Subject: SMML VOL 1848 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:18:09 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: getting kids involved 2: Re: Getting kids involved: learning and fantasy 3: Re: USCGC Modoc in Measure 16 4: Re: Getting kids involved: learning and fantasy 5: Re: Getting kids involved: learning and fantasy 6: Why ask Why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "john fiebke" Subject: Re: getting kids involved I second the opinion that for kids to want to build models, they must first have the interest in the subject. My father took me to almost every WWII museum on the east coast as a kid. The Yorktown. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, US Airforce Museum, Smithsonian...almost every picture of me between 5 and 10 has an airplane, tank, or ship in the background. He didn't have to drag me into modelling. I wanted to build my own versions of the historical things I'd seen. What he did try to do was to get me into Trains...but I'd never actually seen a steam engine. Even though he had tens of thousands of dollars of very intricate scale trains, I wanted to build warships, tanks, and planes. john ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Ken Goldman" Subject: Re: Getting kids involved: learning and fantasy I completely agree with David Miller about current model instructions. The confusion created at least somewhere when the drawing is unclear would be eliminated in nearly every case if the part was actually named, so we, the kit builders, could employ basic logic and knowledge to figure out that of two similar looking blobs, one is actually a gun director and the other is a quad 40mm - you know what I mean. Even if the instructions are crystal clear and complete, part of the experience is missing if I don't have the names and thereby the uses of the various parts. I can just see the Department of the Navy placing an order for 100,000 of "Part A." As for "playing" with the models, I won't admit to making noises, but I do try to think myself small to get the feel of walking the deck and looking out across an endless sea from the bridge wings. Ken Goldman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Jeremiah O. Coughlin" Subject: Re: USCGC Modoc in Measure 16 >> I have quite a few photos of ships like the Wind class icebreakers, the Northland, and the Storis in measure 16. Often, depending on the film used, there seems to be a very high contrast between the white and blue. I believe that the standard 5-B Thayer Blue was used. Also, although ms 16 called for the horizontal surfaces to be normal deck blue, at least on the icebreakers the blue and white design was continued from the vertical to horizontal surfaces. I have very clear photos of both the Southwind and Eastwind that show this. Last, ms16 was not symmetrical. The design carried around the bow and stern and was unique on both sides. << Dear Smallies, There are a few B/W photos of the 240' Tampa Class Cutters, Tampa-CG 36, Haida-CG-37, Mojave-CG-38, Modoc-CG 39 in the book: "U.S. Coast Guard Cutters & Craft of WW II" by Robert L. Scheina. Printed by the Naval Institute Press 1982. The two Port sideshots show the same type pattern although appears to have been freehand. The Mojave seems to be tri-colored. Incidentally, they cost $775,000 each in 1921. The Modac's home port was Wilmington N.C., was assigned international ice patrols until WWII. Witnessed the air attacks on the Bismarck, (stayed far away) Stationed at Boston during WWII, assigned escort duty in the Greenland area, picked up many survivors of torpedo attacks, 13 Feb. 1944 towed in H.M.S. Strathella, 1944-45 operated with Ocean Escort Group. Decommissioned 1 Feb. 1947, sold 30 June 1947. Total service time-25 years, 8 Days. Semper, jeremiah... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Donald Morgan" Subject: Re: Getting kids involved: learning and fantasy I read with great interest, and no little amusement, the note about fantasizing over a model ship or airplane, sent in from our friend in Macomb, IL. No, my friend, you are not alone. As a veteran of a great many wargame naval battles, I can testify that many enjoy that same affliction. Imagine an "armchair admiral" surveying a fleet of ship models on a large floor, and planning just how he intends to decimate his opponent, sprawled on the floor, several yards away, across the room. When our local wargaming group began losing members due to job transfers and college graduations, I can remember drawing up a few small recruiting posters for use on campus bulletin boards, and one of them bore the notation "Come join the only game in town where you can drown your best friend and openly brag about it the next day !!" That little poster got us several new members. Our group has long since vanished to the four winds, but I still have the hand-written scenarios from several of our more interesting and successful games, including one involving a German squadron trying to hunt down a convoy in heavy fog, where all ship models were represented by small wooden "blanks" and no one knew who or what he was facing until they were close together. There were a number of loud groans heard from time to time, to say nothing of an occasional unprintable word, muttered in a low voice. That scenario was entitled "Lurk in The Murk" and I think the person who derived the most enjoyment from that game was the referee who had to enforce the "Silence" rule. (Players who violated the "silence" rule suffered "accidents" via a roll of percentage dice against a numbered list of possible problems, in the referee's hands) So, dream on fellow modeler. You are not alone!!! Don Morgan San Antonio, Tx ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Reynaga, Tim@EDD" Subject: Re: Getting kids involved: learning and fantasy >> Reflecting back...Most kits included a subject history...Instructions were mostly in text rather than "universal" symbols...Much of this underlying content was stripped from models in the 1970's...many kits today (except for box art) do a poor job of presenting the product. This does not attract young people, or anyone else, to the hobby. << Dave, I completely agree. Elimination of text in favor of generic pictograms to "universalize" the product has had the effect of masking the connection between the model and the historical original. When I first noticed this change, I assumed that this disconnect was an unintended side effect. After all, we don't all read the same language...but now I wonder. For one thing, is text really a problem? When I first began making models as a kid I couldn't yet read, so I relied completely on the illustrations and part numbers to put my models together. I never had any problems. It's the same with Japanese or Polish kits today; I can't read those languages, but assembling from the pictures alone is no problem. Eliminating text is not intended to make understanding easier; it is to impair it. It is a way of de-emphasizing the embarassingly violent history of the ships. There have been other changes. I understand why many manufacturers have altered Third Reich flags and markings to expunge the swastika; I'm not fond of such historical dissembling, but fair enough. However, some manufacturers have even gone so far as to change the action in box art paintings. For example, Revell's original Blücher kit box art showed the ship charging up the Drobak Narrows, forward turret guns blazing and a Norwegian torpedo literally leaping from the water towards the cruiser. The present Revell Germany version of the same box art has the gun flashes airbrushed out, and there is no sign of the torpedo. Similarly, the current version of the Prinz Eugen box art now has the prominent torpedo explosion on the stern in the original artwork painted out. Their newest release of the Arizona with the well-known "orange sky" artwork now has most of the attacking planes eliminated, and the sailors manning machine guns in the foreground are now gone. The Revell Bismarck artwork has been toned down also, with all but one of the Swordfish eliminated and the ship's guns now silent. The retouched scene looks almost peaceful. The upshot of all this is that some manufacturers have consciously downplayed the violence element inherent in model warships, presumably in the hope of not offending anyone. Perhaps they do succeed in placating some of the more politically correct, but do they really think these people build ship models? It seems silly. Why not celebrate the ships for what they were? I am not bloodthirsty, but I must admit that some of the appeal of warships for me is the drama of the conflicts in which they were engaged. As a kid I loved the dramatic and, yes, violent paintings on the boxes of my models. They inspired me to learn to read the instruction sheet histories, to read about them in books, and ultimately fueled what has become a lifelong interest in history. Yes, the new edited-for-content images are less disturbing, but they are also less interesting. Kids don't like watered-down drivel any more than adults do. No wonder so many of them find Gundam Wing and Pokémon more compelling. Tim ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Pwesty" Subject: Why ask Why? Hi List Can somebody tell me whay the mighty Prinz Eugen was such a lucky ship throught out her career. Were the gods of ships just looking down on this cruiser.? Just wondering??????? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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