Subject: SMML VOL 996 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:25:53 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: WW II LCM's 2: Re: Model Accuracy 3: Re: Planet Models Subs 4: Arsenal Ship 5: Oscar Kit 6: Mariners Museum 7: Re: Judging criteria "straying" 8: The pitfalls of judging 9: Anchors away 10: Re: Oscar 11: Leviathan Upgrades for 1/700? 12: Re: Judging and being human 13: Book Review 14: Awnings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: JRKutina@webtv.net (John Kutina) Subject: WW II LCM's Need some help. I am looking for 2 view drawings of Landing Craft Mechanized that could cary one tank: LCM [ 3 ] -- 50' long and/or LCM [ 6 ] -- 56' long [either model 1 or 2] If anyone has this, please contact me off-line. Thank you, John Kutina - Seattle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Mike Hall Subject: Re: Model Accuracy As a National Judge, and a modeler, I build my kits to the highest level of accuracy possible, FOR ME! I personally want my display models to be to the highest level of accuracy, and would be embarassed to have such a flaw pointed out to me on one of my own models. To ask the Judges to know everything about every subject judged, is unrealistic. Lets all remeber who we build for in the first place Mike Hall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: Planet Models Subs >> They are in 1:200 scale and cover the Type II (A,B,C and D) and the Type XXI. They are by Planet Models which seem to be a part of CMK. They are resin without photo etch but they really don't need any PE anyways. They are not the quality of the aircraft kits that they produce but they will definitely build into nice looking models. << Dave- Saw them advertised recenly. Haven't seen them "live". Could you amplify on your comment for us that they don't need photoetch? What do they use for props, guns, periscopes, etc., resin pieces? Thanks, Tom Duugherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Ned Barnett Subject: Arsenal Ship >> Just a note to you Ned, the JSP Arsenal Ship is a 1/700 model. I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not. If you are, then I understand if you are modifying it based upon its relative size to a 1/350 destroyer. If you have any doubts about its scale, I can humbly tell you that I cast all of them for JSP, and it was always intended to be a 1/700 scale ship. (at least at that time, 4 yrs ago). I might be able to get you a 1/350 oto melara turret and barrel. I think there is one lying around the shop somewhere. << Tom, I stand (actually I sit) corrected. I made a thought-o (as opposed to a typo) - and it was incorrect. Not knowing the size of the Arsenal ship (dimensionally), and having given it only a cursory glance, I missed that. I don't recall any scale notation on the box, but I'll go back and look. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING ... ... HELP - I need two 1/700 Seahawk helicopters and two 1/700 Oto Melara turrets (or sources where I can obtain them). Can anybody HELP???? Thanks, Tom - that ship would have looked mighty odd with the 1/350 helicopters I bought earlier this week Ned -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Ned Barnett Subject: Oscar Kit Rocky Mountain Scale Subs 17150 East Kent Drive Aurora, CO 80013 (303) 766-4885 Email: RMSSU@aol.com R/C Kits: Type-21, HOLLAND kits, and Russian Oscar Class -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Mariners Museum Bob Steinbrunn wrote - >> FSM will be running a "Modeler's Showcase" feature article on my 1/192 scale destroyer USS KIDD next spring or summer, and indicate it will probably appear on the cover. They are also working closely with The Mariners' Museum in Newport News, Virginia, on an article about the "Scale Ship Model Competition & Exhibition 2000" which is currently ongoing. << Great news. I highly recommend that anybody remotely in the area go see the exhibition before it closes (check the museum web site for dates). Last week I wished I had a camera or at the very least a notebook. In addition to Bob Steinbrunn's magnificent USS Kidd in 1/192, I can recall from among the collection of outstanding pieces John Leyland's pair of USS Enterprise models (WW2 and modern) in 1/700, the wreck of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, Imperial German cruiser SMS Emden, WW2 USCG cutter Northland and cruiser USS St. Louis, minesweeper HMS Sir Kay in 1/48, and many more stunning works. The museum visit was the high point of an otherwise sleepy week spent in the fleet command center (not counting the stricken submarine Kursk, a hurricane and two tropical storms, major exercise off Puerto Rico, endangered whale alerts, and the Eisenhower battle group transit). : ) Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Judging criteria "straying" >> If one isn't going to be accurate, then why bother buying plans, researching your subject?;ie Scale modeling. Aircraft can land on other carriers, but they aren't re-marked or re-painted when they do (Nimitz aircraft on a Nimitz carrier). Let's just all buy a block of wood (you can use wood now at I"p"M S ) all call it what we want! To heck with that fatal word... ACCURACY!!!! << Randy, C'mon now, we are starting to stray from the judging subject. Did I ever state that accuracy was not a consideration? On the contrary, I stated very plainly that if you want your all work and research appreciated by IPMS/USA judges, then TELL US WHAT YOU DID. You will be given credit for your efforts as long as the basics of modeling are well executed (maybe even if they aren't). As I stated earlier, I'm not a naval architect, and I don't know any ship judges that are. So you just can't expect us to know every inch of every type of ship ever built. I say to everyone reading this to make your