Subject: SMML VOL 1890 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:08:07 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: HMS Prince of Wales' Escorts in 1/350 2: Amphibious Warfare and Battleships 3: Re: Dredging 4: Re: USS Missouri camo scheme 5: Battleships, missiles and the next war 6: Re: Battleship Debate 7: Battleships.... 8: Cutty Sark 9: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important 10: Threads2 11: HMS Belfast 12: DREDGING 13: Re: USS Helena 14: Re: Battleship Debate 15: Re: Dredging ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1: Broadmeadows Show -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Bunker Hill/ Gettysburgh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Gordon Scott Subject: HMS Prince of Wales' Escorts in 1/350 Paul, For the E class destroyers you could try converting The Iron Shipwright HMS Hesperus. Its marked as out of production but otherwise the only major change would be a new bridge. HMS Tenedos is far more of a problem, I would like to build one of the class in 1/700, the only option I know is to convert the WEM HMS Murray Rose. They share the same hull dimensions but nearly every else is different. HMS Vampire represents a very important class & there ought to be some models of them in the popular scales. Gordon Scott Cambridge, UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Joel Labow Subject: Amphibious Warfare and Battleships >>> 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. <<< I was not suggesting that amphibious operations will never again take place, but rather that OPPOSED amphibious landings into the teeth of heavy prepared fortifications a la Normandy or Tarawa are highly unlikely to happen in the future. The current USN amphibious force is configured for vertical envelopment with helo-borne Marines (with the devout hope that there won't be lots of evilly disposed folks with Stinger equivalents in the landing zone!) and force projection onto undefended or lightly defended beaches (The life expectancy of an LCAC would have been measured in minutes at a WWII defended beachhead!) rather than a heads-down slugging match with shoreline pillboxes and emplaced artillery where BB gunfire support would be useful. Finally (and this will be my final words on this subject as well) it's a little hard for me to derive much comfort from the notion that "many others in positions of authority agree that amphibious warfare is not dead." All too often forces and equipment are maintained 'because we've always done it that way' rather than because of a careful and rational threat analysis. Consider that until the start of WWII the slow battleship with woefully indequate AA armament reigned supreme in the USN because many in positions of authority agreed that the carrier airplane didn't pose any threat to an alert warship! Let the battleships sleep...they've earned our undying respect but their time is past. Joel Labow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: Re: Dredging Craig asked about the method of dredging. One of the most popular methods of dredging is called suction dredging. A pipe is positioned in the channel bed and a pump is started. The bottom material is sucked into the pipe, up and out. Think of it like a giant shop-vac. The material is carried by way of a series of pipes, generally lifted by floats, to a dredge spoil area. The dredge spoil may be either submerged (i.e. down flow from the channel being dredged) or to a shore-based dredge spoil area (as in beach replenishment). Suction dredges are usually self propelled. They do not have to be very large. At the recent IPMS Nats, I spent a short time after dinner watching one work the inlet south of Virginia Beach. Once your setup is made and your spoil pile is laid - its just a several man operation to dredge a channel. Other methods of dredging include the use of drag-line buckets on barge-borne cranes. This sort of dredging gets to be more expensive in men and materiel. With drag-lines you generally need several tugs and several barges to haul the spoil to the disposal area. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: Re: USS Missouri camo scheme Justin Richard wrote in SMML1886 >> I am building a 1/350th Mighty Mo in Msr 22 camo. Question on painting. On the average, were the capstans, bollards, chocks, winches and other small deck items deck blue or gray? Is there an easy answer? I have seen photos of at least one ship with these items apparently deck blue. << In the following photo of the Missouri, taken immediately following the surrender ceremonies, the ventilator in the center of the photo is painted gray around the verticals and deck blue on the horizontal surface. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k15000/k15394.jpg And these photos, while dark, appear to show that the bollards and chocks were painted gray. The working surfaces of the capstans were dark - probably a worn, weathered bronze tone. Not polished bright. The upper surfaces of the large machinery pieces were painted dark - probably deck blue and the verticals were gray. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h96000/h96781.jpg http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h58000/h58158.jpg All of these photos are from the US Naval Historical Center's Photographic Section. Ed Mansfield, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Phil Collins" Subject: Battleships, missiles and the next war I have been reading the post about the USS Iowa with great interest, and would like to add my bit. With all due respect, I think that people are starting to fall into old traps. Missiles v 16 inch guns. Yes missiles have greater range. They are also expensive and non-reusable. Also they are not a great deal of use as close-fire support. Afghanistan. Looking at current conflicts isn't always the best way to look at future needs. It is too easy to fall into the trap of having too narrow a focus. Remember, when the Falklands were invaded in 1982, British Government policy was that the next enemy was going the be the (then) USSR. With this in mind RN missile defence systems were designed to cope with high flying Soviet aircraft. Sea-dart and sea-wolf had problems with low-flying exocet missiles because the Soviets had no similar systems and therefore low flying missiles/ aircraft were not going to be a threat. As the next war would be on mainland Europe, Britain would have the use of friendly airbases and ports, while fighting along side her NATO allies. Therefore aircraft carriers and assault ships wouldn't be needed. So if Argentina had waited a year, or even six months, there would have been a good chance that they would not have been the resources available to counter it. HMS's Hermes and Invincible would have been sold, the FAA largely disbanded, with the HMS's Intrepid and Fearless becoming dogfood tins. No British Government could imagine fighting a war, alone, and several thousand miles away from the nearest friendly bases. Regards. Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "David T. Okamura" Subject: Re: Battleship Debate David Wells wrote: >> Fellow SMMLlies: I'd promised myself I wouldn't get involved, but.......... [main content snipped] OBmodels: Anyone want to build a model of a modern heavy fire support ship?? << David, I fully share your reluctance to enter this battleship debate, but your OBmodels suggestion got me thinking... 1. It appears that the main argument for recalling the battleship is the perceived need for 16-inch firepower for close-in shore bombardment. 2. There are arguments that a battleship requires too many crew members, including personnel so specialized in operating and maintaining 60-year-old equipment that they cannot be easily replaced or transferred to other Navy ships. Thus, there is a need to reduce crew size, possibly by designing automatic loaders for the 16-inchers. If you're going to modify the gun loading mechanism, you probably have to redesign and modernize the projectiles to adapt to automated loading. Fin-guided shells can provide greater precision. However, if you go though all this effort, does it make sense to rely on a dwindling and aging supply of stored 16-inch gun barrels and liners? (Also, should fin-guided projectiles be fired from smoothbore barrels than spun from rifled barrels?) It might be more cost-effective to design a whole new gun system from scratch, with perhaps even larger calibers and longer accurate ranges. Naturally, such modifications cannot be retrofitted in the current battleships, even if you replace the entire turret assembly. Thus, you will need a completely new ship to carry these new heavy fire support guns. Who knows -- by the time such a ship is seriously considered, we might already be experimenting with high technology railguns or energy weapons. 3. Another point of criticism is that a battleship would be exposing itself to danger from land-based missiles. A simple superstructure hit could render a battleship out of action without necessarily sinking it, and the actual loss of a treasured BB would be a blow to national prestige out of all proportion to the ship's real military value. It would be an immense propaganda coup, and possibly one reason why the Navy doesn't want to risk these assets, not to mention the additional human lives aboard. Designed long before "stealth" became a consideration, the impressive profile of a battleship cannot easily be retrofitted to reduce its radar signature, though electronic countermeasures could be taken. A new heavy fire support ship should utilize the latest "stealth" technology in its design and construction, probably assuming a much lower silhouette. It should also be tough enough to absorb missile hits without impacting on its battle-readiness, but paradoxically, this should be a ship that's also "expendable" so that it can be risked in close-up fire support. (Yes, I know this last point is HIGHLY controversial, since nobody assumes that an expensive capital ship and crew be considered "throwaways", but a unit that's too important to be placed in danger for fear of loss is probably an ineffective waste of military assets.) 