Subject: SMML VOL 1964 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:20:39 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Revell Taney - extent of steel deck on focsl? 2: Re: City Class Ironclads 3: My pennys worth! 4: SHIP BADGES/CRESTS 5: Re: Dangers of Old References 6: Takasago 7: Dangers of old references. More opinion... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Mccullough, Vincent" Subject: Re: Revell Taney - extent of steel deck on focsl? Steve, You might want to check the photos on the Baltimore Maritime Museum web site. The Taney is moored in Baltimore as part of the museum, and they have a virtual tour of ths ship with some photos that might answer your questions. The URL is: http://www.baltomaritimemuseum.org Vince McCullough Nautical Research Guild ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: City Class Ironclads >> Okay, you ACW enthusiasts on the list, can any of you point me toward good model kits of the Civial War ironclad USS Louisville? I am aware of the existance of the Lone Star 1:192 scale kit - is it any good? I'd rather not go smaller that that. Other vessels of the class are Cairo, Carondelet, Louisville, Saint Louis, Pittsburg, Cincinati, Mound City. I understand that the onlu real difference among the members of the class was their paint job, so any help on that score would be greatly appreciated. << The Lonestar kit is a decent starter. With some decent references to allow you to add stanchions, rails deck fittings, and some work to the hull, you can get a good model. The biggest deciciency, such as it is, is the lack of a paddle wheel which is partially visible if you elevate the model off the base. Of course if you do it as a waterline model this is not a problem. Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: lamkeel Subject: My pennys worth! Hi to you all On the subject of definitive publications, it just does not exist. I never stop learning and new sources do become available even if it takes time. I constantly learn, (even if it doesn't show)! Publications I have produced (Now out of print generally) can be added to if they were re-published. My first book The Fairmile "D". I was very happy with. But since the 70's when I did the research I have gathered many more additional "original" Fairmile drawings. I do not think the book on The Submarine Alliance however, can be beaten! We put together a great package there, BUT it did not sell well. Why was this? I ask. Because the museum where the actual ship is on display in all its glory was not aware that the book exists. So it was never used as an outlet by the publisher. When the museum got to see the book it was long out of print. (But the submariners that did see a copy on the 25th Anniversary of her lying in state all wanted a copy). This is down to the publisher. They (I assume) want to make available the information, and they have a sales team that never "got it together". They were informed, but it never happened! Another sample! When volume 1 of our Allied Coastal Forces (The Fairmile designs) was published I mentioned in the text that I was unable to find any information about the Fairmile "F", a one off design with air cooled engines. After publication, someone sent me a set of Fairmile "F" plans that they had found in their loft. These are now drawn and will be added in Volume 3 (hopefully). Flower Class Corvettes. Since publication I have carried out more research and added many more drawings to my lists. I have visited the Archive where the original drawings are held and gathered more in. Who would like a new publication about RN Flowers? When Chris's excellent publication was published about J, K and N class destroyers. He had to prune his text and about half the drawings that I produced failed to see the light of day. Not our fault, but it happens. My present concern is that all the ongoing work that we put together for Volume 3 will be cut back. We will be told that there is not the space available to include everything. One last answer. Destroyer bridge detail! If I can find the information in the original drawings then I add it. On occasion though this information is basic. But if found, I include it. See my lists www.john-lambert-plans.com Yours "Aye" John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Brett Morrow" Subject: SHIP BADGES/CRESTS Hi All, Is there anybody who can tell me what the address/web site is for U.S. Navy ship badges,I have a couple of kits which I would like to get the ship badges for. Thanks, Brett M ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Dangers of Old References Jeff, I don't think that I have missed what Mr. Raven was trying to say. His post was short and so was my reply but if you read my original post you may notice that I have wrote that I understood the constrains and circumstances both authors were working under. My aim was to point to the dangers of the old references rather than just damn them as useless. I tend to treat them as stepping stones rather than doorstops. Authors do become targets for anything begining with praises throu the measured criticism and ending up with accusations of telepathically stealing other people life work. But, like it or not, doesn't it go with the territory??? And, again like it or not, the judgement to what is a legitimate criticism and what is a deliberate act of iconoclasm is very often, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. D.P ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Mitsuaki Kubota Subject: Takasago Hi D.P. >> since at least two photos of Takasago c.1898 (World Warships in Review and "Japan, Her Strenght and Her Beauty") seems to show differend shade of the hull to that of the upperworks might it be possible that despite the official suspension of the old scheme it was still used for another couple of years or so???? << Well, very difficult question! I don't have the latter book you have mentioned, so I don't know when the photo was taken. But the photo on "World Warships in Review" was taken when she was still in UK waters, before shifted to Japan. So there is a possibility that upperworks and funnels of Takasago was painted up by the matter of the builders (Elswick? if I remember right.), or old IJN regulations. Anyhow, even if she wore old colours when completed, I think she was painted in overall very light grey after she arrived Japan. Also there would be another reason of upperworks' different tones from hull (quality of photograph of those days? Or the speed of fading out of the paint?), I think light grey hull, upperworks and funnels is most probable scheme for the model. PS. Yesterday, I bought Seals Models Iwate, the second ship of Izumo class armoured cruiser. Kit paint instruction shows overall light grey and red hull lines as the configuration of March 1901 to September of same year. The instruction recommends the grey is FS26440 (US Navy Light Gullgrey), although I feel more lighter tone would be match. Best regards, Mitsuaki Kubota http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/hmdock/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Dangers of old references. More opinion... Hello all, As this subject is mushrooming I might as well through my hapenney's worth in. I think I read one comment differently than most, and if I read it correctly then it needs to be clarified because the responses were to a different thought. The comment was that "First research always has time constraints on it." I think it was DP who made the comment, but the answers seemed to address the future discovery of information, not the imperative to be first in print. In this case I would agree with DP. If it was I who mis-inturpreted the comment, my apologies to the group. Secondly, Mr Pluth stated that he feels that few "Ground breaking" discoveries will be made about WWII. In this I disagree. Though our records for this period are good. Many previous events in History have yielded their secrets at a much greater distance than 60 years. Recent research in archeology has led to changes in the understood dynamics of Civil War Battles, work at the Bull Run/Manassas Battlefield has led to a better understanding of Civil War period artillery and it's usage, by locating fragments of the iron banding and wooden platforms (sabots), used to attach the Cannon ball to it's charge as used in the smooth bore artillery of the time, (Rifled Artillery existed, but did not use a sabot) by knowing the flight dynamice of this piece they are able to pin point the location of a Union battery, which up until now was in dispute. The Discovery Channel is touting a show which purports that a fence, not the Union Army defeated the Confederates at Gettysburg, I won't go into my opinon about the invalid research in that concept, nor the thought that "it's ground breaking." More importantly, Marine Archeology is providing us with a great deal of information about the USS Monitor, the CSS Hunley, and the CSS Alabama, in the case of the CSS Hunley, it is definitely Ground breaking. These examples are 140 years old. And Marine archeology is providing us with a better understanding of ship construction method now going back thousands of years. Experimental archeology is building ships based on these finds and the sailing charecteristics of some of these ancient ships are amazing people. Even though we've had the basic information in our hands for thousands of years, seeing the techniques used greatly improves a hundred fold on written descriptions that have been translated various ways, by various people, until they become unclear, without the "three dimensional road maps" that Archeology is giving us. For various reasons, many documents from WWII are still classified. Do they contain secrets the likes of which we need to hide, at this point, probably not. But the process of De-classifying material requires that all parties involved sign-off on de-classification. If the companies involved no-longer exist, they can not sign off on the paper work to release the information, which slows down the process incredibly. Do they contain information which could fundimentally change our understanding of the events, they might, the Pearl Harbor attack is amongst the records still classified. Though, unlike SOME reactions from certain elements of the Japanese press, upon the recent discovery of the Japanese Midget sub sunk by the USS Ward, I doubt those documents will change the fundimental fact that most of our Fleet was sunk, by a Japanese task force, attacking without warning. But could documents not yet seen, and archeology work that has yet to be done, reveal information that could change our understanding of the events of WWII, definitely. Thanks, Richard Sweeney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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