Subject: SMML VOL 1897 Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:44:53 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Monitor/submarines 2: Re: Far Eastern Cruiser 3: Airfix HMS Tiger 4: Torpedoing the "New Monitor" Concept 5: Re: Monitor/armor penetration 6: Sovremenny, Musee de la Marine 7: Thank you Geoff Baker 8: Re: S.S. Portland 9: Re: History Channel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: NAVYDAZE@aol.com Subject: Re: Monitor/submarines Well, I don't claim to be an expert on Monitors, my feeling was that a 16" gun is a bit big for a submarine - I am sure it would go down all right - just not sure if it would come back up. And then there is the limit range of the gun itself - hey, give me a missile sub any day. But you did get me thinking about one thing - anyone know what the rate of fire for one of the subs with the big guns was, like the M-1. It couldn't be very quick as I cannot imagine they would have all the reload equipment, storage and so on that even a monitor or battleship. As a matter of fact anyone know how many shells they carried? Any of our British cousins have any info on this?? Michael Donegan NAVYDAZE Naval & Aviation Artist http://www.navydaze.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: SolidStump@aol.com Subject: Re: Far Eastern Cruiser >> I know that a Chinese company produced a plastic 1/300th scale kit of the ex-RN Arethusa class cruiser transferred to the Chinese after WW2. Again, does anyone know the name of the kit, the name of the company and how to get hold of one? << The model is the Aurora by Lee. On e-bay now and then. I have one. Not bad but the flair/knuckle in the bow is weakly molded. Simon Scheuer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "John Barnum" Subject: Airfix HMS Tiger My HMS Tiger is near to completion. Besides the 2 whalers can any one tell me what other boats she may have carried up to 1966. Many Thanks John Margate, England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "David T. Okamura" Subject: Torpedoing the "New Monitor" Concept Thanks to everyone who commented favorably to my post suggesting that a new heavy fire support ship be based on the Royal Navy big gun monitors of WWI and WWII. However, I must quickly confess that there are plenty of reasons why this idea probably won't be built. My original post was already too long to list the possible cons, but in the interest of fairness please read on as I torpedo my own creation. ;-) 1. I suggested a monitor design rather than reactivating a battleship, since to reduce crew size it might be preferable to design all-new gun systems which utilized automatic loaders. This also opens the possibility of larger calibers, fin-guided projectiles, and other technical gizmos. Needless to say, such weapons development would be frightfully expensive, and extremely vulnerable to criticism. The missile lobby would gleefully deride it as a wasteful step backwards. ("What's next -- laser sights on ballistas? GPS-directed trebuchets?") This has all the appearances of a massive boondoggle, and would never escape Congressional oversight. 2. Such a new ship would face intense opposition from any faction wanting their full share of the Defense Department's budget. The Air Force may protest that their bombers and strike aircraft could do the same job for less money. The Army might ask, "Why is the Navy messing with big guns again, when artillery is an Army matter -- and by the way, when can we have our Crusader?" There would even be opponents within the Navy itself who would feel that their pet projects are threatened by this newcomer. Both the carrier and missile advocates would prefer that this new monitor be scuttled. "We shouldn't gamble with an untried concept when there are proven surface-ship designs already in service -- we just need more of these ships." Then the submarine boys would point out that a lurking sub has the advantage of complete surprise, while a monitor must expose itself off the coastline. 3. I mentioned once that monitors are slow, ugly monsters ordered to do the "dirty work' that's too dangerous for the more glamorous warships. This perception might color Navy thinking. What ambitious officer would want to be posted on such a homely barge? There may be fears (justified or otherwise), that such an assignment might impede advancement. If monitors become the "bastard step-child" of the Navy's inventory, I don't believe they would receive the attention, staffing, maintenance schedules, and upgrading necessary for a front-line ship to retain effectiveness. 4. The idea of a monitor with limited crew is to provide gunpower support while risking as few units as possible, even to the extent of endangering said monitor. I doubt the Navy could resist the temptation to add more escorts to provide additional anti-missile and anti-aircraft protection, even though the monitor was intended to go into harm's way with minimal assistance. Naturally, this will expose more ships and crewmembers to hostile fire. Eventually someone will eventually discover this folly, but may likely come to the conclusion that the monitor is to blame for endangering the escorts, not that the escorts were unnecessary in the first place. 5. When the Royal Navy built their big gun monitors, it was with the full understanding that these were cheap and expendable. We know full well that a new monitor won't be cheap by any yardstick, especially if a completely new main weapon is installed. What about being expendable? Due to the enormous development and construction costs, such as ship could never be considered "expendable". If so, then the Navy would be loath to risk it, thus negating its main reason for being! Also, would the American public and Congress accept the idea of an "expendable" major surface warship, with the resulting loss of life? If a monitor sinks off the coast of an enemy county, it's not likely that the Navy can rescue all the crew, which means deaths and possible POWs. In a society so sensitized over taking casualties, where a single wounded infantryman is identified and made a major news story over national airwaves, what would be the effect of a lost monitor and crew? Except for the USS Pueblo, we haven't had a major surface warship