Subject: SMML VOL 2636 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:27:33 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 capsule recovery 2 Re Big Guns & Old Math 3 Re High school math, guns, etc 4 CA 5 Re In Harm's Way models 6 Spacecraft recovery ships 7 Re Graf Spee 8 Big guns, math, and much more 9 Mysterious emails from John Hudock -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 DML Reissues are in stock 2 NAVAL BOOKS FOR SALE - GARY MANSFIELD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "elisha w" Subject capsule recovery Oops! Seems someone forgot to include USS Okinawa (LPH-3), the prime recovery ship for unmanned Apollo 6. Maybe it's beacause she was the only "mini-carrier" ever asked to do such a big job. Aryeh Wetherhorn Elazar, Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Allan and Crystal Plumb" Subject Re Big Guns & Old Math Different navies and builders at different times came up with different hypotheses (not theories - pedant point) as to the relative merits of big-and-slow versus small-and-fast guns. The data is too limited to say categorically which was "best", variations in other variables (narrow seas, surprise, angles, relative numbers) obscure the answer. So we don't really know, which allows all of us here to argue about it, trotting out our favorite examples to attempt to prove the point. My favorite examples? Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, and later examples say that aircraft win over battleships, making the above argument moot. The builders at the time hadn't figured that out yet, understandably given the rapid progress in aircraft lethality. But that's just my opinion, and I still like to build battleships best even though I think their time was and is past. More pointy bits. Allan Plumb ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Chris and Kayo Amano-Langtree" Subject Re High school math, guns, etc Hi Ned Two points - firstly no source that has seriously researched Bismarck holds the eight inch gun theory. There are a lot of writers out there who fail to understand their source material and come up with outlandish theories (Witness some of the theories how the Sydney sank). The most up to date research on the Bismarck backs the 15 inch shell in the magazine explanation as the one most consistent with the facts. The eight inch explanation is nonsense for the reason listed above. Secondly if you put controversial statements on a public forum expect to be lectured and critisized in public. If you don't want this don't post - that is the nature of this forum. Christopher Amano-Langtree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "DUCKMAN" Subject CA HOWDY ALL, ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR THINNING CA? THANKS, DAVID IN DIXIE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Candy Forster & Rob Robinson Subject Re In Harm's Way models >> 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). << I disagree - aside from one or two shots of destroyers or auxiliaries, those were all model shots (& I would have said, rather cheesy ones at that). See http//www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s251harms.html for some interesting details... Rob Robinson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From jodie Subject Spacecraft recovery ships hello all -- Daniel Kurtz passed along some Wikipedia information on ships that participated in spacecraft recovery. Let me make some annotations >> Lake Champlain Mercury 3 and Gemini 5. Randolph Mercury 4 and Mercury 5. Intrepid Mercury 6 Gemini 3. << Okay, somebody at Wikipedia got a little confused when it came to Mercury. "Mercury 5," I presume, refers to Glenn's flight, which was actually MA-6 (no human was carried on MA-5). "Friendship 7" was picked up by USS Noa (DD 841). Glenn was flown via helo from Noa to Randolph a little while after he was picked up by Noa. MA-7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) was Scott Carpenter's flight, and Intrepid was PRS for that mission. Left off the list was USS Kearsarge (CVS 33), which recovered MA-8 (Schirra) and MA-9 (Cooper). >> Boxer Gemini 8. << Boxer was designated PRS for Gemini 8 but the mission ended early and splashed down in the South China Sea, where backup recovery ship USS Leonard F. Mason (DD 852) made the recovery. This is in addition to the Iwo Jima-class ships that recovered spacecraft, including Iwo Jima (Apollo 13), Okinawa (Apollo 15), Guam (Gemini 9 and Gemini 11), Guadalcanal (Gemini 10, Apollo 9), New Orleans (Apollo 14, second and third Skylab crews, and Apollo-Soyuz). Sorry, I've just spent the last 17 years of my life researching this stuff. Someday I'll get a life. ) jodie ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Andy Airlie" Subject Re Graf Spee Regarding the example of 3 on 1 engagement involving cruisers against a 'big-gun' ship. Is it not the case that Exeter had more holes in her than a colander and the crew were having a hard job keeping her afloat, Ajax and Achilles both had taken damage and if Graf Spee not broken off the action they would have met a similar fate in reasonably short order. Questions to ask on Graf Spee. Was her speed reduced ? Was any of her Main Guns out of action? Was her fire control out of action ? As far as I'm aware damage to her was