Subject: SMML VOL 2420 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:59:19 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re New York Railway Tugs 2: Re USS Missouri's Decks 3: AMS addition 4: RE USS Missouri's Decks 5: Re USS Missouri decks 6: Re Sydney/Kormoran and CAPT Burnett's Reputation 7: Re New York Railway Tugs 8: Re French "Chasseurs de Sous-marins" (American 110' Subchasers) 9: Crewing ship models 10: Re Missile colors 11: 1/72 U-Boat 12: Re How close is Bourrasque to Wicher? 13: Thanx for "How Do You ...? 14: Re 1/700 Niko Destroyers 15: Re 1/350 'KURSK' 16: RE Imperial russian royal yacht ALMAZ, colour schemes thereof 17: Combrig Australia and Canberra kits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: IHP's 1700 ALGERIE KIT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From SeaWoodies@aol.com Subject Re New York Railway Tugs Here is as starting point; the NY public library, which I believe to be the repository of some but not necessarily all the information your seekhttp//www.nypl.org/ SeaWoodies@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From John Snyder Subject Re USS Missouri's Decks Hi Greg, This is one of those topics for which we need an SMML FAQ. Missouri's decks were still painted Deck Blue 20-B at the time of the surrender. They were not holystoned clean until she was on her way back to New York for the naval review there. Photos show them to have been back to bare teak by the time she passed east through the Panama Canal. Remember too that her Ms.12 paint scheme was non-standard, in that the entire hull was 5-N Navy Blue. Best, John Snyder The Token Yank White Ensign Models, South Farm, Snitton, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 3EZ Tel 0870 220 1888 Fax 0870 220 1786 http//WhiteEnsignModels.com for secure online ordering. For the latest news from WEM, Click Here http//www.whiteensignmodels.com/brochure/whats_new1.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Jim Johnson" Subject AMS addition Here is another symptom of AMS You have the kit, the references, the paint and decals to do the model, but it is the only one you have and they don't produce it any more. If you build the kit, you won't have it in your collection of unbuilts, therefore you can't built it. Jim Johnson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Ouellette, Lawrence M" Subject RE USS Missouri's Decks Here are some of the official US Navy photos of the surrender, showing blue decks http//www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-8.htm Be sure to click on the other links on the page to see additional photos. >>I am sure this thread has been through this list before but I am a newcomer. If any of you have any WRITTEN references on the "Mighty Mo's" decks on Sept. 2, 1945 could you please share your source with me. <<< Greg, this has been discussed many time before. The written references are 100% irrelevant to me. We are not talking about hard-to-interpret black & white photos, or color photos that have had major color shift over time. The multiple US Navy photos, from many angles, all clearly show blue decks. The decks were holy-stoned on the way home, maybe the work even started on September 2, 1945, but not until the surrender was complete. There is a large (18" by 20", 20" by 24"?) copy of this photo in the USN Cruiser Sailors Association memorial room on board the USS Salem. http//www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/ac00001/ac01189.jpg It could not be more clear that the main deck of the USS Missouri was painted. Just my opinion. 8-) Larry Ouellette Volunteer, USS Salem (CA 139) United States Naval Shipbuilding Museum Quincy, Massachusetts, USA http//www.uss-salem.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From SteveWiper@aol.com Subject Re USS Missouri decks Greg, You do not need any written refferences for the answer to your question. Go to this link- http//www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-8.htm You will see by the numerous color photos that the decks were still blue. Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Joel Labow Subject Re Sydney/Kormoran and CAPT Burnett's Reputation > >We already know that as a commander he was responsible and your statement is accordingly trite. In the scenario described he was acting correctly and you have no basis for stating that he could have "seen right along". The question is not what responsibility should be attached to him, but what blame. << Maurice, I didn't see my reply as "trite." To a Naval officer and particularly to the commanding officer of a ship the word 'responsibility' has an overarching meaning which encompasses both praise and blame. For a modern purpose-built capital ship to be lost in action with an armed merchant cruiser is an outcome without precedent. I am not aware of any other instance in the last 100 years where such an engagement resulted in anything other than the prompt destruction of the merchant cruiser with minimal loss to the true warship. Had the sinking of Sydney not been shrouded in mystery there would have been a huge hue and cry over what undoubtedly would have been seen as a humiliating defeat. To say that there was nothing that Sydney's commanding