Subject: SMML VOL 1830 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:00:36 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Sea Cocks 2: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 3: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 4: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 5: BB63 decks 6: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 7: SMML standards for Ship Plans? (Was: Sea Cocks) 8: Re: British Standard Ships 9: Re: Lurking Card modelers 10: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 11: Re: Allen 12: IJN Shinyo deck striping -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: IHP "Cancelled Ships" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: cfrieden@calpoly.edu Subject: Sea Cocks If anyone wants to get an idea of what these look like and how they are arranged (at least on a WWII merchant ship), I have photos detailing all of the hull penetrations on the Liberty ship Jeremiah O’Brien. They are posted on the SMML site at: http://smmlonline.com/reference/walkabouts/liberty/obrien_drydock.html Regards, Chris Friedenbach ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Poutre, Joseph A" Subject: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 From: NAVYDAZE@aol.com >> I noticed this old four piper was at Pearl Harbor during the attack, but what I would like to know is what was she even doing in commission. She was an extremely old 4 piper with the old raise Foc'sle of the old Sampson Class. I also understand she was the only one of her class left. So the question is why was she still in commission and not scrapped considering she was DD-66 when ships far newer such as the USS HULL DD-330 had already been scrapped Anyone have any info on this unusual destroyer? << I took a look at the DANFS entry for her at http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/dd66txt.htm and I figure she only missed being scrapped pre-WWII because of paperwork. A quick scan of several of the entries before and after hers show a couple other DDs of her age made it to WW2, while most of them were sent to the scrappers shortly before. My guess is that if that conflict had been delayed, Allen would have joined her sisters. Hull's entry shows she was a victim of the London Treaty, while Allen was a training vessel and may have escaped scrapping earlier due to her status. Joe Poutre ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Jeremiah O. Coughlin" Subject: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 USS Allen DD.66 Built- Bath Iron Works 5.12.16, Scrapped, 1946 Sole survivor of the pre-flush-deck destroyers. Stationed at Pearl Harbor during entire war ; used for training. Displacement: 920 Tons Dimensions: 310' (wl) 315 1/4' (oa) x 30 1/2' x 9 1/2' Machinery: 2-shaft geared turbines, S.H.P. 17,500 =29.5 kts. Armament: 4-4" guns, 6-21" T.T. Hope you can use this info. Semper, jeremiah... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Dave Shirlaw Subject: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 USS Allen DD 66 spent the war as a target ship in Pearl Harbor for subs working up for combat patrols. Dave Shirlaw Editor, Seawaves Magazine www.seawaves.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Robert Lockie" Subject: BB63 decks Apologies for misleading anyone about BB63 deck colours - it is not a subject of major interest to me (i.e. I don't have plans to build one any time soon) and I was merely responding to a query to which nobody else seemed to have done so. I must have forgotten/ignored the multiple previous postings on the subject, which is why I offered my recollection and did not portray it as fact. Thanks to Ray for clarifying things - hopefully I will remember this time. But don't count on it! Robert Lockie ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Phil Stewart Subject: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 Michael Donegan asks: >> I noticed this old four piper was at Pearl Harbor during the attack, but what I would like to know is what was she even doing in commission. << Good question. But as a four-piper she wasn't alone. The U.S. Asiatic Fleet had a squadron of these ships (Squadron 29), built between 1917 and 1921 and, in the words of Admiral Thomas C. Hart, "old enough to vote" at the outbreak of World War II. My brief research finds that the Allen, DD-66, is an earlier design even than those of the four-pipers of the Asiatic Fleet: From : Service History Allen commissioned in 1917, joining Atlantic convoys and patrol groups along the Atlantic seaboard and to Europe. In 1922, she decommissioned, and was recommissioned again in 1925. She served as a training ship until 1928, when she was decommissioned again. She remained in mothballs until 1940, when she was recommissioned to serve as a patrol ship. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on December 9th 1940, remaining until August 1945. She escorted convoys to and from Pearl Harbor throughout the Hawaiian Islands, served as harbor picket and gunnery and ASW training ship. She earned a Battle Star for the Pearl Harbor attack. Unfortunately, the U.S. Asiatic Fleet relied on destroyers of similar vintage, outgunned, outmaintained, and vastly outnumbered by the Japanese. But on 24 January 1942 a division of these destroyers attacked the Japanese at Balikpanan, Borneo, There, they sank at least five ships (for over 23,000 tons), and very probably several more. What they could have done had their torpedos not been of the notoriously faulty kind the U.S. deployed at the war's outset is a worthy subject of speculation. Though outclassed technologically, they were not outmanned or outled by their Japanese counterparts. The question of what DD-66 was doing in commission in 1941, however, is apt commentary on the U.S. preparedness leading up to WWII! Phil Stewart http://www.gwi.net/~pstewart ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Cyp Klish" Subject: SMML standards for Ship Plans? (Was: Sea Cocks) Greetings all, Franklyn Brown, I, and others have recently mentioned items we would like to see on, or items that have been left off, ship plans. Perhaps the SMML community - certainly one of the leading "consumer groups" for ship plans - might undertake to put together a set of standards or desired features for the ship plans we buy. Of couse, compliance with this standard would be strictly voluntary for those firms and individuals who do us the valuable service of providing plans, and certainly their input on what should be included would be highly valued, but advertising that their plan conforms to these voluntary standards would be to their advantage since the consumer now knows what they're getting when they buy a plan - they would have fewer dissatified customers. I suggest that this would be a service to all, modelers and ship plan firms alike, since, with the increasing availability of resin and etched metal components, we are now modeling details far more complex than in the past. It would be nice to have a standards system that gives us a warm feeling in advance that the plans we're purchasing are sufficiently detailed. If there's enough interest, I'd be happy to collect the input and draft a document. I suggest that we might consider a tiered system with a basic category (minimum acceptable plan content), moderately complex category, and advanced, highly detailed category. In Telecom, which is what I do when I'm not modeling :-), I'm involved in standards development and tiered systems such as this have proven to be quite useful and flexible. And while I'm a big advocate of having hull openings such as those discussed in the "sea cocks" thread shown on plans, practically speaking, they are surely an item for the advanced category :-) What does everyone think? This may be opening a Pandora's Box, as Franklyn suggests, but I for one think that there is value in tackling it. Cyp ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Art Herrick" Subject: Re: British Standard Ships In reply to: From: "Dean, Tom" >> After reading Art Herrick's reply to my question, I realize that I phrased the type of ship incorrectly. I think it should have read "British Standard Ship Type Bravo" built 1919. Art's reply was very helpful and I will pass it on. Thanks. << Tom, I think the above message gave me the clue I needed to identify the design for the SS BEILLA, so I think I now can wind up this "Thread". So I do not have to repeat any pertinent information, at the end of this message I have copied your original 14 July request for information, and my 15 July reply. When you say " "British Standard Ship Type Bravo" built 1919" ... what you really meant was Type B in the British Standard Ship, WW 1 building program. Type B, designating the yard and their design for a particular ship. A Type "_" design ship could be built in other than the original designing yard, but no changes to the original design could be made. The following is from BRITISH OCEAN TRAMPS, Vol. 1, Builders & Cargoes, page 54 to 63, which I referenced in my 15 July E-mail (SMML Vol 1810): Type A and B were identical in design, with the exception that Type A was a Single Decker and Type B was a Two Decker ... meaning A's had their cargo hatches on the main weather deck, and B's cargo holds had a second deck with cargo hatches to the main hold below. These two Types were designed by D. & W. Henderson & Co., Ltd., Glasgow, and their design and specifications were identical: 400ft x 52ft --- 5,030 grt. --- 8,175 dwt. --- 2,500 ihp --- 11 knots Page 56 has a full page General Arrangement drawing for SS WAR THISTLE (Type A) with enough information for model building, and on page 59 is a 1:128 Body Plan for her hull. Page 62 has a full page waterline color drawing, showing a Type A in a dazzle camouflage paint scheme. Page 63 has a full page rigging detail drawing of the foremast with its cargo derricks, plan and elevation which also covers the bridge area, for a wartime Type B's rigging. The text tells the difference in the peace time rig of the Type B's, which would be the case for the SS BIELLA, which you say was completed in 1919. This will wind up my part of this "British Standard Ships" Thread. I am at the end of my library's road, as far as information on these ships goes. Art Herrick Westmoreland NH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Fred Bultman Subject: Re: Lurking Card modelers A fair number of card modelers lurk on this list, David. I had wondered where you were... Maybe we can hijack it from the plastic/resin/wood guys :)) Fred Bultman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Jon Warneke Subject: Re: USS ALLEN DD-66 Hi Mike, >> Anyone have any info on this unusual destroyer? << From when I did my research on the Allen for our kit, I found this. The Allen was the LANTFLT training DD in the mid to late 20's, for which she was refitted, and was seemingly decommissioned because of the lack of funds at that time. also, she was stored in San Diego where most of her sisters went to Philly. Since she was reactivated in mid-1940, I would assume that she was in service in PACFLT due to her previous assignment as a specialized trainer, and the need to train the new crews that were needed at that period. That's the only reason I could figure for her continued existence when all of her sisters were scrapped. Jon Warneke Commander Series Models, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Lester Abbey" Subject: Re: Allen In response to Micheal Donagans query about the Allen (DD66) All that I can add is this: 1. I've always wondered this myself - and I'm looking forward to an informed answer 2. Many of the Flush Deck destroyers that were built after the Samson Class were poorly built and unsatisfactory. Those were the ones that were scrapped. Perhaps the Allen was manufactured to a higher standard? Lester Abbey Freezing in Wellington New Zealand ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: donald p morgan Subject: IJN Shinyo deck striping I am scratch building a model of the WW2 Japanese escort carrier Shinyo, and the time for paint is approaching. I am in need of information regarding the pattern of deck striping used on the flight deck of this ship. Can anyone out there in SMML-land help me??? Please reply direct to donaldpmorgan@juno.com Thank you. Don Morgan San Antonio, Tx Hi Don, Check out Alan Parry's IJN Carrier Camo page at: http://www.geocities.com/ijncv/ Regards, Shane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Mike Bartel Subject: IHP "Cancelled Ships" Okay, Okay!! I know I said I didn't want to do cancelled ships anymore, but I couldn't find buyers for the masters and I didn't have the heart to just chuck them, so I started making some improvements to some of them, and decided to give them another chance. I'm improving some of these older kits and will be reissuing them on a very limited basis as part of the Standard line with Standard SKU numbers. One piece of bad news- prices will be going UP on these kits so I can get my money's worth out of them. Don't balk at this, please- I'm not raising the prices to be greedy. I'm raising them to stay in business selling them. I know some folks out there perceive craftsman-type kits as being candidates for lower than normal prices. Well, I've got news for you- the production costs are the same, and my profit margin and dealer discount must be figured into the price. I'm starting with the 1921 IJN No.13 thru 16 battle ships. And, the No.13-16 class is a HUGE model- the hull alone is a big hunk of resin 16" long and almost an inch thick at its thickest point! More parts have been made for the kit to make the level of required scratchbuilding that much less. It's still a craftsman kit, though. It's still an ideal candidate for this format. Also, please don't inquire about any of the the other cancelled ship kits aside from the No.13-16 class. You'd be getting WAY ahead of me on that point. I can't answer any questions about the others until I see how this one does. I'm starting with this kit because it's an all-resin kit that can easily be put into production, and I have had more than a few inquiries about it. More info and pricing is on the IHP website. Dealer inquiries are invited, and you'll like the terms. Another point- If you are interested, PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY PAYMENTS UNTIL I ANNOUNCE THAT THE KITS ARE HERE. You can reserve as per the usual procedure, but SEND NO MONEY NOW. The kits are entering production now and I hope to have them within a couple of months. DEALERS: Email us for a copy of updated Dealer Terms. Thanks, Mike Bartel IHP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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