Subject: SMML VOL 1825 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:19:32 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: U.S.S. Monitor 2: RN Camouflage Practices 3: Blue Ships at Pearl Harbor 4: Re: Frigate & Corvette 5: Jeanne D'Arc 6: 1:700 Destroyer Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "David T. Okamura" Subject: Re: U.S.S. Monitor Jim Vorwoldt wrote: >> For civil war naval fans on this list, who may be following the current effort of raising the Monitor's turret, there is a newly listed card model of the U.S.S. Monitor from Paper Models International.... << As an avid paper ship modeler, I had the opportunity to closely examine a "test build" of this exact model at the 2002 Western Ship Model Conference, held on the RMS Queen Mary in Long Beach, California. (Some photos of the paper ships present at this show are at http://www.teuton.org/~saulj/okamura2.html -- see Picture 15 for the USS Monitor). This was designed by F. Richard Dressler, and Lou Dausse of Paper Models International said it was delayed for a couple years because every time the Navy divers discovered something new, the designer had to revise his model! This model was created in cooperation with the Mariner's Museum, the repository of recovered USS Monitor artifacts. A better photo is near the bottom of the photo gallery (#28) at http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=735823&uid=134202. You can see the turret and hull interior, with numerous partitions. Don't confuse this 1:150 scale USS Monitor with the 1:250 waterline USS Monitor and CSS Virginia models designed by David Hathaway of Paper Shipwright, also seen in the galleries. Having a good look at both the completed model and the parts sheets, I am very impressed with the intricate parts and detailing. My only minor complaint is the exaggerated highlighting on the deck plating. Dressler's coloring is reminiscent of Civil War-era lithographs, which for the most part is perfectly acceptable. (In fact, the bold artwork makes the interior details easier to see amid all the shadows cast by the narrowly-spaced partitions.) If I built this model, I'd probably scan the main deck and try to digitally manipulate the coloring to a more even tone. I also know of another modeler who intends to use the parts sheet as patterns for an enlarged 1:72 scale styrene version. PMI's home page is http://www.papermodels.net, and the USS Monitor is at http://www.papermodels.net/new.html (3rd picture). You can build the USS Monitor either stripped down for action at the Battle of Hampton Roads, summer 1862 on the James River, or her final appearance before she sank. By the way, this is my first post. I was just introduced to this list by my friend Nat Richards, and the first volume I received had Jim Vorwoldt's post. Must be a good omen. :-) David T. Okamura Westminster, California Ship Modelers Association, IPMS/Orange County, IPMS/Northrop ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: John Snyder Subject: RN Camouflage Practices It was recently pointed out to me that the RN used materials other than paint for deck camouflage. Ronald Sired served in HMS EURYALUS (DIDO-class) in the Med during WW2, and noted the following: "In harbour the day's routine commenced at 6.30 with familiar scrub decks--the decks were also wiped over with oil fuel every month to keep them dark for camouflage purposes." and "In port the forenoon watch began with scrub decks, which to me seemed rather pointless as the upper deck was swabbed over with oil fuel once a week. This was usually done with buckets of oil fuel and the seaman used slimy cloths to stain the teak deck a darker colour." Whether the other Dido-class cruisers in the squadron, or whether other Med-based ships did likewise is not mentioned. And no, neither WEM nor S&S will be producing colour matches for oil-stained teak. Best, John Snyder White Ensign Models http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: John Snyder Subject: Blue Ships at Pearl Harbor With a minute or two to spare, I've had a chance to dig a bit into the files. A while back on SMML, someone posted regarding a purported mix of 5-U white and 5-TM (blue tinting material), citing a USN letter, on the premise that this mix might have been applied to the Battle Line some time before the attack. Well, I have that self-same memo in my possession, and it says a bit more than was previously mentioned. I quote: "Indications to date are that Measure 11 of Ships 2, utilzing formula 5S, is too light. Cinclant's 'Navy blue' looks like a step in the right direction, and we are directing that one ship of each type be painted 'Navy blue' to permit comparative service tests. "We have one destroyer painted 'Navy blue', and from observations made thus far, it is possible that a color underway [sic] between 'Navy blue' and formula 5D might be required. If to, do you know of any objections to mixing 5TM and 5U in the proportions of 20 pints of the former to 5 gallons of the latter? It is possible that such a large proportion of tinting paste to untinted base may be detrimental to the adherence, resistance to weathering and other qualities of the mixed paint." Now, from the foregoing, it is clear that there was only one destroyer in the Pacific Fleet painted up in Navy Blue at that time, though it was contemplated that one ship of each type would be so painted as part of ongoing tests. Further, 5-S Sea Blue was obviously on its way out. It is also clear that Pacific Fleet was asking BuSHips (Bureau of Ships) for their opinion on trying to mix a color somewhere between 5-D Dark Gray and 5-N Navy Blue. It seems also clear that they had not yet done so. But perhaps the most important piece of information here has to do with who was sending the letter, and the date of the letter. The letter is on the letterhead of the United States Pacific Fleet, Battleships, Battle Force, U.S.S. MARYLAND, Flagship. This makes it patently clear that there was only one ship, a destroyer, painted in 5-N Navy Blue at that time. And the time? The letter is dated December 6, 1941. There is no way that they ran out and painted the Battle Line in an unapproved color mix before the attack took place the next day. In fact, the letter was not received at BuShips (by Clipper Airmail) until December 15. By that time the question was moot. The Battle Force was in the 5-D Dark Gray of Measure 1 at the time of the attack. More citations from other letters and memos will follow shortly. Best, John Snyder White Ensign Models http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: John Snyder Subject: Re: Frigate & Corvette >> Now John, you are technically right they were corvettes - BUT they were incorporated into the U.S. Navy as gunboats - soooo, I stand by my statement :-) << Ah Mike, you're splitting hairs between designation and appelation. My copy of Fahey's Second War Edition of Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet formally lists them as "Corvettes (PG)". So while they may have been designated gunboats, they were CALLED corvettes. Soooo, I stand by my statement that the USN has had corvettes since the 19th century. ;^) Cheers, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Baumbach, Werner" Subject: Jeanne D'Arc Hello, a few weeks back I got one of these on Ebay. Description read something like hull started ... Well I guess, that is a synonym for I took tons of glue, put it all over the bigger parts, ignored any gaps and made sure that the rest is glued together solidly. At least, that was what I got. A lot of putty, sanding and other cosmetic work later, she looks something more like a ship again. So now I am starting to look for some modifications. Can't do too much, as my references are limited. A couple questions though. In terms of deck vehicles, would there basically be the same tractors as on other carriers, or are the French using some special vehicles? Or are there non? And then, on my plan, there is a missile starter on the foredeck (below the Exocets.) But there were no parts for that, and I could not see it on any pictures that I have. Is that something, that was removed? Any other suggestions for additions? Happy modelling Werner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Ed Grune Subject: 1:700 Destroyer Project Actually - just like everything associated with the military and the government - we're running four years behind. It was 1898 that Congress authorized the development of the destroyer force. Regards all. My wife and I leave today to spend a week with family before going to the Nats in the middle of next week. I'll have a lot of mail to catch up on on my return Ed Mansfield, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://apma.org.au/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume