Subject: SMML VOL 2055 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:09:19 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Note: VWs do float 2: Do I bite then? 3: Re: BB paint schemes at Pearl Harbor 4: Rigging in 1:1200 Scale and Sailing Ship Site Update 5: Re: BB's paint scheme @ Pearl Harbor 6: Re: Accuracy 7: Carrier Names 8: Re: carrier names 9: Re: BB paint schemes at Pearl Harbor 10: Re: 1/1200 scale Rigging 11: ISW Brooklyn 12: Re: Accuracy/Sources for ISW Brooklyn 13: Re: Thunder Afloat (Subchasers) 14: Re: Big Gun recoil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Peter Nolan Subject: Re: Note: VWs do float But only for a while, as I found out after driving into a four-foot deep puddle. Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "lamkeel" Subject: Do I bite then? Good morning Gents Its 0425 in the morning here, and I'm up and about checking e-mails whilst the kettle boils for my first coffee of the day. Another British Power Boat subject was completed yesterday evening for Volume 3 of Allied Coastal Forces. This time its Four General Arrangement drawings of British Power Boat designs. A 67' 0" "Power" Motor Torpedo Boat, dated 29/8/1939. A 70' 0" Motor Torpedo Boat Destroyer dated 10/12/1940. A 64' 0" "Power" Motor Torpedo Boat dated 9/12/1938 and last but not least, a 70' 0" "Power" Anti-Submarine Boat dated 25/7/1940. These subjects were all design projects by that company which were provided by the late George Sellman their Chief Designer during the war. When I visited him in August 1989, he was very spry and fit but unfortunately almost blind. Somewhere in his 80's, and living in Heddon on the Wall. He gave me a mass of original microfiche and original drawings. Unfortunately then being almost 40 years old they were on occasions in poor condition. I am redrawing those which I can work with and another SMML member is now attempting to make some sense of some of the others. There is evidence of 1940's sticky tape and old spellings now long out of date. Shewn instead of shown etc. This gentlemen, IS original research! Another reason that I only draw DD size and below. There is less space to change things around. As has been mentioned, the "As Fitted" drawings are only right for that date. But I do check as far as possible with photographs. Mr Raven once said that it was almost possible to date a photograph by the radar aerials carried. I (We) do the best we can with the material that we uncover. It all takes time and costs money, but it is after all ony a "Hobby". (I tell my self). But it does help if you're MAD. Yours "Aye" John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "John Sheridan" Subject: Re: BB paint schemes at Pearl Harbor >> OK, I don't wish to belabor the point, but what source says they were in Measure 1? << The paint scheme as shown by the photos is clearly a Measure 1 scheme. Read all about measure 1 from the official SHIPS-2 documentation at: http://www.shipcamouflage.com/SHIPS2.htm There are people out there who also believe that the Dark Gray 5-D was actually a prototype Navy Blue being tested by the Navy in the Pacfic. This unofficial scheme would be Measure 1-A, 1-B, 1-C. Alan Raven wrote an excellent set of articles on this subject. This can be found at: http://www.shipcamouflage.com/development_of_naval_camouflage.htm Myself, John Synder, Randy Short, Steve Wiper, Alan Raven, and a few others at the Naval Historical Center / National Archives have spent quite a bit of time in the study of Naval camouflage over the last few years. Suffice to say, lots of new material has come to light and quite a few myths debunked (don't even think of mentioning "Green USN Battleships"). We all come to agreement that the battle line at Pearl Harbor was painted in Measure 1. The only argument left on this issue is which battleships were testing Navy Blue and which were wearing Dark Gray 5-D. This issue as well may soon be resolved by a few people working on restoring color films taken just after the Pearl Harbor attack. These films are stored in the Archives and only crude copies have seen the light of day. >> As for photos, I think the one below clearly shows lighter upper works on Maryland and West Virginia. You can clearly see the sailors on deck onboard Maryland in white uniform so sun or soot from fires isn't a factor...work with me on this, for a long time I thought they were all in haze grey also. << You, like so many other people simply do not have the expertise to read and interpret a photograph. This is not a slam against you at all; but simply a misunderstanding of photography and photographic processes. You are aware that the US Navy used primarily Orthochromatic film during WWII right? This would make blues appear a lighter tone of gray in a B&W photograph and Yellows Darker tones. This is why you see so many washed out skies in most Navy photographs. Since all the USN paints both pre and during WWII were based on purple-blue pigments, this would render them lighter tones in orthochromatic film to B&W print. Light Gray 5-L is not that dark to begin with, so it's going to show up very light in photographs taken with Orthochromatic Film. As for your comment about white turret tops, what you are seeing is a sunlight reflection of the paint on the turret. If you look at photos of he same ships at the same time period on a cloudy day, you will find out that you are incorrect. This is a very common mistake when people with little experience in photographic interpretation try to make sense of something they do not understand. If you want to be accurate, I suggest you pick-up the Snyder & Short paint chips of USN WWII vessels at www.shipcamouflage.com . Matching paint can be purchased from White Ensign Models at: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/xdt22/colourcoats.htm John Sheridan www.shipcamouflage.com "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." - Delenn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Kerry Jang Subject: Rigging in 1:1200 Scale and Sailing Ship Site Update Dan, For ratlines you could use the photoetched stuff sold by Navalis. For the rest of the rigging, and ultrafine fine nichrome wire available from Pelican Wire Company in Florida (they have a website and sell modeller sized spools). Nichrome is quite strong in the tiny sizes you need. Its used by miniature sailing ship builders all over the world. Its use is described in books by Lloyd McCaffery's "Ships in Miniature". For those of you interested in miniature sailing ships, my latest progress on a French 80 gun ship of the line has been posted at: http://www.nutsnbits.com/nutsnbits_00002a.htm Click on the Dec 10 update for the latest update on this miniature sailing ship. Dr. Kerry Jang ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Re: BB's paint scheme @ Pearl Harbor >>> Eh? Weren't they ALL in Measure 1? Most sources agree on that... and I think most photos indicate that. As for turrets looking white, that is totally dependent on the sun angle - it certainly was NOT part of Ms 1 instructions << OK, I don't wish to belabor the point, but what source says they were in measure 1? << I am totally lost here. Who said they were in haze grey? I have seen people who seemed to think they were still in the prewar scheme, which was lighter than haze grey.... but what *I* said, quoted above, is that they were in Ms 1 - pretty much all my modern references say so. In fact the majority of ships at Pearl Harbor were in Measure 1, as were also, I believe, ENTERPRISE, LEXINGTON, and NORTHAMPTON, which were at sea at the time. >> As for photos, I think the one below clearly shows lighter upper works on Maryland and West Virginia. You can clearly see the sailors on deck onboard Maryland in white uniform so sun or soot from fires isn't a factor...work with me on this, for a long time I thought they were all in haze grey also. << Forgive me for sounding flippant, but ...well, DUH! That is what Ms 1 called for! Paint # 5-D Dark gray up to the top of the stacks and 5-L Light Grey above that - light grey being much lighter than 5-H Haze Grey, and looking very light indeed compared to the 5-D Dark Grey of Measure 1. Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Ken Goldman" Subject: Re: Accuracy Kudos to David Summers. Jonathan Swift too would enjoy your modest proposal. Ken Goldman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Ken LeClair Subject: Carrier Names Hi, as for naming a carrier after a living president, or anybody living for that matter, I always thought it was taboo to do so. I always presumed to have your name used for a ship of any kind you had to qualify by 1. being dead 2. a famous supporter of the navy, or a military hero Personally I would like to se a famous name of past carriers like Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown, etc. I like the fact that the British are naming new Carriers after past carriers like Eagle and Hermes, as told to us by Ant Phillips. Hey, how about naming it after a past Canadian carrier, like Bonaventure or Magnificent. Just a thought Ken LeClair, MS HMCS Protecteur ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Pelle Bergschöld" Subject: Re: carrier names Gmshoda wrote: >> However, I think we should restrict the naming of carriers to good presidents. << Right. And who decides who´s been a good housekeeper or not? This is a perfect example why naming after politicians is a tricky business. Best regards Pelle SWE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: annobon4 Subject: Re: BB paint schemes at Pearl Harbor Hi Concerning the paint schemes of the Pearl Harbor Battleships. I just recently finished converting the Matchbox 1/720 Arizona (ex-Revell) to the Oklahoma. Using the Floating Drydock book on USN Camouflage which states that for measure 1 the hull and all vertical surfaces up to the top of the smoke stack will be 5-D Dark Gray and the decks will be painted in 5-D Dark Gray. All except the wood decks which will be bare of paint.Now the Synder paint chip set for 1941 5-D Dark Gray appears to be a very dark blue bordering on black (Much darker than Navy Blue 5-N). So when I looked at the book Warships Illustrated No.10 US NAVY IN WW2 1941-2 on page 17 shows in a color photo the Drayton DD-366 in fresh coat of 5-D Dark Gray for measure 1.and it comes to the chip set. Now for a paint to use. At the time using my own paint chip set of Polly S paints that are on the shelf. I found that Polly S Deck Blue 20-B came the closest.(Simply I put squares on large piece of paper and then painted the square and wrote it's name next to it because I have dozens of paint bottles). This paint after it dried on Oklahoma at a distance will look dark gray until you get close then it looks blue. Perhaps this what caused all the confusion about the paint jobs at Pearl Harbor. Everything above the smoke stack is 5-L light gray. The smoke stack top is black. A real mystery is how many Battleships had the measure 5 -white fake bow wave. It appears that the Nevada had it and I don't know if the Oklahoma had one. Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Rick Heinbaugh Subject: Re: 1/1200 scale Rigging 1/1200 sailing ships are a major interest of mine. I have an example posted at http://modelwarships.com/gallery/misc/sail/constitution-1200-rh/constitution-index.html The close-up photos show the fat-finger errors up real nice and personal. I really like the GHQ models, even though they have a really limited range of ships available. Several other brands have much clunkier detail and rougher lines. Soon I intend to treat myself by buying some Langton Miniatures models. http://www.rodlangton.com/ On the internet, they seem to have more character than GHQ. I use plastic sprue for rigging, primarily black plastic. I believe that if you use another color of plastic and try to paint it, the layer of paint adds way too much thickness to the line. On the Constitution model at the above link, I tried using a tan plastic for some running rigging while still using black plastic for the standing rigging. I feel the result was terrible and abandoned running rigging after making lifts and just a few tacks and halliards. As far as technique, I stretch the black plastic very thin, and use the fatter pieces for the shrouds and lower stays. Next thinner are upper stays and backstays. I start from the inside of the ship and work my way out and up - first the mainstay and forestay, then lower shrouds and backstays. I use dividers to measure the required length of a line, then cut it and use very small-pointed tweesers to touch it to Elmer's white glue and stick it on the required spot. You didn't mention how you intended to make masts and sails so I assume you are using the ones from the kit. GHQ gives you very nice pieces to work with, but I feel they are too heavy. I use various sizes of brass wire for te spars and paper for the sails. I've experimented with different kinds of paper and still haven't found anything I like, after making ten of these models. Rick Heinbaugh Seattle, WA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Dave Judy" Subject: ISW Brooklyn I too will chance a word or two here, After following this thread for some time now I feel this fellow Darius has a personal vendetta against ISW. As the major percentage of his postings are against ISW's kits. Like Felix and other modelers, I have been given kits to build for photos and have tried to stay out of this for that reason........but there comes a time when one must stand and be counted! As I always state in a review..." there is no such thing as a perfect kit" One builds a kit for many reasons, be it enjoyment, commission, or a gift for one whom has served on the subject of the kit. Each of these require a certain level of accuracy, some more than others. So that said, let the modeler decide to what level he or she wants to go to in the building of his model. The kit mfgr. does the best with what resources that are available. If he has to reconcile all the drawings and photos that are available of a subject.......the kit would never be produced! I for one would like to see some examples of Darius' work.................or is he just reading and typing!.... If so then I'm sure there is an appropriate historical research site out there in cyberspace where he can be more appreciated, this is a MODELING site, is it not?? Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Accuracy/Sources for ISW Brooklyn Felix, if I remember correctly SMML just like Steel Navy and Model Warship are a discussion forums dedicated to ship's modelling. One of the legitimate topics is accuracy, or lack of it, of various models and plans of ships. I find it very strange that some people do not hesitate to criticize some product of some companies but get upset when other products and other companies are treated in a similar way. For reasons known only to himself Jon Warneke decided to reply to my post about accuracy of plans distributed by Modelist Korablej, questioning my competence in this matter, even thou he never expressed any interest in Russian pre-dreadnoughts in the past. One post led to another and now I have some questions about accuracy of ISW's Brooklyn. Illegitimate topic??? Forbidden ground??? If so, I would like to know the reasons why??? I understand that not everybody wants to know if some of the ISW's products do have flaws and errors but I do. So what's the problem??? You say that: "...There is constructive criticism and than there is outright attack..." Sure, but like with many other things the borderline is in the eye of the beholder. My posts would have been "an outright attack" only if my observations were unfounded and, so far, only one of many proved to be so... Just like Jon you accuse me of having "...some motive in trying to discredit the work of Jon Warneke/Iron Shipwrights..." Well, in the past I have criticised (and praised) models of Kombrig, Modelkrak, NCR, JSC and few others. Do I have a motive in trying to discredit them too??? Let me state once more that none of the errors and mistakes that I have pointed out were trivial or marginal and that all of them could have been avoided if a little more care and research was applayed. And let me state once more that criticising and praising models is a legitimate topic on this and similar message boards. So, this is a hobby - please let me discuss it! Regards Darius ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Lawman555 Subject: Re: Thunder Afloat (Subchasers) Kevin@Fleetline Kevin; I would be interested in more info on the Wallace Berry movie you spoke about...Thunder Afloat. What channel was it on. Was it on a US Channel, via Satellite? Thanks Jim Myers http://members.aol.com/lawman555/subchaser.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Big Gun recoil To: Edd Pflum, elucidator par excellence Thanks for your lucid explanation of the physics of the recoil process. Your well-sructured thesis confirms my crude understanding of what happens (or should it be "happened", considering the evolving obsolescence of the battle wagons?), but I lacked the ability to express it clearly. Edd, how would you like to have been on one of those WW1 British submarines that had an 8" (yes, eight inch) "deck gun"? Especially at the very first firing. They could fire only in the forward direction, as the "roll" component of the recoil that you mention would probably have turned the sub over. Imagine what that would have done to the cook's souffle!!! Even so, I bet the sub surged backwards a fair amount. 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