Subject: SMML VOL 2633 Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:49:09 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Carrier Kits 2 Re High school math revisited 3 Re Renwal Kits 4 Re High School math revisited 5 1/72 scale German "Tornado" resin Jet-Powered Expendable Motorboat (EMB) from Mando Models 6 Re Model Ship Journal 7 Constant Scale Merchant Ships 8 Model Ship Journal to a satisfactory outcome 9 Re Renwal Kits 10 Small Essex SCB-125 (was Renwal Kits) 11 Re Renwal Kits 12 Re Carrier Air Groups Renwal vs Revell 13 Revell's Arizona 14 On Big Guns, Old Math and Rock Torrey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Leslie D. Foran" Subject Carrier Kits Hello again, Enjoyed reading the current string regarding the "Angled-deck Essex with the Mercury capsule". I remember this kit, but cannot recall the name of the ship, Hornet sounds about right. This was one of the Lindberg "foot-long" series. This series of kits, all with one foot-long hulls, included an LST, Q-ship, and a pretty fair (as I recall many years later) model of the fleet tanker USS Neosho. There was also a destroyer escort (DDE) in the line. Of course, the scale depended on the ship modelled. All these models were available in both powered and unpowered versions. Buying the powered version was chancy some came with a ready to run electric motor, others used a "kit motor" which had to be completely assembled by the builder, including winding the armature. This motor was beyond the capabilities of this ten-year-old (and probably still is, 45 years later). I built all of these models, some (with pre-assembled motors) actually doing "sea duty" on our local creek. Speaking of carrier kits, I recently purchased Revell's late release, "Battle of Midway Carrier". Having built both the Yorktown and Hornet in earlier offerings from Revell, I expected to find the same kit in a new box. What I got was something better what looks like the original parts assortment for the Yorktown kit, plus an additional sprue of parts with pieces specific to individual ships in the Yorktown class, and a well-detailed instruction sheet showing what parts to use to build any of the three Yorktown, Hornet, or Enterprise. My plan is to build Enterprise and use the instructions and extra parts as a guide to improve the two other models. This was a nice surprise and an indication that the folks at Revell are interested in giving us modellers a little more for our money. Les Foran A Long Way from the Sea ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Allen Stevens" Subject Re High school math revisited Ref Bismark v Hood Bismark did indeed have very good fire control optics which was a great advantage and I believe (I may be wrong) she also had a primitive type of radar, although this radar was not a patch on that fitted to British ships. The main reason Bismark was able to sink the Hood was that Hood was approaching head on to the Bismark to close the range (Admiral Holland was well aware of the deck armour deficiency) so she was not able to bring all of her guns effectively to bear also Hood and the Prince of Wales were firing on the Prinz Eugen mistaking her for Bismark due to the similarity in design (always one of those what ifs, if the Bismark had been under fire would her firing have been as accurate?). A fact not often commented on is that the brand new Prince of Wales (still with dockyard workers on board trying to fix things) with 14" guns did hit the Bismark and cause a fair amount of damage including a hit to the fuel tanks that forced her to turn for France, So 14" guns definitely had some grunt ! Interestingly Bismark regularly turned and lobbed salvoes at the Cruisers shadowing her without any hits and she certainly scored zero hits in her final battle I have always thought that it was just sheer luck that she hit Hood in her vulnerable spot again an interesting what if is what would have happened if Hood had closed the range to negate the soft spot, Hood was one of the best 'gunnery ships' in the navy (she actually straddled Bismark with her first salvo according to some accounts)and would, along with the POW, have given the Bismark a pasting she may still have been lost but then the Germans may also have lost Bismark and the Prinz Eugen as well. At the end of the day, lest we forget, a lot of brave men lost their lives. Regards to all A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Daniel Kurtz Subject Re Renwal Kits From Roland Mar >> IIRC, and I may not, that was a Lindberg kit, "foot-long" series. I think the version I built as a kid was supposed to be HORNET, and I seem to remember some really tiny F-8 Crusaders aboard along with the Mercury capsule. Does that sound right to you? << That sounds like it's probably right. Somebody else suggested it may have been the Revell Essex, versions of which came with Gemini or Apollo capsules, but it was definitely not that large. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "John Snyder" Subject Re High School math revisited >> What good are your 12x6" guns when you can't get in range to hit your target? While the ship with the smaller guns tries to close the range, the ship with the larger, far reaching guns has plenty of time to start scoring hits. << Not necessarily...it depends on the tactical situation. At 1st Guadalcanal--a night action--US destroyers used their 5" guns to shoot battleship HIEI's upperworks into a shambles, while the BB couldn't depress its main battery enough to hit the DDs. US cruisers also took a toll on the Japanese battleship that night. >> but I certainly wouldn't want to be in an 8" cruiser that tried to get close enough to hit an undamaged battleship's fire directors. << But that's just what HMS NORFOLK did to SCHARNHORST...again at night, leaving the German ship virtually sightless. Cheers, John Snyder White Ensign Models http//WhiteEnsignModels.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "Harold Stockton" Subject 1/72 scale German "Tornado" resin Jet-Powered Expendable Motorboat (EMB) from Mando Models This is resin! "Tornado" German Jet-Powered Expendable Motorboat (EMB), circa 1943. Developed by the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) in WW2, the Tornado was an expendable motorboat designed to rapidly enter Allied harbours and cause as much destruction as possible. Comprising of two Junkers Ju 52 modified seaplane floats joined together by decking and a flat bottom, power was afforded by a deck-mounted Argus 109-014 pulsejet (developed for the Fieseler Fi103 (V1) flying bomb). The Tornado prototype carried a 700kg explosive charge in the bow, and was remotely-guided to target after the pilot ditched in the sea. Model dimensions 10.5cm length, 4cm width. Resin parts and vacuform windshield. Finely detailed and cast in our usual high-quality resin. http//www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=MM7204 According to Mando Model's website, they are a cottage industry kit manufacturer based in Herefordshire, UK, Mando Models goal is to produce high-quality 1/72 scale resin kits at affordable prices. They "produce unusual subjects which were actually built." Some of these are the "two-seat glider/trainer version of the Fiseler Fi103 ,the operational piloted V1 flying bomb used by Hitler's Luftwaffe." http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/franckwagner/mando.htm Unusual, but something a little different. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "KLW" Subject Re Model Ship Journal Hey guys, Model Ship Journal ceased all publication earlier this year. No more. Kaput. Glad I never renewed my sub. You should contact Christ at Trident for a refund of the remaining time on your subscription. Kevin Wenker ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Reid, John (AFIT)" Subject Constant Scale Merchant Ships There was a thread a few weeks ago in which several people pointed to Len Jordan’s extensive line of 11200 scale merchies. Yesterday I received his new list – 2 new models to bring the range to over 120 different castings from which I should say about 1000 individual ships could be built (there were a lot of T2 tankers!). But more importantly, Len has written - quote >> I’ve arranged to move the casting and selling side to Wirral Miniature Ships, run by Les Hodder. ... Please place your orders with Wirral Miniature Ships 24 Broadland Road Great Sutton, Ellesmere Port CH66 2JS Tel (+44) (0) 151 355 2125 << Reminder Waterline Ship Enthusiasts Show, Theale, near Reading, UK; Sunday 10 October. I will be there as will some other SMMLies – I will be wearing my HMAS Canberra cap! John Reid ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Graeme Martin Subject Model Ship Journal to a satisfactory outcome To all those having difficulties with Model Ship Journal and their subscription. I never realised the response to my original message of subscription problems would generate so much mail. Chris Decker has kindly written to me reference my Model Ship Journal subscription. He has refunded me through PayPal to a satisfactory outcome. I feel so sad that such a fine publication had to go out of print. Obviously there is not enough of us out there to sustain a specialist publication like this. But lets hope whatever replaces it, is as good or meets our needs as model makers with a penchant for detail. I will look with interest for comments on this site from anybody when the new magazine that replaces it arrives on your doorstep. In the meantime happy modelling to all and best of luck to Chris for his ever expanding Trident Hobbies. Graeme Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Graham Boak" Subject Re Renwal Kits I don't know about Apollo capsules I had the Lindberg Shangri-La and Intrepid - the Intrepid came with a hole in the flight deck to glue a Gemini capsule. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From David Wells Subject Small Essex SCB-125 (was Renwal Kits) Daniel Kurtz wrote >> OK, since everybody's talking about these old things, here's one I remember I had when I was a kid, though I'm not sure if it was Renwall or what. Angled-deck Essex-class, no larger than 1/700, probably smaller. The distinctive thing that I remember about it was that it had a little plug of a Mercury capsule that sat on the flight deck near the island. << I'd bet that it was the 12" box scale (about 1/880) Lindberg Essex class. The only discrepancy is that the issue that I have (never bothered completing it, as it's an odd scale, and not terribly accurate) does not have the Mercury capsule you describe. One other oddity with the Lindberg kit It was often issued as Essex class ships that never got the SCB-125 conversion, such as Antietam, Valley Forge, and Philippine Sea. Go figure...... "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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From David Wells Subject Re Renwal Kits Val Kraut wrote >> My fascination with the Renwal surface ships was - they were all in the same scale, and although a little heavy handed on details - this made a real difference to me. << I agree that this was one of Renwal's great strengths. I like several of the Frog and Nichimo kits for the same reason 1/500 full hull. The Airfix 1/600 kits have a similar appeal, and they can go with various Aurora kits, and even some Arii battleships. I'm less thrilled with the 1/700 waterline kits, partly because of the lack of a lower hull, and partly because they're too small for my fat fingers to work with. ;-) I build them anyway because 1/700 is often all there is for some subjects. >> With Revell, the destroyer, crusier, battleship and aircraft carrier were all the same lenght - box scale. << Not quite. While the scales were a bit random, they were not all the same length. With the earliest Revell ships from the 1950s, the Iowa class battleship was 20" long, the Baltimore class cruiser was 17" long, and the Fletcher class destroyer was about 14 3/4" long. The Iowa class, the Midway class, the Forrestal class, and the Essex SCB-125 were all about the same scale, and also reasonably close to Renwal's 1/500. "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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From David Wells Subject Re Carrier Air Groups Renwal vs Revell Rick Lundin wrote >> The Revell Cougars indeed were not up to the much crisper detail achieved by Renwal, but it should be remembered that Revell did their F-9F's for the Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1954 while the Renwal F-9F's were done about four years later. << Good point. Also, as I mentioned previously, the Revell F9Fs appear to be F9F-6s, and Renwal's appear to be F9F-8s. The F9F-8 was brand new when the Revell FDR came out. By the time the Renwal kit came out, plans for the F9F-8 were probably more available. >> The Renwal A-3D's did appear to be closely influenced by the Revell Forrestal's A-3D's. << If your 1958 date for the Renwal carrier is correct, (and it sounds right to me) then the Revell Forrestal did indeed come first, and so did Revell's A3D. >> As far as I can remember the original (1957) issue Revell Essex did not include any F-9F's. I believe that this issue of the Essex did include F-11F's, F-8U's, A-4D's and AD-5's. If my memory serves me correctly the kit included six of each type of plane, a remarkably powerful air group for a model aircraft carrier. << Your memory seems pretty good to me. That matches my data. And Revell's F11F Tigers were much better than those from the Aurora Forrestal. >> As I recall the Revell Essex had the first carrier planes with panel lines << I looked at some of my old carrier planes, and I believe you are almost correct. My Revell A3D from the 1956 Forrestal kit has some panel lines. A Corsair from a Midway class (1954 mold) has some raised detail too. I think the Aurora 1/400 Enterprise kit (1961 or so) can claim the first recessed panel lines on a carrier airwing. The planes were pretty bad, but they did have recessed panel lines. >> and were big improvements over the planes included in other carriers then on the market Revell (1954 issue) Franklin D. Roosevelt F-9F, F-4U, AD-6; Revell (1956 issue) Forrestal F-7U, FJ, F-3H, A-3D; and Aurora (1956 issue) Forrestal F-7U, F-8U, F-11F and FJ. The Renwal carrier was issued around 1958. Of course every carrier had a couple of HUP helos. << I did think that the earlier planes were decent. Speaking of the Aurora Forrestal, I wonder if the mold for that horrible Aurora airwing still exists. When this kit was last issued by Monogram, in the late 1970s, Monogram made a whole new (and vastly superior quality) air wing for the kit. I wish somebody would re-issue that! I think that several of us have discussed the pipedream of Revell re-issuing some of its best airwings in "slightly smaller than 1/500". I'm not holding my breath while I'm waiting, but it sure would be cool...... I could finally get enough F8Us and A4Ds, and ADs and F-14s, and A-6s and A5J Vigiantes, and.......... >> A-3D's were embarked on Essex class CVA's (possibly the 27C's with steam catapults?) in 3 plane detachments first as nuclear bombers and later tankers. There is a pic on navsource.com of the USS Shangri-La with an A-3D embarked http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/023811.jpg It may be hard to believe, especially if you have ever been up next to a real Skywarrior, but there it is. << Jodie pointed out something similar, so I guess I learned something new. I thought that they'd have been too big. "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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From Daniel Kurtz Subject Revell's Arizona Anybody make a 1/426 Seagull or Kingfisher that would match the Arizona? BTW, just got Stillwell's Battleship Arizona on an interlibrary loan. Looks way cool. I will admit that I am disappointed that the plans are presented as they are landscape across two pages with the valley obscuring all the detail in the middle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From Ned Barnett Subject On Big Guns, Old Math and Rock Torrey A few thoughts on all of this. 1. On a number of notable occasions, including the night Battle of Guadalcanal in early November, 1942, and again in the dawn action at San Bernardino Straits in October, 1944, small ships got close in to Japanese capital ships and did gruesome damage with small-caliber guns. Not "sinking" damage, but nonetheless damage that took the fight out of the larger ships and set them up for next-day aerial assaults that did sink them. You can't armor everything - and as some US ships found in the close-in night action off Guadalcanal, it was possible to get "under the guns" of the Japanese and shoot up their bridge, fire-control facilities, sub-caliber AA and AS guns, etc., while puncturing funnels (damaging performance), etc. I believe it was the Kirishima that got savaged that first night, even as she and her consorts blew the hell out of the USS Atlanta and a few destroyers. 2. It was not so much the plunging fire of the Bismarck (or more likely Prinz Eugen) itself that sank the Hood was it was a design flaw, slated to be fixed but put aside by tight budgets that left the Hood so vulnerable to plunging fire. When you've got a direct path, basically unarmored, to the magazine, that's a design flaw. 3. While the 8" shells of the late-model auto-load guns on some US cruisers could not easily penetrate battleship armor, the sheer weight of fire (if they could first knock out the enemy's fire control) could completely take the fight out of the enemy. A battleship that can't aim is just a big target. And while big guns are nice, they can salvo only once a minute or so (faster on the Iowas, I know, but not on the Yamatos, I believe), and are prone to being overwhelmed. 4. Think of Graf Spee - she had both armor and gun strength on the British ships that so savaged her as to leave her incapable of further combat - but she had only a few guns, that didn't fire (relatively) very fast, and while they had bigger shells and longer range, they weren't enough to keep the British 6 and 8 inch gun cruisers out of range. Like a lion being dragged down by a pack of jackals, she succumbed to too many shells from too many sources. 5. IMO, the all-big-gun Dreadnoughts were not that way because of the greater hitting power of the big guns, but because the confusion of calibers made calling the fall of shot (hence accuracy) impossible. At 5 or 10 miles, an 8" shell splash, a 9 or 10" shell splash and a 12" shell splash all looked about the same - too much the same to allow for accuracy. 6. "In Harms Way" combined fiction with Guadalcanal and Surigao Straits to give a reasonably exciting movie, with a shred of verisimilitude to it. I have it and enjoy it about once a year, and am continually amazed at how well Wayne aged into his roles - he always "played his age" and didn't try to be the two-fisted hero of his youth while in late middle ages. The models used in the ship battles are to laugh at, now, but they were not bad for the time. It's one of those action movies I wish they could go back and re-engineer the action scenes (the way Lucas did with Star Wars), without re-doing the whole thing. 7. However, what all that gun-stuff above proves is that battleships are best used in at least pairs (as we did at Guadalcanal when ours got into it) and well-served by destroyers and cruisers. Alone (or relatively so), they were vulnerable to smaller ships that could get in close - but with proper screening that kept the small-fry at bay, they could hammer the hell out of the enemy. 8. Still, for sheer drama, it's hard to beat the second night action at the Battle of Guadalcanal, when our two new battleships slugged it out - at night, and at very close range - with Japanese battleships-and-support-ships, and whipped their Imperial asses, proving that the US could learn to fight at night, and could win, head-to-head. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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