Subject: SMML VOL 2426 Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:25:46 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Airfix QM2 2 Re Royal Navy Pennants 3 Re Kormoran's Displacement 4 Re Kormoran's displacement 5 Re SQUADRON 6 Re Photo quality in Squadron/Signals Pub Warships Number 20 "US Destroyers in Action Part 2 7 Photo quality in publications 8 R.N.pennants 9 Re County class Destroyers in 1982 10 Re Photo quality in Squadron/Signals Pub Warships Number 20 "US Destroyers in Action Part 2." 11 Pearl Harbor Narrow Gauge RR 12 Re Dutch monitor Tyger, launched 1868 13 Niko Models needs your help 14 Planked decks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "John Barnum" Subject Airfix QM2 Firstly, glad to hear that Shane is back at home. All the very best to you. I have seen in my local model shop that Airfix are producing a 1600 scale model of Queen Mary 2 . It is due out in June with a price tag of £24.99 This price includes 1 model , some paint and a DVD. They are re-releasing the 1/72 Vosper MTB and the RAF Rescue Launch. These to kits were in the shop this morning. For any Concorde fans Airfix are producing a 1/72 scale, sorry don't know when. Bye for now John Barnum Margate , England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Brooks Rowlett Subject Re Royal Navy Pennants >> Alright, I know this is a simple question - or at least I thought it was until I tried to find out the answer! We all know (don't we) that the RN use D for destroyers, F for frigates, A for auxiliaries etc. But what does R stand for when referring to aircraft carriers? << Because C is cruisers and they wanted single letters. This is not an RN standard pennant system, this is a NATO standard pennant system. A list of the pennant - check a Jane's for the application of the system by other NATO countries. Brooks A. Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "enrico_villa\@libero\.it" Subject Re Kormoran's Displacement >> The data in my posting was taken from a table on pages 48 and 49 of "German Raiders - A History of Auxiliary Cruisers of the German Navy 1895-1945" by Paul Schmalenbach (US Naval Institute Press 1979). In this table Kormoran's displacement is given as 19,900 tons and her GRT as 8736 tons. I confess that I am not familiar with how merchant ships are rated...I assumed that displacement was displacement and GRT was Gross Registered Tons = cargo capacity? Kormoran's dimensions are given as 164 meters (538 feet) and her beam as 20.2 meters (66 feet). By way of comparison the USS Card (CVE-11) which was based on a comparable merchant hull (496' long x 69' beam) displaced 16,620 tons. In the previously mentioned table Pinguin's displacement is given as 17,600 tons (7766 GRT) and Atlantis as 15,700 tons (7021 GRT), so Kormoran seems to be in the same general range. I would welcome an explanation of the difference between displacement and GRT from a knowledgeable source. << Hi Joel, that's interesting...most of my sources are in Italian, so a problem of terminology may exist. Looking at the number I'd say that 8736 is "standard displacement" ("dislocamento standard" in Italian), that is the displacement of the completed ship, fully manned, equipped and ready for sea, including ammunition, provisions, fresh water for the crew, and miscellaneous stores, but not including fuel or reserve feed water for the boilers. On the other hand, 19,900 tons looks like "full load displacement" (not sure about the English terminology here, in Italian "dislocamento a pieno carico"), which quite literally includes everything, and for a cargo ship could be significantly higher than standard displacement (because of the cargo theoric load). If that is the case -I may definitley be wrong-, the number to "assess" the size of the ship and to "compare" (in qualitative terms) to the Sydney is the first one in fact the second ("full load") would overestimate the size of the merchant, since the difference between standard and full load displacement of a warship si smaller. Finally, if I compare Kormoran to a heavy cruiser like the Italian Zara, it seems strange that the first could be, without cargo load, heavier - just consider armor and weapons weight Zara was 182.8m long and 20.6m wide, and had a standard displacement of 11,870 tons, and a full load displacement of 14,360 tons. Anybody can clarify this? Ciao Enrico ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From URUDOFSKY@aol.com Subject Re Kormoran's displacement According to Weyers Taschenbuch der Kriegsflotten,1940, displacement (Wasserverdrängung) and gross registered ton (Bruttoregistertonne) were defined as follows by the Kriegsmarine 1. Water displacement the weight of water displaced by the ship. a.) standard displacement, based on the Disarmament Treaty, = fully equipped, but without fuel and feeder water for boilers. b.) construction displacement = designed displacement with equipment. c.) Maximum displacement = fully equipped and loaded ship. Construction and maximum displacement are measured in metric tons (t = 1000 kg), standard displacement is in English tons (t = 1016 kg). 