4. We're assuming that big guns will only be used for shore bombardment, and not for action on the high seas. Therefore, the proposed new heavy fire support ship should be optimized for littoral combat, where shallow draft is a necessity. Summarized, the main requirements are: 1. The ability to carry big guns. 2. Reduced crew size, probably by designing all-new automated guns. 3. Reduced superstructure, "stealth" capacity, a massively-protected hull, and the understanding that the loss of such a ship won't be the public relations calamity that a battleship would have. 4. Shallow draft. Please don't flame me for drawing an unpopular conclusion, but it seems to me that these specifications don't really call for the reactivation of the battleship, but the reincarnation of the "big gun monitor" used by the Royal Navy in WWI and WWII. Granted, these were particularly ugly and slow monsters, but they also had certain advantages: 1. They carried large caliber guns, mostly turrets recycled from scrapped pre-dreadnoughts. In fact, the 18-inch guns originally designed for HMS Furious were jury-rigged on the stern of two monitors. 2. They didn't require as many crew as a battleship, and most were manned by reservists. 3. The minimal superstructure and low freeboard of most monitor designs are inherently "stealthy", and the wide hulls with immense torpedo blisters were designed to take a number of hits. Also, an unglamorous shore monitor doesn't have the same "prestige factor" of a battleship, and probably less propaganda impact if damaged or destroyed. (As an avid monitor fan, I have great difficulty confessing this last point.) ;-) The Royal Navy built them cheap, quick and used them for the "dirty work" that other capital ships were too valuable for. Due to the realities of modern naval design, a new monitor would be far more expensive and complex than their ancestors, but they should be cheaper than other surface ships, or even renovated battleships. In fact, it might be preferable NOT to load these monitors with the latest classified equipment or design secrets, in case one is lost in shallow waters and later examined by unfriendlies. 4. As mentioned earlier, monitors are designed for shallow waters and are stable gun platforms due to their wide hulls. Naturally, they aren't the fastest or most seaworthy craft on the open seas, and an enemy would have plenty of time to prepare as a monitor crawls its way to the coastline. Thus, you will need to pre-deploy these ships in anticipated trouble zones. While a proposed "heavy fire support ship" would probably include a helicopter pad (possibly a hanger) and a main deck covered with vertical launch system hatches, I suspect there would be a strong similarity to the old Royal Navy big gun monitors. This won't be the first "retro" design for the 21st century -- anyone notice that modern "stealth" warships are looking more and more like US Civil War ironclads? ;-) David T. Okamura ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Battleships.... Hello All, I've tried to be good, I've tried to stay out of this. Oh well, we know what's paved with good intentions, don't we... The Battleships were re-activated under President Ronald "Will Spend" Reagan, so they were reactivated about 20 years ago, over many protests from the Navy. This was the same man who maintained that we needed a 600 ship navy, an interesting concept when you have an "All Volunteer Military" and your ships are already under manned. He also Pushed until Congress bought the "Cheap" version of the B-1, after President Carter said "No, we're developing something much better called Stealth, which will be fairly expensive, so why buy something that won't improve on what we have by more than two years or so, we'll wait." Well, we bought the "Lawn dart", er Lancer, and found out that contrary to even the most negative viewpoints at the time, it was even LESS capable than we had feared and the cost of it has hobbled the B-2 procurement efforts. Yes, Battleships are 60+ years old, and yes, there is nothing like them in Firepower. As for the question posed about "are missles and airplanes all we need to do the job of shore bombardment" Well, since the late 1950's apparently, that has been the general view of the Navy. in 1959 they decommissioned ships like the USS Salem of the Des Moines Class who's fully automatic 8" guns were the most modern on the oceans, because "Gun Cruisers were obsolete." Even with only ten years of service in the fleet. Were they obsolete or were the nice shiny missles just too attractive to the Admirals, well, that's for History to decide. But