Subject: SMML VOL 2635 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:35:33 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Re Big Guns & Old Math 2 In Harm's Way models 3 High school math, guns, etc 4 Re High school math, guns, etc 5 Re Big Guns & Old Math 6 Lindberg and Revell Essexes with spacecraft 7 1/350 Nimitz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 Rare books for sale 2 NAVAL BOOKS FOR SALE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Sanartjam@aol.com Subject Re Big Guns & Old Math Hi, A few points about the current discussion about big guns and little guns.... First, the Hood mistook the Prinz Eugen for the Bismarck, but NOT the Prince of Wales. I'm not sure if the Hood ever switched over to the Bismarck, but if she did she certainly didn't straddle her with her first salvo. Second, there is no proof the Prinz Eugen sank the Hood, and I think it highly unlikely that 8" shells could have done the trick, no matter how flawed the Hood's armor was. Since the Hood blew up after the arrival of the Bismarck's fifth salvo, I think it likely the Bismarck did the deed. Whoever hit the Hood, there was no unarmored path to her main magazines; there may have been an easier though still armored path to her 4" magazines, and that may have been the cause of her loss. Still, in spite of the location of the wreck, I don't think it's ever been demonstrated, conclusively or otherwise, exactly what caused her loss. For my money, it could've been a diving (15") shell of the sort that hit the Bismarck and the Prince of Wales that same day. Third, it was the Hiei, not the Kirishima, that was badly damaged by US gunfire the first night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Fourth, for all the talk of smaller ships damaging battleships at close range, and the chauvinist talk of whipping Imperial asses, why not point out the gruesome damage the Japanese smaller ships (CA and smaller) did to upperworks of the battleship South Dakota the second night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal?!? Art Nicholson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From John Mianowski Subject In Harm's Way models From "Rod Dauteuil" >> 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. << Look at that shot again, & I think you'll see that it's stock footage of an actual cruiser, not a model (Look a little closer, & I think you'll see that it's a Baltimore class, which certainly wouldn't have been departing PH on the date depicted in the movie). JM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From John Mianowski Subject High school math, guns, etc From "Fernando, Yohan" >> 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. << ...which, of course, is why naval (and land, for that matter) forces today use larger guns... JM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Ned Barnett Subject Re High school math, guns, etc I do not want to get into an micturating competition here, but I take strong exception to some of the comments from Yohan, and further, I think some of them are wrong and worthy of correction. >> 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. << I disagree. Look at the weapons in action and draw conclusions. One conclusion - most battles involving big-gun ships vs. ships were fought in tight waters, not open ocean. It had been that way before the advent of the dreadnoughts, and it was that way afterwards. It seems unreasonable to design a weapon for a battle that almost never takes place; rather, it seems reasonable to design a ship and weapons for the kinds of battles that have been fought and are likely to be fought again - battles in littoral waters. >> 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. << I have read several sources competent to offer valid explanations as to why the Prinz Eugen might have been the ship which scored on Hood - their opinions (and my own) are not "nonsense," even if you don't agree. Others hold that it was not the magazine which exploded, but the Hood's onboard torpedos (and because it's known that Prinz Eugen had scored a hit igniting deck-stored AA ammo, it's not out of the question that she might have also hit the torpedos). In point of fact, nobody knows for sure what happened. We do know that Hood's central deck armor was NOT proof against 8" guns - it was a glaring weakness in the design, that was not rectified, and it was that weakness which dictated Holland's actions. But beyond that, any legitimate theory (and all we have are theories) is on the table, and it does nothing to label other theories "nonsense" (except to provoke in those dissed the desire to enter into an micturating competition) >> 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! << This again assumes ideal conditions, not battle conditions, and also assumes the heaviest belts of armor. For instance, at the range at which the two night battles called the Battle of Guadalcanal were fought, 8" AP weapons could penetrate some battleship armor, though perhaps not the thickest armor, on the Hiei or Kirishima. You seem to deal with theory - the theory of a daylight/clear-day long-range gun dual; and in that regard, perhaps you're technically correct about turret armor or hull armor protecting a magazine. But a rapid-fire 8" gun cruiser, in range and on target, could create bloody havoc on a battleship, leaving it a floating wreck (as smaller ships did to Hiei). >> 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. << Again, in real-world conditions, since this DID happen, the Graf Spee wasn't up to it, and the six-inch and eight-inch gun cruisers were able to take her out. Graf Spee was not designed to stand up to fight three ships, but a review of the history of commerce raiders should have told designers that this could happen - it had often enough. One-on-one, of course an 11-inch gun ship will probably (luck aside) outfight an 8-inch gun ship. >> 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... << No comment. Unlike Pearl Harbor, this was front-to-back fiction. Good actors, good lines, too much soap opera but some nice combat. >> This was an additional benefit of using a single size main battery, but not the sole reason for the switch. << Not just an additional benefit; IMO, it was the primary benefit of the single-size-main-battery switch. All those other benefits of Dreadnought were revolutionary, too, and she was an integrated fighting system; but IMO, based on lots and lots of study and research, the single-caliber