Subject: SMML VOL 1892 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:10:19 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Cruisers Reference Books 2: A Little Item on the BB Debate 3: The battleship debate continues 4: Re: Graf Spee Camouflage December 1939 5: Re: Recommendations for 1/700 Dauntless, Avenger, Hellcat 6: Argentine Battleships/ Ex: US Cruisers 7: Re: 1/700 aircraft 8: Re: Bismarck and Prinz Eugen Schemes during Rhienubung 9: Re: Battleships 10: Re: Cruisers Reference Books 11: Re: Amphibious Warfare et al 12: Some old WW2 Cruisers and battleships ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: RDChesneau@aol.com Subject: Re: Cruisers Reference Books >> Would anyone know of a good reference book, or books, for Cruisers? I'm mainly interested in Royal Navy Cruisers of the pre-dreadnought and dreadnought era. << Michael The book you need is British Cruisers of World War Two, by Raven and Roberts (Arms and Armour Press, 1980, ISBN 0-85368-304-2). It is out of print, however, and it might be a problem getting hold of a copy. Roger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Ken" Subject: A Little Item on the BB Debate In reply to the accuracy comments from Andrew Jones: In the mid-60's I worked with a gentleman who had been a US Marine artillery forward spotter/controller in Korea. He said that his most impressive action was when he called fire from 16" naval rifles (the MO?). Whereas with land-based artillery he called corrections in 100-yard and ultimately 10-yard increments, from the BB he asked for - and got - 2-yard corrections. Given that this was a Marine praising the USN at the expense of the USMC, I attached a lot of credibility to his statements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "john fiebke" Subject: The battleship debate continues And my two cents.... To those who say that battleships were meant to take numerous hits and still be capable...yes, this is true...but this capablility was as surface combatants/gun platforms in an era where primative radar was the most complex electronic equipment. All the equipment that enables the battleship to fight in a modern war is NOT behind 15" of belt armor. It is more or less unprotected in a superstructure that is also the home of row upon row of unprotected cannisters containing tomahawk cruise missles, which is probably quite a fire hazard. Just as one misfired 5" Zuni rocket can almost sink the Forestal (which I believe also has an armored deck) from the resulting secondary explosions...I would imagine that a hit on a superstructure stacked with cruise missles would be catastrophic. A Fairy Swordfish doomed the Bismark. Take out a modern ship's electronics, and it's just as vulnerable. j.fiebke ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: John Snyder Subject: Re: Graf Spee Camouflage December 1939 Hi Cameron, The "green" camo depicted on GRAF SPEE is a VERY old error that just never seems to go away. Her basic paint was the prewar scheme of Hellgrau 50 on the superstructure, and Dunkelgrau 51 on the hull. Her steel decks were painted one of the dark grays, probably Dunkelgrau 2, her wood decks were natural teak, and she probably had linoleum on one or more of the upper superstructure decks. When they painted the camo pattern, they used available onboard paint stocks. The pattern used Dunkelgrau 51 and Dunkelgrau 2 over the light gray of Hellgrau 50. The false bow waves were, of course, white. If you're looking for the correct paints, you'll find them in our Colourcoats line: KM01 Hellgrau 50 KM02 Dunkelgrau 51 KM06, Dunkengrau 2 C03, Matte White Cheers, John Snyder The Token Yank White Ensign Models http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: Re: Recommendations for 1/700 Dauntless, Avenger, Hellcat Cameron wrote >> I just picked up a 1/700 Tamiya Enterprise CV-6 and plan on doing my first aircraft carrier with it. I intend to portray her at the time of the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot in June '44. Preliminary research seems to indicate she was still in MS 21 at the time and had Air Wing 10 embarked. I plan on having a deckload of aircraft on her and don't want to waste time/money on lousy aircraft. To that end I am soliciting opinions on what the best available representations of the SBD Dauntlesses, TBF Avengers and F6F Hellcats. I might also include one of the VF(N)-101 F4U-2 Corsair nightfighters as well... << Once you get beyond the aircraft packs sold by Tamiya for their styrene aircraft carriers, which you probably already seen, you will find that probably the best aftermarket aircraft are in the Airstrike 700 product line from White Ensign Models. They have everything you will need. While you're at WEM, you can get the correct 5-N paint to do your ship into Ms 21. You will probably also want to check the Classic Warships monograph on the Yorktown-class carriers for details of the Enterprise at the time you seek to model her. The Tamiya kit is "generic" - it does not accurately depict the Enterprise at anytime during her career. Ed Mansfield, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Argentine Battleships/ Ex: US Cruisers Hello Rich, I would hope no-one thinks that the Iowa class battleship would be an easy target to destroy, some people have sounded that way, but I think certain facts prevail. They do have more protective armor than any other ship afloat. One of the main reasons the Regan Administration though they should return to service. As for the USS Cole, I'm sure that if we had wanted to repair her on the spot, or have made her sufficiently sea worthy to return home under her own power, we could have. But by bringing her home on a floating dry-dock we had a better chance of examining the damage. Even the Iowa has spent time in floating drydocks. And multiple control centers is what I meant by redundant systems. The old WWII "Cruiser" was the Argentine "battleship" General Belgrano, She was the former American Brooklyn Class Light Cruiser USS Phoenix (CL-46), A survivor of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Suriago Strait, in which she engaged the Japanese Battleship Yamashiro, firing at a rate of 15 Gun Salvos per minute from her 6 inch guns. in concert with the Boise and the Shropshire the three cruisers fired 1,181 rounds in 17 minutes. Argentina acquired her in 1951. (And I have a friend who has yet to forgive the UK for sinking a Pearl Harbor Veteran, Sorry Guys...) Conversely, although Battleships can take a pounding, the former German Battleship Ostfriesland, HMS Prince of Wales, and the "SUPER BATTLESHIP" IJN Yamato can attest to the effectiveness of Aircraft attacks. Battleships are not invincible. Perhaps we do put too much emphasis on Aircraft Carriers, but I don't see that changing in the near future. I must admit, one of my favorite lines from the movie "Titanic" is when Mr. Andrews turns to Captain Smith and say's "I assure you sir, she's made of Iron, she will sink!" in this case substitute Steel for Iron, but the principle is the same, there is NO unsinkable ship. But essentially, that's why a Carrier Battle group has Cruisers, destroyers, and atleast one attack sub attached, to defend the carrier. As for your comment on Missles. Well, you hit the nail, not quite squarely on the head, but pretty close, US policy wise. The Concept of MAD if you are familiar with it says that we have to have enough missles that if anyone launches a missle attack on us, we can assure that they will be wiped out also. MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction) is based on the "Nuclear Triad" of Missles, Bombers, and Balistic Missle Submarines, Up until the Submarines launch or the Bombers drop their bombs they are considered recallable (Air Breathing Assets is what they called them.) assets, once a missle is launched, short of self distruction, they can not be called back. And Yes, that is what a big part of the US cold war policy was based on. They can have nothing to gain by attacking us, because even if they destroy us, there won't be enough of them left to enjoy their victory! (sick, wasn't it.) But as you see, 2/3rds of the weapons were Missles, Now many of our B-52's are set up to launch cruise missles, so 3/3rds or the Nuclear Triad are missles. Like it or not, Missles are considered the first line of defense. I didn't write the policy I don't even pretend to agree with it all, But it's the one in place. Take Care. Richard Sweeney PS: The Value of the History Channel is Greatly over-rated. Much of their programing is done by people who don't know their subject any better than the average "Man on the Street". Sometimes, not nearly as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Lkjohnson214@aol.com Subject: Re: 1/700 aircraft Hi, If you don't mind raiding kits/aircraft sets, here's the best in 1/700 scale for your project; F6F and TBF- the ones from the Tamiya release of the USS Bogue are the best in plastic 1/700 scale SBD- Fujimi's US Navy Aircraft set had SBDs in it, and they are molded in clear plastic. F4U-2- the Corsairs that came with your Big E kit are the correct 'birdcage' canopy dash-ones that were the basis for VF(N)-101's F4U-2s. Just add the starboard radome and you're good to go. Of couse the fine folks at White Ensign have all these birds (except maybe the birdcage F4Us) in resin and there's plenty of PE sets to dress the planes up. Hope this helps LD Johnson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Daniel Bauer" Subject: Re: Bismarck and Prinz Eugen Schemes during Rhienubung Glad you asked! I am now working on that very subject. There are some very good Web sites on both ships. I have done about 8 months research on this very subject.For the Bismarck, the research seems to lead to the hull painted in hellgrau, with camo painted out, but still showing thru the quick coat of hellgrau over it. The stern false wave painted out,the bow false wave retained. The dunkelgrau on both stern and bow painted out with hellgrau. The Superstructure camo painted out with the mittelgrau of the superstructure. The turrets painted with dunkelgrau tops. The emblems on both bow and stern painted out with dunkelgrau. There is much debate as to what color the tops of the turrets were during the operation. Some state maybe even yellow or red. However, no hard evidence or documentation has proven any other color other than the dunkelgrau. The secondary turrets, ei 5 inch, still show the dunkel grau on the wreck.Now for the Prinz Eugen, the hull painted out with the hellgrau. The superstructure painted over with mittelgrau. Turrets painted over with mittelgrau including tops. No bow or stern waves showing. Dunkelgrau sections on both stern and bow painted over. Emblems on bow and stern deck painted over with dunkelgrau. Hope that answers your questions. There is much misinformation out there. My advice is to recheck and confirm information.If you find only one source or line drawing showing something different cross check it with another source. Don't just take Veterans words on things, remember this took place over 60 years ago, memories fade. Best Regards, Dan Bauer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Hank Lapa" Subject: Re: Battleships It took B-52s dropping plain old iron bombs to drive North Vietnam to the peace table. But the only weapon specifically mentioned by the North as part of the peace bargain was USS NEW JERSEY. A lot of our guys (especially those on the ground) held the same weapon in similar awe. I will add to the above that of all our weapons platforms, the BBs are the most invulnerable. They'd shake off about anything thrown at them without flinching. The CVNs are also very well protected by massive armoring, but they can be made operationally inneffectual if not sunk. Smart and boosted projectiles are just around the corner. I think a naval '155 is in the works. But 16-inch shells were plenty accurate as they were/are. The gunners on our big-gun ships were calculating the trajectories of their shots taking into account the rotation of the earth during shellflight back in the 19th century. Nuff said. The political Navy rushed to strike all 4 BBs to make the "Arsenal Ship" more imperative in the budget. Lot of good that's done us! There was simple prudence in forcing the Navy to put two of them back on the List of Navy Ships. Sadly (to me) I must admit that they are *probably* obsolete. Just like the B-52. Said my piece, Hank ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Arthur Taylor" Subject: Re: Cruisers Reference Books Michael J. D'Silva asks for reference material on cruisers of the Pre- Dreadnought and Dreadnought era, being interested mostly in ships of the RN, and having some detail. Having been involved in research on a particular one, HMS "Eclipse" (1894), for a year, I conclude that of all warships cruisers of that era have been ignored like Cinderella before she went to the Ball. There are some books around with data: e.g. Conway's "All the World's Fighting Ships 1850-1905" and the next in this series "...1906-1921"; Jane's, the earliest being 1898; in Conway's History of the Ship series "Steam, Steel and Shellfire" has a good review of the development of ships, armament and machinery in this era; "Cruiser, a History of British Cruisers from 1889 to 1960" by S.L.Poole, pub. Robert Hale, London 1970, is mostly historical narrative but also has tabular data and photos; "Cruisers In Camera" by R.Hayward, pub. Sutton 2000 is mostly photos but the caption text is well-done and detailed ---the book covers Victorian ships particularly those which served in WW 1, but naturally also ships lasting through WW 2. Unless I've missed something, I know of no book with real detail for cruisers of that era (such as the Anatomy of the Ship series). To get the real detail, Michael may have to: do his homework with the general books; pick the ship he wants to research and model; save many many pennies; contact the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich and purchase copies of the Admiralty plans and relevant photos. Then, a lot of detail research may have to follow. Go ahead! It's most absorbing! Brian Taylor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Robert Mosher" Subject: Re: Amphibious Warfare et al This has been a very interesting discussion and I think Joel has done a good job of covering a number of important points, the most critical one being that modern amphibious forces should not be expected to land on/attack heavily defended beaches or shorelines. The importance of the helicopter (and eventually the V-22), the LCAC and related craft, and the planned next generation of fast amphibious vehicles is that they enable the landing force to reach deeper into the shore area and at the same time be able to land across other than just the easiest and most accessible beaches. The attackers have to force the defenders to try and cover as much territory and defend as many landing areas as possible, since no force can be strong everywhere it enables the attacking force to concentrate all of its forces on a selected point. With regard to the use of Scuds and similar SSMs, the only real plausible scenario I have ever heard was the possible use of such missiles against the kind of concentration of shipping usually associated with things like amphibious landings, and the missiles would be armed with warheads/weapons that would not require an actual hit upon a specific vessel/target or any target - most probably a chemical warhead. At the very least, a chemical attack would force the ships to operate (if possible) under closed down conditions and/or with crew in protective gear - not a pleasant prospect. Robert A. Mosher www.combatic.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Jeff Herne, NJAHOF" Subject: Some old WW2 Cruisers and battleships >> Some of the British officers said one of their biggest worries was if somehow the old WW2 "CRUISER" that Argentina had was to find the British aircraft carriers before they got it. << That would be the USS Phoenix, renamed General Belgrano, one of the survivors of Dec. 7th, 1941, and eventually all of WW2. She was sold to Argentina 1951, refit and modernized in the 1970s, and sunk by HMS Conqueror in 1982. I wish we'd traded some FFGs to Argentina to get her back before the Brits sank her, she'd have made a wonderful museum ship... On the topic of the battleships...lets let the ladies rest...It's a double edged sword...can they still be used? Sure...we can find a use for damn near anything, including 8-track and Beta video tapes. Do they soak up money? Sure, they're 60 years old, and their systems require special attention, and most of the current naval personnel have no experience in her pre-modernization systems. Can they ever be recreated? I doubt it...in the age of electronics and aluminum, I seriously doubt that the US has the ability to create that kind of steel, and I doubt that we have have the technical know-how to create a warship of that type...the knowledge base, the people who created them, are gone... We obviously COULD create a ship like the Iowas...but at present, there's no need. If the need ever arises and the Iowas are the only solution...they're still here...but I honestly believe the 'powers that be' would find an alternative long before they pulled the Iowas out of retirement. Jeff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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