Subject: SMML VOL 1266 Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:12:47 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Pearl Harbor film - comments on accuracy 2: Re: MODEL SHIP JOURNAL RENEWALS 3: Re: Livin' in infamy, babe... 4: MTB answers 5: Re: Pearl Harbor 6: ICM & NEGATIVE WAVES 7: Re: MTB 363 8: Re: ICM Hood and Chokai releases 9: Re: Livres en Français 10: BB63 Missouri 11: Re: HMS Portsmouth 12: Re: HMS Portsmouth 13: Traditions and Tales of the Navy 14: Pearl Harbour diorama project 15: Yamatoholic Book 16: Pearl Harbor - A film that will live in historical infamy? 17: Poland's ORP (271) Warszawa Destroyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Spare copy of Plastic Ship Modeler for sale/trade 2: USN Planes Fujimi & IJN Hosho -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Michael C. Smith" Subject: Pearl Harbor film - comments on accuracy This is my take on the film's accuracy, so don't read if you don't want to know. Also, after watching the "I know more than they do" slams on the really very technically accurate (IMHO) Titanic film on a Titanic list, I'm not slamming anything about PH - just giving my two cents, hoping we can educate each other on what to watch for. So no beating up on the script or love story or actors - just a few comments on the naval aspect. From my viewpoint, the accuracy was a mixed bag, in marked contrast to the overall very technically accurate Titanic. There are some incredible panoramic action shots of Battleship Row that (except for oddly missing the Light Gray upperworks of the Measure 1 camouflage - maybe I mis-saw that) are really a treat, and, for me. Intercut between that were shots of sailors obviously on the Missouri or Texas, and numerous shots of explosions going off on mothballed ships at Pearl (there are three Spruance class destroyers moored together that ought to get a Presidential Unit Citation - they get blown up over, and over, and over...) There are also some shots on created sets (most notably the Oklahoma's bow and overturned stern) that are really good. But throughout the movie, just about anything that had people in it - especially name actors - was wrong - it was obviously the Missouri, with mothballed Knox-class frigates alongside, or (during the attack) the Texas. But the battle scenes themselves were very good, I thought, and appropriately, but not excessively gory. Without giving away too much, the scenes trying to get sailors out of the upturned Oklahoma were memorable, and well-done. The carrier scenes were the low point, historically speaking (although visually they were really nice). If you thought this was the chance to remake "Midway" more accurately, well, you'd be wrong. The first bad sign, was when a modern carrier (the Constellation, I think) with its task group subbed in for the Japanese fleet in one scene (shortly afterwards, there was a shot of accurate computer generated carriers, but I seriously doubt the ships were steaming less than a hundred yards from each other. All the rest of the scenes (Japanese and American) were obviously shot on the Lexington (sound familiar - why can we not do better after 25 years?). Unlike "Midway," they didn't even bother to plank the flight deck and create a fake Japanese island - they just put mattresses on the island. Now why wouldn't you just build a dummy island on the port side of the Lexington, and film from the existing island? The Doolittle Raid scenes are the same - they painted out the deck markings (at least that's an improvement over Midway) and added a yellow stripe and a huge white "8" at the bow - that's to show us they knew which carrier the Hornet was. The really teeth-gnashing thing for me is that there is a tiny part of the deck that was covered in an accurate reproduction of a section of the Hornet's deck (tan, not gray, but it had accurate tie-down strips, although they were pretty obviously not real), and it looks like they just decided to blow off accurately reproducing the deck. There was also one beautiful panoramic pass down the entire length of the ship showing the B-25s lined up that was really nice, until you realized that the ship was dead in the water. While they'd done a good job getting rid of the walkway to the Lex, they hadn't added a wake, or moving seas. I don't recall that the Hornet anchored off the coast of Japan to launch the raiders, but maybe I missed that chapter of "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo." But again, at least the angled deck markings were gone, and we had that oh-so-accurate giant "8" at the bow. I mentioned that all the carrier scenes were on the Lexington - that's not quite accurate. The B-25s launching (which were great scenes) were from an angled deck carrier underway, probably the Constellation, although this is only clear in one scene - otherwise I'd swear they're actually launching from the Lexington. There are also dogfight scenes that, IMHO, are the best I've ever scene, and flawless as far as accuracy (as far as my limited knowledge of aircraft goes). The Battle of Britain scenes are terrific, and I've never seen so many Spitfires, in the air or on the ground, in my life. The technique of shooting the planes from a distance using telephoto lenses to make the backgrounds whiz past while tracers zip by is very effective - this is a LONG way from "Black Sheep Squadron." The dogfights over Pearl are similarly very well done, and very exciting. And this is the first movie I can recall where all the planes were what they were supposed to be. If those weren't real Zeroes, Vals and Kates, I couldn't tell the difference. No camouflaged SNJ trainers here. Anyway, a mixed bag, and I was really disappointed not to see an accurate Enterprise and Hornet plowing through heavy seas, especially after seeing Titanic do the same thing, and knowing it could have been done. I'd be very interesting in other comments, especially on the ship end, and I'm looking forward to seeing the July issue of Cinefex, which will have an article on the effects used in the film. Michael Smith Marshall, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: MODEL SHIP JOURNAL RENEWALS >> If You haven't done so, it's time to renew your subscription to Model Ship Journal if you took out a one-year sub beginning with Issue Zero. This is << HI: I don't recall whether I had a 1 year or longer subscription, but count me in. If you don't have my cc info please advise. Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Re: Livin' in infamy, babe... The the "worst scholarly work is transcendentally superior to the the best "production", is not true Some of the very best works have been written by those without any academic training. I personally am not very impressed by degrees and such, but only by the end result. To be a "professionally trained historian" to quote the late David Brown, can --- be valuable, but by no means will it guarantee a good end product, and it will certainly never guarantee being superior to the best amateur effort. I know, and have known several degreed academics personally, and I can say with complete confidence that most (but not all of them) were not very good when it came to ACTUALLY writing the thing. They were good at talking about research though. The untrained person is at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into certain archives, how to research, how to construct and so on. The end result is sometimes a little rough and can need a polishing. But what is really importent is that there be original work. Ninety five percent of those that call themselves historians are not, they are simply copiers. As for Irving, inspite of his beliefs, he is more of an historian than most of those with degrees in history. It is true that he appears to pick at small scabs to try and make them bleed and to look for material that supports his views. All good authors do this of course to some extent, it is endemic to the job, and any person who says differently is lying. This statement would seem to say that I believe that Irving is a good author; in many ways he is; he researches well with source material, makes efforts to obtain first hand interviews, and can actually put the words down in a very readable form. It is unfortunate that his goals are often a little dark. I have a question --- Is Bouriot a historian with a degree? He who has written the very best book on ships. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Friedrich Kappes Subject: MTB answers Thank you very very very much!!!!!! Friedrich The FriedrichFiles http://sites.netscape.net/friedkappes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: DrT388@aol.com Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor Hi Gang, Saw PH last night also and was disappointed with the attack scenes. I am in aggreement that there were too many modern day ships in the harbor. (Thought I was watching Final Countdown!) Some of the computer graphics were great, but one would think though with the computer techology today they could get the correct type of ships to be viewed. Not only did I sit though three hours fifteen minutes of this movie, I also had to endure listening to a young women talk to her two friends about WWII, when she didnt have a clue about anything that led up to the war or even have any facts correct about why Japan attacked us. I (Siskel & Ebert) give this movie Two Thumbs down (would give more, but I only have two!) Don't waste $$, wait till it shows up on TV. Regards, David -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "lcp9" Subject: ICM & NEGATIVE WAVES Like Meatball said, oh man, don't be putting all those Negative waves out there! Look what they did to the Bridge!! I think if you want to see an ICM HOOD, CHOKAI, or whatever we need to vote with our wallets. Go buy another KOENIG!!!! Even if you haven't finished building the first one,Koenig had 3 sisters. Go get a model to convert to 1 of them. And if you Email ICM, be supportive. Whining about the lateness oftheir next kit helps no one. Least ways that's my 2 cents worth......... David ALSO****** For those folks wanting to reach me at LOOSE CANNON, I'll only be at Hugh's email address 28 May thru 1 June. My real address is LCP9@MSN.COM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: ALROSS2@aol.com Subject: Re: MTB 363 >> These vessels were built between 1942 and 1944 to a mixed batch of both Scott-Payne and Vosper designs that were completed under Lend-Lease agreements for the RN. The vessels, ex-USN BPT.21-28, 49-52, 29-48 (MTB.275-306), and BPT.52-68 (MTB.363-378), were 77 foot Elco built Scott-Payne designed British Power Boats. Boats PT.384-399 (MTB.396-411) were Jacobs built Vospers. Numbers 362-367 were Harbor built 77 foot Elco Vospers that were constructed on the West Coast. Of these, numbers 363-370 were transferred to Russia in 1943, along with USN PT.400 to 449, and PT.661 to 730, Annapolis built 77 foot Vospers for Russia, as were PT.430 to 429 Herreschoffs. Of the above mentioned boats, these are the "nick-names" that some of these boats carried while in USN service: PT.21 "Black Jack" and "Sad Sack" PT.22 "Flying Deuces" PT.24 "Blue Bitch" PT.34 "P.I. Rose, Duece, Eager Beaver" PT.45 "Duce Boat, Coughin Coffin" PT.59 "Gun Boat" PT.65 "Hogan's Goat" PT.399 "Little Butch" The armament for these vessels were designed with a single 20mm forward, a single twin 0.50 mount aft, and two 21-inch torpedo tubes. Later, a single twin 20mm mount replaced the twin 0.50 mount aft. << Almost everything stated above is incorrect. For an accurate listing, description, and disposition of these boats, refer to the following: Buckley, Robert J. At Close Quarters. Washington, DC: Naval History Division. 