Subject: SMML VOL 1889 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:09:10 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Italeri 1/350 USS Gettysburg 2: Cutty Sark 3: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important 4: Tall ships in town 5: HMS Prince of Wales' Escorts in 1/350 6: HMS Jamaica, post-war 7: Battleship Debate 8: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important 9: Re: SMML VOL 1868 10: OK OK, my last word on the Iowa's - honest this time! 11: Mirage Ocean Kits 12: Dredging 13: USS Helena -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Book on eBay 2: FOR SALE: All 21 Volumes of IJN Photo Files by Kojinsha 3: 1/700 kits from WSW/B-Resina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Rod Dauteuil" Subject: Italeri 1/350 USS Gettysburg Hello, I can't recall if this was mentioned in a previous post--But here goes anyway. I just saw the new Italeri USS Gettysburg Aegis cruiser in 1/350 scale. Looks pretty nice. But is this simply a repop of the Shanghai/Dragon Aegis, or is it all new tooking? I have the S/D USS Bunker Hill, but without comparing the boxes side to side I really can't tell. I don't want to spend $30.00 on something I have already. Rod ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Cutty Sark Anyone interested in building a model of the tea clipper ship Cutty Sark is well advised to procure a copy of the (out-of-print) book "The Log of the Cutty Sark", by Basil Lubbock, published by Brown, Son, and Ferguson, Ltd. (Glasgow), reprinted in 1966. It has much detailed information, and is profusely illustrated with photographs, plans, and appendices. Another little gem is an undated 25 page pamphlet by Frank G.G. Carr, put out by the Cutty Sark Preservation Society. This may take some serious searching, but you can start with the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London, England. Franklyn Hi Franklyn, You can also buy ship plans from the shop aboard the Cutty Sark as well. These are very nice and will help anyone modelling the Cutty Sark. Shane - who crawled all over that lovely clipper last year taking a helluva lot of photos ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Gernot Hassenpflug Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important >> main battery - 6 Mk71 guns in 2 triple turrets sec. battery - 8 127/155mm guns in 4 twin turrets missiles - 32 cell VLS for TLAM or follow-on AA - 2 RAM, 3 Phalanx Armor - similar to protection of Des Moines class using advanced materials Machinery - NGGT to proved 30kt sustained speed Disp - 12000-16000 T 2 faces of modified AEGIS system used for counter battery fire similar to Army TPQ role. << James, the current Aegis ships approach 9000t (The Japanese ones 10000t), and with what you are imagining there I will imagine a displacement of around double that, say 25000t and over. Imagine the dimensions of the current Aegis ships stretched to fit the barbettes of 203mm turrets (armoured), the hull strengthened to take the continuous strain of firing over a service life of at least 30 years, and the machinery to propel such a monster at 30 knots. To be sure, advances in hull design and propulsion systems (power to weight) help, but still, you can be sure that this would be a great idea - no more puny modern 1/700 warship models next to the carriers! To take a dig at politicians, the ships could still be officially listed as 16000t escorts of course :-) Gernot Hassenpflug ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: JRKutina@webtv.net (John Kutina) Subject: Tall ships in town http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/photogallery/gen/tallship/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Peter Leuenberger" Subject: HMS Prince of Wales' Escorts in 1/350 There were two resin ship kits in 1/350 scale available which you might consider for your project; both were issued by ARMADA Models from Canada. ASM-1001, HMS Vega, V Class Destroyer, 1917 ASM-1002, HMCS Kootenay The HMCS was in fact the ex HMS Decoy, a D Class Destroyer (launched in 1932). I have got the Kootenay kit and it is well cast with lots of nice detail (I especially like the details on the open bridge). ARMADA produced just those two kits and then unfortunately went out of business. Udisco Ltd of Montreal still has both kits on their lists (http://www.udisco.com/hobbies/inv/CUSTOM.HTM) but I never checked actual avalability with them. To my best knowlede there is no S Class Destroyer in 1/350 on the market. Good luck with your project Best regards Peter Leuenberger, Switzerland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: David Wells Subject: HMS Jamaica, post-war Fellow SMMLlies: My 1/600 "colony" class cruiser project continues. I've pretty much decided on HMS Jamiaca. I'm still thinking of making the model in post WWII configuration, perhaps as she appeared in the Korean War. Does anyone know where I might find some pictures of HMS Jamaica in that era? I'm especially looking for pictures/diagrams which show herarrangement amidships, where her catapult once was. Details on radar and AA guns (or lack thereof) would also be helpful. "There seems to be something wrong|David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 |http://home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: David Wells Subject: Battleship Debate Fellow SMMLlies: I'd promised myself I wouldn't get involved, but.......... Larry Ouellette wrote: >> The discussion