Subject: SMML VOL 1898 Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 10:39:31 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: The History Channel 2: Re: History/Discovery (et al) channels 3: history channel 4: M class submarines 5: Re: Hornet 6: Re: M class submarines 7: Re: History 8: Re: Monitors 9: Re: History Channel 10: Re: HMS Maori 11: Iowa and M1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: The History Channel To Mike Leonard My reaction to "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" is to indeed worry, big time. In biblical times, the integrity of scribes was unquestioned. If you could point to "where it is written", then it was so. But today, The buzz is, as they say in Brooklyn, "Oy ve ist mir", here translated as "Oh woe is me" if one is seeking the truth. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: History/Discovery (et al) channels To D.Przezdzieki As good old Henry Ford once said "All history is more or less bunk.". I do believe he was referring to the sanitized version of American History as sponsored by the Daughters of the American Revolution who had a tremendous influence on the way American History had been taught in the American Public Schools during the late 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. A good example was the term "Manifest Destiny" used to justify and glorify the American westward expansion which was soiled by the U.S. Government's treatment of the indigenous native (Indian) population. But fear not, present day political interests similarly influence and manipulate current expoundings of "history", regardless of the conduit. It is called "propaganda", like it or not. I suggest that anyone concerned look up the complete definition of the word "history" in a dictionary. Nowhere do the words "true", "truth", or "accurate" appear (in my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, anyway). Now that gives "historians" a lot of seaway. The bottom line here is that the History Channel etc. give credence to Henry's remarks, apparently with literary impunity. Alas. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: nd.ward@virgin.net Subject: history channel Several quotes and sayings spring to mind about the thread of history programmes - ' Why let truth stand in the way of a good story' - ' The first casualty of war is truth' - ' History is written by the Victors' ps: the thread of battleships, reactivation etc has gone on far too long - try getting back to modelling subjects. Dave Ward ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Norman Samish" Subject: M class submarines >> 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? << I went to http://www.google.com, searched for "M class submarines, and got a lot of hits including remarkable photos at http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/naval/ks000001.htm. They were apparently designed to work as follows: "The attack procedure was to cruise at periscope depth until the target was lined up. The submarine was then brought-up until about six feet of the gun barrel protruded from the water. A round was fired and the submarine would then make a rapid dive - unable to fire again as the gun could not be reloaded under water. Known as the 'dip-chick' method, this attack procedure took about 30 seconds to complete." Another site, www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/naval/ks000001.htm, says the M's carried 50 rounds plus 4 18" torpedoes. Norm Samish ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Keith Bender" Subject: Re: Hornet Hi SMMLies, just seen the add from Trumpeter on their USS Hornet CV 8, it will be out on Dec. 1st 2002. List for $129.99. Come with B -25's etc. Now, Lets see action, Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "George Peat" Subject: Re: M class submarines There is a book which I have called M Class submarines by Outline Publications ISBN number 0-946784-00-0. NV1 Author Martin H Brice As normal out of print, I also have the bool 'K' Boats as well as copies by John Lambert for both subjects if you want to get back to me. George Peat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: royrichey@att.net Subject: Re: History This is in reference to the Battle of Britian documentary that I brought up. This air war cannot be studied only within itself, It must be taken within the context of the European Theater. Action begats reaction begats reaction ... . To understand why each side did what they did you must look at the entire picture. A history of a single event does not fully explain that event. The proper understand the attack on Pearl Harbor one needs to start in the 30's to identify the political roots. The impact of the Battle of the Huergon (sp) Forrest is not clear unless you know what led up to it. In my opinion, a recent news story demonstrates the need of accuracy. The discovery of the Japanese mini-sub off Pearl Harbor has given me a chuckle. I have seen Headlines that read 'the U.S. fired the first shot' and '...proves that U.S. fired first shot...". What I find funny is that almost everly book on the attack on Pearl Harbor covers the attack on this sub, yet when it is found the media acts like it is a new fact. Granted the media is in the business of selling, but where did the reporters learn their history. Roy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Michael London" Subject: Re: Monitors The first big gun monitors, the four-ship ABERCROMBIE Class were armed with twin 14in turrets originally intended for the Greek SALAMIS and sold to Britain by the builders, Bethlehem Steel. They were used to support the Army in Belgium operating at the northern extreme of the Western Front. The monitors built for the RN in WW 1 were mostly armed with guns taken from earlier ships and placed in storage. The single 18in gun on GENERAL WOLFE, for example, came from the FURIOUS when she was converted from a battlecruiser to an aircraft carrier. There were also two 15in twin turrets intended for FURIOUS should the 18in guns not prove to be workable. These turrets were then used for EREBUS and TERROR, both of which survived to see active service in WW 2. In the same class as GENERAL WOLFE were another seven named for British or Allied generals including, interestingly enough, PRINCE EUGENE. These all mounted twin 12in guns taken from pre-dreadnought battleships. Two other 15in monitors, MARSHAL NEY and MARSHAL SOULT (French Generals from the napoleonic period) used turrets temporarilly diverted from the battleship RAMILLIES. Interesting were the Norwegian battleships NIDAROS and BJORGVIN building on the Tyne in 1914 and taken over by the Admiralty in an incomplete state with the intention of converting them to monitors to be named GLATTON and GORGON. Conversion was overtaken by higher priority construction and they were not ready for service until 1918. These were armed with two single 9.2in turrets. GLATTON only lasted a week in service when, while lying at Dover, a fire detonated her midships 6in magazine. Frantic efforts then had to be made to sink her before the other magazines went up. She had to be torpedoed by attendant destroyers. Her sister saw some action off the Belgian coast but was then laid up. She was expended as a target in 1922. Smaller ships included the three-ship HUMBER Class ordered by Brazil but, when that country could not pay for them, were laid up in Britain. They were purchased for the Royal Navy just before WW 1. These were armed with two 6in guns and their shallow draft made them ideal for two of them, SEVERN and MERSEY, to seek out and destroy the German cruiser KONIGSBERG hiding in the Rufugi River in German East Africa (now Tanzania). The M 15 Class of 14 ships each carried a single 9.2in gun removed from old cruisers while the subsequent M 29 Class (5 ships) were equipped with new twin 6in mountings. M 33 of this class was hulked at Gosport and may still be there. Perhaps one of our UK friends could advise. Michael London Hi Michael, M 33 is undergoing restoration at Portsmouth. Check out the SMML site under References for some pics of her. Shane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Michael London" Subject: Re: History Channel The big discussion as to who first targetted civilian targets, the Luftwaffe or the RAF in the Battle of Britain, seems rather pointless when we recall the German attacks on Warsaw and Rotterdam earlier in the war. These were intended to terrorise the civilian population. Most references, including Churchill's memoirs, refer to the first British attacks on Berlin (Aug 24th, 1940) as retaliatory for the bombing, whether accidental or intended, of London. The British attacks on Berlin and other German cities lasted about a week and were sufficient to cause a change in German strategy - to switch from airfields to civilian targets. This diversion, when the RAF was just about on the ropes, was enough to tip the scales. Michael London ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: MMclau1079@aol.com Subject: Re: HMS Maori Hi John, There is a photo of Maori entering Grand Harbor in Peter Hodges Tribal Class Destroyers which states it was probably taken on her last operation before she was sunk. (IWM is credited but, no reference number listed.) Although, the photo is not a close-up, you can see that she is in a dark hull and light upper works scheme. She has two red bands of the second flotilla on her cut down after stack. Her Pennant number G24 is displayed in a light colour under the bridge on the hull. (Before the war she is listed as F24) It appears that she has the 285 radar on the director and possibly the 286 on the top mast. As you stated she has no after mast that I can see. It also, appears that she had the replacement twin 4 in mount in X position. The book does not list Maori's AA fit for 1942 but, does list Arunta in 1942 as carrying 3 x twin 4.7, 1 twin 4, 1 x quad pompom and 6 x 20mm's. The 20 mm's are aranged on Arunta as follows: 2 on the bridge wings, 2 on the stand between the stacks and 2 close behind to where the after mast would be located. Hope that helps, Miles F. McLaughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Erhardtsen" Subject: Iowa and M1 In vol. 1897 Doug Marrel claim, that 2000 ib LGB would turn IOWA into a sinking charnel house. If that is the true, then the Iowa's was lucky not to meet the 3220 ib AP shells of the Yamato class in the battle at Layte Gulf. No, 2000 ib was a normal size of battleship shells in the second world war, and battleships was built to take a big number of such hit (what about Bismarck). Roma was hit on the deck, and not the better protected side. The guided missile (2304 ib launch weight and 650 ib warhead) did set of the magazine under B turret - This made the turret (more than 1000 ton) take to the air. There does exist a photo of Roma staying afloat without the B turret. What other type of ship could exist after that kind of explosion?? At the battle at Jutland in W.W.1 the German 300 mm shell did not penetrate the belt of the British battleships, so I think it most unlikely, that modern 120 mm tank guns might do - if, it might be at point blank, and the effect of this small shells might be almost nothing (the belt is normally backed up by other layers of armor). 155 mm guns are to small fore effective shore bombardment on less you will make an atomic war - that history clearly show. About the submarine M1, I do not know her rate of fire, but she carried fifty shells fore her 12", and with her gun barrel 6 feet out of water she could fire in 30 seconds. As we are talking about one gun that only train a few degree, I do not see, why fast loading should be a problem. Erik Erhardtsen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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