Subject: SMML VOL 2059 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:43:10 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Liberty vs. Victory 2: Re: James Cameron / Bismarck 3: Re: DD-850 Namesake 4: Re: ISW Brooklyn comments 5: Re: Liberty vs Victory Ships 6: Re: Liberty vs Victory Ships 7: Re: PT109 8: Totally off topic 9: Re: Cameron/Bismarck 10: Re: Subchaser Numbers 11: Re: Antony Preston 12: Re: USS Langley 13: Re: Secret Forrestal compartment 14: 1/1200 - 1/1250 scale Ratlines/ neat webbing 15: Lost Compartment and JFK 16: Re: Liberty Ship and Victory Ship 17: Sinking of INDIANAPOLIS 18: Frog Kit of HMS Tiger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1: IPMS USA "Boat" category clarification -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Roll Model's Christmas Contest ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: Liberty vs. Victory >> What is the difference between a Liberty Ship and a Victory Ship? << One starts with 'L', the other with 'V' JH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Ricjus001 Subject: Re: James Cameron / Bismarck >> When did the Bismarck ever attack convoys? Did I miss that part when reading up on the history of this ship? As I recall the mission was to attack convoys, but Great Britain sunk her before Bismarck could stalk convoys. Can't believe everything you read << I noticed that too. Not coming to the defence off all media, but the AP did release a correction the next day stating that part of the story was incorrect. Also, does anybody have any thoughts on Cameron or anyone else using his celebrity in this matter? Justin Richard Windham,ME ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Leonard, Michael W" Subject: Re: DD-850 Namesake >> 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. << Though he was killed while flying a B-24, LT Joe Kennedy was in fact a naval aviator, not AAC (or AAF as it was known by that time) and received a posthumous Navy Cross and Air Medal in addition to being honored by the destroyer commissioned in 1946. MWL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: BECJPARKER Subject: Re: ISW Brooklyn comments I would really like to see Mr Przezdziecki's curriculum vitae if he want's anyone to take his comments seriously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: cfrieden Subject: Re: Liberty vs Victory Ships There are quite a few differences between Liberty ships and Victory ships. Victory ships are slightly longer, have finer hull lines, and have an entirely different deckhouse arrangement. They also have a raised forecastle deck and different mast houses. Many of the fittings are different (larger anchors, electric deck machinery, gravity davits, etc.), and even the lifeboats are different. Internally the Victory ships have a turbine engine instead of reciprocating, and the holds have three levels instead of two. To make an accurate Victory ship model from a Liberty ship kit, take the guns off the Liberty and scratch build a ship to put them on. Regards, Chris Friedenbach Crewmember, SS Jeremiah O’Brien ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Peter Nolan Subject: Re: Liberty vs Victory Ships Franklyn, From what I've read (and that's a dribble compared to most on this list,) I've found that the Victory ships were slightly larger and carried much more powerful engines. The exact numbers escape me, but I think they were about 11,500 tons (up about 20 percent), with 9000 shp (up about 100 percent), capable of about 17.5 knots (up from 12.5 knots or less). I'd be most interested in all the replies, as I'm in the process of building three Liberty-based freighters in 1:160 scale for my other interest, which is N scale model railroading. Pete Nolan Albuquerque, NM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: PT109 Just to set the record straight, Kennedy did not "allow" PT109 to be run over by that IJN destroyer. It is humbly suggested that one read any of the several accounts of the incident, including Robert Ballard's short article in the latest National Geographic, to achieve a good sense of what happened. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Darren Subject: Totally off topic Sorry, but I thought I'd share this in the spirit of Christmas. For all those that remember Bob & Doug McKenzie, check out the following link to their 12 days of Christmas song for a chuckle. And for those who don't know them, it's a bit of Canadian culture (although some may suggest we should forget it!) so go and have a look. Anything you don't understand, feel free to ask me! http://aetherealforge.com/~aeon/humor/12days.html Oh ya, ignore the cheesy cartoon, the guys looked much more realistic! Darren Scannell The Great White North. (thanks Shane!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Dave Pluth" Subject: Re: Cameron/Bismarck >> Unelievable!!. How could Cameron not have known that Bismarck never attacked any convoys? << I don't think it was him that made this claim. What I remember from the program was they said that it was designed to do this and they speculated what may have happened if it had. However, I don't believe this was ever mentioned in the program itself. All in all, it was a decent show. Mainly because they showed a lot of footage from the dives (not like the Midway special a few years back). I was a bit troubled by Cameron trying to figure out what actually sunk the ship. I'm not sure making a moving about a ship that sunk makes you an expert. Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Edd Pflum Subject: Re: Subchaser Numbers Franklyn wrote: >> 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. << It's not quite that simple. All subchaser designs; SC (WW1 110 ft,), SC (WW2 110 ft.), PCS (136 ft.), PC (173 ft.) and PCE (180 ft.) were assigned hull numbers from the same sequence. In addition, between the end of the WW1 production (SC1 - SC448) and WW2, several one-off prototype boats were produced (PC449-PC452), and SC numbers were also assigned to a dozen or so converted yachts. The numbers from the movie, 591, 2 and 3 were PCs not SCs. BTW, MicroGlass http//www.microglass.net has fiberglass hulls in 1:32 scale of both the WW1 and WW2 110' SC wooden hulled designs, a 1:96 scale hull for a 173' PC, and a replacement hull in 1:125 scale for the Lindberg Minesweeper (the same hull as the PCE.) Edd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Re: Antony Preston Darius asked - >> What was the world's worst warship according to Mr. Preston??? << Well, I still haven't seen the actual book yet, but the ad mentioned a few: the round Russian coastal defense ship ADMIRAL POPOV, the experimental ram USS KATAHADIN, the light cruiser HMS FURIOUS (1918), Russia's commerce raider RURIK (1904), and the British K-class steam-powered submarines. Of GRAF SPEE, it's said she was "too expensive, overgunned, and with only a moderate turn of speed". This book is to be published this month by the US Naval Institute Press. MWL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "\"Honest Bob\" LaBouy" Subject: Re: USS Langley I was sorry to see that some folks feel Samuel P. Langley was not a noteworthy enough person after whom a U.S. Naval vessel should have been named. The comment "suppose it qualifies as pioneering Naval Aviation... Politics, do you really think so?" is a bit short sighted in my humble opinion. Study of the U.S. Navy's catapult systems continually leads one to believe that Langley's work was probably the pioneering effort in the development of the modern ship born catapults. I mention this only in passing and am not trying to stir up a controversy or long series of email notes. No Naval Aviator or historian I know of has questioned the naming of the USS Langley as being even remotely "political." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: MrkLeonard Subject: Re: Secret Forrestal compartment I too had heard of the supposed compartment that had no entrance. The way I heard it (in 1975, aboard Coral Sea) was that it was the lead ship, Forrestal, and the compartment in question was supposed to be a machine shop of some sort. It'll be interesting to hear what other folks have heard! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: 1/1200 - 1/1250 scale Ratlines/ neat webbing Hi Dan, The Website is www.Navalismodels.com. Rich ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Jim Johnson" Subject: Lost Compartment and JFK The story I told about the lost head was told as a sea story. For those of you new to the list, I offer the following: The difference between and fairy tale and a sea story is that a fairy tail is that a fair tale starts out "Once upon a time" while a sea story starts out "now this is no s**t!". I imagine that there is some truth somewhere conserning the lost compartment, but we will probably never know the whole story. I couldn't have been a machine shop, since there is only one aboard a carrier. All the Machinery Repairmen would have wondered why they were assigned aboard a ship without a machine shop. If this event did happen, a head makes more sense shice there are many heads aboard a carrier. There are arround 500 compartments aboard a super carrier, so losing one would be believable. I remember one day while we were in a foreign port (probably Subic Bay P.I.) when a tin can sailor approached me in the hanger bay. " Where is the ship's store?" he asked me. "Which one?" I replied, "we have 7 of them". Needless to say, he was impressed. In reguards to JFK and PT-109, I agree that his actions were heroic after his boat had been run over. If McVae had rescued some of his crew, would he have been treated any different? I was in high school when Kennedy was elected and the buzz at that time was that the whole incident was the stuff of heros. I never once saw or heard any question about how it could have happened, only that it did, like losing his boat had nothing to do with him but only presented the opportunity to prove himself a hero. There was even a PT-109 song by Jimmy Dean of Big Bad John fame IIRC. But then, look at all the information we have learned about him since, from his Mafia connections to his philandering to his physical difficulties. It was a different time back then. (Hell, hardly anyone knew that FDR spent most of his time in a wheelchair and that he had toruble standing, let alone walking) The Joseph Kennedy Jr was a case of naming a ship after a future president. He was the annointed one that was going to be ordained president (oops, I mean elected). Unfortunitly he was killed before that could happen so JFK had to be his replacement. With Joe Kennedy being buddy buddy with FDR, they had to name a ship after him. Back then the only ships that were being named after people were destroyers. In this day and age, they may have named a cruiser of carrier after him. Jim Johnson IPMS 1788 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Re: Liberty Ship and Victory Ship >> Now I have a new inquiry. What is the difference between a Liberty Ship and a Victory Ship? << Victory Ships were a later, faster, larger design. They had turbine engines compared to the Liberty Ship reciprocating engines. The Victory ships were intended to be the basis of an expanded postwar merchant fleet, as well; the Liberties were expected to be scrapped or sold quickly after the war. Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Sinking of INDIANAPOLIS There is a considerable amount of misinformation floating out there on the sinking, and there was misinformation on the part of both the prosecution and defense at the trial. There is also some surprising new research. 1) The Japanese submarine captain, and a US sub captain, both testified at one point that zigzagging would not help against a competent submarine captain. However, Hashimoto then modified his statement to say that a zigzag COULD help, if it was done at the last minute. Neither the defense nor the prosecution followed up on that statement. 