Subject: SMML VOL 2287 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:45:18 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Flattops 2: Re: Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships", published by Salamander Books, Ltd 3: Re: "Flat Top" antennae 4: Re: Scratch one flat top 5: Re: "Scratch One Flattop" 6: Re: Boot topping 7: Re: HP Model kits 8: Re: 1/700 scale resin subs 9: Books with line drawings 10: Re: Boottop 11: Re: 1/700 sub kits 12: Hp Models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Re: HP Models ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: CaptainOD Subject: Re: Flattops Enjoying the thread on this, my generation of aviation called it the "boat." Of course the rest of the Navy and Marines may have had other terms for it or other ships. Read lots of books as a kid and grew up in the Military, father who flew off the Enterprise called it the "carrier" but don't recall anyone in my career from Flight School on through say "carrier" or "flattop" during squadron operations. Official usage would be letters like CV but we would call it "boat," "big gray boat" "going to trap the boat or dumpster." And if you had to go and visit the helo guys to something like an LPH, "puke bucket" was the most common although a lot of us liked "out house." We in the Marines often referred to it as the "dumpster" if we had to stay aboard, to us it was like living in a gray garbage dumpster with somebody always pounding a hammer on it, much preferred our tents. I think common terms change with time, I have certainly seen that in my time in service, "flattop" may have been common in WW2, but not by Nam and I doubt by the 80's on. Bob O'Donovan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: RDChesneau Subject: Re: Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships", published by Salamander Books, Ltd Gary I recall working on this book (Good Lord, is it twenty years ago?), and seem to remember that my main input was to write the introductory essays and to cast a glance over the rest of the content in an effort to catch any faux pas that might have been evident. There were some, and not all were corrected. The output generated by Mr Gibbons (whom I do not know, incidentally) was, to put it mildly, prodigious, and rapidly executed. There must certainly have been some guesswork on his part as regards paint schemes and colour fidelity, particularly with the less well documented ships. I think the standard of accuracy is best summed up as "close but not guaranteed in all circumstances." Best wishes Roger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: "Flat Top" antennae To: John Reid Thanks for your elucidation about "Flat Top" radio antennae. The humble 110 Ft. Submarine Chasers of WW 1 used that arrangement in 197--1918. Due to the need for rapid communication with each other (they operated in Units, or teams of three boats) when fine tuning a hunt, the chasers were among the very first U.S. naval vessels to employ the newly developed radio telephone (or wireless telephone) human voice communication. They had been originally equipped with radio telegraph (i.e., Morse Code) apparatus, but a sub could slip away while the messages were being encoded, transmitted, and decoded. Thus the chasers earned a high priority for this equipment. As a side issue, when the chasers were auctioned as war surplus after the Armistice, the radio telegraph sets (consisting of a 1/2 kw 120-volt transmitter plus a receiver) were not included, but if a buyer wanted one, he had to pay a flat fee of $750 (Big Bucks in 1920--1921 dollars) over the bid. If not, the equipment was removed by the Navy. The Navy did not sell the radio telephones (wireless telephones), or radio equipment in which vacuum tubes were used. Can you please tell us if the "Flat Top" antennae were a requirement of the radio telephones (wireless telephones)? Ted Treadwell, what kind of antennae were used on the WW 2 chasers? Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: URUDOFSKY Subject: Re: Scratch one flat top see http://www.avhistory.org/scripts/SiteNews/default.asp ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Robert Mosher" Subject: Re: "Scratch One Flattop" According to Paul Dickson's "War Slang" ((c) 1994 Paul Dickson) published by Pocket Books in 1994 (ISBN 0671750224), the Coral Sea reference is the best known root of the phrase. His entry reads: Flattop. An aircraft carrier; from the flat flight deck. The following etymology, perhaps mythical, appeared in an article on the war's new vocabulary in the April 1944 issue of 'Word Study:' "This name was first applied by a jubilant bomber pilot who yelled into his microphone, 'Scratch one flattop' after he sank a Jap carrier. He was pledged not to reveal important information and he thought the Japs wouldn't be able to decipher that." Robert A. Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Harwell, James R." Subject: Re: Boot topping In reference to "boot topping" - I was stationed on a 2100 Fletcher class tin can another strange term) and as a "deck ape" I am famillar with the term. True - when the ships went to oil and diesel a slick followed them like an albatros therefore the water line was painted black and below was a red-lead to deter barnacles. It seems all I ever saw was "haze gray and "deck gray" along with battleship gray which was a darker gray than deck. Also as a gunner's mate we painted the tops of our guns (5") battleship gray to diffuse light and also the 40MM's and torpedo rack amidships (battle condition in NAM) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: mflake Subject: Re: HP Model kits I have built two HP Model kits, the SMS Gneisenau and the HMS Dreadnought. I have two others to build, the HMS Inflexible and the KMS Pinguin. I would say you will need to do a lot of research to build any of those. If you are very particular about accuracy, you may not be very satisfied. Well, you'll be disappointed. I have found some very good references for Dreadnought and Inflexible. Dreadnought required the addition of torpedo nets and their shelves and booms. There were no provision or instructions for the coaling gantries (three pair!). The instructions for the bridge weren't detailed enough. That said, I am very pleased with the way she came out. The Inflexible is giving me some heartache. I do not believe you can build an accurate Inflexible with the superstructure pieces provided in the kit. They look more like they belong on the Invincible in 1914. My intent was to