Subject: SMML VOL 1252 Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:43:27 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Modelkits of French cruiser "Gloire" 2: Re: China paint schemes 3: Pearl Harbour Movie - info / spoiler 4: Re: 1/350 Scale USS New Mexico Class? 5: Re: Kamikaze attacks 6: Taking the PE 7: Re: Rurig Deck Finish 8: Sinking the Bismark/why? 9: Re: Rurig Query 10: Ship Photos Pre-1920 11: Re: Trenk plans of Kaiser's warships 12: Prevent Airbrush Tip Build-up 13: Re: 1/350 Scale USS New Mexico Class? 14: USS Texas BB-35 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: jenshb Subject: Modelkits of French cruiser "Gloire" Snippety-snip >> If anyone who has entered an IPMS or other high-stakes modeling competition lately, the pressure to get the judge's "eye" is very hard. So, has anyone seen a model of the French light cruiser, "Croiseurs de 2ème classe," Gloire with "dazzle" camoflage in 1944? See her at: http://www.warships1.com/FREcl14_Gloire_prt44.jpg and the Airfix Ajax kit could be used as a hull. << Funny you should mention this ship - last weekend I was at a friends place for dinner, and he said that he would buy me the kit if I finished it properly in this colour scheme. So.....are there any kits at all of this ship? BTW, we were all sober... Jens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: China paint schemes You are correct about the paint schemes "wblad" but if I remember it correctly the question was about SMS "Scharnhorst" and SMS "Gneisenau" from Coronel and Falklands battle of WW I. All my photos of the ships and JSC cardboard model of the SMS "Scharnhorst" show both ships in "buff and white" camouflage scheme. It is very probable that they were repainted at the outbreak of the war but so far I can't find any proof that it had happened. Regards D.P -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Phil M. Gollin" Subject: Pearl Harbour Movie - info / spoiler The following was picked-up off the USNI web-site. (Please note that despite other "corrections" noted below, there is some doubt as to whether they have corrected the invention of an "Eagle" squadron fighting in the Battle of Britain - by all accounts they have stolen the identity of a Polish squadron, hence upsetting both the Polish and the British - nor explaining (properly) how the pilots walk-off mid-war to get to Pearl Harbour). >> Why Pearl Harbor? Hollywood has been there, done that, several times. Air Force in 1943, From Here to Eternity in 1953, In Harm's Way in 1965, and Tora! Tora! Tora! in 1970, all portrayed the Japanese attack on 7 December 1941. In addition, John Ford made a documentary about Pearl Harbor, albeit one that recreated the action so well that later filmmakers used some of the scenes as if they represented the real thing. In fact, Tora! Tora! Tora! presented an objective, accurate account of the attack from both sides, even if Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto never said that the attack would only "awake a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." In their quest for accuracy, however, the filmmakers forgot Hollywood's cardinal rule: movies are meant to entertain and so earn money. Consequently, despite the value of Tora! Tora! Tora! as history, its characters remained two-dimensional cardboard figures, and the film failed to attract audiences. What else could a feature film say about the event that changed history? Director Michael Bay attempted to answer that question before filming began in April 2000. He predicted: "You will see what happened at Pearl Harbor like you have never seen it in any other movie. Our goal is to stage the event with utmost realism." He said that he wanted his Pearl Harbor movie to become one "by which all other films are measured." He dismissed Tora! Tora! Tora! as being "more of a documentary" and claimed that the other films "glorified war" and had "no characters to latch onto." Producer Jerry Bruckheimer agreed with Bay's sentiments concerning Tora! Tora! Tora! and maintained that his film would have a high degree of accuracy: "We've done an enormous amount of research. We've read everything we could read." Whether the cram course will provide audiences with even a reasonable portrayal of what occurred on 7 December 1941 remains to be seen. The film began with discussions Bay had with writer Randall Wallace and Joe Roth, then head of production at Disney Studio, seeking a suitable subject for the director's next project, following his successes with Armageddon and The Rock. Ultimately, one of Bay's friends asked if he had considered doing a movie about Pearl Harbor. At first, the director wondered whether anyone "would ever be crazy enough to do a movie on Pearl Harbor of that size and magnitude." After hearing that Bruckheimer, who had produced Bay's last two films, also was interested in doing such a film, Bay made a research trip to Hawaii. There, he said he "was really surprised how period the stuff was." He also found that the military bases were "some of the prettiest he had ever seen." At that point, he said, "Okay, it's starting to really seem interesting. How can I create this war?" An answer came when he discovered the inactive fleet, which could be used as props: "I'm a director who likes to use real stuff to blow up, stuff to inter-cut with digital effects." Bay then met with Bruckheimer and Wallace to brainstorm ideas for a story set within the framework of the historic event. Subsequently, the director and writer talked to 80 Pearl Harbor survivors, after which Bay said that "the movie started to come together." Wallace then produced a script that attempted to solve the problem of having interesting characters by creating a love triangle between two lifelong friends who fall in love with the same nurse. Bay explained that without the love story in Titanic, the movie would have been only about the sinking of a ship. So without his two-guys-and-a-girl story, he said, his film would have become a documentary about 7 December 1941. In the script, one of two fighter-pilot friends, played by Ben Affleck, joins the Royal Air Force Eagle Squadron, made up of U.S. volunteers. In aerial combat with German bombers over the North Sea, Affleck is shot down and presumed lost. His friend, played by Josh Hartnett, and the nurse, played by Kate Beckinsale, first comfort each other and then fall passionately in love. On the evening of 6 December, Affleck returns from the dead, expecting to take up the relationship with the nurse. He does not understand Beckinsale's hesitation to embrace him until Hartnett enters the room. A night of drinking and recriminations between the two friends ends with the attack on Pearl Harbor, during which both fliers manage to take off and shoot down seven of the raiders. As written, the script graphically portrays the sinking of the battleships and the death and destruction that occurred. Despite the title and the destruction, however, the filmmakers chose not to end with downbeat images or even President Franklin D. Roosevelt's clarion call to avenge the attack. Instead, Colonel Jimmy Doolittle summons the friends to take part in his raid on Japan in April 1942. Before the pilots depart, Beckinsale tells Affleck she is pregnant with Hartnett's baby. Harnett dies, however, after telling Affleck he will become the father of the baby. On behalf of Bruckheimer, Bay, and Disney Pictures, Executive Producer Jim Van Wyck delivered the initial script - originally titled Tennessee - on 7 October 1999 to Phil Strub, special assistant for audio visual in the Defense Department's public affairs office. Van Wyck wrote that the film "manifests Americans' desire to make a difference in the war, the violation and the end of American innocence as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the heroism, pride, and volunteer spirit of the Doolittle raid." In his preliminary request for assistance, the producer asked permission "to try to recreate Battleship Row, using ships from the Reserve Fleet at Pearl Harbor. We would like your assistance in moving and anchoring approximately eight ships - first to an area where we could construct set pieces on board and do refurbishment and then to specific placement in Battleship Row for filming." The company also wanted to film on board the newly arrived battleship Missouri (BB-63). From the beginning, the services and particularly the Navy had problems with the historical accuracy of the script. The Navy noted that Admiral Husband Kimmel was not on the golf course when the attack on Pearl Harbor began. And it pointed out the absurdity of Hartnett's comment that the Japanese attack had started World War II. It also found the hero's death scene "overdone," saying that he is near death after the crash landing, gets beaten by a Japanese soldier, and is then shot, but does not die until he designates Affleck's parenthood. The Navy's reviewer then noted that Hartnett then dies, "I think." Disney Pictures, which was bankrolling the film, submitted the final draft of the script, retitled Pearl Harbor, to Strub and the services on 22 December 1999. On 10 January, Strub advised Bruckheimer that while the Pentagon had "concerns regarding some of the military depictions, we don't believe that any will be impossible to resolve." Among other problems, Strub cited the portrayal of the Navy nurses as "anachronistic and also a bit crude, fixated on how their breasts will appear." He also noted that contrary to the script's portrayal, the Army always expected Doolittle to lead the mission. Nevertheless, he indicated that the military was determining the