Subject: SMML VOL 1204 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:39:32 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: USS Greenville and apologies.. 2: Terminology and Design Procedure 3: USS Iowa 4: Dumas Bluefish 5: Re: USS GREENVILLE 6: MIKASA 7: Re: Fletchers in MS21 8: Re: 1/700 AJAX ETCH FROM WEM 9: Re: Viking Subs 10: Deck colours 11: Re: WEM 1/700 HMS Ajax PE fret? 12: Re: What's a cock up? 13: Fletchers in MS21 14: Re: Fletchers in Ms21 15: LCI 16: Fletchers in MS21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) FROM: Mike Bartel SUBJECT: USS Greenville and apologies.. Ray, I was somewhat dismayed that you wrote what you did, and I think that such thinking, though understandable in the emotion of this incident, is a bit out of line. Let me explain my view of the whole thing. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 60 years ago was a planned attack by one military force against another. The Greenville/Ehime Maru incident was an unfortunate accident arising from a certain level of irresponsibility and carelessness on the part of the US sub's crew. If I were commander in chief, I would have immediately ordered that the entire sub's crew apologise to the Japanese nation, publically and immediately. It's the LEAST that could have been done in the circumstances, once it was determined that it was their fault. And, that's the kind of response that Japanese culture would have demanded if it had been one of their own. But, that's just my opinion. I was always taught to take responsibility for my actions. I would have done this regardless of who the nation was- you don't do that sort of thing and then flaunt a sense of arrogance in trying to cover it up. That has been a fundamental problem of the US government for the past 60 years, and I am sure that it has damaged the USA's credibility in the eyes of our allies over the years. It takes men and women to build a nation to superpower status. It takes REAL men and women to realize that they must use that power responsibly. While Japan is to blame for starting the war in the Pacific in 1941, remember that the tensions were brewing for many years before that. It was only a matter of time before something lit the fuse. Japan's military government saw an opportunity and took it. The history books have recorded those facts. Even in Japan, they know it, even though their current mentality wouldn't allow them to speak freely of it. Japan is only now starting to come to terms with that part of her past. If you are going to ask for apologies to be offered, how about asking the USA to apologise for the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945? How about an apology by the US military for the US soldiers on Okinawa who couldn't keep their hands off those Japanese schoolgirls? During a reunion last summer, my grandfather (who lives in Saskatchewan, the next province over from you) told us of a story he once heard. A very old man lived to be over 100 years old and was being interviewed, and was asked to what he attributed his long life. He said that, "I learned to forgive." He was then asked how he lived so long in good health. His response, "I learned to forget." It was 60 years ago, Ray. I believe the Japanese nation will respond to Pearl Harbor in their own time. I'm sure many individual Japanese already have. But, nine innocent people (most of them much younger than 60 years) died because of our carelessness. I hope that no one else uses this unfortunate incident to try to pry an apology out of the Japanese for a 60-year old frame of mind. That's not the legacy I would want to leave to the families of the nine Japanese or the US servicemen killed on 7 December 1941. Hope I didn't offend you, Ray, or anyone else. I have great respect for submariners and those who put their lives in harm's way. But, I also feel this needed to be said, and no one in Washington wants to say it. Mike Bartel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: MMclau1079@aol.com Subject: Terminology and Design Procedure To Mr. D. Przezdzieki: I'm sorry about the delay in responding to your comments made on Mar. 23, 2001 (SMML. Vol. 1188) but, I thought that it would be wise to check my references before replying. You said in (SMML. Vol. 1188), that World War One and prior "as fitted plans are drawn (before) the ship is completed..... ." Similarly in your discusion about HMS. Erin, Canada and Agincourt, you refer to their respective "as fitted" plans as showing "how the ship would look like (if) finished according to their clients wishes.... ." Those statements and others that you make in (SMML. Vol. 1188), represent a fundemental lack of understanding of terminology and design procedure. Also, a