherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: PacFront New Releases >> 1/700 Loose Cannon USS John McCain (Mitscher class DL)...$42.00 << Geez it took me a minute to realize that Loose Cannon was the kit producer and not a political comment........... (yeah, I know, the ship is named after his father). Tom Dougherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: "Russell Smith" Subject: Re: Royal Sovereign/Revenge Class BB Alan, If any of the reputable dealers want to make them I'll ordered 5 now! If WEM does them, I'll order 6 one extra for my grandson. Russ Smith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: Marc Flake Subject: Re: USS Indianapolis Lawrence, Didn't you just ask this question on January 10? (SMML Vol. 785) Two or thre of us already reseponded to this. Go back and read 786-788. Boy, talk about deja vu. Marc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: Marc Flake Subject: Skywave 2000 Catalog Saw Bill's notice that the Skywave 2000 catalog is available from Pacific Front. A little bird told me that there's an injected 1/700 CVE Casablanca in there and a whole slew of 1/700 resin USN ships. Sigh, I'm going to have to build real fast if I'm going to keep my New Year's Resolution about buying only as many models as I build this year. Marc Flake Tarrant County Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Painting Rusty... You said you paint the model in the most prominent color. So how do you handle razzle dazzle? Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: "Graham Holmes" Subject: Illustrious vs Essex some more More thoughts on this interesting thread Amongst some good points, David Orzel wrote: >> 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. << I have heard it said that the two greatest secrets that the British gave to the US upon their entry into WWII were the Cavity Magnetron and the damage control experience from the Battle of the Atlantic. The latter was particularly refering to torpedo damage in merchant and warships. The RN certainly got better as the war progressed. This experience was incorporated into the shipbuilding program already in progress. I don't remember where I heard this, but I do recall it was a very knowledgable source. Also, a few days ago someone used the fact that more Essexes were modernised than RN carriers showed how much better they were. The reason more Illustrious's weren't modernised wasn't because they were bad, only Illustrious herself was beyond saving(prop shaft), but surely the RN had more carriers on the slips than the post war navy needed, or the country could afford, esp the latter. If the UK hadn't been bankrupt and needed money spending at home, at least 4 would have been rebuilt vis the Vic. Just some opinions. Graham Holmes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: Illustrious vs ESSEX Shane has a point. BUT, one would have to look at how often the RN carriers actually operated in 'Harm's Way' in the ETO vs the operations of TF-58/-38. Keeping in mind the limited fuel capacity of the Illustrious class, not to mention its limited AvGas capacity, how many strike days did they actually have? The RN was stunned at the distances involved in the Pacific and pathetically unprepared for them. Except for a couple convoy operations in the Med in 1942, most RN carrier operations in the ETO were of limited duration. One or two days of air strikes against Norway in 1944, when the Germans were more interested in defending against the Russian advance doesn't compare with TF-58/-38 operations against the Japanese Navy and Army air forces. It should also be noted that the one time the BPF detached its heavy escort to try a little shore bombardment, the carriers came under heavy attack. The only time they really did. The Force Commander, Admiral Rawlings, was very upset at this and felt he had made a mistake. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: CBNJBB62@aol.com Subject: Re: Various Hi Guys Well I'd like to contribute. Concerning Erik well' we 'means as an American looking at the enormous risk that was undertaken. I know that politicians control the fate of their citizens but this book was so detailed on the description of USN Intelligence (1941) that's what we means. I know there are Germans and Japanese on this list. And that's good. More diversity. I have nothing against them. As far as Ed's comment I think it would have endangered the code breaking advantage at Pearl Harbor many of our service may not been in psyched mood for shooting. I researched the French carriers. They were LANGLEY and Belleau Wood renamed Lafayette and Bois Belleau. They carried the Hellcat,Helldiver, and Avenger aircraft. The Lafayette operated off Indochina in 1953 and relieved by the Bois Belleau in 1954. I hope this is of help. Craig Bennett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) From: CBNJBB62@aol.com Subject: Battleship New Jersey museum Hi Guys On Jan 20.2000 the US Secretary of the Navy approved the location of the Battleship New Jersey museum to be located in Camden, NJ. It could open up for tourists in 2001. The newspaper Cherry Hill Courier Post will have five pages of articles that is available over the Internet. Thought you should know. Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: Illustrious the best? certainly not The RN did not have 1st line carriers in the Indian Ocean in April 1942? When HERMES was sunk? Really? Ever hear of INDOMITABLE, FORMIDABLE? They were there with the Eastern Fleet. After the IJN got through with Ceylon and the outlying elements of the Eastern Fleet, James Somerville retired his entire fleet to East Africa. Not until 1944 could the RN raise the forces necessary to venture into the Indian Ocean again. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) From: "Rex Droste" Subject: Renwall Essex Hello, all I have been reading and learning for a while now and I am wondering if anyone has seen a Renwall Essex class for sale. Of course, I will only be needing seven of them, the Revell kit will do for the 27-A angled versions. I have been thinking of an "Essex support group" page with dates of commission, armament, air wing composition, and ship appointments, for the modeller. Also, for the fellow bird farm folks, the Bearcat at this link is a little bit large, except for a 1/48 CVA-21 Boxer. http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/700air/074.jpg Thanks for the info I have been getting, Rex Droste A jarhead that likes ships. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) From: "Volker Haeusler" Subject: Re: USS Indianapolis >> I just picked up a Matchbox USS Indianapolis kit and is wondering if anyone have any tips on superdetailing it and correcting any errors? << Hi Lawrence, A good (if somewhat old) article to go for is " Indianapolis and Portland" from Larry Gertner, published in the IPMS (US) Quarterly. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure about the issue, as I have removed these pages from the magazine. But I think it was in the Fall or Winter issue of 1982. The article contains a good description of how to correct the major inaccuracies, how to build a May 43 Portland and some rather good drawings (But remember that was in the pre photoetch&resin area!). It also mentions the enormous conversion potential of this kit (on which I agree - I'm just finishing my USS Northampton out of it). By the way, these old IPMS Quarterlys are well worth looking for. If you can get it, also look on issue 14/1, which contains a very good article on "Scratchbuilding 1/700 Warships" by none less than Mike Czibovic. If you can't find this magazines, sent me an EMail for a copy Best Volker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) From: "Kenneth H. Goldman" Subject: Re: Day of Deceit The biggest hurdle to accepting the proposition that President Roosevelt deliberately allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to unite the nation for the inevitable war is that no leader, miltary or civilian, could be certain that such an attack would not be truly devastating and be followed up by a knockout punch. Major factors that contributed to the initial Japanese success were American hubris and racism. A fascinating sidebar to this is that naval journalist Hector C. Bywater predicted the attack on Pearl Harbor, though not by name, and the general conduct of the subsequent Pacific war, including the ultimate Japanese defeat, in 1925! In addition to his numerous articles on naval matters, his two books, SEA POWER IN THE PACIFIC and THE GREAT PACIFIC WAR, dealt with this in depth. They were read by Admiral Yamamoto, who met Bywater, and doubtless influenced his thinking, including his fatalism about the eventual outcome of war between Japan and the United States. Ken Goldman THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER http://www.wman.com/~khgold/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: THENRYS@aol.com Subject: Forest Sherman Class DD's >> Someone asked about the Forest Sherman Cl DD's and kits. AFAIK, Revell released it at least twice, once as Forest Sherman DD-931, another time as John Paul Jones DD-932. As was mentioned, AHM rented the tool and released the Decatur DD-936(?). The scale is odd, around 1/317 or so. A little surgery is required to make it right for about the first half of the class as built. It does not represent the later ships in the class, Hull DD-945 and later had a higher freeboard. The kit armament is the early all gun suit and does not include any missiles or launchers. I'm hoarding one kit to build as the Barry DD-933 during the Cuban Missile Crises. I have seen them show up on e-bay from time to time. I think I saw the Decatur kit there as well. Expect to pay U$ 12 and up. << I have one of the John Paul Jones releases and would be willing to let it go at the above price, not including shipping. Even though the kit was never started, I need to unpack the boxes from the October house move and check to ensure that all the parts are there. Let me know via E-mail if someone is interested. Todd Henry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: ironship@usit.net (Jon Warneke) Subject: Special Pre-Release Offer Hi Everyone, Iron Shipwright will be releasing a kit of the Wickes/Clemson class Flush Deck Destroyer on March 1, 2000. This is our newest kit, and the only accurate Four Stack destroyer available in 1/350 scale. The kit was built to the plans in "Anatomy of the Ship: Campbelltown", and "The First Shot". This kit also includes all the parts necessary to build the kit as ANY variant of the four stack destroyer from approximately 1930 on, including the 3"50 cal. escort modification, the 4"50 cal. escort modification, as well as the ships of DesDiv80, which included the USS Ward DD-139, which fired the first shot of the Pacific War. The specific escort modifications are for the USS Decatur and USS Bainbridge, but any other unit can be built with the included optional parts. This kit also includes a custom designed fret for the pattern, which had all of the necessary parts for any of these units. From now until February 15, 2000, Commander Series Models, Inc., is offering this kit at a pre-availability price of $49.95 which includes shipping and handling. No other discounts can be used with this offer. For a preview of this kit, you can see it at the following address: http://www.commanderseries.com/pages/Decatur.htm Jon Warneke Commander Series Models, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: GrafSpee34@aol.com Subject: German U-BOAT Books for sale! Hi Here are some more excellent German Kriegsmarine reference books that I've just put on eBay. "U-995" (with wartime color photos, check it out!) "ANATOMY OF THE TYPE VII U-BOAT" by Westwood, German Edition: "MEIN LEBEN ", Autobiography of Erich RAEDER, 1957 First Edition! http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=242564931 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=242555174 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=242571021 Please have a look. You can cut and paste one address from here, then once you are at my eBay site, click on "see sellers other auctions" to get to the other ones. Thanks Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Royal Navy Set 2 Snyder & Short Enterprises is pleased to announce that we are accepting orders for Royal Navy Set 2; limited quantities will be available beginning next week. This set consists of 16 colors: G5, G10, G20, G45, B15, B20, B30, B55, White, Black, variants of B5 and B6 taken from hand-painted camouflage design sheets for HMS FARNDALE, Stone, late war Semtex (green), Buff, and Mountbatten Pink taken from a sample supplied to the USN presumably for use by US shipyards repairing RN vessels. Retail price is $17 plus $2 shipping/handling; California residents add 7.75% sales tax. Dealer inquiries welcome, as always. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume