Subject: SMML VOL 2058 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 04:26:06 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: James Cameron / Bismarck 2: Re: BBs Paint Scheme at Pearl Harbor 3: Re: BB's paint scheme @ Pearl Harbor 4: Re: Interesting item on Ebay 5: Re: World's Worst Warships 6: Re: Cameron/Bismarck 7: Re: USS 'Oklahoma' Conversion 8: Capital Ships 9: Lost Compartment 10: Re: James Cameron / Bismarck 11: Re: Andrea Gail lines 12: Re: Sub chaser movie 13: Re: Sub chaser movies 14: Re: Ships Plans & Carrier Names 15: New inquiry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Re: James Cameron / Bismarck >> When did the Bismarck ever attack convoys? << AP posted a correction on the web and to web news distributors that quote them but you'd have to look in the little boxes of miscellanea buried deep inside the newspapers to see if they printed the correction. Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Allan and Crystal Plumb Subject: Re: BBs Paint Scheme at Pearl Harbor From: "George Frey" >> Since NONE of us (I don't think) were there at the time we can only guess at what the colors acutuly were. even though we have what the Navy say;s is the "Offical" colors. it all depended on the particular person painting the ship. and how well he did his job. << Then why did you bother to ask, since clearly no amount of data was going to change your opinion? By all means, go with Hot Pink. Allan "Ms1" Plumb ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Re: BB's paint scheme @ Pearl Harbor >> Since NONE of us (I don't think) were there at the time we can only guess at what the colors acutuly were. even though we have what the Navy says is the "Offical" colors. it all depended on the particular person painting the ship. and how well he did his job. << This is the argument that, reduced to absurdity, says I can paint my model of the BISMARCK pink and declare it historically valid because nothing exists that can prove it wasn't pink at some point. Either historical official records - especially those that there is no reasonable motivation to alter for distortion/"CMA" reasons - and photographs and to a lesser extent human memories of participants are valid - or else we can chuck the concept of history, and declare that the past is unprovable, unknowable, and therefore imaginary and irrelevant. In which case why build models of real ships at all? We might as well throw out all our ship books and photos and declare that the IOWA was equipped with guns that spewed raw popcorn at incoming Kamikazes which were actually trying to spray the ship with melted butter. There is a difference between errors that creep in, and errors of lost records or uncertainty, versus errors of saying "we weren't there so we cannot know". For example, in regards to the missing compartment legend, I can point out that the ship in question was either not a FORRESTAL since they didn't have Terrier missile launchers, or else it might have been a FORRESTAL and the weapon system mentioned should have been guns and the statement of missile launchers was a Freudian slip.... except by the logic suggested above, there is no proof that the FORRESTALs did not - say - use fake gun mounts to conceal Terrier Launchers. I will stick with the concept that we do actually have pretty good recors and documentation, and pretty thorough photographic records that indicate what the assigned paint schemes were. Individual variations, such as suggested by someone's similar reductio ad absurdem, may actually be reflected just as well by individual variations in paint and painting conditions applied in construction of the model. I would suggest that your choice depends on what your model construction philosophy is. Do you want the TLAR approach, (That Looks About Right), the CLR approach (Correct to Limits of Research), or the LEIBASM approach, "Look Everybody I Built a Ship Model!"? I go for the CLR approach, because I love the puzzle of doing the research, but my skills limit me to TLAR; yet there is nothing wrong with LEIBASM either. I just don't think the TLAR people should criticize the CLR people as making attempts that will always be in vain! Brooks A Rowlett Hi Brooks, Nice post - however you forgot the following category: OMGIFFAM - Oh My God I Finally Finished a Model ;-) (Shut up Drage) Shane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Re: Interesting item on Ebay >> J. Skulski's book on the Japanese Battleship FUSO is for auction. << Multiple copies of this have shown up at Half Price Books stores in the last few months for $14.98, for those of you who live within range of stores of that chain. Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: World's Worst Warships Oh go on Michael, don't keep me in suspence.... What was the world's worst warship according to Mr. Preston??? Darius ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: PAUL TOSCANO Subject: Re: Cameron/Bismarck Hi Rod, >> The 42,000ton Bismarck, the mightiest warship in the world when commissioned for Adolf Hitler's navy in 1940, was both a menace and a malevolent symbol to the British. Its' attacks on convoys of food and equipment from North America (which were) intended to sustain Britain were devastating. Then . .. the Bismarck sunk the Hood etc. etc. etc. << Unelievable!!. How could Cameron not have known that Bismarck never attacked any convoys? I could understand, "(which were) intended to sustain Britain might have been devastating." Even this may be a difficult statement to defend. Although battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Geneisenau as well as heavy cruiser Hipper did attack convoys and did some damage, this was not devastating. The only way for the heavy ships to cut the convoy routes would have required a sustained effort. It would have been very difficult, but perhpas not impossible, with a little luck. Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: annobon4@aol.com Subject: Re: USS 'Oklahoma' Conversion Hi About converting the Matchbox Arizona to the Oklahoma is alot of work. I have Norman Friedman's book on US Battleships and there is drawing of Oklahoma giving both overview and profile view in 1941. So this is what I did. After studying the drawing and looking over the kit I determined due to my work schedule and lack of scratch building skill on my part that I could make the model look like very close to it. The Oklahoma was 583 long while the Arizona is 608 ft. This fact very much defined the important area of the model: the bridge. Working with either Revell's 1/720 or 1/426 you would have to gut everything and scratch build. So I modified mine to reassemble it. The Arizona's sits on a V shaped platform with the armored conning tower connected with a walkway in front of it. Under the platform are large openings. The Oklahoma is squared shaped while the armored conning tower is in front and stands out with no walkways on it. Starting at the bow and if you have a photo etch set in 1/700 you could sand the anchor chains off the Arizona kits.They have 3 and the Oklahoma has 2 and remove one anchor. I didn't. Then you come the 4 14 inch guns turrerts. Arizona had 12 barrells while Oklahoma had 10. If you remove the middle barrel on the B and C turrets and then sand down any left over. You'd have that accurate.Then you put in the upper deck which covers the casemate guns and has more guns, lifeboats, the smokestack, bridge and cagemasts on top. The Oklahoma and Arizona on 12/7/41 were in a USN that was in the mists of change on AA armament they planned 20-40mm guns but had only 3/50 guns and 1.1 guns available. The Arizona had 4 empty mounts while the Oklahoma had 4 (4X1) 3/50 guns located with 2 at on each side of the amored conning tower.There were 5 inch guns previously. With the last with on each side of C turrert of the 14 inch guns so these replaced the 5 inch guns of the Arizona kit with Skywave 3/50 guns from weapon set USN # 1. You could also the ones they have for the DE kits or those new Benson class DD's. And the new weapon set their coming out with could have them. Didn't classic warships make set of early war weapons? On to the smoke stack there are platforms with windows on each side with search on top. The Oklahoma drawing shows them removed. So after sanding them off I put a piece .020 plastic behind the hole made and filled it with Squadron putty and sanded it smooth. Be gentle above it so to keep the hole rectangluar. Now we come to Lifeboats on the deck. The Arizona kit has 5. Which the Oklahoma has the same # but their differently positioned. So sand off the bottoms and put the open 40 ft life boat directly under the 2nd cage mast and then put the two sets of 3 boats stacked on each other flanking the smoke stack with the open boat under the 2nd mast directly straightly behind the smoke stack. There are 2 life boats alongside the boat cranes on each side of the the nd of the upper deck. The Oklahoma had these mounted alongside the last last 5 inch mount wall. I took a file and modified to fit there. An in real life they had extensions for them. Out by C turrert you have two boats. The ARIZONA kit has them straight lined with in front of C turret. I replaced them with Skywave Captain gigs because their the same size as the drawings. They go in at 45 degree on each size as C turret. Don't add ventators as the Arizona kit does. Now we come the catapaults and planes. Oklahoma had OS2U King fishers. So I used the Revell Massechuetts planes. After sanding off the biplanes pondtoons on the catapaults I took wire cutters and cut out the poontoons for the King fishers leaving them on a thin strip after sanding. I put on Skywave decals and painted according. Using Polly S Blue Gray and USN 5-l Light gray. Oh for the bridge area I just sanded off the extensions making the bridge shape like a V. The cage masts and boat cranes are the same. I hope this of help to you asking asking about it. Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Capital Ships >> I often wondered how the US Navy could name a capital ship after a man who had allowed his command (PT-109) to be run over by the enemy. The Captain of the Indianapolis was court marshaled for basically not zig-zaging while Kennedy was made a hero. You don't think politics has anything to do with it, do you? << Hi Jim, While I believe the Court-marshalling of Captain McVey should have been classified as a "War Crime" and the navy board should have been tried for it. I think that there are two things you need to consider as Regards the USS John F. Kennedy. First, Jack Kennedy was declared a Hero because He personally risked his life to save a fellow crew man, who could not have survived on his own after the 109 was cut in two by the Japanese Destroyer, and his ingenious use of a coconut to get a message back to fleet got them rescued. The second point being that Murdered Presidents unusually (but not always) get high regard as Martyrs, Which probably describes how a militiaman from the Indian wars in the 1840's got an Aircraft Carrier named after him too, Though to be fair it was also under his presidency that Military Aviation started. Of course I refer to President Abraham Lincoln, as for the Aviation, see Thadeus S.C.Lowe, and the Balloon Corps. By the way, it was President Kennedy who said, "I wasn't a Hero, they sank my boat." So apparently, he would have agreed with you, but the survivors of the PT 109 definitely disagreed with you while they were with us, atleast the ones I met. Now, if you want Politics, point to the Destroyer "USS Joseph P Kennedy". The eldest of the Kennedy males, served in the Army Air Corps, died when a experimental piloted/radio controlled bomb he was flying blew up prematurely. But Neither Bobby (USN) nor Ted seem to have gotten their ships yet...;^) Now, the USS Langley, Samuel Pierpoint Langley, Curator of the Smithsonian Institute, inventor of the Langley Aerodrome. Creditied by the Air Force until something like the 1980's as being the inventor of the first successful Aeroplane. Of Course, it didn't fly until well after the Wright flyer, and Glenn Curtis built new lighter engines for it, but it was launched (Succesfully and otherwise) from a houseboat on the Potomac, So aside from Lowes Balloon flights from rafts, I suppose it qualifies as pioneering Naval Aviation... Politics, do you really think so? Rich Sweeney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Devin" Subject: Lost Compartment >> They cut a hole through the bulkhead to find a head, complete with sinks, toilets and showers. Seems that the builder had erected the bulkhead and then never went back and cut a hole and installed a door. << I'd be curious if anyone had any proof of this actually happening. I ask because when I was in the USN in the late 80's/early 90's, the story was that it was a CHT plumbing problem, on the Enterprise, and the compartment that was found was a fully outfitted machine shop. Devin (still a cool story, though!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: CokerRE Subject: Re: James Cameron / Bismarck I hope every Bismarck enthusiast was able to watch James Cameron's Expedition Bismarck on the Discovery Channel this past Sunday. The most interesting revelation was that the expedition apparently showed exactly how the aerial torpedo had disabled the ship on May 26, 1941 by actually hitting the right rudder and throwing it into the center propeller jamming it and disabling the steering. They did not say what happened to the left rudder. Other shots seemed to support the contention that Dorsetshire's torpedoes had hit the ship but the explosions failed to penetrate the inner anti-torpedo bulkheads. There were a lot of fascinating animations about heavy naval artillery and how they penetrate armor. How these guns are handled in battle--most of which was sketchy and left out a lot of details like fire control doctrine. However the use of computer graphics and animations gave an excellent overview. The animations of the ship underway, under fire, and sinking were especially good. The best one was an aerial shot with Bismarck passing below---well detailed. I have an animation of the life and death of the Italian Battleship Roma and the details on it are not nearly as good. There will be a lot of comments pro and con about the program but overall the producer(s) spent a lot of money and did an excellent job for what they had to do---appeal to a wide audience without getting too bogged down in minutae that would bore the average viewer. PC Coker/Charleston ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Fritz Koopman Subject: Re: Andrea Gail lines Kurt writes: >> Thank you Fritz! I will mail a letter to them today. I appreciate the lead. << Let me know how you make out. I found out about it while talking to my aunt the other night. She was part of the design team for that project back when she worked for Jack. She mentioned she may have a set up in her attic (have'nt heard from her since then). So if they circular filed them, let me know! Then we'll search her attic, and might get lucky! Fritz K ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Sub chaser movie To: Starline/fleetline Glencoe kits do show up on e-bay from time to time. I look about every other day. When they ask what you are looking for, cascade through the subjects "sub chaser", "sub chasers", "subchasers", "subchaser", "submarine chaser", and "submarine chasers". To the computer they are six separate subjects, and you can never tell which subject a seller chooses to list under. The Glencoe kits are, shall we say, less than accurate. If you think you might be interested in 1:48 scale, look at the e-bay numbers I gave in SMML journal 2057 for some hulls only, for cheap money. If you go that route, I can help with drawings, etc. In the movie, the hull numbers are indeed fictitious, as WW1 hull numbers ran from SC1 through SC440, whereas WW2 hull numbers started in the 600s. Captain Treadwell (diodor@aol.com) can give you the exact WW2 hull numbers for WW2 boats. Your perception is correct, the fictitious bow numbers were obviously temporarily applied for the flick. The smaller numbers on the bridge wings identify the "Unit" (a unit was a sub-hunting team of three chasers) number. If you like, I'll e-mail a copy of my modest essay of WW1 sub chasers. I don't know the fate of the 1:1 scale WW2 S/C that was offered on e-bay recently. What a "doghouse" it would make! I would pick a fight with the wife just so she would punish me by banning me to it (after dinner). Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Sub chaser movies To wblad Many thanks for the excellent reviews and information about sub chaser movies. I will make it a ritual to scan TV Guide weekly from now on. Do you have copies of the three flicks? Do you have a particular interest in subchasers? Once again, SMML comes through. It used to be "If all else fails, try SMML.", but now it has become "Save time, and get it right, try SMML first.". Franklyn PS Many thanks, Shane and associates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: David Wells Subject: Re: Ships Plans & Carrier Names "Jim Johnson" wrote: >> The story says that on one of the Forestall class ship (I seem to recall that it was the Saratoga) was one or two years old when there was a problem with the fire control system for the Terrier missile launchers on the ship. One of the causes might have been that one of the cables was cut or shorted between the missile directors and the control center. A member of Fox Division was sent out to trace the cable through the cableways to see if that was the case. << To the best of my knowledge, no Forrestal class ever carried the Terrier. I believe that Kitty Hawk and Constellation did though, early in their respective careers. [rest of sea story deleted] This sounds much like other "sea stories" I've heard. At least one of these was set aboard the Enterprise. David R. Wells ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: New inquiry There is no "shame" in not knowing something, the "shame" is in not rectifying that deficiency when it becomes apparent. Therefore I thank all the SMML people who have responded to my requests for information from time to time, and I hope that others have benefited from the information so freely given by SMML people. Now I have a new inquiry. What is the difference between a Liberty Ship and a Victory Ship? Sic 'em, SMML. 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