Subject: SMML VOL 2195 Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 02:48:25 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Redesigning/Altering WW2 Ships 2: Re: Electric light 3: Re: Camouflage of Fiume 4: Re: Letter sizes 5: New from Panda 6: Fiume, Königsberg and Atlanta 7: Fiber Optics 8: Protocol Question 9: Re: Revised WW2 BBs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Katz, Gene S" Subject: Redesigning/Altering WW2 Ships Nice to read I am not alone on this one. I'd like to take a WW2 BB, e.g. Iowa, KGV, or Alaska Class CB, and redo it a la my specs. Add a fourth turret for the 16 (or 12)-inch guns; add a fourth barrel to each main deck (not superfiring) 16-inch turret; maybe redesign the 5-inch/38 dual turrets to accomodate a triple configuration; or replace them with 6-inch dual turrets; add a third catapault on the after superfiring 16-inch turret; or even add dual cats to the Iowas amidships like the Alaska Class, while retaining the two fantail cats; maybe lengthen the hull; add independent search and fire control radars for port and starboard secondary batteries; add CIWS (even to the WW2 BB/CB); things of that nature. Other ideas? Gene Katz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Michael London" Subject: Re: Electric light >>Cunard introduced the first passenger ship to be lit by electricity (Servia, 1881).<< Cunard was quick off the mark as the light bulb had only been really perfected the year before. Contrary to popular belief Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb; he just perfected it. It was, in fact, invented in 1860 by Joseph Swan of Sunderland, England, but was not perfected until 1880 when Edison worked with Swan to make it practical. Swan's invention was at first very primitive, lacking a good vacuum and an adequate light source and it was not until 1878 that he produced an all-glass hermetically sealed bulb. With an improvement in vacuum techniques both Swan and Edison joined forces in the Edison and Swan United Electric Light Company. And the rest is history. Michael London ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Sanartjam Subject: Re: Camouflage of Fiume Hi Paul, The only pattern I have seen for the camouflage scheme worn by the Fiume in 1941 is in the instructions for the Tauro 1/400 kit of the Fiume. I would be happy to send you a copy if you want one. The Orizzonte Mare books do not have a pattern for the Fiume, and in the past some have questioned whether the pattern in the Tauro instructions matches the only known (that I know of) photograph of the Fiume in this camo pattern. Hope this helps! Art Nicholson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Keith Bender" Subject: Re: Letter sizes Hi SMMLies, I have resolved my draft marks and stern name problem. It had to be a type-O. where I said letters and not numbers for draft marks, sorry, only my boss at work is perfect in every way as he tells us. BTW, while I was aboard the Inchon for 3.5 years we could read the draft marks. She too had Roman nums along with standard numbers. Thank you, Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: New from Panda Panda has apparently announced 1/350 scale Essex and Ticonderoga Carriers for July release. See http://www.rainbowten.co.jp/english/news/hobbyshow2003.htm scroll down to the bottom for the Panda entries. As other points of possible interest are a 1/35 C47 gunship copter which looks rather awesome and a 1/35 scale Leopold railway gun, which in that scale should be about 3-4 feet long and will probably cost several pretty pennies!!! Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Lars Scharff" Subject: Fiume, Königsberg and Atlanta Hi all, Fiume's camouflage in 1941: Profile Morskie 17 Zara contains a camouflage scheme of Fiume, but I can't commend on its accuracy. Does somebody know the colour of the funnels of the German light cruiser Königsberg in 1929/1930? In some photos Königsberg had much darker funnels than the superstructure, e.g. in 'Vom Original zum Modell: Die Leichten Kreuzer der Königsberg-Klasse' by Koop and Schmolke (p. 4, 25) and in 'Krazowniki Typu K cz.1' by Cieslak and Danielewicz (p. 8). This is called by some authors an experimental colour scheme. What was the armament of Königsberg 1929/30? She didn't got the 8,8 cm SK L/75 C 25 twins, which were planned, but only installed in Köln. Königsberg had two old 8,8 cm L/45 C 13. But there were also four platforms for 3,7 cm twins, were later two additional 8,8 cm were installed. In some plans this guns are shown and also on the model in the Deutsche Museum in Munich. But I can't see them on the photos. Is it correct, that Königsberg had as built no light AA armament? In PSM 28 is a photo of the protected cruiser USS Atlanta on the inside cover. Atlanta is shown with no sailing rig. The gun on the forecastle looks different from the original 8 in and it is not in a barbette. What type of gun was this? Did Boston had also her rig reduced at the time of the Battle of Cavite/Manila in 1898? Best regards Lars Scharff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Michael Aono" Subject: Fiber Optics Can someone provide me with a source for fiber optics. APC sells a fiber optic kit but it retails for around $35.00 and its only for a two foot bundle. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: JOHNEME Subject: Protocol Question To the authors that frequent this site, do you consider it presumptuous for people to contact you to autograph copies of your books, or make arrangements to send signed bookplates (primarily for authors outside of our native countries where postal rates might make sending the books themselves prohibitive)? There are a number of authors on this site whose books I have and enjoy, and this thought just occured to me the other day. I think I will send similar queries to other lists I am on. Thanks for any response, John Emery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: David Wells Subject: Re: Revised WW2 BBs Mike Bartel wrote: >> For model purposes, it's possible to rebuild any model and see what a revision would have looked like (i.e. a fourth turret on the Iowa, a three-turreted Richelieu, etc.). It's fascinating, to be sure. Of course, none of these conversions would have been realistically possible. That is what redesigning is for. [SNIP] If you want to add more main turrets, you have to enlarge and strengthen the hull to achieve the extra bouyancy and stability required for the extra weight and shock of firing more guns. When you add something, something else must be landed. Example- all those ships that lost their spotter aircraft and associated gear (catapults, etc.) for more AA guns later in WW2. It was partially a requirement for space, but also of weight in many cases. It's an acute problem, especially on smaller ships. For larger ships, look at the projected reconstruction of the Gneisenau in 1942. To give the ship 15" guns, the bow would have had to be lengthened for extra bouyancy. This work was begun, but not completed, and the whole bow was cut off the ship in order to carry out this work. [SNIP] Interestingly enough, a fast battle ship with four triple 16" turrets was part of the Iowa development progression, so an Iowa with four turrets isn't out of the realm of incredulity. << Let me state from the beginning, that Mike is right, and his points are valid. On the other hand, that shouldn't prevent us from having some fun. I completely agree that adding main turrets to an existing ship is nearly impossible. However, this should not prevent the modeller from having some fun. If you want to make a 4 turret Iowa class model, I say go ahead. You might have to claim that it was built that way, and you'll have to claim smaller, less powerful engines, but why not? As an alternative, you could stretch an Iowa hull by about 70-90 feet to make the very sort of of "January 1938" or "February 1938" preliminary Iowa class that Mike discusses. (My 3rd edition of Dulin & Garzke's book on US battleships has an illustration & statistics on pg 108-109.) Maybe you could claim that the Illinois was completed to a different design. Actually, I find that making up stories to justify the existence of hypothetical models is almost as much fun as building them. Curiously enough, one of my more recently started projects is a refitted Gneisenau, and I had to lengthen the bow, just as Mike discussed. A fellow SMMLlie sent me some nice German 15" guns, which gave me the idea for the project. Another idea I've been batting around is the possibility of making an Ersatz Yorck out of an Airfix Scharnhorst. I could easily re-use the three existing barbettes, but I'd have to add a fourth. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were closely based on the Ersatz Yorck design, but S & G had one turret and barbette removed from the design to make room for bigger engines. Gene Katz's original posting also suggested going with alternate radar and anti-aircraft fittings. This is far easier than adding main turrets. Another of my many weird projects is a possible refitted Hood, although I'm having trouble figuring out a "reasonable" superstructure for it. Frank Allen suggested using a King George V superstructure, but it's fairly wide for the much narrower Hood. I say go ahead and revise, and have a good time. After all, we're buiding models for fun, aren't we? (well, most of us, anyway) While one's expectations should not be unreasonable (e.g. adding an extra turret to an Iowa without splicing the hull, and expecting the same speed) you can learn quite a bit about what is reasonable and what isn't by fooling around with these sorts of hypothetical ships. "There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | http://home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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