Subject: SMML VOL 2052 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:33:17 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: soccer 2: Re: Last shot at first shots.... 3: Re: Leipzig vs Koln 4: Ships plans and some humor 5: Re: Jules Verne Nautilus 6: Re: Not everything the Navy launches flys! 7: USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) 8: Re: First shots of WW2 9: Re: Heller Hipper 10: Re: Sources for Brooklyn 11: Re: Leipzig vs Koln 12: Re: Sources for ISW Brooklyn 13: St Nazaire Raid 14: Sources of Information - Photos are often misleading too! 15: 1/1200 scale sailing ship - kit review and modeling question 16: FIRST SHOT 17: Interesting item on eBay web 18: Re: 110 Ft. CG S/C 19: Re: Accuracy of condemnation of ships plans 20: Re: Big gun recoil 21: Re: First shot 22: Ex-Norwegian Coast Defence Battleships 23: Re: Accuracy of ship's plans 24: Re: Leipzig - Koln 25: BB's paint scheme @ Pearl Harbor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Trumpeter 1/350 USS Essex ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Bill Livingston" Subject: Re: soccer Hi Timothy, (who in the world played soccer in the 60's?) EVERYONE in the world, practically, apart from possibly the USA! Football, of one form or another has been played for hundreds of years - it could be argued thousands of years, although the original game was a pretty grisly affair and involved kicking your opponents decapitated heads around as part of the victory celebrations after a particularly nasty battle. The British version was played a few hundered years ago with unlimited numbers of players from opposing villages trying to get a 'ball' made of some indescribable part of an animals insides into the 'goal' in each others village. Basically the game could last hours and result in serious injury and even death. Nowadays we know it as the one game that unites the world, has a history that spans not only time but a great many cultures, and whose language of expression and form overcomes all barriers. (Unless you are in the stands on a freezing December afternoon in Bolton, with no food, no coffee and no goals.... It's pretty hard to justify then...). A fan of 'the beautiful game' from the UK. BTW. Soccer is not a term we use....FOOTBALL please, Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Erwin Van Deynze Subject: Re: Last shot at first shots.... >> Even earlier still--how about Italy's invasion of Lybia in 1925? << Or when (don't remember the exact date...) that stone-age guy came out of his cave and bashed the head of his neighbour because he had the guts of peeing on the entrance of his cave... Wienne ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Michael London" Subject: Re: Leipzig vs Koln Considerable modification would be required to convert "K" Class hull to Leipzig. Apart from larger hull, Leipzig was 3m longer and 1m more in the beam, the K's had a transom stern as compared to a rounded stern. Also Leipzig was somewhat finer at the bow. Guns were on the centerline in Leipzig while K's had the aft turrets en echelon. Michael London ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: Ships plans and some humor Remember the old addage? "If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then chances are it's a duck" Well, having pulled my hair out for the last 25 years trying to build 'accurate' models, I can honestly say that most official builders plans are usually accurate ONCE... With that...I stick by my personal old addage, "If ya don't like the kit, then scratchbuild it, otherwise..." Hope everyone has a safe and Happy Holiday Jeff Herne Modelwarships.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Jules Verne Nautilus >> I have scanned an article on scratch building a 61" Jules Verne Nautilus. I will send it to anyone interested. Contact me via E-mail. << For all those interested in this subject, here is some new information on a couple of kits available. A company called "Sci-Fi Matters" is producing two resin kits of the Disney version of the Jules Verne nuclear submarine "Nautilus". 16in version - $125 30.5in version - $395 Both are plus shipping. I have seen a built up of the 30.5in version and it was really good! Great rivet detail. This company can be reached at www.scifimatters.com Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: James Corley Subject: Re: Not everything the Navy launches flys! >> And if you look real close, you'll see Burt Reynolds behind the wheel :-) << Are you sure it wasn't Ted Kennedy?! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: rickl454 Subject: USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) Bill Code is absolutely correct. The naming of U.S. Navy warships after living persons is a cheap political act by men of small character who have absolutely no respect for the traditions of the naval service. Why not name a carrier after Clinton? After all at least he managed to get reelected. You can bet the next time the Democrats get into the White House they will name one after their guy and the hell with the sailors who will have to serve on the ship for the next 50 years. Maybe "fish don't vote" but sailors have to fight and have to serve on these ships, why not present them with ships bearing names worthy of the history and traditions of the Navy - traditions that they someday may be called upon to uphold in combat. This is nothing personal against the elder President Bush, he signed up and did his part like many of the rest of us, but aren't there buildings bridges and airports that can bear his name? This smacks of cheap politics and to drag the name of the United States Navy into it is particularly disgusting. Rick Lundin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Chris Hughes" Subject: Re: First shots of WW2 Could I ask that people stop this "Black Cat" argument? (Well, my black cat's bigger and blacker than yours!). If we are talking about World War 2 - with the emphasis on "World War" - anything that pre-dates 1st September 1939 cannot count, as all of the other conflicts mentioned didn't drag the rest of the globe into conflict, unlike Germany's action of 1st September 1939. So, the first shots of WW2 were arguably those fired by the Kriegsmarine pre-dreadnought "Schleswig Holsten" against the Polish fort of Westerplatte off Danzig - which brings us back on line in accordance with the aims and objectives of this List! Chris Hughes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Leonard, Michael W" Subject: Re: Heller Hipper Dan wrote - >> Does anyone out there have a Heller 1/400th Admiral Hipper for sale? Give me your price and your E-Mail address. << This one shows up very rarely on a certain Internet auction site. Last one I noted sold for well in excess of US$100. Oddly enough, right about the same time on the same site, I saw one offered that was built-up, and got it for an astonishing $8.00 plus postage from Germany. When it arrived I found that it was 100% intact, and it wasn't very difficult at all to disassemble the parts and remove the old paint and glue residue. MWL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Leonard, Michael W" Subject: Re: Sources for Brooklyn While I cannot testify as to their accuracy compared to the actual ship, both the US Naval Academy Museum and Washington Navy Yard Museum have large BROOKLYN models on display. Neither is dated, but both depict the ship in wartime gray camouflage, circa 1898. MWL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: CokerRE Subject: Re: Leipzig vs Koln Lou Meszaros wrote asking about plans of the German light cruisers. The best source outside of the German archives is: Miba-Verlag Schanzackerstr. 24-26 8500 Nurnberg 70 Germany From an old catalog the prices ran 70 to 80 DM. I am sure they have gone up but these plans were redrawn from official plans on 1/100 scale and are excellent. PC Coker/Charleston ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Sources for ISW Brooklyn Jon, I genuinely wonder why you have choosen to reply to a post connected with accuracy of Modlelist Korablej's plans of Russian pre-dreadnoughts since, somehow, I don't think that it is a subject you are even interested in. But since you did, lets proceed.... I am impressed by your list of sources but I would appreciate if , with all this sources to back you up, you would clarify for me just a few points: 1-the steam winch aft of the stern turret: every single relevant photo* of Brooklyn that I have seen, along with the plans from US National Archives, show a single steam winch to the left (looking towards the bow) with the extension rods (ending in two small windlass drums) leading right. In ISW Brooklyn we have two separate and unconnected winches left and right..... how come? 2- plans from US N.A. supported by the bottom right photo from the page 21 of "Warship" XVI appear to show that between Brooklyn's first funnel and the base of the vent with four cowles there was a hatch (the awning of this hatch is clearly visible in the photo). In ISW's kit there is hardly a room to swing a cat, never mind the hatch.....how come?? 3- US. N.A. plans and photo for page 21 show also that each funell base had a round lid (retractable vent???) in every corner. There are none in ISW's Brooklyn. Both plans and photo from page 21 also show that funell bases, vent bases and skylights of this ship all had nicely rounded corners** while ISW's Brooklyn have sharp, straight, 90 derees ones......double how come??? 4- according to the plans from US N.A. the two hatches located just forward of the stern turret were arranged in a row perpendicular to the main ship's axis and not side by side as in ISW's Brooklyn. Any evidence to support this arrangement???? Or where the peculiar (and very unAmerican) awning's covers of those hatches do come from????? 5- why is the whole of the aft bridge platform of ISW's Brooklyn one solid block with the rear of the ship's superstructure instead of a separate deck with space underneath?????? Questions, questions, question...... Your pal Darius *photo from page 28 of the article in "Warship" XVI and page 69 of Musicant's book are a good example, **Victorians, even American Victorians, hated straight lines and sharp angles and avoided them whenever possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Daniel Taylor" Subject: St Nazaire Raid Hi All The 60th Anniversary bug has bitten and, somewhat late, I have just re-read "The Greatest Raid of All" by C E Lucas Phillips. A couple of questions came up which, I thought, might be answerable by some of the distinguished researchers on the list. I have a block of prototyping board on the modelling equivalent of a slipway begging to be made into a St Nazaire Fairmile B and it may be dependant on the answers you can provide. 1 Armament. The description in the book states that the Fairmile Bs used on the raid had Oerlikons fitted one forward, one aft. The aft unit seems quite easy to get reference on. The excellent "Allied Coastal Forces of WWII" by Lambert and Ross provides plenty of information on such a fitting at this (relatively) early stage of the war. However, the forward mounting is more problematic. There is a plan in the reference of an Oerlikon but it is of 1944 vintage, with a bandstand. I have not seen any references showing MLs from the raid and so would be grateful for confirmation of how this might have looked. 2 Colour Scheme. Lucas Phillips refers to the repainting of the MLs taken on the raid in "a shade of mauve known as 'Plymouth Pink' or 'Mountbatten Pink'. Again, any confirmation would be useful. I have the relevant Snyder & Short paint chips. There are two hues of the colour, a sort of pinky brown and a slightly darker version of the same. Can anyone confirm that it was applied? Thanks in advance for any thoughts. Dan Taylor PS One quote seems relevant to the discussion on the 'first shot' topic. A satirical programme called 'Not the Nine O'clock News' c1980 (launched Rowan Atkinson's career amongst others). At the height of the Cold War, it had an item where the newsreader (Griff Rhys Jones if memory serves) stated: "The Americans a hoping to make up for being late for the last two World Wars by being really punctual next time..." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "Kerry L. Jang" Subject: Sources of Information - Photos are often misleading too! SMMLies, Its been advanced that period photographs are the final arbiter for determining if a model is accurate for a particular time in it's career. I have found in my research on the Chinese steam battleship Ting Yuen that many of the photos I have amassed and used to revise plans are incorrectly dated, or specify date ranges that are so broad as to be useless for that purpose! All models, indeed plan sets, are a reconstruction of sorts. When John Tennier and I decided to produce an "accurate" set of plans for the Chinese ships this is how we went about it. 1) Discovered that the original plans did not exist and had to reconstruct the hull lines and sections using a) contemporary drawinsg taht appered in books like Brassey's naval annual, 2) extraplated from modern reconstructions. In this case, we had Dirk Nottleman's reconstruction of the the Saschen class hull and boiler layouts. 2) Draw a rough set of plans. Supplement it from photographs. Here we found that photogrpahs vary a lot in quality (and are copies of copies of copies rendieringdetails indistinct or adding things!). The dates given were very broad or wrong so pinning down details is very hard to do! 3) Redraw the plans and take educated guesses. If you know how a davit works you can figure out where it amy go or how it looked. As Jon Waranke pointed out, drawings fo a particular model of turnbuckle used by a ship at any one time are often just not available. 4) Circulate the drafts to everyone you know (and thank-you all the SMML experts who have commented on our draughts of Ting Yuen). Here you get a ton of great feedback, and often different people will interpret the same detail very differently. I recall discussions about deck sheer, some rigging, presence or absence of guns.... Some are settled with photos (but contradicted by photos that have the same date). You are forced as an author to make a choice. Not everyone will agree with your choice but it does not condemn the entire model or plan to be worthless. 5) You build a model and/or someone else builds a model. Now, all the stuff you thought you have covered is questioned as the parts or details just don't jive. You discover that you are missing some important details and these must be researched and incorporated into a model or plan. 6) A few months later, or even years, you disocover another book, plan or photo and you have to revise again. John Tennier for example has just found conflicting information as to where the Ting Yuen's torpedo tubes are located -- above or below the waterline. I should add that there are questions as to how many tubes she had three or four, the references all confict on number! It was also a point nobidy had noted either! I guess my point the same as Jon Warneke's that no model or set of plans is perfect. All you can expect of any model manufacturer is that reasonable levels of *due diligence* has been undertaken. In biomedical research we add "error bars" to our results. Its the main effect of a drug PLUS OR MINUS something. We aim to have these error bars as small as possible but its expected that, nobody should expect 100% perfection. You set your own tolerance levels. How tolerant are you? Here's a quick test. Personally, in regards to ISW Brooklyn, I can't see the glaring errors in the on-line photos. But if pointed out, I am sure some simple scratchbuilding would rectify the worst "problems" and thus by my standards this kit itself falls within acceptable degree of accuracy. My set point for accuracy is: "if it can be fixed readily easily, the model is OK (a few