officer could have done to avert such an outcome is simply ludicrous. To use your preferred language in my opinion a court of inquiry would have 'blamed' CAPT Burnett for (A) Stopping his ship within easy torpedo range of an unknown vessel to launch a boat. Had he never heard of the loss of HM Ships Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy in the broad Fourteens in 1914? Had Sydney been farther away or proceding at any reasonable speed scoring a hit with a single surface-launched torpedo would have been virtually impossible. (B) Not having his ship at instant readiness for hostilities. Why was Kormoran able to score multiple hits early in the action without effective fire being returned? Why wasn't the crew at general quarters with directors and main and secondary armament trained on the unknown vessel ready to open fire instantly in the event of any suspicious behaviour? I am not familiar with RAN regulations but in the USN "negligently hazarding a vessel of the Naval service in wartime" is a capital offense. Had CAPT Burnett survived I have little doubt that his seagoing career would have been promptly terminated, just as ADM Kimmel's was after Pearl Harbor (although there are apologists for him as well!). In wartime complacency is a sin that is never forgiven and always punished! Best regards, Joel Labow CAPT, USN (ret) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From Mike Settle Subject Re New York Railway Tugs >> Does anyone know where plans can be found for the tugs operated by the New York Central Railway who used them to take their rail wagon floats across to Manhattan? << You might try contacting the New York Central System Historical Society. Their website is at http//www.nycshs.org/index.html Mike Settle ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re French "Chasseurs de Sous-marins" (American 110' Subchasers) Here is a list of all of the WW-I Subchasers that were transferred to the French in WW1 at http//perso.wanadoo.fr/bertrand.daubigny/MnHmPg.htm . From the just stated unofficial list, there were two shipments; one in July 1917 with SC-5, 7 to 16, 28 to 33, 65, 67, 75, 76, 140 to 142, 146, 160 to 163, 169, 170, 272, 170 to 177, 243, 249, 313 to 319, 347, 348, and 350. These were given the designations of "Chasseurs de Sous-marins" CH-1 to CH-50. And there was another shipment in October 1918 with the SC-357 through SC-406 as their CH-51 through CH-100. According to the website "In July 1939, the Navy has only eight more hunters type SC out of wood 1 only from the first series, and seven of the second. All the other hunters have déja [since been, HS] condemned and destroyed. The manufacturer of these hunters is Elco Company." This does seem to be an unofficial list, as is stated on the website, as it is known that the CH-11 (ex SC-16) and CH-15 (ex SC-31) escaped to England and were then transferred to the Free Polish Navy and to then be transferred back then to the F.N.F.L. (Free French Navy). The list gives the record of these "Chasseur" CH-25 (ex SC-146); Brought into service in 1917. Based in Toulon, it is scuttled on 27 November 1942. CH-51 (ex SC-357); Brought into service in 1918. The N°51 Hunter is condemned on 10 November 1939. CH-56 (ex SC-362); Brought into service in 1918. The N°56 Hunter is condemned on 29 December 1939. CH-58 (ex SC-364); Brought into service in 1918. The N°56 Hunter is condemned on 10 October 1939. CH-74 (ex SC-380); Brought into service in 1918. The N°74 Hunter is condemned on 10 October 1939. CH-81 (ex SC-387); Brought into service in 1918. Based in Bizerte, the N°81 Hunter is disarmed in 1942 then seized by the Italians on 8 December 1942. It will be scuttled by them on 6 May 1943. CH-95 (ex SC-401); Brought into service in 1918. The N°95 Hunter is condemned on 10 October 1939. CH-98 (ex SC-404); Brought into service in 1918. Based in Cherbourg, the N°98 Hunter is seized by Royal Navy on July 3, 1940. Not restored, fate unknown. Also according to the above mentioned site there are other series of "Chasseurs de Sous-marins"; Chasseurs CH-1 to 4, 5 to 21, and their 41 to 48, but these are all French designs built in their yards and completely different vessels. This information should allow someone to then model either a series of either French or Polish SCs in near 1/72 scale with the old ITC/Glencoe kit. And then there are the Cuban SC-274, 302, 311 and 312. What is interesting about this site's unofficial list of American SCs tranferred to the French is the fact that it is somewhat different from the very early article by Cmd. J.A. Furer; "Journal of the U.S. Naval Institute", which until now had been considered the definitive source on WW-I SCs. Variances between the two lists deal with the SC-63, 64, 66, all not listed on the French site; and, SC-169 and SC-406 that are not listed in the earlier article mentioned above. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Victor M. Baca" Subject Crewing ship models >> No1. I do not do sea-scapes and No2. Since I do not do sea-scapes, putting the little sailors on the little ships( which since I do not do sea-scapes means that the ships will be on pedestals) seems ludricous to me. Since nothing more that a bottle of Chevas Regal is at stake, I would not feel badly about leaving the little sailors off of the decks of these ships. Does anybody else there feel that presentation-type models look really silly with a complement on board? << Nope. I don't agree that full hull models look silly with crews on them. The ship serves the crew, they're the ultimate "detail fitting." The ship in drydock (she looks an awful lot like a display model at 11 scale) is crawling with men and women... Victor Baca ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Brooks Rowlett Subject Re Missile colors I asked someone who worked with the systems ashore. Begin forwarded message >> White is the usual tactical round color. Blue (usually with white fins) was the shipboard training/inert round (also includes test dummy missiles with electrical measurement boxes in them to check the launcher/missile electrical circuits, referred to as TSAM's) -- a couple were carried per magazine/launcher for regular testing purposes and for impressing visitors when loaded onto the launchers during open house or VIP visits. Red was the color of a live full-up test round for experimental purposes on a firing range (may be the same as a tactical round or it may have special mods, such as an inerted warhead or an experimental proximity (VT) fuze -- depends on the kind of test) -- it may have other color codes added by the test people for their own purposes, but most of it will remain bright red or red-orange. Originally, some shipboard TSAM's were painted white, too, but this lead to a few unfortunate experiences when live rounds were mislabeled as TSAM's -- there is NO mistake, no matter how stupid, that some sailor or officer will not make!! -- and was corrected poste-haste!! These are the only colors I am familiar with. << - Brooks A. Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From Mastershipbldr@aol.com Subject 1/72 U-Boat U-BOAT .COM has said of the Revell U Boat. "Nice very nice" and hey they should know for the simple reason they deal with nothing but U-Boats and besides you show me two U Boats that looked the same at the end of the war. Don ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re How close is Bourrasque to Wicher? Stephen Allen was asking about how close the Bourrasque (pennant #12) was to Wicher. According to what can be discerned from the photographs on http//dkepaves.free.fr/html/bourrasque.htm , and http//dkepaves.free.fr/html/nouveau.htm , they are really close. This site gives a very good history of this class' war record and includes some very nice photographs, including ones of Bourrasque after she has been struck by a mine, in her darker warpaint and "false bow-wave" Listed modifications are as such Armament in the beginning 4 guns of 130 mm/40 MOD 19 (4 simple turrets) with 440 shells, 1 gun of 75 mm/50 AA MOD 22 with 180 high-explosive shells and 120 lighting shells, 2 machine-guns of 8 mm AA Hotchkiss MOD 1914 with 20 500 cartridges, 6 Tubes Launches Torpedes of 550 mm (2 mountings triple) with 6 torpedes MOD 1929 D, 2 grenadeurs with chain galle2 [depth-charge racks, HS] with 20 grenades of 250 kg, 2 towed torpedes Ginocchio [paravames, HS] (removed in April 1933), 2 projectors [dearchlights, HS] of 75 cm, 2 projectors of indication of 30 cm. Modifications in 1931 replacement of the gun of 75 by 2 guns of 37 mm/60 AA (2 simple guns). Modifications in 1938-1939 colouring of the sheaves [shields, HS] of principal artillery. Modifications in 1939-1940 replacement of the machine-guns of 8 mm by twinned guns of 13,2 mm. Modifications with the 1st trim. 1940 the 3rd gun of 130 mm will be removed on all the destroyers for stability (except Cyclone , Siroco and Storm), by note of January 30, 1940. Boats 1 1, motor boat Baudoin of 7 m motorboat Baudoin of 7 m, 1 dinghy with Baudoin engine of 5 m², 1 whale-boat of 7 m, 1 Berthon boat in fabric of 3,60 m, 1 punt of 3 m. Mistral, another Bourrasque-class "TORPILLEURS", had no such modifications until she was seized by the RN on 3 July 1940. She was then changed to have all of the French armament unloaded, to be replaced with 4 guns of 102 mm (2 turrets double), 1 gun of 12 pdr, 3 guns of 20 mm AA, 3 TLT of 550 mm (1 mounting triples), 2 depthcharge racks, 2 Thornycroft mortars. The Orage, again of the Bourrasque-class, is listed as being identical to her sister Ouragon; which had her armament upgraded in 1940 to include 1 gun of 25 mm AA, 2 machine-guns of 13,2 mm AA, removal of a triple mounting TLT. Ouragon was passed to the FNFL on 18 July 1940 with the pennant number "H 16". In closing, it can be seen that any of the Bourrasque-class "TORPILLEURS" could be built from the Wicher if one showed them prior to their 1939-40 updates. Mistral had no such modifications until she was seized by the RN on 3 July 1940. The Orage and Ouragon could be modeled with only slight modifications to their armament, but with Bourrasque as being the most modified. Happy modeling. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From "Ray" Subject Thanx for "How Do You ...? Thanx a bunch for the input on little guys on little toy ships. After thinking about it for a while,( and eyeing that bottle of Chevas!), I think that I will 1.) Mount the Arizona on brass pedestals, but have the mooring piers on the base also. I MIGHT even have a figure situated somewhere on the fantail or the quarter-deck for a focal point. 