confusion between "as fitted" plans with other defined types of plans. For a better understanding of the process and terminology, I would suggest reading the Explanatory Notes found in British Battleships of World War II., or British Cruisers of World War II., by Alan Raven & John Roberts. In addition, British Destroyers by Edgar March, is largely applicable. Since the area of your focus was on World War I. British Battleship plans, I will attempt to make an admittably simplified outline of the design procedure and terminology. The following borrows heavily on quotes from the above mentioned books by Alan Raven & John Roberts and also, Edgar March. The term "as fitted" means as the title suggests, the "actuall" fittings, equipment, and layout of the ship made by an Admiralty draftsman (after) completion. The "as fitted" plans are the end result of a long and complicated design process which starts from a "sketch design," submitted by the Naval Staff for approval by the Director of Naval Construction (DNC). If the "sketch design" is approved, this leads to large scale "building drawings" which include "detailed calculations of weights, bouyancy, draught, trim, stability....etc." (Alan Raven, pg. 9) From 1909 onwards, the "DNC's department prepared the building drawings and made all calculations." (Edgar March, pg. 3) The "Director of Naval Ordinance (DNO) provided estimated weights and particulars of the armament." (Alan Raven, pg. 9) (The exception to this initial design process would be warships being built in private British shipyards for foreign customers. Although, the original design might come from the respective private yard, the design was still subject to Admiralty supervision and interaction. The terminology, design and building procedures in other respects remained the same.) If the "building drawings" are approved by the Board, "tenders could be invited from shipbuilders or.....a royal dockyard." (Alan Raven, pg. 9) Once the builder is selected, the "building drawings" are layed off on the floor of the mould loft, and full size hull plates and hull frames are made in wooden moulds and chalk lines. The long construction process of building begins under the supervision and interaction with the DNC's department. "On completion of the contract the builders sent in General Arrangement drawings of the ship "as fitted", incorporating every modification made during the time of construction." (Edgar March, pg. 20) "Except during the Second War, these plans were kept up-to-date, being stamped, dated and signed by the Manager, Construction Department of the Royal Dockyard where any alterations were carried out, the modifications being shown in various colours, red purple, green etc." (Edgar March, pg. 20) Additions and Alterations known as "A's & A's" (Edgar March, pg. xxviii) are represented by the various coloured inks on the "as fitted" plans. Each coloured ink "A's & A's," is time specific and were noted when and if conditions permitted. On some occasions, these "A's & A's" were not added at all. If the completed ship had a long service history as in the case of HMS. Barham, it can become very difficult to interpret the "as fitted" plans "as a result of the many overdrawn alterations on the drawings." (Alan Raven, pg. 24) In some instances, there are no "A's & A's" made to the drawings to represent specific changes to the ship. This can result when the alterations were made and then within a short time, taken off. As an example, during HMS. Hood's 1929/31 refit, a mock-up catapult was fitted on X turret. Also, a crain was fitted near the after Torpedo Control tower area. A picture of the mock-up catapult can be found in Man O' War # 6, Hood. (M. Northcott, pg. 36) These trial modifications were quickly removed and in the case of the crain, resulted in no "A's & A's" being made to her "as fitted" plans. Of interest, the service platforms remained on X turret. (My source for the crain is WR. Press, Inc.) Because of the presures of work during the Second War, some ship's alterations were also, not noted on the "as fitted" plans. As an example, between 1942-44, the cruiser HMS. Jamaica has no "A's & A's" made to her "as fitted" plans. The alterations that are represented on her drawings, only reflect changes made after 1944. (Source, WR.Press, Inc.) In order to make a judgement about the accuracy of a published ship's plan drawing, you have to be able to distinguish between "sketch" designs, "builders" plans, "as fitted" plans and "A's & A's." You also, have to do your homework to make judgements were no official plans or "A's & A's" exist to represent a time specific configuration. Photographic evidence becomes essential in there absence. Reading between the lines of Mr. D. Przezdzieki's comments, one could easily come to the conclusion that "A's & A's" were not made to World War I. "as fitted" plans. This simply is Not True. The following are a few examples of published ship's plan drawings of World War I. British Battleships that are base on "A's & A's" made to their respective "as fitted" plans. (1) HMS. Barham, 1918 outboard profile plan. (Alan Raven, BB pg. 22-23) The drawing is based on HMS. Barham's original "as fitted" plans including all relevent "A's & A's" that result in a 1918 configuration. (2) HMS. Resolution, "after 1918 refit," outboard and deck plans. (Alan Raven, BB pg 40-41) This plan drawing is based on the same process as above. (3) HMS. Queen Elizabeth, pull out 1918 outboard plan & profile. (J.A. Roberts, Ensign # 4) Same process as above. R.A. Burt's plan drawings that are based on "as fitted" plans plus all time specific and relevent "A's & A's" are labled and titled by the author as "wartime modifications" to distinguish the drawings from other types of defined plans in his book on British Battleships of Wold War I. A few examples of this process are: HMS. Collingwood, "wartime modifications," 1918/19 outboard profile. (R.A. Burt, BB pg. 84-85) Another is New Zealand, "wartime modifications" 1919 outboard plan & profile, again based on the same process of using the "as fitted" plans and relevant "A's & A's". In the Mar. 13, 2001 (SMML. Vol. 1178), Mr D. Przezdzieki lists a number of examples to illustrate problems he found with R.A. Burt's ship's plan drawings of HMS. Audacious, Lion and Erin. To paraphrase, you say that R.A. Burt's drawing of HMS. Audacious (pg 170-171) incorrectly portrays the after superstructure and that the upper 4 inch gun emplacement close to Y turret is missing in the overhead profile but, shown in his outboard view. To support this, you mention a plan & profile of Audacious by John Roberts published in 1986. HMS. Audacious was commisioned on Oct. 15, 1913 and was sunk by a mine on Oct. 27, 1914. (1.) There are six photographs of Audacious in the R.A. Burt book, and they conform with the structural details represented in the drawings that I can see. Additionally, I checked the drawings against the General Arrangement class drawings found in Oscar Parkes book on British Battleships (pg. 539) and they also, conform in the shape of the after superstructure. (2.) There is no evidence that would indicate to me that there was ever a 4 inch gun emplacement by Y turret. There are two 4 inch guns by X turret. They appear in R.A. Burt's provided photographs, outboard and top view plan and the Oscar Parkes book. (3.) I don't doubt that you can see diferences between R.A. Burt's 1986 published drawing and John Roberts 1986 published drawing's of Audacious. However, it's not enough to know that both respective drawings are labled as being "1914 plan & profile," without being able to compare them against HMS. Audacious original "as fitted" plans. Do either or both drawings represent 1914 "A's & A's" or not? Does one or the other drawings show an alteration that was completed but, not drawn on her "as fitted" plans? Both drawings could represent two different configurations that occured durring the same year and still be accurate for 1914. I don't know the answers to those questions. The next drawing that you found fault with is R.A. Burt's drawing of HMS. Lion, which the author lists as an "as fitted" 1914 profile. (pg. 152-153) Again to paraphrase, you say the "hooded" rangefinder for the turret is missing. Assuming that you mean the rangefinder on A turrets roof, his photographs for Lion in 1914, seem to support it's absence. You then point out that the upper 4 inch battery appears to be missing in the overhead view of the drawing by B turret. On that point, I agree with you entirely. Beyond that, the profiles seem to match the photographs provided in the book for that time specific configuration. Given the degree of modifications that were made to Lion after completing her trials, and that R.A. Burt generaly lables the distinctions in his plan drawings as being "as completed," "as fitted" and "wartime modifications," I find it difficult to accept that his "as fitted" plan drawing of Lion is a "hybrid." (your word) HMS. Lion's "as fitted" plans represent her configuration after commisioning and can be distinguised easily from her "as completed" precommisioning configuration After Lion completed her trials, she was reconstructed. This came about after the the intervention of the 1st. Lord, Winston Churchill. He insisted over the objections of the Board, that the flaws that were confirmed by the trials be rectified before Lion commisioned. (Oscar Parkes, pg. 533) R.A. Burt's