Subject: SMML VOL 1263 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 22:37:42 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Pearl Harbor cartoons 2: All Hands - March 2001 - The Future of War 3: WWII RN Shades G45 and MS4a 4: Re: Escort Carriers and Aviation Support ships of the US Navy 5: Re: Montana/Iowa vs N.Carolina? 6: Pearl Harbor 7: USS Prinz Eugen 8: ICM Hood / Chokai 9: Deck colour of WW1 British capital ships 10: USS Wasp 11: Marine Corp History 12: Livin' in infamy, babe... 13: Re: Montana Class 14: USS Kittyhawk visit to Sydney -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "David Miller" Subject: Pearl Harbor cartoons I hate this subject, BUT having seen so cuts on TV I would have say that I am not interested in seeing the computer graphics "cartoons" that Disney has been showing in their movie promos. I'll wait until this one comes to TV. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: JRKutina@webtv.net (John Kutina) Subject: All Hands - March 2001 - The Future of War http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/mar01/pg14.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Dimi Apostolopoulos Subject: WWII RN Shades G45 and MS4a Folks Please let me know if anybody has produced a good paint mix for the Royal Navy shades G45 and MS4a. I have tried many combinations using Humbrol enamels but I have not been able to get a direct match. The closest match I have found to MS4a is 1 pt H23 + 1 pt H28. This is a mix that Randy Short suggested and even though it is lighter than the actual shade, it seems to be good for small scales. Mike Eisenstadt had suggested Polly Scale 505326. G45 is a tough one to match (it's Munsell designation alone tells the story). I have gotten reasonable results with 1 pt H23 + 2 pts H28, but the mix is just okay if used on 1:700 models. Finally, I have tried Humbrol's H157 Azure Blue as B15 in 1:350. It's pretty good. Of course with WEM's first line of Colourcoats due out soon most of these questions will become obsolete. Dimi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Craig R Bennett Subject: Re: Escort Carriers and Aviation Support ships of the US Navy Hi Guys Concerning Bruce reply about the book I'm looking for "Escort Carriers and Aviation Support Ships" he's the second person to recommend it and I contacted a book store in Mt. Prospect IL and they have it for $39.00. It's been ordered and I have mailed out a money order for it. Thanks. Craig Bennett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: aandmblevins@att.net Subject: Re: Montana/Iowa vs N.Carolina? Not to start a major thread but, according to Fahey's War and Victory Editions, it would appear to me that the Montanas were to be based more on the Iowas than the North Carolinas. The Montanas were to be "enlarged Iowas" with an additional 16/50 turret. Iowas were 887"3" in length and 108' in beam at 52,000T; N.Carolinas were 729'0" x 108'0" at 42,000T; Montanas were to be 903'0" x 120'0", to accomodate the fourth 16" turret at 58,000T. Regards, Al Blevins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Erhardtsen" Subject: Pearl Harbor What American forces was present at Oahu on the 7 of Dec. 1941. The battleships is easy to find, but what about cruisers and destroyers? submarines? How many airplanes was on the island and what type? Erik Erhardtsen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "william k code" Subject: USS Prinz Eugen hello list, I look forward to purchasing that new Hipper class book..I just received my 1/400 scale Heller Prinz form Model Expo..It is a nice kit for its age...I plan to do her as she surrendered in May 1945...Saving my little Pit Road 1/700 scale kit for a sortie with her big brother Bismarck...Anybody know of a really nice accurate kit of Bismarck in 1/700? A question was asked about the wind deflectors on the portholes of Prinz as a War prize headed for the Pacific...She was built for Northern waters and her US crew tried various things to improve her ventilation on her way to Bikini..The cover Picture is of her in US hands. cheers Bill C -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: NEVENGER@aol.com Subject: ICM Hood / Chokai So has anyone heard when the Models of the Hood or Chokai are going on sale from ICM yet. I have seen several sites that are listing prices but none have them in stock yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: George Colleen Ian Hargreaves Subject: Deck colour of WW1 British capital ships From: Ken Hoolihan >> Does anyone know what the colour of the superstructure decks of British battleships and battlecruisers (eg HMS Lion) was in WW1. Were they the same grey as the vertical surfaces, or a much darker grey. Also, was linoleum (?corticene) used on any decks? << Ken This from the Oct 1955 Norman A. Ough plan of HMS Lion available from White Ensign. "Colour of the ship medium blue-grey, waterline black. Hull below waterline medium violet-grey. Shelter deck and bridge platforms covered with 'corticene'. A plain brown linoleum about the colour of milk chocolate and of matt surface. The propellors are of a dull bronze sheen are unpainted. The polished ends of the guns are painted over in war time and the brass bands for the gun covers are removed. Searchlights are painted black. In all accurate warship models it is important to avoid using shiny paint." The only other information is that the tops of the funnels were black and the deck surrounding the conning tower is armoured. Plan is for HMS Lion at Jutland. Cheers, George -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: steven lau Subject: USS Wasp I will be attending the US nation contest in Chicago this July. Are any venders there going to be carrying this kit? How about the WEM Stoddert? I've been saving my pennies all year to fund my annual buying trip to pay in cash. This way I get to come home and show my wife the neat $50 aircraft carrier I bought, if you know what I mean. Much cleaner than explaining, once again, the charge slip to Pacific Front. Any venders at all for ship modellers? Thanks, Steven Lau -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "B.Fish" Subject: Marine Corp History With all the scale modeling been I'm sure some of us former US and UK\RAN Might yawn! about his one, but for those not old enough to know About the US Marine Corp. History, this Sunday {check you area times} Showing the History of the US Marine's on the history channel, of which I'm proud to have served And at one of the oldest base at 8th & I st Washington D.C. and I'm sure it might boring to all former, Army Corp. and Air Force, Vets, its just worth a note, this month for all the good reasons, We should all take time out and say thanks to all who served, even if you live on a large, Island or a small one, And Shane I have some scale photos of my Dads 1\4 scale tri-fokker, and a Bushmaster 2000 life size Respectfully, Bruce "Retreat hell were attacking in another Direction" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Fred Kennamer Subject: Livin' in infamy, babe... Hi y'all, Quoted from the venerable industry trade "Daily Variety" Wednesday, May 23rd on page 17 (a continuation of a front-page article about making culture-sensitive changes to the release prints for Germany and Japan entitled: "Disney sends Japan re-cultured 'Pearl'") is the following: ..."Reached in Hawaii, where the film preemed Monday night, producer Jerry Bruckheimer told Daily Variety that one change was simply that a shot of the date--June 7, 1941--had been replaced with June 8, 1941, since it was already the next day in Japan when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred." Har dee har har har. (My guess is just that it was faulty proofreading, since the article goes on to state that the release date in Germany will be June 7th.) Still, it is telling that the most famous--and best, in my opinion--of all industry journals can't get right what must be the most famous date of the twentieth century for most English-speaking residents of the U.S. We know Jerry Bruckheimer knows the correct date, but let's just call it karma after the many claims of accuracy... Aw, who gives a damn anyway? It's only a movie. Which leads me into entanglement with an ongoing thread on this site. Lots has been said about the obligation of filmmakers to get it right when depicting history and the consensus of the postings has basically been of the gist that it's a movie, and we should just get over it. A fair amount of slagging has also been made at that scurrilous butt of derision and jokes: the "Hollywood Producer". ("Hey, yesterday I couldn't even spell producer and today I are one.") Caution: please take the following with the levity with which it was written; the facts are true, only the tone and umbrage have been altered for dramatic purposes... Somehow everyone from every conceivable profession and background on earth knows exactly how show business works, and certainly what a sub-lawyerly knave that thief of art "The Producer" is. Well, among my personal faults--admittedly legion--is the cruel fact that I am, by trade, a Writer/Producer/Director in Film and TV. That's how I pay the note on the house, feed the kids and buy all those kits over which I keep procrastinating. We're not all swine, nor are we necessarily of a lower order than