2.) The Franklin will go on keel blocks, with a group of figures under the counter as if looking at the rudder or screws. I also plan to have a minimum complement of A/C on the flight deck as if in transit. Now, I want to know who is going to do a diorama of the Iowa or a Essex as if in Leyte gulf under attack by the Kamakazies? ( How long does it take to paint about 1200 visible figures? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re 1/700 Niko Destroyers I thought that people would be interested in possible variations of other destroyers that could be made from the Niko 1/700 scale destroyers. The Destroyers Burza and Wicher could also build with some modifications the follow on to the Bourrasque-class of 1927 with the L'Adroit-class of 1929. The L'Adroit (Skillful) was armed with four each of 130mm (4 single turrets), two each of 37mm anti-aircraft (2 single guns), 3 machine-guns of 13,2mm AA, 6 torpedo tubes of 550 mm (two triple mountings) and 16 loads of depth-charges. Information about her can be found at http//dkepaves.free.fr/html/adroit.htm . The L'Adroit's pennant numbers varied over the years with them being; "T2" (1929), "1" (1930), "41" (1936), "23" (1938), "T23" (1940), "1" for a very short time in 1942, to "T101" for the rest of the year, and finally to no pennant number in 1943. The L'Alcyon (Halcyon), also a L'Adroit-type "TORPILLEUR", had hull numbers of; "3" for a short time in 1930, to then be changed to "116" (from 1930-31), "112" (from 1931-45), and then "T33" (1945). Additionally, the Siroco was almost identical to the class leader of her sister, the Bourrasque, with the following armament of four each of 130mm (in single mounts), 2 guns AA of 37mm, and 6 torpedo tubes of 550mm in two triple mounts. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From "David Way" Subject Re 1/350 'KURSK' Please not this particular 1/350 'KURSK' Project 949A Russian nuclear submarine model is a vacu form kit. I mistakenly ordered it from another Russian model web site, thinking it was a plastic injection type kit. See the following web site for several Russian kits at good prices; http//www.aviapress.com/viewallkits.htm I wrote Aviapress and they have since indicated on their web site the kit is a vacu form one. The kit has poor detail in the hull. The two hull halfs are split right through the middle of the hull. (I suppose a water line verision could be made). There are decent decals, metal screws, and plastic diving planes, plus antennas. All in all, the lack of accetable detail in the hull, ruins the kit. (Plus, I have never worked with a vacu form kit). I would think the 1/350 Zvezda kit would be a much better buy, (although I have not actually seen the kit). Regards, Dave Way, Huntington Beach, CA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From "James Baumann" Subject RE Imperial russian royal yacht ALMAZ, colour schemes thereof Hello all! A good modelling friend of mine has aquired a Combrig 1/700 kit of Almaz, the Russian Royal yacht. Handsome vessel indeed, I have seen models and paintings of her in Black with yellow funnels as well as in her later Naval format. The question hereby is Was she as the Royal Yacht ever painted in white/yellowfunnels or other? I have on his behalf failed deperately to locate any concrete information so thought I would ask you! thanks JIM BAUMANN Oh yes; Robert Lockie check your e-mail! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From "John Sutherland" Subject Combrig Australia and Canberra kits Hi all, I have seen adverts for Combrig models of Canberra and Australia. One site says they are both 1926 fit (they were commissioned in 1927!), another says the first is 1939 fit, the second 1942 fit; and yet another site quotes them as 1942 and 1945 respectively. Anyone through some light on this? Also, can anyone comment on quality etc? (I have never bought Combrig - usually their kits are WW1 - not my usual interest). Best regards John Sutherland Porirua NZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Mike Bartel Subject: IHP's 1700 ALGERIE KIT IHP's new 1700 Algerie kit is now entering production. Two versions will be offered #70003 Algerie 1934-1941 #70007 Algerie 1942 These kits will be all-resin, with turned-brass gun barrels. This will be the most comprehensive IHP kit to date, with all parts included to do any sub-fit of the two variants. You'll be getting a LOT of resin in each kit. Not only that, is is perhaps the most detailed IHP ship kit yet produced, and the level of detail and accuracy will meet or exceed those of most other 1700 kits. This kit was designed to be the definitive Algerie kit in this scale. All this will come at a price, unfortunately. It's an expensive and difficult kit to produce, and as a result will be made only in limited quantities. See your dealer or the IHP website for details, and reserve with your dealer quickly. We are anticipating a March/April delivery. Mike Bartel IHP http//ihphobby.tripod.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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