to answer your question, for the last 40 years, YES, officially. "If Saddam gets just one Scud through a battleships defences, and it's targeted at the supersturcture"... The Scud being a Ballistic missle who's design is traced directly back to the German V-2, If Saddam can "Target" a Battleship's superstructure, or even a moving target as big as a battleship, I want to meet the missle officer that can do it. That missle is still based on the ancient principle of "What Goes Up, must come down somewhere". Remember, in the Gulf War, The Reports were that Saddam Hussien was targeting "Israel" or "Saudi Arabia" or even specific cities, and there were times he missed. An Exocet would be a whole different story, In that case, yes, your idea about targeting the Superstructure would have some merit, but these ships were designed with multiply redundant systems and WWII taught them to put in even more redundancy. These ships were reinforced to withstand Kamakazi Attacks, the modern ships like the USS Stark, were not. I believe that part of the reason the current Silo's are not full is due to Missle limits imposed by treaty, not an inability to build as many as we want to. While I understand the concept of rocket boosted shells, (was it the Sturmtiger that the German's built that also used that?) It seems to me that a projectile with guidance and rocket power is the very definition of a missle, and developing an artillery shell that does what a missle does is re-inventing the wheel. Missles were designed to extend the range of Artillery to begin with, all the way back to the British Rocket Troops in the Napoleonic War, unless you hold to the concept that Arrows are basically missles without explosive warheads. But ultimately, those rocket boosted shells would also extend the range of 16 inch guns, I believe the estimates I've read were 40+ mile range instead of 23 miles. Many of our "potential enemies" do not have Navies to rival our, if they did, our Coast Guard would probably not qualify as one of the Largest Navies on the planet. If people who continually attack the battleship based on the viability of Aircraft to destroy them think back to the Desert Shield and Desert Storm, our first target was the Iraqi Air Force, which we rendered virtually inoperable fairly quickly. If your enemy can not launch an air strike on your battleships because your Air Force and Naval Aviation have eliminated them, Their airplanes are not a threat to your battleships. As for, "What potential future targets are within 23 miles of shore?" Well If we consider what possible targets we present within 23 miles of the shore. New York, Boston, Galveston, Baltimore and a fair number of East and West coast Cities strike me as prime targets, not to mention Seabrook Station, Pilgrim I, and Three Mile Island. Mankind has a habit of settling nearest the Oceans. Might I also suggest, Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Rome, And in the area I live in, Naval Bases and Air Force and Naval Air Stations. I'm sure if our fleets were out at war, even Norfolk would not be unobtainable. But to do that they would need to incapacitate our Air Defenses. And, with rocket assisted shells, I suspect you'ld find cities like London being in range, but I can't prove that at the moment, I don't have any maps in front of me. Then Again, I don't imagine us shelling out own cities, or those of our Allies. Ultimately, do I believe we need the Battleships, No. I think they've more than surved their purpose as Warships. But If I'm wrong, then we need to reactivate the Alabama, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Texas also, because undisputedly, No navy in the world has anything to rival The Texas, well, at least not if you discount the Mikasa, but Texas still has bigger guns. Just My Opinion, Richard Sweeney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: jbgroby@cs.com Subject: Cutty Sark You can find that book and pamphlet on Ebay both will usually show up do a search for "Cutty Sark". Jake Groby Jakes' Ship Shop ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: AAA Hobby Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important >> 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 :-) << Actually, I was envisioning a hull of the size of the Des Moines class with many of the features being designed for the DDX system, with the steel plate armor above the main deck replaced with kevlar and other new composite materials that are much lighter inside a hull made of slightly thicker steel plate. The machinery would weigh considerably less as even 6 LM2500 GTs weigh less than 4 pairs of 600psi boilers and machinery. Here is my calculations: (taken from Des Moines data, using full mass of armor, and Tico tables) Hull 8497 Hull Fittings 997 Protection 2189 Armament 1409 Machinery 1150 (1.5 x Tico wt) Equip & Outfit 296 Light ship total 14538 Ammunition 732 Mach. Liquids 92 Complement 