build the Invincible in 1914, but that will require reworking the wing turrets as they were of a different shape than those provided. As with the Dreadnought, I think a little extra work will result in a very nice product. Gneisenau also required some searching for references. Unfortunately, I had to refer to other, larger scale, models. Again, the instructions weren't very clear about assembly in the superstructure area. Also, the mast construction was a little ambiguous. I tried to depict her at the time of the Falklands battle. The Pinguin looks all right, but I haven't really seriously looked at the kit. I have found some photos of him and Atlantis and have a neat diorama idea in mind. These aren't shake-the-box, fall-together type kits. But they are models of subjects that aren't available elsewhere. Modelers with some skill and talent will be challenged and ultimately rewarded. As I said before, if your are a stickler for accuracy, you will be disappointed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Gerry and Jana" Subject: Re: 1/700 scale resin subs There are two other kits out there 1) the s-boat early US subs by HP they are excellent kits I bought three ! 2) I found a few kits by a company called Armada models of easly s class (sargo) US subs they are kinda crude and aparently super hard to find but with work build into respectable looking kits I saw an article about them once claiming they were exact copies of the skyway Gato THIS IS NOT TRUE! If you do find them beware tons of filling and sanding to do before you get a decent start point but I do like the fact that you get the full hull option as well as mounting pins If you like WW2 subs thats all I know of as far as US subs I did hear some scuttle butt of a nautilus but nothing ever appeared hope this helps I would highly recomend the old S class kits by HP they are truely excellent I dressed mine up with some PE and they stand out in the crowd but they are tiny makes you realize why they were called pig boats. have a great day Gerry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Friedrich Kappes Subject: Books with line drawings Hi Folks! Which books can you recommend for byuing/loaning that have many good line drawings/three views? Cheers! Friedrich The FriedrichFiles http://www.geocities.com/friedkappes/flagship.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Doug Wilde" Subject: Re: Boottop I pull out my Oxford English Dictionary and find the nautical term (boottop) dates at least from 1768 "It is usual to make her heel, or incline first to one side and then to the other...having scrubbed off the ooze, shells...with brushes and brooms, they cover it with a mixture of tallow, sulphur, etc. and this is called giving her boot-tops." In 1842 we have this use "Every vessel that isn't coppered shows her boot-top." Boot-topping, from 1767 is "the act of cleaning the upper part of a ship's bottom, and daubing it over with a coat or mixture of tallow, sulphur, resin, etc. Boot-topping is chiefly performed where there is no dock...or when...hurry...renders it inconvenient to have the whole bottom...cleansed." So it appears that a band of different colour (hey, its the OXFORD English Dictionary) on a ship was early on a boottop. Harbors always have been pretty foul bodies of water. Just think about what was floating around, not only from the heads but washing into the harbor from the surrounding port town. And I doubt all the coal dust settled on the crew and decks and none on the water. So boottopping did not have to wait until a little oil was spilled if its function had become one of hiding that ring of crud. Doug ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Roy Knight" Subject: Re: 1/700 sub kits >> Hasegawa make a 1:700 uboat I think there may be 2 in a box a Mk VIIc and IXc. I found it on Hobbylink Japan website www.hlj.com/images/hsg/hsgwl901box.gif HLJ have a great collection of stuff that's hard to get. If I can't find it locally here in Australia it's usually the next place I look. << Steve; I have this kit and they are waterline only kits, I want to make a shadow box of a U-Boat kill by a Gato, so I need full hull kits of both subs. I thank you for the info and appreatiate the help. >> Skywave makes a 1:700 set of Gato submarines. You get 2 subs per kit (along with some other items, such as Japanese destroyers and B-24 bombers). These can be finished as either waterline or full hull. These are styrene, not resin. The conning tower does need some improvement work, the forward torpedo tube numbers are incorrect and accuracy is only fair. They can be greatly improved with Tom's Modelworks photoetch set that is specifically made for the set. << Tom; This is the Gato kit that I am looking for, do you know where I can get one? Or is it out of production? I also thank you for the info to correct the problems with the kit. BTW would it be hard to convert one of the gato hulls to fit the type VII upper hull? You helped me a while back with info on SKIPJACK class subs, that helped me make a killer model of a Revel-Germany kit for a friend who served on one. I am now building one for my dad who hunted subs from P-3's while he was in the Navy. Thanks a bunch!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "RUSSELL SMITH" Subject: Hp Models Hi, Chris, Yes, overall I'm very satisfied with the quality of the models. My biggest gripe is the gun barrels. They pour into a open face mold leaving the barrels very hard to get round but, as I replace them with brass I guess it doesn't matter. The quality has increased with each model. I have many different companies models and with a little work these are as good as most. Having seen your work with Skytrex metal models I have bought and put together a number of them. With your talent I believe you could make any of them stunning! The plans are not as good as some but are adequate to put them together. The only one I would not recommend is the Dragon. It was one of their early efforts and the one I got was not very good. Still, it built up well. I believe they have since retooled it. Regards; Russ Smith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Sab1156 Subject: Re: HP Models Dear Chris, The HP models,which were produced during the last three years are of very good quality and very fine casted, some of the older ones have some problems. I can get them directly from Germany with a discount! Best Regards Detlef Hartwig ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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