Subject: SMML VOL 2634 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:28:29 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Re High school math revisited 2 High school math, guns, etc 3 Books on Nagato/Mutsu 4 Re Carrier Kits 5 Self-correcting error 6 In Harm's Way models 7 Bismarck's Optics 8 Re On Big Guns, Old Math and Rock Torrey 9 Model Ship Journal 10 Hovercraft Museum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1 Small Warship Special Interest Group -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 Model shipwright 2 NIMITZ class Carriers, CD , 100 image pdf, Volume I, Series I, now available ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Daniel Kurtz Subject Re High school math revisited >> 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. << IIRC, Bismark's radar was knocked out by the shock of her own guns when she fired on HMS Norfolk the day before the sinking of Hood. From what I've read, it was not operational during any of the subsequent shooting matches. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Fernando, Yohan" Subject High school math, guns, etc Regarding references to night battles in confined waters (Solomans, San Bernadino, etc) My original statements were qualified by engagements in open water. Take any weapon out of its element and it will cease to function as designed. Using BBs in the confined waters of the Solomons was a big risk for both the IJN and USN alike. And San Bernadino is a nearly useless example of anything besides the clear indication of the overwhelming strength of the USN at that point in the war. It can't be used to try to assess the merits/flaws of any warship design concept. >> 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. << Nonsense. Prinz Eugen did not sink the Hood. The long-range plunging fire from Bismarck's 15" guns are what penetrated Hood's vertical protection. Nonwithstanding the catastrophic explosion of her magazines, Hood's verticle protection was vulnerable to 15" fire at that range, which is why Holland turned towards Bismarck to close the range as quickly as possible to get into an immunity zone. >> While the 8" shells of the late-model auto-load guns on some US cruisers could not easily penetrate battleship armor, << Clarification- could NOT penetrate battleship armor AT ALL. At ranges that the battleship would begin the engagement, the 8" guns are either simply out of range, or cannot penetrate the armor. And to get into range to start scoring hits with 8" guns, you're going to be under fire from the battleships guns for quite awhile and probably will not be in any condition to continue the fight at that point! >> 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 << What would have happened in a one-on-one engagement instead of 3-to-1? When the engagement broke off, most of Exeter's guns were out of action and Ajax and Achilles were not without damage either. While I don't think highly of the Graf Spee's design in general, I am sure she was NOT designed to fight three cruisers at the same time. If I recall correctly, Langsdorf's orders probably told him to evade this type of confrontation altogether. >> "In Harms Way" combined fiction with Guadalcanal and Surigao Straits to give a reasonably exciting movie, << I guess we have different tastes in movies. I thought (and still think) it is one of the worst war movies I have ever seen (and we complain the 'Pearl Harbor' was full of fiction...) Oh well... >> 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 << This was an additional benefit of using a single size main battery, but not the sole reason for the switch. The design of the Dreadnought was not conceived around a single notion- it was a complete system incorporating the all big-gun concept, higher speed throught the use of turbines and additional armor from weight savings from these concepts. This is what made the design so revolutionary. Dreadnought was faster than contemporary battleships, had a more powerful battery, was generally more accurate in shooting due to the single gun size, and better armored. At ranges where she could engage contemporary battleships with 10 12" guns, other ships were minimized to 4 or 6 12" guns. >> 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. << Like you, I'm an American, but we should remember that this is an international forum so referring to 'our' battleships 'whipping their Imperial asses' is probably not entirely appropriate and is somewhat offensive. I'm sure you would feel likewise at someone posting about the "brave sons of the Empire kicking the butts of a bunch of lazy Yanks" at Pearl Harbor. Anyways, I think that the argument for the CONCEPT of the big-gunned ship over the smaller-gunned ship that I made in my earlier post is still true. Stripping away everything extraneous- screening ships, numerical superiority, differences in fire-control, limited ranges (ie- night and/or confined waters), and focusing on the question of bigger-but-slower-firing guns vs smaller-but-quicker-firing guns, the big guns win. A fun discussion nonetheless! Very enjoyable. Regards, Yohan Fernando ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "andy-vu" Subject Books on Nagato/Mutsu Hi Fellows-SMMLies I'm looking for the Monograph Morske(# 5?)and the Gakken book (#15?) on the Nagato/Mutsu. Old, worn-out copies are O.K.. Does any of you have one or both of those for sale? Please contact andy-vu@swbell.net. Thank you very much, and Happy Modeling! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Daniel Kurtz Subject Re Carrier Kits >> 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. << That must be the animal I'm thinking of. I'm pretty sure that mine had either a "9" or an "11" decalled up front. I don't know off-hand if either Essex or Intrepid were involved in Mercury recoveries though. I don't think mine was one of the motorized versions, but I did have a Missouri about the same time (with great whopping panel lines on the hull) that did have a motor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Ned Barnett Subject Self-correcting error Me. The self-correcting error. I said yesterday that I thought it was Kirishima that was savaged the first night at the Battle of Guadalcanal - obviously, I was confusing her with the Hiei, which got savaged on night-one at the hands of a fleet of destroyers and light cruisers - night two it was Kirishima's turn, at the hands of the Washington and South Dakota. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Rod Dauteuil" Subject In Harm's Way models While not a movie deserving of an Academy Award, I like In Harm's Way simply for the cast and the props. The storyline is OK, and like Ned, I like to watch it once a year. I did notice though, while the ship models appear to be reasonably detailed for their longshots, they do not have much for masts. This is especially evident when they show a cruiser departing port while Rock and Paul (Kirk Douglas) are chatting on the dock (after the Pearl Harbor sequence). Even the Japanese ships lack adequate masts. As a sidenote, there is one of the PT Boat models at Battleship Cove in Fall River. As I recall there is a small placque explaining how it was donated after the movie was shot. Rod ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Chris and Kayo Amano-Langtree" Subject Bismarck's Optics Hi All As Allen notes the German fire control optics were very good but they needed skill and a calm nerve to operate effectively. This led to a deterioration in accuracy as a battle progressed. The other point I would make is that Prinz Eugen was not responsible for the Hood's loss. Hood's armour was more than proof against her eight inch shells and in fact Prinz Eugen was a very lucky ship. If she had been hit by a fifteen inch shell she would have been in serious trouble. Christopher Amano-Langtree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Gmshoda@cs.com Subject Re On Big Guns, Old Math and Rock Torrey Along the same lines, I suspect that US heavy cruisers with their bagged 8'" ammunition would have been overwhelmed by the British 6" cruisers. The British seemed to have felt that the 8" gun may have been too slow firing and chose to build 6" gunned cruisers during WWII. A lot of luck was involved in the Solomons night battles. If Washington had not accompanied South Dakota, South Dakota would have been destroyed by Kirishima. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Iain Wyllie Subject Model Ship Journal From Kevin Wenker >> You should contact Christ at Trident for a refund of the remaining time on your subscription.<< So that's where He is, and still redressing wrongs! Iain Wyllie ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From "JB" Subject Hovercraft Museum Hello all, I thought I would draw your attention to the HOVERCRAFT MUSEUM at Lee-on-Solent on the south coast of the UK. http//www.hovercraft-museum.org Having been 'hoverenthused' for some time now.... I was sad and dismayed by the sight of SRN4 MkII SWIFT ( she of the 1/144 AIRFIX kit) being broken for scrap as I drove past.... but the decision was based on hard economics; the owners of the site( the MOD) are charging the Hovercraft trust as I understand £ 15,000 per SRN4 per year site rent...., and as SWIFT was unable to hover or be moved (she had admittedly gotten a whole lot worse) she had to be broken.... So this is a formal announcement that the HOVERSHOW 2004 will be taking place this October 23/24. Entry is a mere £ 5.00 per adults, so come on down and research your next SRN 4 MkII model at first hand.... guess what I shall be doing with my camera along with spending money on HOVERTRIVIA..... great videos and books as well as souvenirs for sale I shall be loaning them my SRN1 model built from the Airfix 1/72 scale kit to the trust for the show So come along (those who can!) and spend your money in order to help carry on preserving these most ( British) innovative watercraft!! JIM BAUMANN http//www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/users/jim-baumann/jb-index.html REMEMBER.....!! HOVERSHOW 2004 23/24 October http//www.hovercraft-museum.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From brownatfareham@surefish.co.uk Subject Small Warship Special Interest Group Our website - www.smallwarshipgroup.org.uk - was updated yesterday (1st October). Why not pay a visit? Regards Les Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Joke Bosma Subject Model shipwright Hi All We put some stuff on E bay UK under number 2492175354 maybe somebody is interested. All the best Hans and Joke Bosma ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Ray Bean Subject NIMITZ class Carriers, CD , 100 image pdf, Volume I, Series I, now available Hello Everyone.... At long last, a little late, but carefull planning and research, and I now have ready, Volume I, Series I, NIMITZ class carriers. 100 image CD in PDF file format, Featured CVNs are NIMITZ, EISENHOWER, GEORGE WASHINGTON and JOHN STENNIS. I have deliberately eliminated all aircraft types as there are hundreds of pictorial books available on USN aircraft. These are photos of the islands and masts, sectional views of the starboard side details and fantails of above listed ships. Volume I Series II will have some hangar bay and more catwalk details. Pricing is fairly simple, $17.50 USD and free mailing to CONUS, $20.00 in Canada and Australia, with additional $ for postage overseas. International Money Orders only, NOT domestic. Payable to STILL MOTIONS PHOTOGRAPHICS, or Ray Bean, at #5 260 Lumsden Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. R2Y OJ9. For any further information please feel free to email me off list. Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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