2. Gross registered tons (Brutto-Register-Tonnen). This is an international volume measurement (100 cubic feet = 2.83 cubic meters), according to which all countries determine the content volume of merchant ships. Gross content volume (gross registered tons = GRT) is the total enclosed space of the ship. Net content volume is the space available for load and passengers, i.e., the revenue-producing space......... PS GRT = 100 cubic feet = 1 ton (1000 kg) Ulrich H. Rudofsky Delmar, NY, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From ALROSS2@aol.com Subject Re SQUADRON When Squadron did its FLETCHER monograph, they clearly pirated one of my and several of Alan Raven's drawings. I called them about it and got the response that they had their own draftspeople and couldn't possibly have done that. Well, when you compare the drawing of THE SULLIVANS (circa 1959) with that in my AOTS, you can see where they changed the covered 3"/50s to uncovered and a few other items, but it's clearly my drawing. There are a couple quirky slips of the pen that are identical and that would not have been replicated if it was an original drawing. Al Ross ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From John Snyder Subject Re Photo quality in Squadron/Signals Pub Warships Number 20 "US Destroyers in Action Part 2 I wrote a lengthy letter to Squadron regarding all the various in the previous book on flush deck destroyers, including the continued use of FS numbers, misinterpretation of photos, poor photo quality, AND the fact that there ARE accurate naval paints available to modellers. I even volunteered my proofreading skills--gratis. I haven't had the courtesy of a reply. So I'm not overly surprised by the response that Steve received. Best, John Snyder The Token Yank White Ensign Models http//WhiteEnsignModels.com for secure online ordering. For the latest news from WEM, Click Here http//www.whiteensignmodels.com/brochure/whats_new1.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From Douglas Simpkin Subject Photo quality in publications Further to Steve Wipers comments, what REALLY got me upset was that I received the Squadron "books" in the same shipment with Wiper's wonderful Hood and Bismark pictorials (with their fabulous collection of well-reproduced, rarely-seen photos, as well as spectacular full-color 3D computer renditions). I finally stopped smackin' my lips over these beauties, and cracked open the Squadron "US DDs in Action Part 2." After looking at the first few pages, I wiped my specs, rubbed my eyes, and looked again. It took a moment to realize it wasn't me! Steve, keep up the good work. Squadron, shame on you. Doug ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "bert" Subject R.N.pennants Les, during ww2 a/carriers Vindex was D15, Perseus was D51, most of the destroyers serving in the Pacific at that time were R pennant. Towards the end of that campaign the destroyers changed to D and the carriers to R. I do not think that had anything to do with ship type as far as carriers were concerned. Except in the late 60's when it stood for Redundant! under labour party policy towards the Navy!. Yours aye (TaT). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Tim Stoneman Subject Re County class Destroyers in 1982 A few thoughts I believe Robert may have suffered from a slip of the pen (keyboard) in describing them as DDGs - every reference I've seen has them described as DLGs. The two ships which were deployed on Op CORPORATE were Batch 2 ships, modified since their completion, which differed in many ways from kit of HMS DEVONSHIRE, a Batch 1 ship depicted 'as built'. External differences were 4 Exocet canisters replacing 'B' turret. A slightly different MRS3 director above the bridge (poorly represented anyway in the kit. A much taller foremast with a different radar aerial right on the top and ESM aerials below it. A single 20mm Oerlikon gun and associated ready-use ammunition lockers on each side of the superstructure abeam the foremast . A 3" chaff launcher each side of the superstructure abeam the foremast. Significantly different mainmast (Double Bedstead 965 aerial instead of Single, ECM aerials each side, lower half of mast extended aft under the 278 platform, platforms each side for SCOT satellite communications aerials - note that GLAMORGAN didn't carry the aerials and associated equipment cabin, although ANTRIM did). Both originally had a different arrangement of ship's boats on the port side (level with the forward two on the starboard side). The four motor cutters had been replaced by three Chevertons and a Fairey Huntress. GLAMORGAN had triple 12.75" A/S torpedo tubes each side abeam the mainmast on the upper deck - not sure about ANTRIM. This resulted in a further rearrangement of boats - whaler stbd for'd, only two Chevertons (port aft and stbd for'd), Huntress stbd aft. The Seacat GWS21 fire control directors (the domed objects each side of the after funnel) had been replaced by GWS22 directors - very similar in appearance to the MRS3 director above the bridge, on platforms extended outboard to level with the ship's side. Pennant numbers had been painted out (but GLAMORGAN's were partially showing by the time she returned to Portsmouth) and flight deck markings had probably been painted out as well. As an aside, much work would be needed to convert the gun-armed LEANDER kit to represent any of the members of the class which actually took part in the conflict (ARGONAUT, ANDROMEDA, MINERVA, PENELOPE); merely replacing the turret with Exocets is the simple bit! The Type 21s which went south were not too dissimilar to the HMS AMAZON kit, but even this needs a fair bit of work! Tim Stoneman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Charlie Jarvis Subject Re Photo quality in Squadron/Signals Pub Warships Number 20 "US Destroyers in Action Part 2." Well, Steve, looks like another niche you could fill in your expert manner. I can see it now. "Bagley Class Destroyers of WWII" Oooooh. Keep up the outstanding work. Charlie ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From "David T. Okamura" Subject Pearl Harbor Narrow Gauge RR The Oahu Railway and Land Company (1889-1947) was a 3-foot gauge railroad that originally carried sugar cane and pineapples, but by WWII most of that traffic was taken over by trucks. However, they did have plenty of business between Honolulu and Pearl Harbor, the surge of activity after December 7, 1941 kept the railroad in operation far longer than it would have under normal economic circumstances. A section of track still exists and is used by the Hawaiian Railway Society. See http//www.hawaiimuseums.org/mc/isoahu_hrailway.htm. A model of wartime OR&L Co. would be interesting. Lots of ammunition cars and old passenger coaches converted to troop transports pulled by 2-8-2 Mikados and centercab diesels, plus a few pineapple and sugar cane cars still pulled by dinky 0-4-2 Porters. Good luck on this project. See also http//www.satlab.hawaii.edu/space/hawaii/vfts/oahu/Oahu_Update/Trains.html http//www.scsra.org/library/oahurwy.html http//www.innatschofield.com/s10.html David T. Okamura ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From Friedrich Kappes Subject Re Dutch monitor Tyger, launched 1868 I suggest contacting marhissec@marstaf.navy.dnet.mindef.nl LMA.HOMBURG@MINDEF.NL cppvromburgh@scheepvaartmuseum.nl Friedrich The FriedrichFiles http//www.geocities.com/friedkappes/flagship.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Niko Models needs your help Niko Models, at http//www.nikomodel.pl/modele.htm , needs your assistance in their plans to release the 1/700 scale resin and multi-media kits of the Group 1 British War Emergency "D" class cruisers, which consisted of the DANAE (ORP Conrad), DAUNTLESS and DRAGON (ORP Dragon). I have contacted the Head, a Mr. R G TODD, of the Historic Photographs & Ship Plans Section of the National Maritime Museum or Royal Observatory Greenwich about plans for these vessels, and these are his statements so far "There were eight vessels in this class, which comprised three groups. Group 1 consisted of the DANAE, DAUNTLESS and DRAGON, Group 2 were DELHI, DUNEDIN and DURBAN, Group 3 were DESPATCH and (with a modified No 1 gun mount) DIOMEDE. We do not have plans in sets; the number of plans can vary from ship to ship." I have contacted them with the details of what would be needed for making the patterns for these proposed kits, but I thought that I would throw out the net to see who might be willing and able to assist in this most welcome projected kit series. Are there any persons out there who have plans of these ships or their details that would be willing to assist Mr. Adam Koscicki, at niko@nikomodel.pl , of Niko models? If so, please contact either him or I in this matter. Thanks. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From "Rob Kernaghan" Subject Planked decks Hi, Hopefully you can help me........I am wanting to scratchbuild HMS Courageous (WW1 large light cruiser) in 1/600. However, I don't know how to make a planked deck in 1/600 scale. Do you know anyone that has done so and will be able to give me some ideas? Thanks very much in advance........ Regards, Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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