Academics. (We also have no tenure to protect us, usually don't get paid vacations, holidays, sick days or pensions and can generally be fired at virtually any moment with no recourse.) There are plenty of Acacemics and Historians--say, like David Irving--who hide behind degrees and scholarly sanctification to promote their skewed views and deliberately hide or distort anything that questions those views. In short, having spent a little time in Academia--merely as a pupil--and a long time in this business, I wouldn't grant either the average Professor or the average Producer sway over the other for inherent "truth" or "fairness". Many people get into show business for money/fame/sex/assorted goodies and many get into it out a desire to change the world or to share something special. (Like most of life, it's generally a bit of a mixture of the two extremes.) Many get into Academia searching truth and out of a desire to nurture developing minds and pass on the wisdom of the species, but then plenty do it so people will address them with a lofty title and hold them in awe. For me, if you're making a period piece, you do owe to the viewers to get it right. Within reason, of course, but more importantly, within the spirit of the project one should try. If it's a "how did it happen" kind of movie (like "Tora Tora Tora") you should get the sequence of events, causes and hardware right. (I like that movie a lot, by the way.) "Midway" never even hinted at the fact that we also lost a carrier. If it's a "personal story" placed against events, then it's more important to get the human interaction of the time right: racial mix, social hierarchies, comportment of individuals and the like. It's more than just a cop-out to impose modern relationships on a late depression-era event and feign respect for historical accuracy. People do look at this as history--foolishly, sure--but we know that, and out of respect for history if we endeavor to depict it, we owe it to humanity to get it right. (Damn it.) And by the way, does Alec Baldwin look anything at all like Jimmy Doolittle? (Okay, that's basic film crap, I accept that one: war's always won by tall pretty folk with good hair. What was I thinking?) Then again, if people really knew how brutally difficult it is to make any picture, they'd go a lot easier with their criticism. Then again, when you're dealing with a huge picture made by very wealthy people for great personal gain while making sure that the rank-and-file of the crew and cast work very cheaply, then they're pretty much fair game. (This is not unusual for the folks at the happy kingdom, but the extent of it on this $140M whopper has raised more than the usual grumblings around town.) Then again, as a close friend of mine (an Academic, as a matter of fact, on the faculty of UCLA in Political Science), Dr. Jim Desveaux likes to say: "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse". Then again, as Mom used to say: "if 'x' is the unknown and a spurt is a drip under pressure, then an expert is an unknown drip under pressure." And what the hell folks, if you're looking for reality and you're watching product from Disney, then feel free to fill in the rest of that thought... Just for fun though, lets count the number of planes shot down during the attack--especially the ones shot down by our heroes in American pursuit craft--and see how that stacks up to history. I think those numbers are out there somewhere for a comparison... We got our ass kicked at Pearl Harbor, and there are many good lessons from depicting it as such. Underestimating an enemy (especially out of xenophobia or racist superiority), ignoring the pattern of the history of their military operations and being complacent can have a high cost. Let's hope that comes through. Who knows? Maybe this'll be "Gone With the Winds of War" or "Casablanca Bay" or "Sleepless in Hawaii" or something of epic proportions. Nobody knows anything (said William Goldman) and that's sort of what makes it all so much fun. If history tells us anything though, huge pictures that don't have press screenings until just before release (it's 10 p.m. on Wednesday here in Hollywood CA, "Pearl Harbor" opens on Friday and there still haven't been any major reviews) generally have a little trouble somewhere. What do I know? I thought "Titanic" was clumsy by-the-numbers playing to the cheap seats (only the commoners really understand life, etc., etc.) followed by a great sinking sequence. People ate that up. Who's to say? (Fox's official running time of "Titanic" was "2 hours, 74 minutes".) I just remember the sketch on the old "Burns and Schreiber Show" (a recurring set-up of two flamboyant hack producers) when they were reliving the joy of their previous hit movie "Tanks a Million", where the 500 topless female Sherman Tank drivers drove into Berlin singing 'we're gonna hang Hirohito from the left rear magneto of an RAF Mosquito'. And let's hope that after the last heaving sigh and sternum crushing music cue, we can stagger from the theatre spluttering those immortal words of filmic praise from Billy-Sol Hurok and Big Jim McBob of Second City TV's "Farm Film Report": "They got blowed up real good!" "Yeah, real good!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Montana Class >> I suggest that you convince your friend to kit-bash two of the Monogram Iowa-class kits into a "mock-up" of the Montana - a test-run prior to tackling the Tamiya 1/350. For what he seems to want, Monogram may be good enough ... and would either convince him to drop the larger-scale idea or get him fired up to do it right. While the Monogram kit isn't entirely accurate, it's not bad for a "mock-up" ...<< Not a bad idea, Ned. I wish I had was a couple of the Revell 1:720 Missouri kits to give him. I believe that would suffice as a starting point. Although smaller than 1:700 it's close enough to use 1:700 aftermarket enhancement parts. Unfortunately, I only have one and it's slated to be built up for another (lady) friend of mine. >> From what I remember reading, the Montana hull would have been more along the lines of a stretched North Carolina rather than an Iowa hull. The Montanas were a return to the slower BB designs of the North Carolina/South Dakota classes rather than a followup to the fast Iowa design. As a result, the elongated, narrow stem of the Iowa's (which was in part required to achieve the listed 30+ knots) would not have been a feature of the Montana design. So you and your friend may want to look at what's available for North Carolina class kits rather than Iowa class kits for the basis of kitbashing. It also turns out that many of the superstructure features on the Montanas look alot closer to those on the North Carolinas than any other US BB class. << Yohan, Checking the hull lines again in Garze and Dulin, you're right -- Montana's are closer to that of the NC than they are the IA. The rational for going with bashing an Iowa kit though is had the Montana's been built, chances seem pretty good that most of their superstructure features would've been similar to that of the Iowas. their superstructure would've been more akin to that of the Iowas (being the last class built) than the North Carolina. The only major difference being that the Montana's would've had their secondary battery mounted one level lower - as in the North Carolina. Of course, that's the big rub. All of the drawings we have of the Montanas were based on the last design concept. All you have to do is compare the North Carolina Scheme XVI concept to what was actually built to see what kind of changes can happen in the course of the construction of a ship. My guess is the Montana's would've had a much heavier 40/20mm AAA battery installed. Likewise, they probably would've received enclosed bridges like those on the Iowas later in the war. The tricky issue with modifying an Iowa's superstructure is that the Montana's 5/51s would've been mounted on deck lower. Something tells me this is going to involve a fairly high fiddle factor to correct. Another question is how much difference there is between the gunhouses of the 5/38 and the 5/51. From what I can see, it looks as if the latter's gunhouses are somewhat larger. My bud isn't sure whether he wants to do it up in WWII guise or in a 80's rebuild guise. He's also talked about trying to do an even more extensive hypothetical 80's/90's type rebuild. I've convinced him to go either 1:700 or 1:350 for the sake of aftermarket parts. Now it's a matter of what sorta monster he wants to build. I've suggested that it's not as likely the Montana's would've been recommed in the 80s because of their slower speed, but when it comes to what ifs...who ever thought the Iowas would've been recommed back then. Anything's possible. Derek Wakefield -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Shane Subject: USS Kittyhawk visit to Sydney Hi all, The USS Kittyhawk will be visiting Sdyney this weekend at Fleet Base East (Garden Island ;-) ). She will be open to visitors on the weekend. Lorna & I will be helping out at the Naval Historical Society of Australia stand on Saturday, inbetween taking photos ;-). So if you're going down to see the Kittyhawk, drop by & say hello. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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