plan drawing of HMS. Lion, 1918/19 "wartime modifications" is based on her "as fitted" plans and relevant "A's & A's". This 1918/19 configuration shows revolving rangefinders that are not represented or would be in place for her 1914 configuration plan drawing. Lastly, you point out that R.A. Burt's plan drawing of HMS. Erin (pg. 226-227) does not correctly portray the upper gun deck. The intent of the drawing as its label suggests, isto show the "gun arcs." Erin's gun enclosures were wider and of a different design than the standard British Battleship of the period. Having said that, looking at the Oscar Parkes General Arrangement drawings certainly seem to conflict in the shape of some but, not all of the upper deck profile features. In order to resolve the conflict between the two respective drawings and determine the accuracy of the upper deck plan representation in the R.A. Burt's book, you have to be able to answer the following question. Is the R.A. Burt profile drawing meant to represent Erin in her precommisioning "builders" plan configuration. (ie. the Turkish Navy "Reshadieh") Or, is the drawing meant to represent Erin in her commisioned Royal Navy "as fitted" configuration. The labeling of this drawing does not make this distinction clear. Again, not knowing what the drawing is based on from the labeling, makes it difficult to make a fair and easy judgement on it's accuracy. When it comes to warship design histories and technical drawings, I feel safe relying on Alan Raven, John Roberts and R.A. Burt. They do their homework, subject their work to professional review before publishing and have at times worked together in varying combinations. When dealing with records that are somtimes incomplete or missing, mistakes or ommisions could occur. However, those publications that make a concious effort to update and correct ommisions or mistakes in follow up work, deserve our gratitude and patronage. I thank you Mr D. Przezdzieki for pointing out any and all flaws that you see in any published ship's plans. Learning is after all, what this forum is suppose to be about. Respectfully, Miles F. McLaughlin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "B. Fish" Subject: USS Iowa According to the latest Information from MS-NBC the New York Office is sending a news crew for coverage of the USS Iowa, no dates, or time line, was given {even they don't know} And Lindbergh was in Germany to view the types of aircraft, and airframes as an envoy of the United States, his views of the times had nothing to do with What he did as a flyer, and fighter pilot, helping the US Army save fuel, And yes save all medals given to you, and hang them anyplace you want. Nuff said Bruce Semper Fi "Retreat hell were attacking in another Direction" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Doug Marrel" Subject: Dumas Bluefish Dumas has issued a new kit, USS Bluefish, a Gato/Balao class sub. It's RC so I know it won't be overly accurate but has anyone seen it yet? Any info? Doug -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Phil M. Gollin" Subject: Re: USS GREENVILLE For a litigious nation, the USA nationals on this list seem extremely unaware of the law of the sea. Within Territorial Waters generally ALL ships have the right of "innocent passage", however they are under both international and national maritime law (and those national laws which extend to territorial waters). In general this means anyone can sail without notice through Territorial Waters, however different countries have different national laws, for instance most countries DO NOT ALLOW foreign naval ships without formal notice and invite. The National Authorities have the right to declare areas as off limits, for various reasons, from safety through to Naval Exercises. In certain cases this can occur in international waters, for such things Naval Exercises and Space "landings". So there is no problem with the declaration of an exclusion zone. Nor with being outside it. There are two big problems with the USS Greenville; 1: Any submarine (let alone ship) should know where it is at all times, and has a duty to keep a proper look-out and keep clear of other shipping. The Greenville eventually surfaced outside of it's exercise area directly into another ship, killing many innocent youngsters (who for some people it seems to matter that they were Japanese - maybe they would have preferred them to be American). The Greenville, it would seem, disobeyed very many standing orders, carried-out other observational procedures in a way that in a war situation would have threatened the Greenville's existence (ANY use of the periscope is meant to be "value-for-money" the idea that it was used and nothing seen means the Greenville would be ripe for destruction in a war) and in general showed the US Navy in an extremely poor light - a standard of seamanship worthy of a Music-Hall (Vaudeville) Act. 2: The other problem goes back to Tom Clancy's criticism's of the way the USN trains and chooses it's SSN captains. If you read his book "Submarine" he compares the way the USN trains a captain with the way the RN does, basically saying the USN chooses "all-rounders" whilst the RN prepares fighting leaders. He notes the "perisher" course as the final way of choosing RN captains, which, amongst other things tests the way a prospective captain can keep his situational awareness by having him attack a target whilst at least four frigates, plus helicopters and sonar-buoys (and maybe submarines) are used to track and attack him. At ALL times he must know where all the major threats are and be able to explain to his examiner why he chooses any one path as opposed to any other. The Greenville certainly would NOT be able to pass that sort of test. How the USN trains it's Captains is its concern, however, I certainly wouldn't want to sail with a captain who doesn't know where he is, doesn't know what he is seeing or hearing and when he does kill innocent people has the attitude of keeping quiet. Regards, Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: MIKASA So there is a 1:400? paper MIKASA to go with my imitation Heller POTEMKIN? Are these paper ships very hard to do? Yes, I know POTEMKIN didn't get to Tsushima. But the 2 ships are at least contemporary. Chuck Duggie WoodenWalls Listmeister http://www.egroups.com/group/WoodenWalls Naval wargamer, amateur naval historian, and ship modeler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: wem Subject: Re: Fletchers in MS21 For a complete reference you should check John Sheridan's listings on our website at: http://www.shipcamouflage.com Off the top of my head, I can tell you that O'BANNON and CHEVALIER both wore Measure 21 in the Solomons Campaign. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys http://www.shipcamouflage.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "WEM" Subject: Re: 1/700 AJAX ETCH FROM WEM Hi Mike et al, >> Now that the 1/700 Skytrex HMS Ajax kit is out, to supplement the 1/700 B-Resina HMS Ajax kit << First of all, can somebody do a side-by-side review of these two? How do they compare re. accuracy? I would expect the Skytrex kit to be more accurate. >> (and while I'm at it, the 1/700 Classic HMS Achilles kit), would you guys be willing to release your 1/600 HMS Ajax PE fret in 1/700 for these kits? << Mebbe! >> How many orders would you need to financially justify doing this? << Well, as you probably know, due to the fineness of the 1/600 scale set, it wouldn't be possible to simply scale this down for the same 4 thou material, as the rails and other fine items would disappear into the etching medium! So... a complete redraw and rescale would have to be done. Of course, Peter Hall doesn't come cheap... we pays good money for the best ;^)) Therefore, I am guessing that to cover computer-generated artwork, phototools, and the initial production run would mean us having to sell around 40 sets at around 10 Pounds. >> If there was sufficient demand from SMMLiedom, would you do it? << Yes we would, if we got enough interest. Of course, items like the WEM PRO 7001 1/700 Twin 4" are superior to the parts provided in the B-Resina kit, and I guess probably the Skytrex metal kit if these are moulded on, so we could even consider an upgrade "package" for these kits, if there was enough interest from SMMLlie folk, like we've done for the 1/700 INVINCIBLE Class... we could also include a FAIREY SEAFOX into the bargain, as our etched brass seaplane parts could be designed to fit the (accurate) SEAFOX from the AIRSTRIKE range, rather than trying to design them to fit the kit parts of either of the other two manufacturers. For example, in the case of the Airfix SEAFOX, instructions were given on "accurising" the kit's aircraft to make the WEM photoetched brass fit, but this is a bit of a pain for some folks, and white metal aircraft will never be as fine as the resin ones from the Airstrike range. I am assuming that the Skytrex kit is River Plate era here... if the fit is different, please let me know. >> And how many SMMLies out there would be interested in this? << If folks would get back to me on this a.s.a.p. .. either for the "package" or for the etched brass alone.. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Caroline Carter at White Ensign Models http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: Viking Subs >> Yes Rusty, I know your feelings about Viking, and you're probably not going to speak to me at Chicago because of the April fools thing, but I thought I'd post for the sub nuts ( and I do mean nuts, no offense) anyway. Northstar hobbies in Toronto has 2 Viking sub kits in stock that I thought were interesting and that somebody might want. Both in 1/350, the NR-1 and a concept future attack sub. << No secret, I AM a sub nut. However, as much as I might like to have several of the subjects of the kits Viking put out before their demise, I find their treatment of Rusty unconscionable. Their lack of good faith in dealing with a small supplier (Flagship Models) places them firmly on my "No Buy" list. Tom Dougherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Mithrand@aol.com Subject: Deck colours greetings everyone i have a query, during W.W.II the policy of painting wooden decks to camouflage ships better from aircraft grew as the war progressed. the problem i have is this. was paint used or some kind of stain. painting on wooden decks where salt water comes into contact is to me not a very safe idea. mixing sand with it might have given better adhesion as far as the crews were concerned but this still leaves the problem of getting the wood dry enough to accept the paint. so was a type of stain used and if it was, what comparisons in colour were there. TTFN Roy Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "JOHN CURRIE" Subject: Re: WEM 1/700 HMS Ajax PE fret? >> would you guys be willing to release your 1/600 HMS Ajax PE fret in 1/700 for these kits? How many orders would you need to financially justify foing this? If there was sufficient demand from SMMLiedom, would you do it? And how many SMMLies out there would be interested in this? << Count me in for this, J W Currie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: Re: What's a cock up? >> The other is just a cock up. It is normal to apologise in most civilized societies to apologise for cock ups. << cock-up (k¼k“¾p”) n. Chiefly British. A blunder; a mess. I know what the expression means and had used it to good effect. But what is its origin? Kelvin Mok -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "John Sheridan" Subject: Fletchers in MS21 >> I'm starting to work on my Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher and am trying to find out if any of these early Fletchers ever carried the Measure 21 Navy Blue System camouflage? There are plenty of later, square bridge Fletchers that had it, but I can't seem to find any references to the round bridge types. << You can look-up the information yourself at the following URL: http://www.shipcamouflage.com/fletcher_class.htm John Sheridan Shipcamouflage.com The only human to defeat the Minbari is behind me, you are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else. : Delenn -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Erwin Van Deynze Subject: Re: Fletchers in Ms21 >> I'm starting to work on my Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher and am trying to find out if any of these early Fletchers ever carried the Measure 21 Navy Blue System camouflage? There are plenty of later, square bridge Fletchers that had it, but I can't seem to find any references to the round bridge types. << Hi Rod, Go check the ship comouflage website (http://www.shipcamouflage.com/) from our friends Snyder & Short. According to their info even Fletcher herself had a ms21 prety early in het career. I did mine in Ms21 and she's a real dark beauty (so god damn dark I don't have any decent pictures of her... yet... wait until sunnier days...) Erwin So now someone bring on that Hood! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: CA139JOHNF@aol.com Subject: LCI Has anyone ever made a kit of an LCI? Can't seem to locate one on Rajendra's list. John Frohock USNSM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "Timothy Dike" Subject: Fletchers in MS21 >> I'm starting to work on my Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher and am trying to find out if any of these early Fletchers ever carried the Measure 21 Navy Blue System camouflage? There are plenty of later, square bridge Fletchers that had it, but I can't seem to find any references to the round bridge types. << Browse over to the ship camouflage site (http://www.shipcamouflage.com/) and check the ship camo database. You will find a lot of the early Fletchers carried that scheme. The USS O'Bannon carried it after repairs for the damage done in Nov. 42. But that is just one of the many ships that carried it, check the database for the others. Timothy Dike Webmaster and Editor ModelWarships.com http://www.modelwarships.com/index1.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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