feasibility of providing the amount of assistance that the company had requested. On his part, Bay said, "There are people who will come out and say this is not right, that is not right. But if you were to do the accurate movie of Pearl Harbor, it would take nine hours." He acknowledged that the script did include some composite characters, including Dan Aykroyd, the cryptologist, who actually plays seven different people "to help the audience understand." He also said he had delayed Kimmel's receipt of a message warning that the Japanese embassy had been ordered to burn its secret papers and destroy its decoding machines several days prior to the morning of 7 December. "That's not historically accurate," he admits, "but it's more drama." He also acknowledges that people might have problems with some of the dramatic license in the film, such as placing the battleships 50 yards apart instead of being tied up together. But he explained that "what I tried to go after were the essences of what happened at Pearl Harbor. And I think we got that right." To ensure that the filmmakers got it right enough to obtain cooperation, the new head of production at Disney, Bruce Hendricks, Bruckheimer, and Bay visited then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen on 20 January 2000. After the meeting, Hendricks wrote Cohen, assuring him Pearl Harbor "will be a project that we can all be proud of and in some small way pay honor to the service men and women who sacrificed so much during World War II." He added that, without military assistance, the studio would not be able "to make a film of this magnitude and bring to it the authenticity and realism it deserves." Likewise, Bruckheimer wrote to Cohen: "As you may have gathered, we are candidly passionate about our project, Pearl Harbor. We would be honored and extremely grateful for any guidance and support you could offer us." In turn, on 15 February 2000, Strub advised Bruckheimer that the Pentagon had approved military assistance in Hawaii, on board the aircraft carrier Constellation (CVA-64), and at mainland locations. The agreement to cooperate did not end negotiations to correct historical inaccuracies in the script, however. Jack Greene, the Pentagon's designated historical advisor, observed later that efforts to make changes created "a massive amount of work." In particular, the services had concerns about the initial portrayal of Doolittle, of Kimmel, and of Japanese-Americans. Until Pearl Harbor reaches theaters on 25 May, no one can know whether the film presents a reasonably accurate account of 7 December 1941, or of the Doolittle raid, or whether Bay's efforts to create an entertaining movie exceeded the limits of dramatic license. At the same time, it remains to be seen if the love triangle helps or hinders the storytelling. Despite the apparent focus on the love story, a huge mural promoting the film on the side of a building in Los Angeles shows only the Japanese planes bearing down on Pearl Harbor and their date with infamy. << Mr. Suid writes frequently on Hollywood's portrayal of military and naval history. He is the author of Sailing on the Silver Screen (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: drwells@hogpb.mt.att.com (David R Wells) Subject: Re: 1/350 Scale USS New Mexico Class? "pwesty" wrote: >> Does anyone know if there are any good 1/350 scale New Mexico class battleship out there any were. I what to make the make the battleship from my home state Idaho (BB-42). << Iron Shipwrights makes a New Mexico class in 1/350, however it's resin, so it's expensive. Check their web site for details: http://www.commanderseries.com/ships.htm Classic Warships and HP make them in 1/700, however they too are resin. They are much smaller, and thus much cheaper than a 1/350 resin kit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: mumfordlibrarian@netscape.net (Paul T. Weaver) Subject: Re: Kamikaze attacks Two things wrong with the low level idea: Most pilots who went Kamikaze had only the most primitive aircraft handling and navigational skills and on the deck most would end up in the drink or lost. The second thing was that coming in low and level would enhance the ability of the light AA to track and hit with a no deflection target, Heaver guns could us spray wall to knock them down. Most of these Kamikaze sheep had to be lead to the attack by an experienced pilot who would navigate and lead to the target but was tasked to return to base in order to be available to lead others in other attacks. This would be vastly more difficult if they attempted a low level attack. Paul T. Weaver -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: seavee@lineone.net Subject: Taking the PE I can only say with regard to Harold Stockton's comments on both scratchbuilding and reviews 'ere 