1962. Friedman, Norman. U.S. Small Combatants. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute Press. 1987, Lambert, John and Al Ross. Allied Coastal Forces of World War II, volume 2. London: Conway Maritime Press LTD. 1993. Al Ross -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Ed Grune Subject: Re: ICM Hood and Chokai releases Simon wrote: >> I've heard the "impulse buy" argument but look at Tamiya's Dragon Wagon and now the Famo Transporter ($120 plus mail order). How many Armor crazies justify those releases??? I just don't know gang.....we should just keep e-mailing ICM. << You know, to paraphrase my sainted father, us ship modelers get stuck with the hind teet. There are probably 10 times more armor modelers than there are ship modelers, and a thousand more aircraft modelers. We are the red-headed stepchildren of the hobby. There are not enough of us to sway Tamiya's opinion, let alone ICM's. Put it to rest and be happy if and when ICM gets their act together and releases the Hood. Until then, ICM doen't exist. That's my approach. If you keep wondering you're just going to let it burn a hole in you. Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "J. London" Subject: Re: Livres en Français I highly recommend Dumas and Guiglini "Les Cuirassés Français de 23500 Tonnes" published by Editions des 4 Seigneurs, Grenoble 1980. Covers the Courbet and Bretagne Classes in great detail. Their careers, equipment, armament, aircraft, ships' badges, livery etc. including many drawings and photographs. In the same slipcase comes a folio of plans and drawings detailing the ships as built and at different times in their careers showing all modifications. Michael London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Susan Cowardin" Subject: BB63 Missouri Japanese surrender photos of the bridge area of the Missouri show an American flag displayed behind what looks like glass. What is the significance of this flag? Also Does anyone know when did Missouri had the blue paint removed from her decks? Thanks, Steve Cowardin PS Bob O'Connor, Thanks for your welcome! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: HMS Portsmouth >> Word is that "Portsmouth" has been permanently retired by the RN as a warship name, due to some abhorrently distasteful, dishonorable action by that last ship of that name during the 17th century's "Glorious Revolution." Does anyone on the list know just what that action on the part of HMS Portsmouth may have been? << Greetings to all at WEM, The disgrace of HMS "Portsmouth" has nothing to do with "Glorious Revolution" but a lot with American War of Independence. HMS "Portsmouth" had surrendered without a fight to John Paul Jones and so according to Royal Navy code disgraced this name for ever. Strangely enough I have come across a diary of an Australian submariner who writes that in 1914 on the trip from Singapore to Colombo his submarine was escorted by HMS "Portsmouth"!! A bit of mistery or did the old boy got the name mixed up??? Best wishes D.P -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Craig R Bennett Subject: Re: HMS Portsmouth Hi Guys Concerning the Portsmouth name. All I have is this. I know more about the U.S. Civil War than I do the English Civil War. But according to the book The fighting ship of the Royal Navy 897-1984 states that in 1642 the english civil war began with the fleet siding with Parliment against the Royalists under Prince Rupert. The Parliments was lead by the Earl of Warwick who took Portsmouth from the Royalists. It appears this conflict lasted for 6 -8 yrs. Now in 1648 the fleet suffered a revolt by Royalists and Prince Rupert took command of it. So some where in that Portsmouth must have been the scene of a massacare or political betrayal. I hope that helps. Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: DILIANE@aol.com Subject: Traditions and Tales of the Navy Hi! Jim Campbell from Wisconsin here. I made another pilgrimage to the Barnes and Knobles today (120 miles one way). In amongst all the new and old books about pearl harbor, I found a very interesting book. It is called Traditions and Tales of the Navy. It is written by a Dr. Martin Davis, and is 252 pages long. And LOTS of PICTURES, for us easily entertained folks. It is published by Pictorial histories publishing co from Missoula Montana, and the ISBN is 1-57510-081-9. It cost me $19.95. It is full of all those terms we all wonder about. I am not sure how authoritative it is, but so far, they sound good. Such as the definition of a knot. It was a rope with knots tied at certain distances and secured to a log. The log was thrown over the stern, and the ship speed was determined by how many "knots" slipped over the rail. I picked up the only one in the Twin Cities Barnes at Har Mar, for you local folk. I hope to win some of those trivia contests now! Enjoy! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: DILIANE@aol.com Subject: Pearl Harbour diorama project Say, with all the hoopla about Pearl Harbor, I had a memory jar. Whatever happened to the diorama in 1/700 of Pearl that was being built? I haven't heard anything on it for quite a while, and unfortunately, my memory jog didn't get that far. Are there any pictures of it? It would be great to see it. Jim Campbell Chippewa Falls, WI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: dlfowler@apple.com Subject: Yamatoholic Book I have been spending the past week in Japan (Nagano area) and was in Tokyo for the weekend (Tokyo Disneyland was great!) I did get a chance to go to a few hobby shops and book stores and found the following titles: "Design and Construction of the Yamato" and "The Construction of the Musashi." They were 20000 yen and 23000 yen respectively. They are similar to the "Super Battleship Yamato" book in that there isn't too much of real interest to a modeler who doesn't read Japanese but for the true Yamatoholic, does it matter? There are a few new photos and lots of drawings. Also included in the Yamato book are the hull lines for the Shinano. If I go on too many more of these business trips I'm going to go broke! Best regards, Duane Fowler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Ned Barnett Subject: Pearl Harbor - A film that will live in historical infamy? OK, folks, I've just seen it. Pearl Harbor. The movie - not the documentary. Here's my take on it. 1. As an action entertainment movie, it was superb. I've never seen such flying effects in my life. Remarkable. 2. The Japanese (as characters) were almost not even there - they were not significant to the film. 2a. the Japanese carrier (in one brief scene) was sailing backwards - it was a real ship, and they had the planes lined up facing aft, so the island would be on the left side of the deck (as I think one Japanese carrier had). It was a brief scene, but us ship-watchers will bust a gut on that one. 3. Yes, there were modern US warships in Pearl Harbor for many of the live-action scenes; but yes, they had great models, and their Oklahoma (or was it West Virginia) that turned turtle was remarkable. Very effective. 4. Sure, Dorie was firing a late-war twin 20 mm cannon mount, rather than a .50 cal. mount. So freakin' what? 5. The flying aircraft were, almost without exception, remarkable to the Nth degree. And the Zero fighters really looked like Zeros, and not T-6 Texans in drag. The P-40s were superb, and the overall impact of the aerial stuff was mind-blowing. 6. The Poles and Brits were basically out of their minds complaining about an "Eagle" squadron in the Battle of Britain. Ben Affleck didn't get to Britain until mid-1941, and while the fighting was fierce (and the aerial combat was mind-blowing), they didn't rip off the Poles - there was an Eagle Squadron (I think) in '41, but even if not, this wasn't the Battle of Britain. 7. The love story (yawn) wasn't as bad as everybody said; the actress was a knock-out, and actually kept her clothes on (I've seen more graphic sex on network sitcoms). And it did help focus the movie, sort-of. The goal (one of them) was to make you care about the characters, and it sort-of did ... 8. If there was anything historical about this movie, it was that there was a place called Pearl Harbor, there were some Japanese planes and some ships blew up. In short, if you're looking for even the verisimilitude of veracity, look elsewhere. If you want to see some truly mind-blowing special effects flying (and some pretty authentic looking ship models - if you use the stand-off rule and don't look too close), this is a great movie. 9. The lead characters not only got into the air, shot down 7 Japanese Zero fighters (several by making them ... naw, I won't say, it'll spoil it for you), then gave blood at the Navy hospital then were on the turned-turtle battleship helping to rescue trapped sailors, all in one single day (why they didn't stand by in their cockpits in case the Japanese came back is beyond me ...) (pickin' those nits - sorry) So if you like action, pretend it's not historical, overlook the fact that Alec Baldwin can't act, and wonder what kind of non-accent Jon Voight wasn't quite delivering on, go for it - but for gosh sake, bring your own popcorn - mine must have been popped before December 7th ... Ned the movie critic -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Dengar" Subject: Poland's ORP (271) Warszawa Destroyer Hi Gang, Can anyone help with a walkabout of the Polish Kashin Class Destroyer Warszawa. Any help would be very appreciated. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Joseph Poutre Subject: Spare copy of Plastic Ship Modeler for sale/trade Hi all, I ended up with two copies of #19. While I enjoy the magazine enough to reread it, I can only read one at a time, so one's available. I'll sell it for the cover price of 5.75, postage free, but I'd rather trade it for some parts. Specifically, 1/700 parts from the Skywave E-6 set: the 4 5"/54 singles and 4 3"/50 twins. Or make me an offer and maybe I'll take it. Joseph Poutre -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: USN Planes Fujimi & IJN Hosho These hard to find kits are in stock at the Naval Base. 1/700 US Naval Planes 1/700 IJN Hosho Carrier Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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