Subject: SMML VOL 1188 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:33:05 -0800 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: PT Boat cutaway questions 2: Ronald Reagan namesake of new US carrier 3: Battleship Cove 4: Why a ship is called 'she' 5: Stars for display 6: HMVS Cerberus and the Victorian (Australia) Navy 7: Re: New carrier class name? 8: Re: Why a ship is called 'she' 9: Re: Liscombe Bay 10: Re: CVNX Naming Contest 11: Re: Stars 12: Re: NIMITZ carriers 13: CVNX name 14: Matchbox Indy to Indy ... 15: Re: Miles F.McLaughin 16: Re: DOH! 17: Re: Why a ship is called 'she' 18: C 3 caggo ship 19: Re: Ship power for California -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Nathan Pettigrew" Subject: PT Boat cutaway questions Hello all, I've been pondering doing some type of ship cutaway and the Revell 1/72 80' Elco is looking pretty good. It's very cheap, it's not a bad model, and it's a large enough scale to do some good interior detail work on it. There are some questions I was hoping the kind folk of SMML might help me out with though: Are the Revell PT-109 and Revell-G PT-117 the same kit? Are there any recommended books\plans\other resources with lots of interior photos or drawings? Any tips in general for doing cutaways? The current plan is to take the port side of the hull off along the centerline (leaving everything above the deck in place) and build in engines, crew spaces, etc... I had been considering doing the Revell Flower class corvette, but decided to do something much smaller to start out with. Pictures will of course be taken during construction and posted for anyone interested. Thank you kindly, Nathan Pettigrew Garland, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "ERIC OLSON" Subject: Ronald Reagan namesake of new US carrier Being a little bit of a stickler for accuracy, I noted that a recent post by Jerry Slagle in connection with the USS Ronald Reagan stated that Reagan had not served in the military and had not seen combat. The not seeing combat portion is correct, but Reagan ended up being a captain in the USAAF by the end of WW II. Check out the history section of the US Air Force Museum webpage at: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/rr.htm Eric O.... P.S.--I'm not making any political judgments, just pointing out historical facts. E. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Battleship Cove Another Smmler who off-list graciously supplied correct names of the Battleship Cove fleet is John Frohock. Thank you, Sir, as well as the others, on-list and off-list. Franklyn -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Matthew Prager" Subject: Why a ship is called 'she' I always thought that a ship is referred to as "she" because, like a woman, she flaunts her topsides and hides her bottom, and there is always a bustle of men around her. Matt Prager -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: BSteinIPMS@aol.com Subject: Stars for display >> I have this idea. For military ribbons, they have tiny plastic gold or silver stars that can be affixed to denote commendations, repeats of the same award, etc. I want to use something similar for my display bases to denote the number of battle stars a ship earned during WWII. Problem is, I don't have many of these things left (most are in my ribbon case), and the online sites I can find them at want over $1.00 a piece for them (for the FARENHOLT I just finished, and the SAN FRANCISCO I'm just starting, that'd be over $30 just for stars!). Anyone know of a dirt cheap source for these things (I don't remember them even being reasonable while I was still serving)? I really don't want to resort to casting my own in resin. << I don't know about prices, but one reputable and large supplier is U.S. CAVALRY which can be found at: http://www.uscavalry.com/ Bob Steinbrunn Minneapolis Member, Nautical Research Guild -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Leslie Brown" Subject: HMVS Cerberus and the Victorian (Australia) Navy Further to the recent corresponence on HMVS Cerberus, the latest edition of the Conway publication 'Warship 2000-2001' contains a very interesting article on the development of this particular navy. There are also two photographs of Cerberus (one as built and one late in her career) together with a short description. Regards Les Brown -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Keith Bender" Subject: Re: New carrier class name? Well I can tell you that I once read that we probably won't ever again see the carriers with good old names of the past. The politics won't have it. They won't fund a 4 billion dollar carrier that isn't named for one of their own. Why do you think they started naming the subs after cities, "fish can't vote." Rickover said that. So face it, we're screwed, those of us who like the traditional names. We'll just pay our taxes and like it too. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Craig R Bennett Subject: Re: Why a ship is called 'she' Hi Guys Concerning why ships are called "she". Admiral Nimitz in an interview back in the 1940's was asked that ,he replied that they're called that because it costs alot in paint and powder to be eye pleasing and be ready to go out. Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Allan and Crystal Plumb Subject: Re: Liscombe Bay >> I am preparing to scratchbuild the escort carrier Liscome Bay for a fellow who survived her sinking. I will probably make it at 1/350 scale. Before I go much further, however, does anyone know of a Casablanca class escort carrier kit (good kit) that could be used as a reference or built for the gift? I located a waterline kit of a the Tamaya CVE9 Bogue, but I would rather have a Casablanka class for reference. << Well, Blue Water Navy makes what's reputed to be a very good kit (resin) in that scale. I have one, but of course I haven't built it yet so I can't speak to quality. The USNIP Anatomy of the Ship for Gambier Bay has almost all the details you'd need. (_Nobody_ has _all_ of what you want. There's always some "what about...?") Allan Plumb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Allan and Crystal Plumb Subject: Re: CVNX Naming Contest >> Just for the fun of it I think we should run a contest (prize to be determined) on name suggestions for the un named new carrier just authorized. Will the name be historical or political????? << Political. 3 gets you 5. >> Question to the learned folks out there....can a ship in building and not yet named be prospectively given the name of a current operational ship? << It can, of course, but I doubt they'd do it because the PAOs would spend all their time explaining it to reporters. >> My vote for the first new CVNX off the rack if not ENTERPRISE..... a new MIDWAY. Unforgettable carrier battle... << "United States". Not tooting the horn, but that name needs to have its jinx (is it two or three CVs that were supposed to have that name? wonder about the Constellation battlecruisers?) broken. It'll probably be named "Congressman Your Name Could Be Here If You Vote the Navy Lot's of Money". Allan Plumb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: royrichey@att.net Subject: Re: Stars Devin, There is a military sales stores 5 minutes from me. I'll check it out saturday and let you know what their current damage would be. Roy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Darren Scannell Subject: Re: NIMITZ carriers James Corley wrote: >> There are also several decommissioned destroyer sized vessels that have been striped down to floating auxiliary power sources. I believe that they were tried in California. I wonder if the "Greens" through a fit because of pollution from fossil fuels. In view of the current problems for electrical power in California could not this be a short-term solution for the lack of power plants that the NIMBYs shot down? << I posted that very question to our local rep, Johnny Isakkson. After a few weeks he told me that the decommed nucs in Bremerton were "unfit for civilian use" according to the Navy people he contacted. I do not believe the government has a duty to bail out California, but the asset is bought and paid for, so why not use it. I would suppose that considering how quickly the nucs were stripped after they were decommed, (Mississippi was decommed 11/11/96 and by July 97 there was nothing left above the main deck!) there was other less visible "damage" inflicted on them, at the order of the Clinton administration, to prevent their ever being useful for anything other than a supply of iron for Gillette. >> I hate to be picky James, But: >> The RR is an SCB-102A hull, by navy records, thus making her the sixth Roosevelt sub-class carrier. The Nimitz was a SCB-102. << >> ROOSEVELT is a BURKE class destroyer. << Ok Darren, lets be exact here! Ed, too. Roosevelt is neither. The Carrier is USS Theodore Roosevelt, whilst the DDG was at one time USS The Roosevelts, and was changed for whatever reason. Why the Navy would want to name two ships so similarly, I'll never know. I guess it's a good thing the carrier is often called "The Stick" .... just think of the operational errors that could occur if a civilain leader orders the Rooselvelt to launch an airstrike! It could eihter be an alpha strike with 50 or so jets screaming in over the beach or one or two Seahawks plinking gunboats with Hellfires! The Navy officially calls all nine ships part of the Nimitz class, most for the benefit of the public IMO, while Sea Systems (Old BuShips) considers one a subclass of the other, as evidenced by the new SCB number. The SCB number is what officially determines a class of ship in the US Navy. As for the Wasp/Tarawa, these ships are as different as a Kitty Hawk and a Forrestal. << Ok Ok, I sit corrected. Although it is ROOSEVELT, singular for the Destroyer. It is named after Franklin D Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor. I forgot about USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT CVN 71. It had me really wondering when I came across the DDG website, I thought that name should be a carrier! Combat Fleets does refer to CVN 71 and up as the ROOSEVELT class, although I disagree. What is the difference between the hulls? If it is external, then REAGAN should start a new class because of the bow bubble. And if they all get refitted with the new bubble and super, then does that make them all REAGAN class ships now? I dunno, but I doubt it. Darren -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "O'Connor" Subject: CVNX name I vote for USS Midway, Lexington, Antietam (isn't there one already??) or Coral Sea, in that order. All great American epic battles. I'd love to see another Enterprise, but I think this one has to be stricken first, and I fear that won't happen in my lifetime due to the EPA issues surrounding a Nuke ship. As an alternative, a renaming of the Forrestal line wouldn't be a bad thing.... Bob O'Connor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: cwjerden Subject: Matchbox Indy to Indy ... As an aside to the "Indy" to "Sweet Pea" discussion, I plan to do a conversion to my now surplus Matchbox Indy. I hope to take the kit from the "as Lost" configuration to an "as Launched" one. I understand that in many ways it would be as easy to scatch build one as convert this old kit. I just think it will be fun to see fellow ship builders reactions (ie,...WHY!?). Thoughts on feasability, finding info, plans ect...? And Thanks to fellow SMMLy Bruce Ross for the loan of his T-2 plans, sometimes it takes a friend who's been there to boost you past the rough spot on a tough job. Thanks Bruce! Goodnight all, Charles Jerden In Sunny and nice Ft.Worth, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Miles F.McLaughin >> To Mr. Przezdieki: << Dear Miles F.McLaughin I was away for a few days that's why I am late in replying to your letter. First and foremost I really do not want to make a fuss abot that but I would appreciate if you could spell my surename correctly. It is always given at the beginning of my posts so you do not have to rely on your memory. Or you can always call me Darius or D.P. Pretty please?? >> I have to admit that I envy your trip to the Maritime Museum at Greenwich. But, unless I am grossly misinformed, you are misrepresenting what the added on notations and sketches that are done in pencil or pen to an "as fitted" plan represents in regards to the accuracy and reliability of the original "as fitted" plan. An Admiralty draftsman or builders yard draftsman is given the task of making a plan drawing deck by deck and by profile of the fittings and features of the "completed" ship. These then become the Official "as fitted" plans of the completed ship. Subsequently, peace time refits result in additions and sometimes removal of features on the "completed" ship. These additions and alterations to the completed ship are represented in pen or pencil on the "as fitted" plans. SNIP Which means that the "as fitted" plans are entirely accurate and reliable up to the last penned or penciled noted addition. Beyond that point, they are still very usefull in identifying key features. << I do not have any experiences with mid-war and WWII "as fitted" plans but with same WWI and pre-war warship's plans sytuation is more complicated. "As fitted" plans are drawn before the ship is completed and since majority of British warships of WWI were build by private shipyards they incoporate numerous small and not so small changes made during the construction process. This changes are pencilled in but because in some cases changes were changed again,sometimes things can get very criptic indeed.Another problem grup are ships build for another nations and than taken over by Royal Navy,in this cases ("Erin","Canada","Agincourt" ect.) "as fitted" plans show how the ship would look like if finished according to the client wishes,but those ships were refitted before commisioning to bring it up to the standarts or Royal Navy and again things can get confused here. And third grup are ships into which changes created by war experience are incorporated,again carefull study and bacground research is required to sort out how the finished ship looked like.The case in point is the "Lion" class of battlecruisers,the original "as fitted" plans show the ols configuration with 1st funnel before foremast ect.All the later changes are incorporated into plans but because there were so many of them again carefull study is required. >> I thank Mr. Przezdieki for his interpretations of the plan drawings he saw at the Maritime Museum at Greenwich in regards to the accuracy of R.A. Burt's plan drawings. I would however, request that he do me the honor of listing the photographs and references that support his views as I did in my review and warning of Profile Morskie # 1. They will make a welcome addition and supplement for the books that I already own. << As to "Audacious" rear superstructure arrangements my reference was a plan and profile drawing of the ship made by J.A.Roberts in 1986. They were relatively recently published in "Warship" too but can't remember the issue number. In case of "Lion's" final after-refit appearance please look at the article "The Battlecruiser Lion" by Keith Smith in "Model Shipwright" no.43. Interesting article and plenty of photos. "Erin" is described in Classic Ship Models no.2 - "HMS Erin" by John W.Appleby. I think it is from "Model Shipwright" too but I got the article second hand and issue number is not stated. Regards D.P. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: DOH! >> * 8 people cracked their skull in 1997 after falling asleep (passing out) while throwing up into the toilet. << Ahh, yes. The old porcelain bus. RRRRIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT Turn, LLLLLEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TURN! Sometimes known as the "Throne of Knolage" 'cause he done throwd up all his brains! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Baumbach, Werner" Subject: Re: Why a ship is called 'she' Why ships are referred to as 'she': It stems from an ancient Greek practice of naming their ships for goddesses. There are, of course, some exceptions to this practice over the years, notably the Germans and French, using the masculine form. For the German version: I am wrecking my brain but can't come up with a he-ship. I'd guess that all boats are a she for the Germans as well, but sometimes it's hard to determine rules in your own language, as you are just babbling, not really thinking. Anyway, it is die Bismarck (female, though named after the Chancellor), die Tirpitz, die Gneisenau, die Bluecher, die Prinz Eugen ... However it is der Schwere Kreuzer Prinz Eugen (male, as the article relates to Kreuzer = Cruiser), das Schlachtschiff Bismarck (neutral, because it is das Schlachtschiff = Battleship) and then it is die Fregatte Brandenburg again (female, die Fregatte = frigate). Dont ask me why Battleships are neutral, Destroyers male and frigates female (German language has gramatically three genders: male, female and neutral). If you just talk about the ship's name, it is female though. If anybody has an exception for this rule ... Cheers Werner -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Erhardtsen" Subject: C 3 caggo ship I have got a model of a C 3 cargo ship from Jim Shirley Productions. The model represent the type without armament. Does somebody know where I can find drawings showing where the armament was placed? Erik Erhardtsen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: Re: Ship power for California >> I wonder if the "Greens" through a fit because of pollution from fossil fuels. In view of the current problems for electrical power in California could not this be a short-term solution for the lack of power plants that the NIMBYs shot down? << Hi; Let's reactivate the reactors from the scrapped USN nuclear powered ships. Some of them must be re-usable, I hope. That would put the "greens" into complete meltdown. Brown outs all around me, but not my turn yet. Electricity today, water and natural gas soon. Chuck Duggie WoodenWalls Listmeister Naval wargamer, amateur naval historian, and ship modeler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, 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