'ere. There was a time when most modellers just got on and made something. The aspiration of "perfection" means most won't start a project until they have a mound of resin, photo etch and books. Nothing "wrong" with that, but the idea seems to be that without these items it's just not possible to model(regardless of genre). Rubbish! Sadly the shop in Greenwich is long gone-forced out of business by vastly increasing rates and taxes, in an attempt to make the area "trendy" for the tourists flocking to that other Great British Monument, the Dome. Well, the Dome is being pulled down after a year but in London we lost one more model shop, that for the ship modeller was unsurpassed. Funnily enough I never really "liked" the guy that ran it, but that never put me off going there, as it was certain to find almost anything there that was useful. For the guy going to Foyles in Haymarket (or thereabouts,don't have my A-Z handy) you must go to Motorbooks over the road in St.Martins Ct. I think.It must be all of 100 yards away. Have fun modelling Sean -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "J. London" Subject: Re: Rurig Deck Finish >> Does anyone out there know whether the armoured cruiser RURIG had a planked or steel main deck? << I have a file on this ship under the name RURIK including a number of photos. Two of these are deck scenes. The first is taken from the port side just aft of the foremost turret looking towards the bow and shows what looks like a composition deck (corticene?). The other is taken on the quarterdeck looking forward with the turret in the foreground. Here the deck appears to be made up of a series of wooden (?) slats, like 2'x4" on edge, with a series of narrow bands running across them athwartships approximately 30cm apart all presenting a completely flush surface. The bands are slightly darker than the decks itself. Where this surface finishes and the other begins is not clear. Along with these pictures is a 1:200 modelling plan (all in Russian) which indicates a portion at the bow, in way of the anchor handling gear, as conventionally planked wood. Perhaps there is someone with other on-board views which would help to clarify the matter. RURIK was a very handsome ship in contrast to other armored ships of her period and I have her on my list of models to build. Certainly definitive information on her deck finishes would be a big help. Michael London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Mark C Krumrey" Subject: Sinking the Bismark/why? In regard to Kelvin Moks comments about Bismark. The Brits had just lost HMS Hood, the "Pride" of the fleet, with a loss of all hands, save three. The Brits pummeled the Bismark with over a thousand rounds. Rodney had suffered major damage due to continuous firing of her guns. It wasn't so much a factor of minimizing a military asset, as it was "Sink the bugger". It had a great psychological impact on the home front and the RN when Bismark was sunk. Not a great tactical loss, as the U boats were far more a real threat than Bismark, but a great psychological victory for the RN. (IMHO) Mark Krumrey New RIchmond WI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Lars Scharff" Subject: Re: Rurig Query Hi, John Snyder wrote: >> Does anyone out there know whether the armoured cruiser RURIG had a planked or steel main deck? << Do you mean the Rurik, which was sunk 1904 or the Rurik, which was built 1906-07? The first has certainly planked deck, I have drawings of the similar Rossija and Gromoboj, which shows planked deck (in a Russian publication about the Russian fleet 8.1914 - 10.1917, author is Apalkow, published 1996 in Sankt-Peterburg, sorry but I can't read the title). A drawing of Rurik II in the same publication shows planked deck only fore and aft, between steel deck. This would be very unuasal for that period. I have a GPM card modell of Rurik II, which shows the same feature, but middle part is with something like linolium (brown). The area around the anchor winches is planked, the gallery aft has a steel deck. I don't know their sources. I have photos of both ships, but none, which shows the decks. Do someone knows a source for the Fine Scale Modeller article about the conversion of a Spruance to Kidd or has copy? Is the Kidd of Dragon-Shanghai avaible ? Regards Lars Scharff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: GrafSpee34@aol.com Subject: Ship Photos Pre-1920 Ed writes: >> One of the problems of photos of late-19th to early-20th century subjects, they're black & white, grainy and high contrast. << I agree. This a common and lamentable problem in many books. Until I started collecting original photos, I was under the impression that poor photos were state of the art in the early 20th Century. This is not the case. Original still photographs from before 1918 are often remarkably clear and sharp with incredible detail. When taken under proper (e.g., bright daylight) lighting conditions by an experienced photographer, the large, slow speed glass plate negatives delivered an incredible sharpness and depth of detail that puts modern photographs to shame. Further, by 1905 the technology was so advanced that photographers in Russia and Germany had developed processes for taking respectable color photographs. Skeptics should have a look at the stunning Spanish-American War era photos in the book "The American Steel Navy" by Alden. Bear in mind the originals are even sharper. On the original WW1 8x11" German battleship portraits in my collection, every line of rigging, stem to stern, can be made out clearly. Under a magnifying glass, many more details reveal themselves; if a sailor on deck had a bad case of acne, that might be visible too. Higher material costs, the prohibition of toxic chemicals used in developing, and the popularity of inexpensive color photography led to the decline in quality of black and white photography. Likewise the need for faster and smaller cameras made the old glass plate cameras obsolete. Grainy images of WW1 predominate in older books because printers typically worked with second (or third, etc.) generation photos of archival photos. When motion picture stills are used, they are even more grainy because the higher speed celluloid film used in movie cameras was not yet perfected, and is still not the best medium for picture sharpness. Using digital scans of original photographs, some recent books have overcome the problems of grainy, stale photos. Furthermore, there is no shortage of photographic materials. Expect good things. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: CokerRE@aol.com Subject: Re: Trenk plans of Kaiser's warships In reply to the questions about Gunter Trenk and his ship plans. I was in touch with Herr Trenk for about ten years during the 1970s. Sometime in the 80s he retired to Brazil from whence his wife came. Supposedly upon departure from Germany he left his master plans in the hands of Elmar Widmann of Mindelheim, Germany which is a small Bavarian town about 50 km west of Munich. To my knowledge Herr Widmann still has these master plans and sells them mostly through Christian Schmidt of Munich. Those wishing to pursue this should contact Herr Schmidt through his web site. As I quickly found out over thirty years ago, ship plans do not support a business as they are too easy to copy. Therefore one spends hundreds of hours turning out a superb piece of work and sells a few copies and before he knows it the entire world has a copy for free. Therefore Mr. Trenk and others have realized only pennies per hour for their investment. There are several sources of fine plans of German warships and most are available from Herr Schmidt. I am sure that our fellow German SMMLies can give us more and better details than I. PC Coker/Charleston -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: R C Marelius Subject: Prevent Airbrush Tip Build-up Hi all, Found this tidbit while perusing the forum boards of (gasp!!) a different type of hobby in which I have only a spectator interest (www.fishcarver.com). Charlotte Marelius >> Prevent Airbrush Tip Build-up While Spraying from Joyce Saliency Since switching over from lacquer to water acrylics I noticed while spraying water acrylic paints through my airbrush I would experience a distorted spray pattern due to the build up of dried paint on the tip of the needle. Sometimes getting this dried paint off would be difficult and require disassembly. I found that by removing the needle and applying a good coat of automotive type paste wax and buffing it smooth from time to time would prevent dried paint from sticking. I would also do the same to the air cap that surrounded the needle at the tip of the airbrush. Once this was done I no longer had a problem with build up. Keep in mind this only works with water based acrylics, lacquer solvents will strip away the wax coating. << -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: 1/350 Scale USS New Mexico Class? >> Does anyone know if there are any good 1/350 scale New Mexico class battleship out there any were. I what to make the make the battleship from my home state Idaho (BB-42). << Commanders/IronShipwright recently came out with one. It is a really nice kit. Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Chris.Evenden@agso.gov.au Subject: USS Texas BB-35 Can anyone tell me if there are there any good models of the Texas available in either 1/700 or 1/350 (other than the Vikig Models version)? I'm looking at doing a model of her around the 1944 period. Thanks, Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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