decision was all about spotting the fall of shot. >> 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. << Yohan, I do not appreciate such lectures on public forums - write me privately if you want to "correct" me, but when you make it public, you're posturing. If a Japanese member wants to write about "brave sons of the Empire kicking the butts of a bunch of lazy Yanks" at Pearl Harbor," I'd calmly smile and recall that we also whipped those lazy yanks' lazy asses at Cold Harbor and First and Second Manassas, and at lots of other battles. If I offended a Japanese list-member, let him or her say so, publicly or privately, and I'll apologize (for I meant no insult). But I have to deal enough with the PC-Nazis in my work world, and I'm not inclined to graciously take such comments from a fellow ship-model buff ... especially one who thinks that it's nonsense that Prinz Eugen sank the Hood, when nobody knows for sure what happened . >> 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. << Which is fine theory, but such battles almost never took place among iron/steel steamships. You can't in the real world strip away the screening ships, the press of land and night and smoke, problems with fire control (which makes the biggest battleship afloat nothing more than a big target). And you have the human factor, too - the decisions of the commanders in conning the ships, their aggressiveness or caution, etc. Which is why wars are fought instead of judged by umpires. Because there are too many factors that could turn "hero" to "zero" in nothing flat. All the best Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Sab1156@aol.com Subject Re Big Guns & Old Math Dear Ned Barnett, While I agree with the most of your writing, dont let us forget that one of the reasons, that the smaller US ships had success against the japanese battleships, was, that they were veterans built before the 1920s,with their medium guns still in casemattes and only a few heavy aa-guns ! The major reason,while the british cruisers were able to achieve hits on the Graf Spee was, that she never used the superior range of her 28scm guns (42kms), but waited until the british squadron was in their firing range. By the way,the big guns on the Bismarck were not able to fire once every minute,but three times per minute! Best Regards Detlef Hartwig ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Daniel Kurtz Subject Lindberg and Revell Essexes with spacecraft Since we were talking about models with capsules included, I became curious and asked at a space modelers list I participate in. Here's a breakdown of which ships participated in spaceflight recovery Lake Champlain Mercury 3 and Gemini 5. Randolph Mercury 4 and Mercury 5. Intrepid Mercury 6 Gemini 3. Kearsarge Mercury 7 and Mercury 8. Wasp Gemini 4, Gemini 6, Gemini 7, Gemini 9 and Gemini 12. Boxer Gemini 8. Essex Apollo 7. Yorktown Apollo 8. Princeton Apollo 10 Hornet Apollo 11 and Apollo 12. Ticonderoga Apollo 16, Apollo 17 and Skylab 2. Somebody was commenting about various angled-deck kits being marketed as ships that never had the angled-deck conversion. Now we can extend that complaint to kits we find capsules in! Info from http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splashdown. Compiled by Rusty Barton. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "keith bender" Subject 1/350 Nimitz Hi SMMLies, Got my first look at the Trump, Nimitz today. Had to keep control and keep my hand out of my pocket not to buy it. But what I'm really waiting for is the next issue or later of it. That way like the later issues of Essex like Yorktown and Franklin things will have a chance to get squared away. But as I sit here writing this I think that right now I could be fondling a new model as I speak, enjoying every bit of it. I'll get over it and move on. KTB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From SAMI ARIM Subject Rare books for sale Hello all, I am selling the last batch I have left from my Orizzonte Mare collection. Here are the available titles -Immagini B5, Dante Alighieri, Conte Di Cavour, Duilio, Francesco Caracciolo. Very rare -#1 Conte Di Cavour class battleships -#2 Caio Duilio class battleships -#4/2 Trento class heavy cruisers -#7/3 Duca d'Aosta class light cruisers -#7/4 Duca d'Aosta class light cruisers (second part) -A7 Immagini, Luigi Di Savoia class cruisers -A8 Immagini, Capitani Romani class cruisers All books are in excellent condition and 30$ each. I also have following Kajinsha soft cover books available. Excellent condition and 20$ each -Drawings of Imperial Japanese Vessels #1 -Drawings of Imperial Japanese Vessels #2 -History of Italian cruisers -History of Italian battleships -Japanese cruisers -German warships of WW2 -French warships of WW2 -History of Japanses destroyers -All about world's Dreadnoughts -History of French battleships -Italian warships of WW2 -History of Russian/Soviet battleships -History of British aircraft carriers -History of U.S. cruisers -British warships of WW2 Interested parties please send me an email and we go from there. Shipping is not included. Thanks Sami Arim ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Gary Mansfield" Subject NAVAL BOOKS FOR SALE Hi to you all, Just a quick note to say some books have gone really quick, but it will be the postage to USA/Canada that is pricey! Some people cannot open my attachments, so with SMML help I will post 10 books here (some are marked Gone which means I have had a firm enquiry, like I said first come, first served) every day until all are listed. If from USA/Canda can you please let me known your Area/City so that I can give you an idea of postage. Many thanks. Here is the first list, prices are in GB Pounds 1. HOOD Monografie Morskie £ GB Pounds 10.00 2. HOOD Ensign Special - RARE 30.00 3. HOOD Warship Pictorial 20 10.00 4. HOOD & BISMARK Channel 4 10.00 5. Flagship Hood Ted Briggs & … 5.00 6. HMS HOOD Profile Warship - RARE 25.00 7. HMS HOOD Profile Morskie 63 7.50 8. HMS HOOD Andrew Norman 9.50 8a. HMS HOOD Anatomy of the ship - revised 12.50 GONE! 9. PURSUIT Ludovic Kennedy 5.00 10. THE LOSS OF THE BISMARCK Graham Rhys-Jones 10.00 I am still looking for M J Whitley's book "Germam Coastal Forces of World War Two" [Arms & Armour Press 1992] Many thanks to SMML for helping a disabled chap and letting me move on! And every body that has enquired! GARY MANSFIELD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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