Subject: SMML VOL 1271 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:19:01 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: ICM Hood and Chokai releases 2: Re: Revell Arizona 5" guns 3: Re: uss missouri flag 4: BB63 - Flag 5: Patches / Emblems for Royal Navy 6: Re: Pearl Harbor Movie Accurate (yeah right) 7: Re: Missouri's teak decks and Flag 8: HMS CURLEW - Close Range AA 9: Re: U-505 question and "Das Boot" 10: 1:700 USS Hornet 11: Steve Wiper's book on the S-boat 12: Morskaya Kollektsia collection 13: Comment on Missouri turret flag 14: Pearl Harbour documentary in UK 15: Re: U-505/1:700 Weapons 16: Royal Navy ships crests 17: Re: Sheffield -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation 1: SMML site relocation 2: SMML Update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: James Corley Subject: Re: ICM Hood and Chokai releases >> Here is some information collected by Fine Scale Modeler. [snip] Total 359%? Now I thought that when you conducted a pole you would want to know what 100% of all modelers were interested in. What's up with 359%? << The 359% total probably includes people like me (I did reply) who checked more than one area. I build airplanes and ships for the most part, but I also build real space, sci-fi space, with a few armor pieces, figures and autos thrown in for balance. If they simply counted all the boxes marked on each ballot and the average person checked 3 or 4 boxes, it would not be impossible that there could be more than a 100% total. Perhaps a design flaw on their part, since there was not a box for the primary subject area IIRC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Revell Arizona 5" guns Mike Said... >> You might refer to photos of the Texas for info on the main deck 5" guns - their installation ought to be identical, and I know there are likely more photos of those floating around. << I found an interior pic of a 5/51 mounted aboard the Florida at warships1.com last night. Given the scale (and thus the lack of need to fully detail the interior of the casemates), my hope is that'll be close enough to give me an idea on how to arrange a few interior bulkheads to avoid the "see though" problem. >> Tom Freeman's paintings of the Arizona in the new PH book include two good bow-on views of the ship that show open mounts inside the casemate. The "turret" parts are some sort of heavy-weather covering - whether canvas or metal, I can't say, but they would have been open in the tropics, certainly. One visit by these guns on the Texas in summer heat convinced me that you'd want all the ventilation you could get. And post-attack pics (I'm thinking particularly of the famous 80-G-32427, but there are many other) show the mounts as open on the more aft guns - no battle damage there, so they weren't burned off or anything. I'd just have the opening with free-standing 5" weapons inside. << I started to develop a similar theory about them being canvas covers after reviewing pics of the ship in Teribaschitsch's Battleships of the US Navy in World War II. Bob Patmore confirmed this in a message he sent me the other night about this. For some reason, even though the casemates were enclosed, they didn't look like the surrounding steel. I don't have the pic you refer to (although I d/l'd most of those at the navy history center site this weekend). However, I just (less than an hour ago) picked up the new PH book you're speaking of, so I know of at least one of the view's you're speaking of (pg 102). There's also a good idea of this given on his painting of the Oklahoma on pg 98-99. These are fantastic paintings, and they appear to be pretty darn accurate (which is why I bought the book). The only question in my mind about them is "did he color the ships Navy Blue as a measure of creative licence so not to obscure the details of the ships, or..." Okay, there's a second question. Is there any indication that the Arizona had blast bags installed on her main guns as per Freeman's painting, or was this creative licence on his part. IMHO, I'm thinking this was the latter because photos showing the aft turrets after the explosion don't lend any evidence of blast bags being installed. Likewise, of the photos I have of the battleships during/after the attack (Nevada, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, California, Pennsylvania), the only one I've seen that did have them installed was the Nevada. As such, my plan is to only install the type of blast bags that Ashley indicated in his FSM article (just inside the gun sleeves, not extending out onto the barrels) Related Questions.... I found a reference on the Natl Park Service diagram showing the current condition of the ship that states the superstructure/gun deck was teaked. Well, that answered my previous question about this, but oh dear. The model part lacks the raised plank details of the main deck. Other than painting it, any suggestions about how to replicate plank details on the superstructure/gun deck without having to fab a whole new superstructure deck? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ship did have bare teak decks at the time of the attack, right? There was a discussion about this a long while back in which the Paint/Camo guys stated they did not start painting the decks until AFTER the war started. My plan is to paint this model Ms-1, 5-D (using my wonderful S&S paint chips as a reference). I am not going to scale the paint job, so it's going to be bloody dark. Call it one of my pet peeves, but it seems like every PH BB model I've ever seen has been painted to scale or painted in a color that just seems too bloody light for Ms-1. Problem...the black "Arizona" stern name decals are simply going to disappear on a 5-D painted hull. Other than trying to figure out how to fabricated raised lettering (my preference, but I don't know how to do it)...can anyone offer an alternative on how to get around this little problem. >> You can get FDD spec sheets on the guns that can be used to scratchbuild replacements (unless there are commercially available replacements, as I'd hope there are for the 5" weapons on the deck above that are far more exposed to view). A little tube and strip plastic, and you're in business. << To my knowledge, no one offers aftermarket guns in this scale. That's why I'm having to look into scratchbuilding because I positively REFUSE to use those lumps of plastic included in the kit. They look gawdawful, and the gun barrels are like WAY WAY out of scale. I've though that perhaps I might be able to cut out the breech portion of the 5/25s and 3/50s and fab new barrels and mounts, but that's at best a thought. Somebody confirm this, please. All four of the Arizona's 3/50 cal gun tubs were empty at the time of the attack, right? Friedman's US Battleships states that as of 10 June 41, "3-inch guns in all the battleships except for ARIZONA and NEVADA, which had only empty gun tubs." Back to 5/25s... Mike Czibovic at Corsair Armada and Jon Warnke at IS have sent me examples of their 1:700 and 1:350 5/25s in the past that I might be able to use to get an idea/starting point for how to create a pattern that I could cast resin copies of for this project (the answer being something between the two size-wise). I've also grabbed a number of pics of all three types of secondary guns from various web sites to give me ideas until I can order the FD plans. Regarding the 50 caliber MGs... Friedman again states most of the ships had 8 50 cals. I believe four of these were in the bird bath atop the main mast. Where were the other four aboard Arizona? Marc Said.... >> The USS Texas is the best example of how the 5" gun deck was laid out. (I believe the term is casemate, but I could be wrong -- anyone with the definition, please weigh-in here.) Anyway, the gun deck on the Texas is about 20-30 yards from bulkhead to bulkhead on each side. The inside wall is just a continuation of the superstructure on the deck above. Therefore on the model, the 5" gun deck would be about the same width as the 3" gun deck above it. << Fantastic... Current Status About all I've done so far is to remove the molded railing from the hull and drill a few portholes. The former went much faster than I thought it would. I need to get some smaller micro bits before I continue working on the portholes because the smallest I have is slightly too large. So I'm about to start going through the bridge and tower platforms and marking the rails with a permanent marker to indicate which ones need to be removed. I'm doing most of the rail removal with a hobby knife (rather than my Dremel) so I don't risk ruining any of the parts (even though I went ahead and ordered a spare kit from Model Expo just in case). Doing it the hard way per-say is helping me get back in practice, master control of my tools, and learn the fine art of paitence. I think I already gooned up a bit by cutting off the molded rail a bit too close to the port side hull (leaving very little room for sanding). This is starting to remind me of why they made us learn how to use hand tools first back in woodshop before cutting us loose on the power tools. Thanks again for all advice, suggestions, etc. Derek Wakefield -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: uss missouri flag >> the flag on the side of the bridge of the uss missouri during the surrender ceremony is not admiral dewys flag and it was not matthew perrys flag. it was the flag flown from the uss arizona on december 7th, they wanted japanese to see that flag where the war started and and on the decks of the uss missouri where the war ended. << Could be very wrong here, but I thought the Arizona's flag was turned over for safe keeping to someone aboard the Maryland, and shortly thereafter some half-wit burned it because it was oil soaked and they didn't know the significance of that particular flag. Derek Wakefield -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Ravendran,RasalingamKLMTS" Subject: BB63 - Flag Hi, On the ongoing topic of the Flag on BB63, a question in edgeways. Was Matthew Perry a descendant of O.H. Perry? Many thanks in adnvance. Thanks and best regards Ravi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Peter Chant" Subject: Patches / Emblems for Royal Navy >> Does anybody sell these as patches or as post cards, or is there a comprehensive website, that hat most of the emblems for post war RN? << Check the Navy News website: http://www.navynews.co.uk Their "Ship of the Month" includes the crest, and are available as postcards. Peter Chant UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Donald Woolley Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor Movie Accurate (yeah right) >> I almost wrecked in car today when I heard on the radio how the movie Pearl Harbor was historically accurate. << Equally annoying, during yesterday's drive home, I heard part of an interview with Bruckheimer where he said how pleased he was to do a movie about Pearl Harbor since there really hadn't been one before. Donald Woolley -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Darren Scannell Subject: Re: Missouri's teak decks and Flag From: louellet@uism.bu.edu >> There is a large copy of one of the following pictures: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/ac00001/ac04626.jpg http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/ac00001/ac01189.jpg .. in the US Cruiser Sailor's Association Memorial Room on board the USS Salem. Also check out: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/ac00001/ac02716.jpg http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/ac00001/ac04627.jpg << I just had to add my 2 cents here, In the two identical deck photos, it shows the problem with relying on copies and scanning, in one photo the deck and superstructure appear the same shade of gray, when we know the super was blue. Relying on this photo doesn't make the decks teak, it makes them gray and we know this didn't happen. In the next one it has more of a blue tint, but still seems gray for both surfaces. As for the flag, 2 people so far have miscounted the stars as 30. The first column on the right has 6 stars, thus equaling 31 stars. Attention to detail folks! I'd get a sound talking to at work for these mistakes! ; ) Darren Scannell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Tim Stoneman Subject: HMS CURLEW - Close Range AA Can anyone confirm CURLEW's lighter armament when sunk off Skaanland in 1940? Most references credit her with two 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms when first converted, with the after one replaced by two quad 0.5" Vickers guns before the war, due to a shortage of pompoms elsewhere. However, 2 books I've seen recently, by well-respected authors, both state that she had the four-barrelled variant (John Roberts' 'British Warships of the Second World War' and David Brown's 'Design and Construction of British Warships'. I've no photos detailed enough to determine which is correct. Any ideas? Tim Stoneman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "J. London" Subject: Re: U-505 question and "Das Boot" While I cannot advise on who may have models/kits available I can tell you that U-505 was a Type IXC. Following the thread on film accuracy sparked by the release of "Pearl Harbor" I recall talking to a friend of mine, a former U-Boat captain, about the film "Das Boot" and asking him if he found it technically accurate. He had only two comments to make and that concerned the return of the boat to the U-Boat pens at La Pallice. Readers who have seen the film may recall that she stopped in the approach channel to disembark a wounded or sick sailor and was attacked there by Allied aircraft. One comment was that they would NEVER under any circumstances stop in the channel but get under the cover of the pens as quickly as possible. His second comment was that the attack was by single-engined planes which would not have had the range to reach La Pallice from bases in the UK. Michael London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Jodie Peeler Subject: 1:700 USS Hornet hello all.... Roberto Paredes wrote: >> I'm looking info to transform the Hasegawa Essex into Hornet in 60's, Does anybody help me? << I've converted a Hasegawa kit into the Hornet c. 1969 (part of my jones for spaceflight), so I know exactly of what you speak. You'll want to use the Hancock kit, since it has the longer bow instead of the short-bow Essex kit (although Hornet is a short-hull ship, the long-hull Hancock more closely resembles the bow as modified during the 27A refit, when it was changed to a more-or-less "long hull" configuration to support a pair of 3" mounts). Of course, you'll enclose the bow for the 1960s configuration, but