42 (404 crew @ 208lbs) Stores 200 Total 16247 This total can probably be lowered by several factors, not the least of which is the lower mass of composite protection over the upper decks (1800), the armament would be cut by one triple 208mm turret and by lighter automatic turrets along the structure (1000), Equipment could be lowered through the use of year-2000 electronics vice the 1945 electronics listed, but since there'd be more call it even. Lowering the totals for 5 categories (machinery, crew, stores, armament and protection) the total I have calculated is 14,806 tons loaded (minus fuel). This is on a hull with the following dimensions: LWL 700-0 LOA 716-6 BWL 76-5 HD 45-1 D 26-0 To further lighten the ship, I would design a fully electric drive system, thus eliminating most of the non-LM weight. Simply put, you use the GTs to make electricity, not horsepower. The electricity is then distributed to the various systems, including a system of podded electric propulsors which eliminate the need for rudders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: JRKutina@webtv.net (John Kutina) Subject: Threads2 http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=234434 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Bob McDonald" Subject: HMS Belfast Just starting on the Airfix 1/600 HMS Belfast and I would like to know what the four structures are amidships.They are dish shaped and contain no other equipment. Any ideas? Thanks Bob Mac Ulladulla ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "DUCKMAN" Subject: DREDGING DREDGING IS DONE BY SHOVELING AND REMOVING, WHICH I HAVE SEEN HERE IN PORT ROYAL SOUND. (SOUTH CAROLINA) THE BOTTOM IS MOSTLY MUD. IT IS ALSO DONE BY SUCKING, WHICH I SAW MANY TIMES ON LAKE ERIE. THE BOTTOM THERE IS SAND. THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS THAT I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH. DAVID IN DIXIE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: SeaPhoto@aol.com Subject: Re: USS Helena Michael Blaser writes: >> 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. << In 1/96 scale, one inch translates to roughly .010 of an inch, so if you add plating it should be subtle to avoid appearing grossly out of scale. The simplest and best techinque for this would be to carefully mask around the raised portions of the plating, and spray several coats of primer to create these details. Look at good quality photos of your ship and similar ships to help guage the effect you are seeking. (Floating Drydock will be a big help here, as they have outstanding World War II photos). By the way, there was a softbound book on the Helena out some years back, I think from Leeward Publications (I'm sure other list readers will correct me if I am wrong ), part of the battle damage series, which had good views of the Helena. Good luck with your model! Kurt SeaPhoto Maritime Photography www.warshipphotos.com Order via our online catalog...now taking credit cards via Paypal Warship Models Underway www.warshipmodelsunderway.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: joe.sus@att.net Subject: Re: Battleship Debate Maybe gun boats will come back if technology changes. I was once periphally involved with a project involving electromagnetic guns to fire microspacecraft (about 3 gallon coffee can sized) around the solar system. A gun like that could allow standoff ranges of thousands of miles. The ship would need to be sizable to provide the power supply. We'll do what we and the Japanese once did, but in reverse, and turn carriers into battleships. Next argument: are carriers just missile magnets? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Dredging >> 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. << To the best of my knowledge, it's dug or sucked up onto barges and carried away. Merely pushing the mud and silt it around will only allow it to settle back Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: M Brown Subject: Broadmeadows Show For anyone in NSW, the annual Broadmeadows Hobby Show will be on at the Broadmeadows Basketball Stadium (near the station) on Saturday and Sunday. The Newcastle Maritime Model Club and Task Force 72 will be there. Newcastle have a pool and will be operating in it. For non floaty people, there will be Trains, RC cars outside etc. Starts at about 10 am. Michael Brown TF72 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "shaya" Subject: Bunker Hill/ Gettysburgh My sources have told me this is a DML kit in a new box. This is 10.00 more expensive than my our mobile Bay presently out from DML. But if you want to build a Gettysburgh the 1/350 GMM350-1D decals cost 8.00 so 10.00 extra for the hull & ships name for the fantail ids not that bad of a deal. Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies www.modelshipbuilding.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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