of whether the US battleships should be reactivated or not has been going on for years (10+???) in sci.military.naval If you do a Google search on that newsgroup for battleship you will get over 10,000 hits (that means 10,000 posted messages.) I typed battleship effectiveness and got around 400 hits. << Indeed, and some may recall some of my rants back then. Unfortunately, since sci.military.naval is unmoderated, flamewars resulted, and proof by intimidation won the day. I simply did not have time to respond to the flood of attack e-mails. They were all pretty much the same, and poorly thought out. Almost every one said that I think that battleships are unsinkable, which I never said. Joel Labow wrote: >> THE OPPOSED AMPHIBIOUS LANDING HAS GONE THE WAY OF WWI-STYLE TRENCH WARFARE! << I must respectfully disagree. The fact that we (i.e. the USA) still maintain an amphibious warfare navy and a marine corps suggests that many others in positions of authority agree that amphibious warfare is not dead. The fact that we did not use the "gator navy" in Afghanistan is not relevant. We didn't make much use of nuclear submarines in Afghanistan, but nobody is suggesting that we get rid of those. We don't know where the the next conflict will be or what it will look like. Would anyone have believed two years ago that the next war would involve special forces riding horses? I'm sure someone out there would have laughed about reactivating the horse cavalry, and brought up the disastrous charge of the light brigade. You never know what the next war will look like, so a nation must be prepared for a wide variety of possibilities. James Corley mentioned a "modern heavy cruiser" (my name for it, not his) scheme. I think he's heading in the right direction. While the Iowas are indeed old and manpower intensive, I don't think that these facts negate the need for fire support. I think that given the age of the Iowa class, it is past time to look into new heavy fire support vessels. Such a vessel could be truly optimized for fire support, and could require a much smaller crew. I'm not sure that Mr. Corley is thinking quite big enough. The 8" L55 mk 71 was an interesting design, but it was a lightweight gun intended for use on destroyers. A larger shell could contain substantially more submunitions. An examination of some of the more modern shells developed in the 1980s for the Iowas should illustrate my point. (guess what? they had more than just the 1930s vintage 1900 lb. hi-cap rounds!!) OBmodels: Anyone want to build a model of a modern heavy fire support ship?? "There seems to be something wrong|David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 |http://home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: NEVENGER@aol.com Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important I have to respond to this one. >> The US is at present occupied in Afghanistan searching for Al Queda terrorists. They are also flexing their muscles regarding possibly picking up where they prematurely left off in the war with Iraq. These two I know about. Neither of these countries has a coastline except Iraq's small piece at the end of the Gulf. So my question is to those advocates of maintaining the Iowa's for their capability of firing a 16" shell 30 miles inland, who are you intending to shoot at. Is there a fresh piece of gunboat diplomacy of which I am not aware. << Is this to say that warships unless they are Aircraft Carriers, subs or support for aircraft carriers / subs have no purpose? Or am I to read your writing as saying that everyone who has a coast line that a battleship could fire at is now and forever our friend? Or artillery guns on warships are now out dated and all we need are missiles and airplanes to do the job of any shore attack we may need. Please also note that in the gulf war last time we did use 2 battleships for very effective shoe bombardment however small the coast line. There is nothing that has been made in recent time to compare to some of the older ideas. From what I understand the B52 may see service until 2050 just because for what it can do and how, there is nothing cheaper. The battleship I think falls into the same topic as far as I am concerned. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Edd Pflum Subject: Re: SMML VOL 1868 Dear friends, I recently received a copy of SMML VOL 1888 inadvertently numbered as VOL 1868. As I'm sure you are all aware, misprinted postage stamps are among the most highly valued collector's items extant. Anticipating it's eventual appreciation, and before offering this rarity on E-Bay, I am making it available to members of this list for the low price of $100,000, in cash, cashier's check or resin equivalent ( about 1.5 1:350 scale aircraft carriers.) Thank you for your kind attention, Edd Hi all, Put it down to exhaustion and not a little wine on my part after the model show in "Sunny" Brisbane on the weekend ;-) Shane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: louellet@uism.bu.edu Subject: OK OK, my last word on the Iowa's - honest this time! I have been reading the comments over the last few newsletters about the pros and cons of reactivating the battleships. Here are my final (really this time!) words on the subject. The only thing that distinguishes the battleships is their 16 inch rifles and heavy armor. All other talk of missile systems and other weapon systems is really not relevant since these systems already exist on much more modern ships. The missile silos of the *current* fleet are not full; there are not enough missiles to fill them. So, since the 16 inch rifles and amour is all these ships have to offer, how do we get the ship within 23 miles (max range of 16 inch rifle) of all targets without endangering the ship and its crew? Today's Navy doesn't. You cannot protect any ship if it is that close to a target that can fight back. If Saddam gets just one SCUD missile through a battleships defenses, and it is targeted at the superstructure, not the hull, the battleship can be mission killed. If you are not familiar with that term, it means taking an asset out of the fight by destroying its ability to fight even if the ship itself is largely intact. If the radar systems are shredded, you can't aim the weapons very well. I believe this happened to the USS Stark. The missile hit to the hull did a lot of damage and killed many men, but the hit to the superstructure completely took out the ships ability to fight. That is why today's Navy uses airpower and missiles to do its dirty work, usually from hundreds of miles away from the target. A battleship is no good for airpower, and missiles are better launched from ships designed to support them, not retro-fitted into them. Today's Navy does use 5 inch rifles and has developed or is developing shells that have rockets to greatly extend their range. There is a program underway by both the Army and Navy to take the 155 mm rifle systems, which are extensively used by our allies too, and creating extended range shells for these too. Also under consideration is a Naval rifle that would be mounted vertically in the hull of the ship with only the tip of the barrel outside. The projectile would be shot straight up and then guidance systems and rocket power would send the shell to its target. Do any of these systems have the destructive power of a 16 inch shell? Probably not. But the cost of hardware and people to put the 60+ year old 16 inch weapon system with 23 miles of its target, is too high a price to pay. Plus how many of today's targets or potential future targets are within 23 miles of shore? Probably few to none. Respectively, Larry Ouellette ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Mirage Ocean Kits Hi, Sorry if this has been asked before, but does anyone know if Mirage Ocean will sell their kits (retail or wholesale) outside Japan? I would love to get some of them, like the Tosa, Amagi, Lion, Muzio Attendolo, and O Class battlecruiser. At least, I think that's what they are.... Thanks, Art Nicholson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: annobon4@aol.com Subject: Dredging Hi Guys Does any one know how the method of dredging is supposed to be done. Is a case of shoveling out the bottom of a river or bay mechicalnly or pushed mechicanlly to create a channel thru a bottom. Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: BlaserGMSail@aol.com Subject: USS Helena Hi everybody, I recently purchaces Lee Upshaws hull of the Helena and would like to talk to someone about technique in hull plating. These hulls are smooth and the size dictates more & accurate detail. Michael Blaser ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Mike Bartel Subject: Book on eBay I recently acquired a copy of 'The Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet', Tenth Edition, 1975 (Morison & Rowe, Naval Institute Press), and have put it on eBay. Sorry I don't have the auction URL, but it's under the Collectibles-Militaria category. Hopefully, someone is looking for this edition- I'd like to find it a good home. Thanks, Mike Bartel IHP http://ihphobby.tripod.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "David Miller" Subject: FOR SALE: All 21 Volumes of IJN Photo Files by Kojinsha All 21 Volumes of this small format book. All Japanese text. Hordes of previously unpublished pictures and drawings of virtually every configuration of each class. I have found by scanning and enhancing I can blowup interesting areas for even more detail. These are an absolute must for any IJN World War II ship builder. All warships are covered down to submarines and the small 600 ton escort vessels. No auxiliaries are covered, not even the large seaplane carriers. At current yen prices these books are listed as available HLJ at $229.90 plus shipping 17 pounds from Japan! I will sell my like-new books for $195.00 plus $6.94 media shipping within the U.S. I will only sell these as a set, otherwise they go to eBay one-at-a-time. You can pay me with a credit card through Paypal. David Miller Palm Bay, FL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: rms Subject: 1/700 kits from WSW/B-Resina Please check out our web site for great prices on all WSW and B-Resina 1/700 resin ship kits and accessories: www.wic.net/~rms/ Also available but not listed: WSW 700-19; Potemkin, Russian battleship, 1905 $46.00 WSW 700-42; Schleswig-Holstein, 1939, German predreadnought battleship $46.00 Also the merchant ship set (1 cargo ship, 1 oiler, 2 tugs) is listed on the accessories page. And finally, all of the accessories listed at $6.50 have been reduced in price to $6.00 each. I will fax a purchase order to WSW in Germany on Wednesday, 4 September 2002. Questions/orders? Please contact me off list: rms@wic.net Thanks! -- Lisa D. Norman / Rocky Mountain Shipyard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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