the long hull kit saves you a lot of work. Basically it's a very feasible conversion but it requires a lot of work -- adding the blisters to the side of the ship, doing some pretty serious reworking to the island and bridges, doing electronics pretty much from photoetch and scrap plastic, enlarging the flight deck and adding the sponsons, enclosing the bow, reworking the galleries and gun tubs, etc. This is in addition to correcting a couple things that are wrong with the Hasegawa plastic -- the incorrectly sequenced roller doors in the port side, the way-too-flat flight and gallery deck, etc., etc (see the articles on improving the kit, especially the write-up in the USS Lexington Detail and Scale book). The best advice I can give you is to contact the Floating Drydock or another plans supplier and get a good set of plans for a -27A/-125 Essex (these units were Essex, Yorktown, Hornet, Randolph, Wasp, Bennington and Kearsarge, and were *more or less* similar; although sometimes they differ strikingly as their details go, they had essentially the same basic configuration). With additional research you can pick out the differences between the unit the drawings represent and the unit you wish to build. I used the Booklet of General Plans drawings for the Essex as in 1967, which I bought from the Navy longer ago than I care to admit, and if you study these kinds of drawings closely you can figure out what you need to do by doing a little forward/reverse archaeology, and using photos and other data as you can find them in books, such as Alan Raven's essential volume on the Essexes and Stefan Terzibaschitzsch's "Aircraft Carriers of the US Navy," which is really indispensible for comparing similar ships. Ray Bean (who, I believe, is on this list) did a similar project back about 8 or 10 years ago, converting this kit into a Vietnam-era Intrepid, and wrote it up for "Scale Ship Modeler." His article gave me a lot of ideas for when I did my model of the Hornet, and I recommend it as a good starting point, as his project didn't get carried away the way mine did. The only real kit parts I ended up using in my Hornet were the two hull pieces, the island halves, the flight deck (sanded flat and used as a foundation for a new flight deck made of styrene), the much-modified gun sponson bases, and the fantail structure. All the rest was scratchbuilt or cobbled together from other items. I even installed a hangar deck (with quarantine trailers) and built the latticework structural supports beneath the elevators from styrene strip and rod. Yes, I am crazy, but I lavished attention on this model because I've been studying the Essexes for close to 15 years, and the Hornet is especially dear to me for some personal reason. Someday I'll actually put the remaining 5% of finishing touches on the model, then check myself into the South Carolina Home for the Bewildered. That said, it can be done -- don't let my horror story scare you. Just get good sources and drawings, and build it the way it looks right to you. Of course, what I'd still love to see is a 1:700 modernized Essex -- and not a CVA conversion, but a -27A/-125 variant, like the Yorktown or Hornet.... jodie (in love with the -27A) http://www.mindspring.com/~raisingirl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Erwin Van Deynze Subject: Steve Wiper's book on the S-boat >> I am going to release a book on Schnellboote's in October, just because of this kit. Wait till you see the cover and all the drawings and photos in this book. You will be able to build a model of almost every version that existed. << Plllleeaassseee, Steve, don't, please don't... I've got a bad case enough of Acute Modellers Syndrome. Every time I think of a nice quick and easy build of a kit, some of you guys come up with a book that makes you: a. want to superdetail it right down to the fingerprints on the helm. b. impossible to decide wich one to build. c. buy (and probably not built) X times the kit, because of b. d. scream because you bought the book after you build the kit and see what's wrong with it... Suffering from a bad case of modelling addiction Wienne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: roberto paredes Subject: Morskaya Kollektsia collection Hi Guys, Where can I buy the Morskaya Kollektsia collection? This collections has a lot of useful titles, but It's hard to find. TIA, Roberto -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Preston L Hassler Subject: Comment on Missouri turret flag Counting the stars on the flag, I noticed that the column of stars nearest the "pole", on the right in the photo, had 6 stars and the other columns have 5. There are six columns, five of which have five stars, 25, plus one of six = 31 stars total. A very unusual flag for someone who is accustomed to seeing symetrical arrangements of stars on the flag. Skip Hassler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "Robert