superficial ( How many casualties 35-40 ?) I believe Langsdorf had orders not to engage significant Royal Naval forces and that he broke off after removing the most significant 8" gunned threat from the equation. Whether you're a fan of the Panzerschiffe design or not, I find this a hard action to criticise it on ! Andy Airlie ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Fernando, Yohan" Subject Big guns, math, and much more First of all, I want to aplogize to Ned for writing my criticisms for his selection of language in public, and agree it should have been done more discretely. Please, no hard feelings. I do hope that everyone tries to use neutral language as much as possible in the future regardless. In regards to my previous arguments being only 'theory' and not real-world arguments, this is precisely why I usually shy away (or more like turn around and run away completely) from topics like 'Iowa v Yamato', 'What if...' etc. I fully agree that there are too many variables that determine the outcomes of battles besides actual ship design and construction- leadership, crew quality, environment, tactical/strategic situation, other ships.... and blind luck. And, unlike in WWI where the major naval combattants were actually used somewhat in the role envisoned, this was not true at all in WWII, very well illustrated by all the close, night battles discussed so far. Which is why I think when even trying to answer questions like 'Iowa v Yamato' or 'big guns v little guns', you can either 1) find historical examples to prove your point or 2) retreat into purely theortical situations where all other factors are removed. The first alternative is pointless as you can find examples to prove almost any argument (you say battles in the Solomons proves the case for smaller guns, I say Dogger Bank proves the case for big guns....) So one ends up with the second option in unrealistic, idealized scenarios where the sea is calm, there is unlimited visibility, no screening ships, equally capable commanders and crew, etc etc. (which is where I was making my argument from). While quite silly and ungrounded in reality, it's the only way left to discuss these questions. Which pretty much proves the point that no one can make any definitive qualitative statements when it comes to ship design choices (and why I generally shy away from these discussions). The same design qualities that stand out as optimal choices in certain situations (at in certain timeframes) can become poor alternatives in a different set of circumstances. In the broader perspective, one has to acknowledge that naval designs and tactics evolved around the big gun concept for the first half of this century, and what eclipsed this concept was not a change to smaller guns, or a change in tactics, or a change in environments, but the advent of aircraft. Could 50 years worth of naval design and thinking have been that flawed? As for the Hood/Prinz Eugen/Bismarck debate... well there are plently of facts, opinions (and emotions) wrapped up in this one, so we'll just let it sit quietly. Regards, Yohan Fernando ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Rod Dauteuil" Subject Mysterious emails from John Hudock Hello all, I've received on more than one occasion an email from a John Hudock at a militiary domain offering me info on the subchaser. He writes >> Sir, I heard that at one time you made a model of the WWI 110-foot wooden sub chaser. I would be interested in seeing how it turned out. I've been slowly working on the Glencoe kit. So far, I've scratch-built a new wherry (photo attached) and am now working on a scratch-built 3"/23 deck gun. There's quite a bit of info available on these vessels. A good starting point it Todd Woofenden's web site << Some links and pictures are provided. Does anybody know this John Hudock or is he a member of SMML? If he is legitimate, he has me confused with Franklyn. I only wrote a model review for Rajen's list for the Glencoe subchaser. I never built a 1/48 model. But since I don't know him I DID NOT open the links nor view the pictures. I'm concerned this may be another hoax with a trojan horse or corrupt attachment. Just thought I'd pass this along. Rod ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From shaya novak Subject DML Reissues are in stock Long awaited Independence Class Light Carriers 1/700 http//totalnavy.com/700indepen.htm Atlanta Class Light Cruisers 1/700 http//totalnavy.com/700oakland.htm USS Hampton 1/350 http//totalnavy.com/350hampton.htm The Captain at - Totalnavy.com www.totalnavy.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Gary Mansfield" Subject NAVAL BOOKS FOR SALE - GARY MANSFIELD Hi, The next list of 10 books for sale is shown below 11. THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARK Robert D. Ballard GB Pounds £20.00 12. EXPLORING THE BISMARK Robert D. Ballard 5.00 13. WEAPONS OF WAR THE BISMARK Robert Jackson 7.50 14. WAR ON THE HIGH SEAS - THE THIRD REICH TIME LIFE BOOKS 10.00 15. DREADNOUGHT Anatomy of the ship 12.50 16. FUSO “ “ 12.50 17. YAMATO “ “ 12.50 GONE 18. WARSPITE “ “ 12.50 GONE 19. WARSPITE Profile Morskie 5 7.50 20. WARSPITE Iain Ballantyne 10.00 21. BATTLESHIPS OF WORLD WAR TWO M. J. Whitley 35.00 Thank you for all the kind word and interest! 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