Subject: SMML VOL 1095 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:17:57 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Diablo 2: Re: Battleship Row 3: Re: HP kits 4: Re: USS Apache ATF-67 5: 1/350 H-46 6: Re: Derek Wakefields 'what ifs" 7: Re: Pearl Harbor What-Ifs 8: Kittyhawk's responce time 9: Re: WEM paints 10: Re: Clermont Ramblings 11: IJN Camouflage 12: Re: Rhinobones: Hints & Tips 13: Re: U.S.S Quincy Update 14: HMS Belfast camouflage 15: Re: Battleship Row.....Derek 16: IJN warship camouflage 17: HMS Li Wo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Craig R Bennett Subject: Diablo Hi Guys I have a question concerning the old USS Cabot. From 1967-89 she was the Spanish Carrier Diablo and operated the Harrier jump jet as fighter that was called the Matador. 6 yrs before the Royal Navy was operating them. Did the Diablo ever get deployed for miltary operations using the Matador and did the Royal Navy ever show any interest and send observers to the Diablo? I mean the UK and Spain are Nato members. Any one know? Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: VONJERSEY@aol.com Subject: Re: Battleship Row In my own opinion, the moorings wouldn't have made any difference to Arizona's fate. the Arizona's fatal hit was not by torpedo, but by dive bomb which penetrated her on her forecastle, i think near her second turret. According to the book "U.S.S. ARIZONA, SHIP'S DATA" (which was an absoultely critical tool to finishing an accurate Revell model of the Arizona) the bomb caused an intense oil fire which spread rapidly and was followed in 7 seconds by the magazine explosion that blew out a huge section of her forward hull. I think that, had she been at sea, her demise would have been similar to the loss of HMS Invincible at Jutland. I do not believe anybody has ever confirmed that Arizona was hit by any torpedoes, Today her lower hull is sunk in mud, almost up to her waterline. i agree that, if vestal survived arizona's inferno, any battleship moored there instead would have also survived. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: drwells@hogpb.mt.att.com (David R Wells) Subject: Re: HP kits Dan, These mini-reviews are really useful! May we use them on Rajen's List? Our section on HP models is really lacking right now...... http://www.quuxuum.org/rajens_list/shiprevs.html BTW: Your earlier reviews of the Pyro kits are now up. David R. Wells "There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Middletown, NJ Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | http://home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: USS Apache ATF-67 The deck color in 1951-2 would be the neutral Deck Gray in our USN Set 2 paint chips. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys http://www.shipcamouflage.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: PICRogers@aol.com Subject: 1/350 H-46 I am looking for H-46 helicopters in 1/350 scale to add to my Tamiya Enterprise flight deck. Any help would be appreciated. PICRogers@AOL.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: Derek Wakefields 'what ifs" >> I am surprised NEVADA, which was astern, and wide open without any hindrance from another ship, didn't take hits like the OKLAHOMA or CALIFORNIA. << Take a look at a map of the harbor. To give the torps enough room to stabilize, the Kates had to drop them in the Southeast Locke. There's little chance hit Nevada from that angle. Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Mark Shannon" Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor What-Ifs The reason Nevada did not take the torpedo punishment (at first) that the Oklahoma and West Virginia took was that the poition of her berth was 'cut-off' from the angle that the torpedo attacks had to take through the basin opposite Battleship Row. In other words, there was not a good approach that would give a long enough run for the plane and dropped torpedo. Neosho probably was not attacked for the same reason that the fuel tank farms and harbor facilities were spared -- the attack was prepared with a tactical mindset of keeping the powerful warships out of action for the exapnsion period Japanese planners expected to need to set up a defensive cordon. As such, strategic considerations such as putting harbor repair facilities out of action or destroying the only stockpile of fuel between San Francisco and Manila were not included in the initial plan. The biggest 'what if' is probably what would have happened if a later attack, with many of the ships out of action and air defenses decimated, had been launched to follow up on the almost complete success of the tactical raid with a careful and pinpoint strategic target raid. It also has to be mentioned that it was a Japanese view almost throughout the war that the role of a warrior was to attack other warriors. There was often resistance to orders to attack support facilities or ships among the pilots as an affront to their esprit, it seems. This may have also played a major role in the poorer condition that some speciallized equpiment received and developmental slowness in their submarine fleet. Even Allied pilots and seaman had a certain sourness about attacks where no-one could shoot back -- it was a hard fact of life in a hard war that you destroyed the enemies' means to wage war. This is probably one reason why the British Bomber Command area bombing raids never received the same kind of adulation as the B-17s, despite the sacrifices and heroism, or why the Battle of the Bismark Sea is not written up as much as its importance as one of the major actions in the defense of New Guinea. It also probably is one of the reasons that all non-submariners viewed any discovered submarine as one would a rattlesnake in the nursery -- kill it, then identify the remains. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Jim Johnson" Subject: Kittyhawk's responce time When in the USN back in the 60's I was onboard the USS America. Standard procedure then was to have a response ready in 15 minutes when in "friendly waters" and 5 minutes at other times. When approaching the Straits of Gabalter, the Russians would send out a Bear to greet us (and all carriers) and we would send up a Phantom or two to escort them past the ship. The story was that the Phantoms would have the most recent copy of Playboy with them and the GIB would hold up the playmate for the Russians to ogle through binoculars. All the while we were in the Med, there was always a Phantom on the waist cat on 5 min alert. The pilot would be in/on/under the plane in full flight gear. When the USS Liberty was attacked, the Phantom was in the air before the Israelis had left the scene. The pilots would stand 4 hour watches on the alert plane. Didn't look like much fun to me. The standards and/or procedures must be lowered since I was in. Granted, there isn't as much threat from superpowers now as then, but the USS Cole bombing points out very painfully that nobody can let their guard down. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Craig R Bennett Subject: Re: WEM paints Hi Bert Your idea of accurate paints is a nice idea but I think your going the wrong way about it. You need to do some market research first. Try this mail list out. Why not ask what paints do the guys use Arcylic or Enamel. With nearly hundreds reading this list it should give you a clear picture. If of any help I use Arcylic. For starters. Any one else? Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Art Herrick" Subject: Re: Clermont Ramblings Subject: Another old ship model kit of CLERMONT: I have a random collection of old Boucher Inc. ship model catalogs which show Fulton's CLERMONT of 1807. In their first catalog showing static display ship models (1922) they only had a series of 36 ship model plans, by Charles G. Davis. Clermont was not one of the subjects. My next is a 1934 catalog and advertises a 1:96 kit for CLERMONT. The hull for this model was a white pine block glued up from four pieces, the black glue lines gave you the models water line and centerline. This block was then bandsawn to profile and plan view. Produced in the catalog is the CLERMONT's profile view drawing, which shows the paddle wheels without any covering, but the rail behind the paddle wheel and aft for a distance (about the diameter of the paddle wheel) was planked in. Was this to deflect the water from the wheel being thrown up on the open engine area? Since the large boiler was aft of the engine and in the open, the passengers would be well aft and away from spray from the paddle wheels. MY THOUGHTS Boucher's 1941 catalog shows the CLERMONT kit still available, but their 1970 catalog shows only the plans are available. In 1972 when Art Montgomery purchased Boucher and changed the name to BlueJacket, his first catalog only listed the CLERMONT plans, no kit. In BlueJacket's 1979 catalog the CLERMONT kit is again listed, but on a limited basis, and had the old wood block profile kit hull. Looks like they were cleaning out their storage area. ln the BlueJacket 1996 catalog the old Boucher kit plans ceased to be advertised. I assume these Boucher plans must still be in BlueJacket's files, but I have not checked their availability on special order. As a young boy in the early 1940's, I scratch built the CLERMONT from the Boucher plans. It made a neat little model, for a boy just getting his feet wet in ship modeling! Still would be a interesting project, with its historical significance. My plans for CLERMONT have not survived. Looks like someone should chase down the articles, about CLERMONT, in The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers journals. Their journal articles are Indexed and the Index for 1934 should be available via Inter Library loan. The Society is most helpful if you know what articles you want reprints of. My Index only goes from 1893 (Vol. 1) to 1930 (Vol. 38), and CLERMONT is not noted. There is a good article on CLERMONT, with plans and illustrations in the Nauticle Research Journal, of the Nauticle Rreseach Guild, Vol. 33, No. 2, June 1988, p.26 to 35 (Note these pages are given incorrectly in the NRJ Index for Volumes 1 - 40, as pages 82 to 91.) See this Index for more on CLERMONT. Art Herrick Westmoreland NH Member: Nautical Research Guild USS CONSTITUTION Model Shipwright Guild -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Franz Aigner GmbH" Subject: IJN Camouflage Check out the Pit Road homepage. They give camouflage patterns for a couple of carriers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: isublett@home.com Subject: Re: Rhinobones: Hints & Tips Actually, beer is a better medium for water-based paints than white wine. Seriously, try some denatured alcohol from the paint store (but you already knew that). But don't apply ground pastels with your finger! Follow your daughters to the cosmetic counter and get a bag of the foam applicators used for make-up. They are good for more than chaulks. Pirie Sublett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: U.S.S Quincy Update Brad, Thanks for the kind words on my books. You have gone that extra mile in your research, but please remember, you are working on one subject, while I am juggling many at once. I have to do this in order to be able to make a living in this hobby. My books are full of mistakes, unfortunately! I am currently working on #11 Lexington Class Carriers, and #12 Benson/Gleaves Class Destroyers. I hope to publish them both this coming April. While I am working on the current two, I am collecting info, history, photos, etc., on at least four to six other subjects. This will enable me to pick and chose, according to info available at any given time. It can be rather confusing at times. I am also in the process of rebuilding my resin kit manufacturing business, no thanks to a few individuals, so there is no rest for the weary! Steve Wiper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Danjessar@aol.com Subject: HMS Belfast camouflage I'm getting ready to start working on my Airfix 1/600 Belfast kit. The instructions contain only a starboard side and top view of the camouflage pattern. Does anybody have a port side view? Also, can someone explain what the equivalent colors are for Humbrol numbers 27, 30, 34, 55,64, 65, 71, and 96? Thanks, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Henry T Chen" Subject: Re: Battleship Row.....Derek I believe Japanese Officials credited destruction of Arizona to Soryu high level bombers crews (yes, 800Kg bomb). However, they were shot down only 2 weeks later when Hiryu and Soryu air groups attacked Wake island. Henry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "John Rule" Subject: IJN warship camouflage In response to the request for info on Japanese warship camouflage, I suggest obtaining the recent Model Art book on the subject and then taking Japanese lessons. I purchased the book from Pacific Front Hobbies and it looks great. Unfortunately about the only text I understand are some of the ship names. It would be nice to know what the colours are that are shown in the grey tone plan and profiles. There was some talk of someone translating the book. Does anyone know if this the case? This response may not be the help being sought, but regardless the book is a good acquisition. John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: HMS Li Wo Hi; Forwarded Li Wo question to other lists. Hope this helps. Chuck Duggie This from MAR-HST- I don't know the names of the Japanese vessels, but they were the advance guard of the Sumatra invasion fleet. Li Wo was a ship of the Indo China Steam Navigation Co, so a history of that company might mention the action. The might also be mention in books on naval VCs. It's worth mentioning that the Li Wo's only armament was a 4 in gun, two machine guns and a depth charge thrower. When the 13 rounds she carried had been expended, Wilkinson rammed the transport and engaged with the machine guns. There were only ten survivors from the ship's company (partly because they were machine-gunned in the water). Edwin King FROM THE MAHAN LIST There is a very detailed account of the Li Wo's end in Geoffrey Brooke's book "Singapore's Dunkirk." The Li Wo is described by Brooke as a Yangtse river steamship of 1000 tons, armed with a 4-in gun, two Lewis machine guns, and a depth charge thrower. Brooke does not name the Japanese cruiser she engaged, but, since it is described as having three funnels and 6-in guns, I presume it was an old Japanese light cruiser. Art Nicholson AGAIN FROM MAR-HST A good account is given in the book "The Escape from Singapore" by Richard Gough (ISBN 0-7183-0655-4), published in 1987. "LI WO A 707 tons, flat bottomed Auxiliary Patrol Vessel owned by Indo-China Steam Navigation Company. She was taken over by the RN who overpainted her funnel and armed her with a 4 inch gun. Apart from that she already had thin armour plating around her bridge to protect the ship's officers from the random shots of river pirates. She was built at Hong Kong for the Yangtse river trade. She had a draught of 8 feet and was designed to negotiate the upper reaches of the Yangtse. One of the few ships to escape from Hong Kong before its garrison was overwhelmed. Above decks there were three tiers of boxlike cabins. The action report states that she rammed and badly damaged one of the troop transports. As LI WO pulled clear she was set upon by destroyers, shelled and sunk." Michael Pryce, Wellington, New Zealand More from MAR-HST Possibly the most detailed, recent account of the saga of Li Wo was provided by Geoffrey Brooke in his book "Singapore's Dunkirk". Stories of other small ships caught up in the exodus after the fall of Singapore, are provided in his "Alarm Starboard" John Winton in his "The Victoria Cross at Sea" lists two early 1970s sources for Li Wo.. John Bradford Adelaide -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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