Lockie" Subject: Pearl Harbour documentary in UK Not that I expect it to confirm the colour schemes one way or the other, but there is due to be a documentary on Channel 5 here in the UK next Monday 4th June called 'Pearl Harbour: Seven views of defiance'. Apparently it will include some colour footage of the battle line at PH, so I will be taping it just in case. Time is given as 2000-2100. Hopefully the fact that the write-up in Radio Times explains how '... two waves of Japanese fighter planes attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbour...' is not indicative of the research undertaken for the programme itself, but at least they know how to spell harbour....;o). Robert Lockie Swindon UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: wem Subject: Re: U-505/1:700 Weapons Hi Rusty, U-505 is a Type IXC, done in 1/700 by Hasegawa. Hi Bruce, Among the nicest 20mms done now are those by Corsair Armada, which feature resin pedestals and photo-etched guns and shields. The guns can be trained skyward, which was their normal at-rest position. White Ensign Models' Pro 7029, quad 40mm with photoetch details are the nicest you'll find on the market. We have both 20mm and 40mm in stock. Cheers, John Snyder, BIT White Ensign Models http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "graham and melanie" Subject: Royal Navy ships crests I think your are refering to the ships crests issued to RN ships, though sometimes they had two, one offical and one by the crew;) try looking in the Navy News(RN) or try equiries@chmunday.co.uk they advetise wall sheilds of ships crests. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Re: Sheffield Plans of the Manchester 1942 by Raven. Plans of the Sheffield by Ough. Pictures of Sheffield and of others from British Cruisers of World War Two by Raven and Roberts. The deck that you are referring to is the forecastle deck, not the main deck. When you refer to Royal Navy vessels you have to use British terminology, otherwise -----. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Shane Subject: SMML site relocation Hi gang, Due to BT winding down it's web hosting business, the decison was made to move the SMML site to a new host & get a new domain name. The new domain name is: http://smmlonline.com Could everyone who links to SMML please change their links pages to reflect the new url. Due to Mike's current heavy workload, a new person has been brought on board in order to help free up his time, enable him to have a rest and let him concentrate more on his IT job. He's done a standup job so far & we're all appreciative of his work and wish him well. He'll still be contributing to the site (in both articles and behind the scenes), depending on his workload. The new "Webmaster" is vastly qualified for the job - and as the current Editor of a long running Model Magazine will bring a new perspective to the site. I speak of none other than Mistress Lorna ;-). I'll "let" her tell you all her plans in the next post, along with the latest site news. Regards, Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Lorna Subject: SMML Update Hi everyone, Well in addition to moving the site, updating the archives (now up to 1270), some rather interesting stuff went up at the same time. We've got photos of Dan Mitchel's, Peter Chant's and John Cobb's models in the Mainbrace section. Nice work guys, keep building ;-) In the Reference section you'll find some more photos added to both the Walkaround and Misc. Ships sections including a picture of the General Botha sent in by Tony Ireland and some images which aim to settle the RN deck markings debate (remember that one?), plus Chris Freidenbach has added some text to the Jeremiah O'Brien walkaround. Scalefest 2001. Yes, we have photos, courtesy of Mike Quan. As well as images from Shizuoka and Task Force 72's Sailpast. You'll find these in the Members section under Model Shows. Added reviews of Plastic Ship Modeler and OzMods 1/700 HMAS Vampire to reviews and a build article on the Skywave 1/700 Krivak II by a certain Listmaster. Yes, he really can finish a model. :-) As has been said before, one of the things I'd like to develop on the SMML site is the book review section. With the price of reference these days, you want to know that it's worth buying (after all some of us have to justify these expenditures to our partners ;-) ). Send me a book review, even for an out of print book. If you're anything like us you must have quite a few to choose from :-) While you're at it send us some photos of your models, give us a kit review, dig out those photos you took the last time you were even close to a ship (we all do it) and send them or any queries to me at: mailto:sljenkins@tac.com.au This is your chance to "Submit to the Mistress" Mistress Lorna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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