2) Despite the claim of the US submarine captain (and it turns out that all books on the INDIANAPOLIS who cite his testimony exaggerate the enemy tonnage sunk credited to him by a factor of ten, probably as a result of a typographical error at some point) an examination of Clay Blair's book on US submarines reveals several cases where zigzags DID save Japanese ships from US sub attacks - and not just from 'average' or 'no-one you ever heard' of sub skippers - skippers whose attacks were defeated or prevented by Japanese zig-zags included Richard H O'Kane, CO of TANG! In fairness there are also a couple of cases where zigzags brought the target back into range just when the submarine thought it would get away, SHINANO being the example most quoted. 3) A claim was put forth recently saying that the INDIANAPOLIS command staff was not given ULTRA information on Japanese sub contacts. It was this claim that was used as the basis for the Congressional resolution urging McVay's record be expunged. What nobody seems to realize is that it appears that they WERE given information on Japanese sub contacts that corresponds to the SANITIZED information given to the forces in the Atlantic that allowed them to hunt down U-boats without being told it was ULTRA! It is not clear without knowing the Pacific Fleet Intelligence briefing policy - the statement that the INDIANAPOLIS was not given ULTRA information may actually be untrue. They may have been given correct information, but without being told it was from ULTRA. For example, a conversation in the wardroom the night of the sinking mentioned that the ship was approaching a recent submarine sighting. It was typical to fly aerial recon missions on the basis of ULTRA information, which would succeed in sighting 4) *Sky and Telescope* magazine, June or July 2002, contained a calculation of the position of the moon at the time the*I-58* spotted the INDIANAPOLIS. It turns out that the INDIANAPOLIS was probably spotted because from the point of view of the sub, she was silhouetted against the rising moon. If she had been zigzagging, she might never have been spotted, or spotted much later, thus allowing the sub less time to set up an attack. This point has never been made before and in fact there has always been some puzzlement as to how the INDY was spotted. Bottom line - some of the statements made in defense of the INDY CO are not true. No one can know what would have happened if the orders HAD been to zigzag, but the case for zigzag being ineffective is nowhere near as strong as McVay's supporters claim. Whether or not the very fact of his prosecution was a coverup for negligence of others, (who should have been prosecuted but were not) which led to the survivors not being rescued for several days, thus making McVay a scapegoat, is still a consideration. Unfortunately, it appears that, when subjected to analysis, many of the statements made in McVay's defense, both in the court martial and in the court of public opinion, cannot be supported by actual historical facts. Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "chisum1012" Subject: Frog Kit of HMS Tiger John, While reviewing old postings, I found your query. Let me check my collection, but I might have what you are looking for. Contact me off list at: chisum1012@prodigy.net Randy C. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: IPMS USA "Boat" category clarification I am seeking a bit of clarification from Rusty White and/or James Corley - the acting IPMS USA Head Ship Judge. I would like to ask for some clarification on the "Boat" category under the IPMS USA National rules. The category listing on the website states " *Boats, Speed Boats, Motor Torpedo Boats, Motor Patrol Boats -- 418. All entries". I have participated in several local & regional contests in which the length of a "boat" was limited to 80 feet, ostensibly to limit an differentiate a PT boat (ie an 80 foot ELCO) from other craft. With the release of the Revell S-Boat it is easy to see that this length limit would have to change to 100 plus feet. Is there an upper limit in the length of a torpedo boat under the IPMS USA definition? The ultimate pre-World-War One torpedo boat in the US Navy inventory was 173 feet (Blakely-class). The early Torpedo Boat Destroyers (Bainbridge and Hopkins classes) were redesignated as Coastal Torpedo Boats (CTB) during WWI. These were approximately 250 feet in length. If it isn't a length limit, is there a mission differentiation? How is the mission of a Harbor Tug differentiated from that of a Fleet Tug under the rules? A CTB may have had the same mission as a TBD, but due to the advances of the fleet's capabilitites, it did not have the range or speed necessary to accompany the fleet in Blue Water operations. Would a model of the Bainbridge (TBD-1) entered as a pre-WWI ship would be categorized as a ship, while the exact same model, entered as WWI era CTB-1 be classified as a torpedo boat? Just soliciting some thoughts here. Ed Mansfield, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Brent Theobald Subject: Roll Model's Christmas Contest Howdy! Roll Models has tried to come up with the easiest contest yet. You don't even need to build a model! All you need to do is visit the Searchable Catalog or Online Catalog and select $100 worth of merchandise. Make a list of what you want. Send me an email with the stock numbers in that list. If your name is drawn from the virtual hat you win everything from the list. We'll even ship it to you. Searchable Catalog: http://www.rollmodels.net/search/phpsrch2.htm Online Catalog: http://www.rollmodels.net/standard/catalog.htm Brent's email address: brent@rollmodels.com Important Stuff: To be eligible in this contest your emailed entry must include the following: 1. Your first and last name 2. A valid email address 3. Your shipping address 4. Your wish list that does not exceed $100 (strictly enforced) If your entry does not include the above info it will be discarded. No cheating! You may only enter once, so any dual entries will be cause for the sender to be disqualified from the contest. We do check. This contest is open to modelers around the world. Deadline for entry is Monday, December 23. Don't worry about receiving spam from Roll Models. Check out our Privacy Policy. http://www.rollmodels.com/privacy.htm Have fun and Merry Christmas from Roll Models! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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