Subject: SMML VOL 1887 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:01:53 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Nitrogen vs compressor 2: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important 3: Farewell to the IOWA's 4: Airfix HMS Tiger & HMS Daring 5: Send In The Battleships-Then The Marines! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: WR Press ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Bishop, Paul" Subject: Re: Nitrogen vs compressor I believe that you ment to say carbon dioxide insted of nitrogen in your title. I use a CO2 bottle insted of a compressor and have been very satisfied with the results. No compressor noise either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Percy_John@emc.com Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important Larry, while I recognize your knowledge on this, I think you are wrong. 1) Regarding what the US Navy wants, check out these articles: http://usnfsa.com/articles/defensenews_firesupportgap.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/repliestonavyfInal0073.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/NNUSTLandAttackpt-1.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/NNUSTLandAttackpt-2.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/samsperiscope_3272001.pdf Plus a host of others at that site - including offical DoD reports. Its clear that both Navy and Marine admirals/commanders agree that the lack of NSFS is a serious risk to Marines, and that 'new technologies' are either a) A long, long way off, or b) Do not in any way, shape or form reach the damage potential of the BBs. Please remember that not only do they have the 16inch guns, but also, in current form carry more tomahawks and harpoons than any other current ship. With a planned modernization, it could bring up those counts to the 96 of them (tomahawks). (It should be noted that this interest in lots of these missiles on one platform is a current interest - see the $1billion upgrade of Ohio class subs to carry this amount of firepower - at much more enormous cost). It is clear to me that, right now, American lives are at risk due to lack of proper NSFS, and that the replacement for the BBs to do this are way, way, way off, if at all. For the forseeable future, the BBs are the BEST solution - in any terms, whether they be cost (reactivation/modernization), manpower, or yearly costs - to NSFS. 2) Regarding costs: Modernizing the BBs has been estimated at $500 million. Far less than the 'new' technological destroyers on the board ($1 billion), which still cannot match the BBs current firepower, and wouldn't even come close to its modernized firepower (much upgraded in # of missiles carried, plus extended range munitions). The only thing currently that can match a BBs current firepower (or its possible future firepower) to put ordinance on target is a carrier - and they cost far more to build, far more to run, far more in manpower, far more vulnerable - and STILL can't do what 16inch shells can (in terms of penetration, impact, etc). If you compare what a salvo of 9 16inch guns can destroy from one BB to what is needed from AC to do that, it is far more cost effective. Also consider: a carrier needs far more in support with escorts than a BB does (even more costs). 3) Regarding vulnerabilities: It has been shown (in the above articles, for example), that the BBs would be the LEAST vulnerable asset in litoral warfare (the most likely kind in the future) than any naval combatant. either from direct hits of missiles or torpedoes. I would really encourage everyone interested in this topic to read all the articles at the above site. Respectfully, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Katz, Gene S" Subject: Farewell to the IOWA's Re: the need and/or desire for the IOWA's. Larry is right on target with his discussion of big gun ships, $$$$$$, WW2 era equipment, $$$$$, reduced crews, $$$$$$, other available means of observation and control of Naval Fires, did I mention $$$$$? Yes, big guns were fine in the "last war". I work daily with the last skipper of the IOWA (when the turret exploded) on the Navy' Aegis Programs, and we have had this same discussion (among other critical items such as Navy's football team and the politics of DoD funding). Even he concedes and agrees. It has been most interesting since I read the book and see him every day. Also, I just finished work on delivering USCG's DEEPWATER program, and among the overarching principles were reduced manning, more bang for the buck, doing more with less, moving the Coast Guard far into the $$$$ realities of Service politics in the 21st Century. IMHO, YMMV. Gene ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Geoff Baker" Subject: Airfix HMS Tiger & HMS Daring Hi Guess what after Airfix's release of the Destroyers of WWII set earlier this year theu have now announced a combo set of HMS Tiger & HMS Daring in 1/600 scale. Just been posted at Hannants Future Releases page. http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?Mode=view&Database=advn&R=AX04213 Now thats a welcome surprise, just watch collectors start off-loading on ebay in the coming months. They are also re-releasing the SRN-4 in 1/144 scale for those who are interested. Cheers Geoff Baker ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Victor M. Baca" Subject: Send In The Battleships-Then The Marines! Battleships are fine for what they are. And missiles certainly begin the carnage Ground attack carrier aircraft horribly fry and rip the other guys into dead mush; but they're only a prelude for the killing at the hands of men on the ground. My dad was a combat Marine in WWII, Pacific Theatre. He rarely spoke about what his war was really like. Those old battlewagons slammed the Japanese positions without mercy, hurling shells, "as big as a Volkswagen" (as the press always describes). Pounded the islands to bits. The landing craft were sent in next. When Papa went in, it took the rifle, bayonet and K-Bar to really finish the job. He once described the experience of being soaked in mud, sweat and rain before the carnage began. Scared, nauseous, pissin' in his pants and mad as hell. These guys are the ultimate naval weapon. Grisly stuff? Maybe, but that's what it all comes down to anyway. Victor Baca MODEL SHIP JOURNAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Growlrr@aol.com Subject: WR Press Please be advised that after years of constant abuse and an unending barrage of cheap cigar smoke, the computer at WR Press has finally keeled over, leaving them temporarily without email. My beloved publisher is working on rectifying this situation, but in the interim, if you have a question or need info, please call him direct at (516) 887-0072 or you can email me at "growlrr@aol.com" and I will make sure he gets the message." Thanks for you patience Glenn R. Arnold WR Press ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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