deckhouses, a deck level or vent details, some moderate reshaping)". For me, a model is wortheless if it would be easier to fix it by building all over from scratch. How much more, well, that depends on you. For me, if a stern is an odd shape, this would be easy to fix with putty and sandpaper. If the hull shape was out, like improper sheer, or cross-sections are wrong that would need major rebuilding (not only the hull but stripping away any of the major moulded upperwork details back to deck levels to get at hull shape), then I would have reason to complain. Dr. Kerry Jang PS This discussion on "accuracy" is an old one. The sailing ship people have been at this for years. The best you can get is a set of hull sections from a museum (the hull shape was all that was considered important in those days) and the rest of the ship was masted and rigged using "rules of thumb". Just what does the MAYFLOWER or BOUNTY really look like.....!?! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Dan Bostwick" Subject: 1/1200 scale sailing ship - kit review and modeling question First the review: I just bought a 38 gun Frigate from GHQ's Micronaughts line - the H.M.S. Shannon, to be exact. It is in 1/1200 scale, and is about 1.25 inches long, and a little over an inch tall. Micronaughts is a line of pewter sailing ships for use with tabletop miniatures games in the Napoleonic era (often called the "Age of Fighting Sail"). You can see the entire line at http://www.ghqmodels.com/M/catalog/napoleon and the ship I am speaking of at http://www.ghqmodels.com/M/item/242 I don't know very much about the period (yet!), so I can't speak for the accuracy of the figure, but the level of detail is outstanding. It is a seven-piece casting, and fits together quite well. The pieces are: hull, stern cover, three masts with attached sails (the lower sail on two of the masts is furled), a jib, and finally some-other-sail-that-goes-on-the-after-mast-which-I-don't-know-what-it-is-called. No base is included with the pack, but bases are cheap so it really doesn't matter. The figure was $8.95. Now the question: This is my first entry into modeling in this era, and I am not entirely sure how to proceed. I have done plenty of assembly at various scales, including work with pewter, and lots of painting so I'm not concerned about that. In fact the sails are so nicely done with this piece that I am quite looking forward to painting them. The problem in the rigging. If you take a look at the second URL that I gave above you will see a beautiful model with very attractive lines attaching the sails to the hull. The kit doesn't come with those, nor does the figure have holes drilled to put them in. How on Earth does one go about rigging a pewter ship in 1/1200 scale? What size line, what type of material, how the heck do I drill the holes in the masts, and where do I get the super-cool-looking webbing that they have in the picture? I think I have gotten myself into (a lot) more work than I was expecting! Help! Thanks, Dan Syracuse, NY USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "DUCKMAN" Subject: FIRST SHOT Ya'll can stop now. THE first shot was when CAin bashed in AbEl's brains. DAVID IN DIXIE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: paulship37 Subject: Interesting item on eBay web I saw this item for sale at eBay: RUNNING THE GAUNTLET Giant Liners 1942-45 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1980060194 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: 110 Ft. CG S/C To: Steve Cowardin Re: 110 Ft. Coast Guard sub chaser. Just mention the term "110 Ft. Submarine Chaser" and this guppy comes to the top of the tank immediately. I may be able to help you with your 110 Ft. Coast Guard sub chaser, especially if the kit is for the W W 1 version. In the process of making a 1:48 scale highly detailed model of a W W 1 S/C I have accumulated a considerable file (11 inches high) of specifications, drawings, photos, records, etc. Some of these S/C were turned over to the Coast Guard right after the Armistice of 1918. I have nothing about the W W 2 version, but I do know someone who does have some information on them. Contact me directly at fkbrown90@aol.com and tell me all you can about the kit etc. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: Jon Warneke Subject: Re: Accuracy of condemnation of ships plans Hi Darius, Let's do take your statements point by point, starting with photos. I find it very interesting that you're able to determine exact placement of equipment from photographs. I assume that you're able to do the complex calculations needed to determine the geometry of a photo of an object and calculate the exact location of where something was actually mounted. Rough locations can be determined, but unless you're actually physically at the spot, nobody can determine exact locations from a photograph. Regardless of the plans you used to find your "errors", verifying an exact location with photographs (note to everybody; Darius doesn't have this kit. Darius has the photographs that were posted on Steel Navy) of the actual ship against photographs of the model is, at best, dubious. Now to the plans. As I've stated in a previous issue of SMML, we used four sets of plans as references. The set dated 1897 didn't come from the National Archives, but rather came from another source, and here's the reasons why. The US Navy, after a refit, re drew the 1897 plans and destroyed the original set. They also added a data block to the new plans stating that these had been corrected, and give the date of the correction. The National Archives holds two sets of plans for the Brooklyn, drawn at two different times. The set dated 1905 are drawn in a different style than the 1917 plans, and that's the only reason I can surmise they were kept. The 1917 plans are the ones redrawn from the 1897 plans, and show the notations in the data block dating them to a refit at Olangapo Naval Station, P.I., in 1917. As you state in your posts, your basis for all the "errors" you found come from Warship XVI 1992. After having looked at this reference, I can provide an answer to why you've found "errors". This article contains two sets of plans. The first are the 1893 SNAME plans, which are proposed design plans and are historical rather than anywhere near accurate. The second set, which I'm assuming are the one's you reference, are the same as the 1917 Olangapo plans. These are about 12 inches long, and guttered in the book at the midships wing turrets. The original plans from the National Archives are in 1/96 scale (about 6 feet long). To fit into the book, they've been reduced by 85%. Now, if you're comparing our kit to these plans, there will be differences, but they are due to the date of the plans rather than any construction or location errors. Also, the plans contained in this article are not specifically dated in the caption, so to equate the "errors" found to this specific source is at best misleading. Let's recap. According to your position, the Brooklyn kit is wildly inaccurate based on plans that don't correlate to the date reflected by the kit. These "errors" are backed up by photo interpretation which show these plans to be correct, but not for the date reflected by the kit.. The "errors" are incorrectly located equipment and fittings attributed to these specific plans, and the photo-interpretation corroborate these "errors", but the source doesn't reflect the kit. Not a very accurate position so far. So here's the final piece of information I believe is important. The single source you originally reference, Warship XVI 1992, is an incorrect source. The only article on the Brooklyn in a Warship publication is actually in Warship 1991 (Vol. 15). I can unequivocally state that we did not follow the plans contained in your specifically cited source, Warship XVI 1992. The only armored cruiser plans in this volume are for the USS Maine ACR1. If these plans from Warship XVI 1992 are your source plans, I certainly hope you find a whole lot more "errors" in our kit. Now, we have the following. You, without having the kit in question (D.P. doesn't own this kit; he has photos of the kit taken from Steel Navy), have said it's rife with errors. However, your specifically stated source has no information on the Brooklyn. If you're just unable to properly identify your source, the plans within it are either the proposed design (the SNAME plans), or represent the ship 20 years later than the kit itself. The photos in this specific source are mostly distance shots, or are too indistinct to determine locations of details. Yet, You're circulating by e-mail the "errors" you've "discovered" about this kit to our customers, and are making public pronouncements about how poor the accuracy of this kit is, all based on what you've found through your "research". Now, you want people to accept your assessment of a set of plans as being "so inaccurate as to be useless". As you can see, this is a very good description of your research into the Brooklyn. Is it possible the same "quality" of "research" was used on your latest assessment of accuracy? Jon Warneke ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Big gun recoil Many thanks to the several SMML people who shared their knowledge of the guns used on the U.S.S. Monitor. I knew that SMML would have something of interest. Now I have another one for you. How is the recoil absorbed from the huge turreted guns on the big battleships? My take is that most of the energy produced from the burning of the propellant is indeed used to hurl the shells into the atmosphere, some of it is dissipated as heat, some as light, and some is absorbed as recoil. But where does it go from there? Remember, entropy prevails, but keep your comments in terms that us common folks can handle. And also remember that whatever god you choose to worship must love dumb-bells like me, because he/she/it made so many of us. We have you surrounded!!! O.K. guys, have at it!!!! Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: First shot I will put the matter to rest by submitting that it was Cain who "fired the first shot" when he slew his younger brother Abel. So there!!! But what interests me more is "Who will fire the last shot?". Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: "hoeard" Subject: Ex-Norwegian Coast Defence Battleships Alan I assume that you have checked out Ian Buxton's Big Gun Monitors. If not you should go to Chapter VI Pages 94 thru 100. There is some very good information concerning the two ships that you asked about. I also remember a post some time back that asked about the colors of the Monitor Abercombie (WW II version I persume). on page 158 there are two pictures in black and white (here is the discussion of black and white being raised again) that should give a fair example of what the ship looked like, at least before heavy service in a war zone. Marry Christmas to all smmlies that celebrate this holiday Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Accuracy of ship's plans The United States built 440 wooden-hulled 110 Ft. submarine chasers in the war years 1917-1918. They were built in 38 small boatyards on all 4 American coasts, using methods and techniques familiar to the local builders in these widely scattered locations. BuShips wisely did not insist on "cookie cutter" conformity limited to one set of detailed drawings or specifications originating in Washington, DC. In addition, rapidly evolving naval equipment was being installed and changes in design and specifications were constantly being released and implemented part way through the construction process. This upgrading and updating continued on chasers on active duty in the war zones of the British Home Waters and of the Mediterranean Sea. As a result, my research into the literature about these vessels has led me to the conclusion that no two chasers were alike, although they were similar enough to be recognized as a specific class of warship, the SC1 Class Submarine Chaser. Given this chaotic condition, spawned by wartime necessity, it is not realistic to ever expect to find a single set of drawings precisely defining these boats as a Class. I have seen several sets of drawings, all "official" and varying in one respect or another. The best one can do is to choose a typical member of a Class, research it, and concentrate on making one's model as near "correct" for that example as one can. Some SMML people will recall that whereas I am a coward, I made my model as a generic sample, with everything I could confirm was on at least some boats in the Class, a hypothetically "loaded" demonstrator, if you will, even though I did put a randomly chosen specific hull number on the bow. I doubt if any of the 440 chasers were configured exactly as my model. I submit that much the same applies to other "Class" ships as well. But if you are building a model of a specific vessel, for a client or for yourself, you have another kettle of fish to deal with. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: "Fred Liedel" Subject: Re: Leipzig - Koln The hull differences between these two are roughly that Leipzig was 10 feet longer and had three feet more beam than Koln. The best plans I have seen is the ones in the Polish book on the K-class No 22.by Encyklopedia Okretow Wojennych This deals with the first three sister while the next one [don't believe it is released yet] deals with Leipzig and Nurnberg. While the plans in this book are I believe not up to the standard in most of these Polish books they still are a good reference. Got my copy at White Ensign. Hope this helps. Fred Liedel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: THEGAVEL Subject: BB's paint scheme @ Pearl Harbor After examining a number of photos of battleships at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941 taken that day and prior, I haven't been able to determine what paint scheme they were in on that day. I admit that it may be a trick of lighting but certain photos seem to show certain parts of the ships as white or black vice grey. Unfortunately, photos seem to conflict either because what I saw what lighting or the paint scheme changed between photos. Here's my lay down: Nevada; A&B Turrets white, remainder grey A, B, X & Y Turrets white, upper tripods and control tops white same as above but upper main tripod black Oklahoma; A&B Turrets white Pennsylvania; A, B, X & Y Turrets white, upper tripods and control tops white Turrets grey, upper tripods and control tops white Arizona; A, B, X & Y Turrets white, upper tripods and control tops white Tennesse; Upper Main cage mast black, can't tell color turrets, control tops, forward cage mast California; A, B, X & Y Turrets white, forward upper cage mast and control tops white, upper main cage mast black West Virginia; A&B Turrets white, main cage mast black Maryland; A, B, X & Y Turrets white, upper main cage mast black and control tops white or grey, forward cage mast grey No, my eyesight isn't that good anymore and yes, corrections to the above would be most appreciated (I've made a point of examining photos with cruisers also pictured and they appear uniformly haze grey so I figure I got to be a least right to some extent). John Gavel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: James Corley Subject: Trumpeter 1/350 USS Essex Just got a fax from the importer and the Trumpter USS Essex kit is due in Mid February. Stock number 5602. SRP is $119.95. SMML presale price is $100 plus S&H. Also listed is the following aircraft sets, all are $7.95 (15% off for SMMLies) 6210 F6F Hellcats (6) w/ VF-9 decals 6211 SB2C Helldivers (6) w/ VB-13 decals 6212 TBF/TBM Avengers (6) w/ VT-9 decals Why they chose markings for 2 CVG-9 units (Essex) and one CVG-13 unit (Franklin) is beyond me! James Corley AAA Hobby Supply ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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