models as accurate as you like. However, if you don't tell us or show us through photographs or documentation, we may miss something you may wish us to see. As for the dig about I"p"MS, we would be seeing far fewer quality and diverse entries (no resin, multimedia, metal or wood models would be allowed) in the ship categories if not for the rule change that allow these entries (no metal or resin figures either). I understand your meaning though. And yes, IPMS is sometimes a bit hypocritical allowing other media to enter. Remember the EXCELLENT little metal ironclads at the Nats would not been allowed to enter, not would the magnificent USS Constitution model that had so much rigging you couldn't see the foremast from the stern! Nor would any of the scratchbuilt plank-on-frame Columbus era ships (or best ship, the La Pinta) have been eligible under a plastic only rule. There is no doubt in my mind that the National competition is far better because of a little hypocrisy. I also would not have any problem at all with the name International Modeling Society either. Rusty White IPMS/USA Head ship judge "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Jon Warneke Subject: The pitfalls of judging Hi Everyone, With this one, I know the head's going into the wood chipper, but here goes. First, to flesh out the ship that Rusty mentioned in yesterday's post. The kit was a 1/350 scale Patrol Craft by Iron Shipwrights, and I was fully prepared to do the happy dance for one of my company's kits winning. After the first round of voting, when it was the best ship, I did my happy dance, but was sad when it didn't win the second round. The modeler was severely chastised by me for having me waste a good happy dance over anchors (he and I are good friends). And, as all present will attest, I abstained from any voting for best ship once one of my company's products was in the mix. Now, to the statements about the judging methods. I have used what has been suggested, a quantitative system of points, and here's my opinion after using it. It was the worst episode of judging I ever participated in. What occurred is probably what hasn't been considered by it's suggestor, and that is a three-way tie. In a structure like IPMS, which is based on a 1-2-3 system of awards, how do you decide which get's the nod for what? So, the six of us went back to judge, returned with new numbers, the scores were tallied, and we were back at the three-way tie. How was it resolved? We resorted to the way we judge at shows now, subjectively. It was a little more difficult, but we were able to determine a winner. Meanwhile, on the other side of the room, six other teams were resolving six other ties. In the end, the award ceremony finished around 7:30pm, I began my 3 1/2 hour drive home, and a day that started at 3am was a whole lot longer than necessary. Usually, shows end around 4pm or so, so you can understand why some judges may be leery of a system like this. There's also been mentioned the judging of accuracy, and this is a bugaboo I don't want to even get near. The Egyptian reed boat is a very good example of why, and here's another. Most of the kits I work on are of common ships, and the plans are usually easily available. However, one of the kits I've done, the 80' Elco PT has been subjected to a few reviews, and has been found to be wanting. Here's why. The plans I used show the port forward torpedo to be in one location, like most other PT's, or in an alternate position like I built it. Either way is correct, but this location can be construed to be incorrect out of the box. But that's neither here nor there. Now, let's say that one of these kits is entered into competition, and is by IPMS rules, a perfect build. However, judging accuracy with no references (no judge brings his volumes of research with him to a show since you never know what'll show up), a judge determines that the torpedo is in the wrong place. Even though there is plans showing this to be correct, and you did build that exact boat, this kit is no longer eligible for an award because of an error. That's why accuracy isn't a determinant in IPMS judging. Please don't construe this as an insult to an idea(s) that has been given a lot of thought, but rather reasons why they aren't used. I've been judging shows for seven years now, and have been an IPMS national judge for three, and I agree that it isn't a perfect system. There are plenty of kits I've had to give stuff to that were not the best presented or the flashiest, but were the best technically. That's what we're fed (literally; we get a free meal to do this and nothing more) to do, and those are the rules we work under. I'm sure that there's a better system out there somewhere, but it just hasn't been made flexible enough yet. Jon Warneke IPMS #30977 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: TechnoInfidel@webtv.net (John Collins) Subject: Anchors away SMMLmates: There are several threads upon which I would like to comment. Pearl Harbor: Did FDR know beforehand? I haven't seen any evidence here or elsewhere to prove either point. He did deliver an ultimatum to Japan. He had to know war was imminent. Where or when, perhaps he didn't know, but we certainly don't know. But, I'm not so certain that using the knowledge the FDR so loved the Navy and wouldn't risk its destruction at Pearl is plausible evidence that he did not know of the attack beforehand. In war, as in chess, pawns are sacrificed. One needs only look as far as the US Forces in the Philippines and the US Asiatic Fleet to see that FDR was willing to sacrifice US Forces for the cause. War with China. For what reasons would we go to war with China? Or China with us? Over Taiwan? The US and former USSR didn't go to war despite far greater provocation in 40 years