captured or sunk by enemy action since WWII. By and large, the public assumes the Navy can strike while remaining untouchable far out at sea -- the cases of the USS Stark and USS Cole were aberrations. Instead of being an acceptable loss, I'm afraid a sunk monitor would be a blow to public confidence and national prestige far in excess of its pure military value. Thus, anyone wishing to kill this idea need only leak the operational concepts behind a new monitor to the press, then sit back as headlines scream "NAVY TO BUILD FLOATING DEATHTRAP", Navy mothers stage protests demanding that their sons and daughters not be made into sacrificial lambs, and congressmen announce full inquiries into this scandal. Against such a flap, what can the Secretary of the Navy do but cancel the project? The only way I see a new heavy fire support ship can be made politically palatable is to pare the crew down to the bare minimum -- possibly even down to ZERO! With no lives to endanger, the Navy can send such a ship with little fears of a public backlash. While this may sound insane, technology and our growing reluctance to absorb casualties is forcing military planners to consider more remotely-operated or autonomous war machines. We've already seen Predators and Global Hawks over Afghanistan, and bomb disposal robots back home. It's not too far a stretch to imagine similar light armored fighting vehicles for the Army, and the Navy is already experimenting with robot mini-submergibles. While you might want to maintain a human hand on the helm of most naval ships, those few intended for high-risk duties such as close-in shore bombardment are good candidates for full automation. With no crew aboard, the appearance of these new "ghost ships" may strike as much fear as the legendary "Flying Dutchman" -- since they have more firepower than old Captain Vanderdecken could ever dream of, and they're not afraid to duke it out with any opponent. This brings up a whole new can of worms, which I'll elaborate in a future post. Stay tuned. David T. Okamura ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Doug Marrel" Subject: Re: Monitor/armor penetration Modern LGB's above 1000 pounds will happily penetrate 12" of cold rolled steel. The US has a variety of penetration munitions designed to defeat bunkers that would be adaptable to such duty. The large ASM's from the former USSR would have done so as well, and China has a noted interest in possibly upgrading their antisurface missile capabilities in that direction. 2 2000 lb LGB's would turn an IOWA into a sinking charnel house. 1 modern heavyweight torpedo would cripple or sink one with no problem. APFSDS rounds from a modern 120mm tank gun will defeat 12" of steel. Remember the Roma was sunk and Warspite put out of the war for 6 months and was reduced in effectiveness for the rest of the war by primitive German guided bombs (anyone remember the buzzing razors story?). A large mine would send her to the drydock for 6+ months. They are lovely vessels but too expensive to maintain in the current environment. DD-21 with upgraded 155mm VGAS and improved munitions was a far better choice. The missiles they could fire would be better off distributed throughout the fleet that doesn't have enough missiles to fill all the open VLS slots we have now. SMML content: Anyone have a release date of the 1/350 Essex's from Trumpeter (?ICM?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Wilgossett@aol.com Subject: Sovremenny, Musee de la Marine Howdy: Recently picked up the 1:200 Sovremenny by Trumpeter and have a couple of questions. It is readily apparent on comparing the hull to photographs that something is not correct at the raised fo'c'sle area in that the scuttles on the side of the hull move too close to the deck line as they progress towards the stern. As I have not been able to find photos that show the hull straight on, does anyone know of any fairly accurate drawings of this class of ship? Also, would the deck have had camber, and if so, about how much, say at the center of the ship or right ahead of the bridge structure? The model has a flat deck. I have Zaloga's book as well as miscellaneous photos from Polmar, Combat Fleets, etc. Thanks in advance for any info. On another note, I had the opportunity, while in Paris on business a few weeks back, to visit the Musee de la Marine and was just stunned by the exhibits. To see, up close, sailing ship models that are some 30' long and just as high is simply awesome. The displays covers French maritime history from the very early days to modern times and the models are first class. The museum is across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower and I would strongly recommend spending most of a day there, if not more. The few hours that I was able to allocate were just not enough. Will Gossett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "A Phillips" Subject: Thank you Geoff Baker Hi guys, I got my instruction sheet for the Airfix HMS Leander, thanks once again Geoff. Happy Modelling Ant Phillips ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: S.S. Portland To John Sheridan You are correct about what we New Englanders call the Portland storm, but I submit that the term "gale" would be better understood by those unfortunate other people (i.e. non-New Englanders). Believe thee me, John, I know what a side wheel paddle steamer is, having ridden on the Boston to Nantasket boat many times, although I confess that I don't recall if she had a walking beam or not, as did the Boston to East Boston side wheeler ferries. But I still have no idea what a paddle wheel side steamer (as narrated by the local TV reporter) is. If it weren't for the fact that I shudder to contemplate what the History Channel et al would do the facts, I might suggest the Portland's ill-fated odyssey as a subject, but don't worry, I won't. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: History Channel To Richard Rathgeber I don't know what to think about the bombing of London etc., thanks to the History Channel etc., and that's what bothers me. I am not motivated enough (or qualified) to conduct the scholarly serious research required to determine the truth. 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