Subject: SMML VOL 1893 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:26:46 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: 1/700 USN Aircraft 2: Re: RN Cruisers Reference Book 3: Re: The Iowas 4: Norman Friedman's Amphib Book--Wow! 5: Digital Navy's New Yamato Model 6: On the issue of battleships 7: magazine review 8: HMS Nelson 9: Re: Dredging 10: Re: The History Channel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: HAZEGRAYADM@aol.com Subject: Re: 1/700 USN Aircraft Cameron: Probably the best TBMs & F6Fs are the ones that come with the CV-6 kit itself, but the Fujimi Aircraft kit (Which has the only SBDs available in this scale) has a good TBM also. Hasegawa also does a kit with TBMs, F6Fs, SB2Cs & F4Us, but I haven't found one yet without large quantities of sink holes. Tamiya's CVE Bogue kit also has the same compliment of A Cs as the CV-6 kit, but the newer castings have really klunky landing gear which must be shaved or removed. As yet however, I don't believe that Tamiya sells their kit's aircraft separately (Except the CV-8's B-25s) so your own casting or trades may be necessary unless you buy the Fujimi & Hasegawa efforts. All will need P E brass like Tom's Modelworks to detail them to an acceptable degree without any big expense. Bert McDowell in Sunnyvale CA USA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: MMclau1079@aol.com Subject: Re: RN Cruisers Reference Book Hi Michael J. D'Silva, One book you might want to look out for is British Cruisers in World War One by R.A. Burt. Although this book is out of print, it turns up from time to time on the Advanced Book Exchange (abebooks.com) which is where I got my copy. This is book provides very good photographic coverage of the subject but, no profile drawings. Another book with some very good pre- World War I. photographs of the RN cruisers and other ships is called The Royal Navy in Old Photographs by Wilfrid Pym Trotter. I also, got this out of print book from the Advanced Book Exchange. Good Luck, Miles F. McLaughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Michael Worrell" Subject: Re: The Iowas This might sound like an utterly stupid and/or amateurish question, but here goes: Nobody's built a "heavily-armored" ship in nearly half a century. I once asked a Navy man why it was that the Royal Navy's warships sent to Operation CORPORATE were so easily disposed of. If memory serves, I said something on the order of "Surely they didn't think these ships would never be hit. I mean, come on---it's almost laughable to think that these planners had that on their mind. What were they thinking?" The Navy guy gave it a few seconds, looked at me, and said words to the effect of "What kind of war did NATO expect to fight after World War II at sea? They expected to fight a blue-water ocean war with atomic weapons launched from SSGNs, the AV-MF, and what have you. Armor's pointless against a multi-kiloton warhead at close range. Why bother adding to weight and expense?" Chilling logic, but nevertheless. It probably makes sense not to waste money on elaborately-armored warships in a blue-water atomic slugfest. Better to make more ships, make them cheaper, and more easily replaced because if they go out, first time they're in battle, they'll be irradiated husks anyways. I'll buy that. I then thought about the BELGRANO and the threat it presented. I kind of laughed at first, you know, the whole "Dumb Argies sending an antique out to fight Her Majesty's Navy" thing. Then, after reading I believe Margaret Thatcher's book, it hit me: Waitasecond. If BELGRANO had made the fleet, well, Sandy Woodward would have had his hands full. Somewhere else, I read that the RN's ships out there had at best a 5" gun, and that those or the Sea Harriers wouldn't have done much against the BELGRANO's 1930s armor scheme. It's what I call "throwing the kumquat" or "the crayon is purple" kind of reaction.[1] This is where I start thinking: "Well, nobody's going to fight a 'Red Storm Rising' kind of naval war with atomics these days. That threat's gone, for the time being. What we've got now is half a century of warships designed to dodge missiles and never get hit." It occurs to me that such a position's kind of, well, loopy. Admittedly, missiles aren't perfect, but if one operates from the position that you'll never get hit, that's a bit too much of whistling past Davey Jones' locker. Why not proceed on the presumption that you will get hit in battle, and build that way? The battleships were designed in an era where getting hit was not only seen as a possibility, but expected. Let me shift gears for a second. When you're the leader, you make the rules. You make the rules to suit what you've got, not what everyone else has. When everyone else gets to a point where they're approaching parity of some sort in the current rules, what do you do? With apologies to Warner Wolf and Don Imus, "CHANGE THE RULES!" Changing technological paradigms would be a cute, if somewhat nasty, way of staying in front. We've done this before, with the deployment of the F-117 and B-2. Plenty of navies seem to be playing with these stealth frigates and whatnot; there's only so much you can do with that and innovate to the lead. SEA SHADOW aside, the VISBY and assorted will probably be low RCS types which nobody can see. Why not throw everyone for a loop, exploit American technical prowess, and build a hulking monster that doesn't care if it's low-observable or not, because getting an attack in on it is an exercise in futility. This of course argues for a new class of ship; I'd rather not see the IOWAs mangled into a 21st century concept. That whole post on the new monitors was rather interesting; I enjoyed reading it. In fact, I've enjoyed reading this whole thread. Thanks to all the contributors. Enough rambling from me. [1] To make a boring story short, it's the art of doing something completely unexpected, such that your opponent can't even begin to think of how to respond. I thought of it when working at a law firm this summer, and got an appeal from an inmate who had stolen some money, and wanted the fruits of his crime returned to him. It was so utterly ridiculous and out-of-the-blue that it was rather difficult to even craft an intelligent response that went past "Are you crazy? No, you can't have it; you stole it!" Credit to Tom Clancy for the second phrase. Regards, Michael "You think you know what I'm doing, so obviously you don't."---Aeon Flux ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Victor M. Baca" Subject: Norman Friedman's Amphib Book--Wow! We just received a review copy of Norman Friedman's new book, "U.S. Amphibious Ships and Craft, An Illustrated Design History" and this one's a winner. The photos are excellent, the paper it's printed on enhances the photography...and the plans... Ah, the plans; A.D. Baker has outdone himself. At $85.00 U.S. retail, this book isn't inexpensive, but it's an entire amphib library under one cover. If you really like those new JAG amphibious ships, Loose Cannon's USS Haskell, and all the other landing craft/amphib models out there, this is one book you really need. There will likely be drawings included for what you're building--it's that good. Friedman covers everything from LVTs to LSDs and beyond. This is one book I've been waiting for and Friedman/Baker deliver the goods. The U.S. Naval Institute definitely gets a pat on the back for an outstanding piece of work. USNI can be accessed on the web at www.navalinstitute.org The ISBN Number is 1-55750-250-1, publication date; Sept. 2002. Victor Baca Editor & Publisher MODEL SHIP JOURNAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "David T. Okamura" Subject: Digital Navy's New Yamato Model Hoping to steer our conversation away from the "battleship debate" and back on "battleship models"... ;-) Roman Detyna's been adding more teaser photos of his upcoming 1:250 scale waterline Yamato model. Go to http://www.digitalnavy.com/Yambuild/index.html, and you'll find a photo journal of the model's construction. Don't just scan the thumbnails -- they only show a portion of the actual photograph. These pictures are in black and white for faster downloading (a considerate gesture, considering that some folks still have slow connections and/or pay by the minute), but they really give you a good idea on how this monster is built. The framework alone is worth examining. Also, don't forget the color photos available at: http://www.digitalnavy.com/html/ships.html (1-6). Enjoy! David T. Okamura P.S. Did I mention that this Yamato is a PAPER model? ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Gmshoda@cs.com Subject: On the issue of battleships I limit myself to battleship models and battleship books, but I am also realistic. I suppose that the Iowas may have been in good material condition (I have no information on this, but the Midway was said to be in surprisingly good shape-- enough for it to be considered for retention for reserve service, even after after years of hard use and newer carriers available for this role). And they undoubtedly can take more punishment than most other ships (especially smaller ships as size does improve survivability) due to their unmatched level of armor protection, especially if hit on their armor. And they can deliver more weight of destruction than can be delivered by air should an amphibious attack be called for on littorial targets. But they are intensive users of manpower. But they are not invulnerable. A single well-placed hit could cause them to be withdrawn for repairs (say a hit near the bow below the waterline or a hit above damaging communications or radar systems). But they have undergone only spartan modernization and would have to rely heavily on escorts for them to defend themselves. But they would have to be modernized to bring back into service (this would be expensive and take time--they would not be available right away) Bottom line is that they are too expensive. I think it was David Okamura who suggested monitors. What a great idea! This is the solution for shore bombardment that has been used in the past by other navies although the USN has not gone that route in modern times. Monitors would be cheaper and expendable. The admirals would be less hesitant to take monitors in harm's way. If no 16 inch guns were available, there should be 8" guns available. They could be constructed very quickly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Andrew Jones" Subject: magazine review World War 2 presents "BATTLE OF MIDWAY" picked this up the other week at either Angus & robertson or some other book store..now only see it at Angus & robertson in Pitt Street Mall in Sydney ..foreign people may have to contact World War 2 @ www.thehistory.net.com To carry on with their special editions (last one was Pearl harhour), they now pay tribute to the battle that turned the tide of the Japanese for good. Contents: - the miracle of midway ..goes into full deatil of the battle etc (some good photos & paintings ,one is a good shot of the Akagi from sorta side kinda slightly looking down as SBD's race across the deck - Miday Atoll's defenders - all about the pilots & troops etc that were stationed on the island - B-17's at Midway- about their part in the battle - The master weaver - the story of Jimmy Thatch - George Gay ..the story of the sole survivor of a doomed air raid on the Jap fleet - a timeline - midway's final casulaties - about US pilots captured by the Japanese & were executed - Yorktowns final fight - about a crew members view of the final few moments of the carrier - I sank the Yorktown - story about the Japanse capt who sunk the Yorktown - midway today a fateful six minutes: the importance of the victory at Midway another great magazine from these people, loads of photos especially of the Yorktown. I guess there is nothing new to read about the battle, but this would be one at least for the collection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Chris Drage" Subject: HMS Nelson HI All, Back from my excursion to my roots in the antipodes.....lovely it was! made me proud to be a Kiwi! Sorry, John, never got to Wellington it was just blowing too much with a freezing southerly. Mainly stayed in AK and Northern parts of the Nth Island. However, back to important matters.....HMS Nelson which I'm depicting in early '43 as part of Force H anchored in Algiers harbour. The problem arises with her 20mm single 0erlikon fit. According to MoW 3 (Battleships Rodney & Nelson) Nelson had 13 "20mm in 1942 and 41 by 1942-43 the period I am modelling her in. So prior to Pedestal she had 13 x singles (which I suspect from the photographs were actually 15 but it's inconclusive). She had a refit in Rosyth following Pedestal (Aug 42) during which I presume the additional guns were added as following this she went out to join Force H in the Med. Photos of her at this period are sketchy and again inconclusive showing conflicting evidence...or none at all. The most complete description of her armament comes following her 1945 refit at Brooklyn USA. Can anyone provide evidence of where those 41 x single 20mm Oelikons were located in 1943? I have two photos which show that at some point she had three per side located fore'd of the 6inch battery and possibly four more fore'd of the 16inch turret (abaft the breakwater). Cheers! Regards, Chris He tao rakau e taea te karo kupu kaore e taea te karo (Te reo Maori) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: annobon4@aol.com Subject: Re: Dredging Hi GUYS I'd like to thank all those who personally answered my question about Dredging. I knew there was people out there who were familiar with it. Thanks. Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: The History Channel I was glad to see Richard Sweeney's comments about the History Channel's "documentaries". Early on I became disillusioned by the apalling inaccuracies and errors appearing so consistently, not only on the History Channel, but on The Learning Channel and the Discovery Channel as well. It seems as though there is little (if any) editorial oversight or checking of the material before it is broadcast. The producers fail to take that last step to ensure integrity of their essays. Some of the things they offer suggest gross incompetence in the form of either ignorance (which may be correctible by making the effort to learn the facts) or stupidity (which is intellectually terminal). The continuance of either is unforgiveable. And the faults are not limited to subject matter, but include grammatical errors, mispronounciations, contradictions, inconsistencies, etc., for which there is no excuse. Those people are assumed to be wordsmiths, but rarely are deserving of that opinion. With the infamously big budgets television has spawned, simply engaging at least two knowledgeable people (ala the second-opinion procedure) to review the films would go a long way to improve the informational integrity of the subject. When I first saw some of these shows, I was impressed with the possibilities. But when I began detecting errors and inaccuracies in material with which I was at least minimally familiar, I began to have serious doubts about what was being said concerning that which was unfamiliar to me. I now distrust much of what I see in these programs. Alas. But it appear to be consistent with the overwhelming lack of personal integrity so rampant today. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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