of the Cold War. Judging with a points system. The argument has been offered for a judging check list or point system to be used for judging. I have had experience using the point system at local contests in San Antonio and here in Atlanta. Even with computer support, it is too cumbersome to be time effective and efficient. Judging with points simply takes too long. Each model must be individually judged by each of three judges. Those results must be collated, tallied and organized. In each of the contests in which the points system was used, judging took at least one hour longer and computing the results another hour. In total, the contest ran two hours over schedule, by which time, contestants, vendors and visitors were too pissed to care what the results were and just wanted to get the hell out of there. And these were contests where there were only 300 or so models. I can't imagine how long the nationals would have to run to accommodate a points system judging. Contrary to popular notion, a points system is not any less subjective than the committee system. Accuracy. As Rusty said, most models can be disqualified from judging by basic modeling errors. Those with the fewest errors win. Accuracy may come into play in determining a winner between nearly flawless models or best ofs, but even then it is only used rarely. I've see models that were alleged to be quite accurate but were poor models. I don't think a modeler should get extra points for accuracy when the basics of model-building haven't been exhibited. Nor do I think that the builders of bigger models should be given any advantage over smaller models simply because of size. The notion that because that a big model should be given a consideration because of the amount of time and number of parts necessary to build a big model and therefore has more opportunity to make mistakes is flawed. The judges usually don't know how many hours went into building any model unless the modeler tells them. And how does the builder of the larger models know that the smaller model took less work or time than his? You are judged by the quality of your work not the amount of time it takes you do the work. Finally, I have to admit that the small anchorless ship in question in posts by Rusty White, James Corley and Jon Warneke was my PC 1264. I took considerable ribbing at the contest from James, Jon, Tom Griffin and Hugh Lottie for being John the Anchorless. My flip answer was that I didn't need to slow down for anything, so who needs anchors. However, when I got home I tried to reconstruct in my mind why I didn't attach the anchors. I wasn't particular fond of the kit anchors and didn't have any reasonable substitutes. But then I noticed a photo of PC-472 steaming off the Virginia coast and the photo does not seem to show an anchor in the hawse pipe. I may be, and probably am, mistaken in my assessment of the photo, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Nonetheless, I was pleased to win the 350 category. The best I had expected to do was third. I thought the competition in that category was the stiffest of the ship categories (more entries). I thought Rusty's Fletcher was the best in the category, with the Ward second. While the big models in the category didn't place, they did gather the lion's share of popular attention and acclaim. Sorry to have rambled on. John (the Anchorless) Collins Atlanta, GA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: CBNJBB62@aol.com Subject: Re: Oscar Hi Guys I believe Dragon reissued the old DML Oscar kit in 1/700 with a British sub kit. It goes for $9.00 I believe. This is pretty close to what the Oscar II Kursk looks like. I got mine from AAA hobbies located at White Horse Pike &Warwick Rd, Magnolia, NJ 08049. There phone number is1-856-435-1156. They might have more. It's interesting to note that the Kursk is named after a world war 2 tank battle between the Russians and Germans in 1943 that was supposedly the largest of them. Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Rick Heinbaugh Subject: Leviathan Upgrades for 1/700? I just got the Tamiya? Light Vessel Ordnance Set. It seems to me to be the same kind of parts that Skywave puts in their IJN weapons sets, but just that proper smidgen smaller, so that the parts seem right for Tamiya/Hasegawa / Aoshima(why?)/Fujimi destroyer kits. The decals for the aircraft (Rufe, Glen, Rex & Seiran) say "Leviathan". And I've seen references here to Leviathan upgrades of older BB kits. Can anybody fill me in on what Leviathan is and how it fits into our mix of kit manufacturers? Thanks, Rick Heinbaugh Seattle, WA Roll on, SMML1K!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Subject: Re: Judging and being human Rusty, A question here - was it supposed to have anchors? No, that is not a silly question. Subs (US, anyway) in WWII removed their anchors (see Clear The Bridge by O'Kane as he discusses this) when going to combat zones. Other ships, like the Perry FFG class have anchors which are hidden in an internal "well". I know this one personally as my USS Boone (FFG-28) took Best In Category and Best Ship in the Region 10 meet today - the head judge told me afterwards that they were nervous as they didn't see any anchor. Fortunately, I had included pictures which demonstrated a Perry's anchors cannot be seen. Now as to accuracy - having served as a judge, I agree that accuracy beyond the known and obvious basics cannot be judged UNLESS: (1) such detail is poorly done which knocks the model down; (2) appropriate documentation is included to enable the judges to determine that such detail is accurate and well done. In all my models, I always include a listing of the extra detail added and often include pictures to show that. I also date my models for a particular time as detail on ships change over time. Witness the Gato class subs in WWII and their conning tower cutdowns. What is accurate in 1942 is not in 1944. That is why it is always good to include documentation to assist judges in evaluating the work done on a model. Kevin Wenker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Phil M. Gollin" Subject: Book Review At long last, I have managed to get hold of a copy of D. K. Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard; Warship Design and Development 1923 to 1945", from Chatham Publishing (the Naval Institute Press version is due out October 2000, at least according to Amazon). In practical terms, it is in exactly the same format as the previous books in the series ("Warrior to Dreadnought" and "The Grand Fleet") and is typical of Chatham (and Conway) books, with authoritive text, well selected, informative pictures with captions which are a delight to read in themselves. There are also 20 appendicies, some esoteric, some fascinating. The book is a delight, in that opening it at almost any spread will give at least one fascinating insight into the design or use of warships. D K Brown gives a no-holds barred account, so if you're not careful you would think that no one in their right mind would have gone out in one of the ships designed and described. However, that's the way professionals (at least in Britain) think, you're meant to read around what is said about the bad bits to see what is good in the designs. He gives a good description of the design process of the King George V class and a good exposition on the design of Aircraft Carriers, coming to the conclusion (unsurprisingly) that the USN and the RN designed the ships they needed for the perceived threat, although in hindsight he would have designed a revised Ark Royal rather then the Illustrious. As in that instance, every so often he puts in bits about how he would have done things in hindsight, or the effect war experience had, or is still having, in post-war design, e.g. he would not have deigned battleships with a secondary armanent, merely main guns and bofors, and the effect of cold weather on the choice (for Britain at least) in the choice of ship steels. In some senses there is nothing outstandingly new, however there is a lot a deeper understanding. There is the continuing admiration of USN high-pressure machinery and anti-aircraft fire-control, however, all nations' heavy anti-aircraft fire seems to be less favourably thought, being regarded more as a scaring function, until the advent of the proximity-fuze. Speaking of the proximity fuze, he firmly nails his colours to the mast about the origins of such inventions/designs, especially with regards to the various types of Landings Ships/crafts (e.g. LST, LSD, etc.... ). Likewise, he gets in another dig at the Iowa class (he obviously thinks them overrated), when after agreeing that USN Heavy armour was 25% less efficient than RN and Kriegsmarine armour (it's good to see "official" confirmation of this - does anyone know where the official document about the post-war trials are ?), he examines the design of HMS Vanguard, and thinks her 15" guns would easily overcome the Iowa's "thin belt of inferior armour" - overall he thinks Vanguard and Iowa were equally matched, and that the Vanguard would even have a chance against the Yamato (again, poor quality armour). In one sense the book seems quite short as there are many short statements about how things were perceived then, or now in hindsight, without too much explanation which in some cases, at least, I was almost crying out to find out WHY ? There are many points in the book which will educate people over the process of design, building and use of warships and it will be an invaluable reference book for me for ages, some points of interest ; a: Hood rebuild confirmed at the intention of using 5.25". Nelson/Rodney would have been next with the 6" & 4.7" going to be replaced with either (i) 8 twin 5.25", 2 pom-poms & catapault on X-turret, (ii) 10 twin 4.5", 2 pom-poms, catapault & hangars on the shelter deck or (iii) 6 twin 5.25", 2 pom-poms and catapault on X-turret. b: British submarines had noise reducing motor mountings and were tested on noise ranges before the war. c: USN flash-less propellent was the army version of the RN propellent, purchased from Canada. The main point that the book raised to prominence, for me, was a subject of costs, which I first came across in a Scottish Academic tome about the relative costs of "Liberty" Ships and British "Empire" vessels. This is an extension of the "Best" being the enemy of the "Good Enough" and "Quantity" over "Quality". This came about in several classes of ship, and in all sorts of ways, however I'll just give some comparisons and leave it to you think about it ; Empire ship GBP180,000 (500,000 to 650,000 man-hours) Liberty Ship GBP450,000 (350,000 man-hours) River class GBP240,000 Colony class GBP570,000 HMS Activity GBP850,000 USS Commencement Bay USD $2.785m ( GBP 1 = USD $3.95 approx ) A final short sentence; "GO OUT AND BUY THIS BOOK, OR BORROW IT FROM THE LIBRARY" Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: RhinoBones@aol.com Subject: Awnings I read an article recently (don't remember the author) and it appeared that the author had made some awnings using tissue paper saturated with thinned white glue. Did I read the article correctly . . . is there a technique for making awnings in this manner? Appreciate hearing from anyone who can go into detail on this method or, propose an alternate method for building awnings. Regards, RhinoBones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://www.smml.org.uk Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://www.tac.com.au/~sljenkins/apma.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume