Subject: SMML VOL 2639 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:48:14 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Speaking of the Graff Spee 2 Re Graf Spee 3 Re Armoured conning towers 4 DC Motors 5 Re HMS Hood 6 Re Graf Spee 7 Benches for Hood - Thanks 8 Re Graf Spee 9 RMS Queen Mary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 Task Force Hobbies ISW Fall Sale on Battleships & Heavy Cruisers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From shaya novak Subject Speaking of the Graff Spee Here's a 30ft model to dream for. http//www.bismarck-class.dk/shipmodels/german_models/admiralgrafspeeterra.html The Captain at - Totalnavy.com www.totalnavy.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From THEGAVEL@aol.com Subject Re Graf Spee >> I recall reading that since the Graf Spee was diesel-powered (still a relative novelty for large surface warships at the time of launch), she carried an onboard refinery that converted regular bunker fuel oil into diesel. This fuel distillery was hit during the battle, and there wasn't enough diesel in her tanks to make it back home. Can anyone confirm this? << Would you settle for a denial? In order to theoretically make bunker fuel oil into diesel you would need a catalytic cracker and some other very sophisticated refining techniques just not amenable to installing in a ship, then or now. She carried regular diesel fuel in her tanks as did submarines of that era. John Gavel, BS ChE, MS Log Mgt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Melvin Burmaster" Subject Re Armoured conning towers Mr. Langtree I would agree that HMS Hood had in a sense “wasted” armour but keeping in mind her mission in life the heavily armoured conning tower was not a waste of armour. Instead, keeping in mind that the final design of HMS Hood evolved from contradictory design requirements, in a nutshell the HMS Hood was simply not large enough to take on the armour suite necessary to meet changing requirements. A good comparison would be the evolution of the USN South Dakota designs between 1917-1922, wherein David Taylor showed that the design simply could not take on the weight of improvements. A 43,500 tonne ship would need to add on anywhere from 30 to 50 feet in length and adopt a higher block coefficient to take on “nominal” weights such as 8” thick roofs for the HG turrets and other seemingly insignificant additions. The 43,500 tonne ship would most likely have added another 2500 tonnes – taking such a vessel to the N3 class by displacement. Of course the Constellations evolved from a displacement around 38,000 (at that somewhat delusional) to 50,000 tonnes just by “changing out” weights. Or for that matter look at the G3 evolution with added weights and shifting of weights. And finally the 1918 fast battleship designs of the USN – revolutionary by their design, not the least being that of size – and yet look at the armour suite. An inclined belt of 12”, certainly not enough to satisfy the battleline purists, and the US burster deck combination. Even though the possibility of fighting 18” armed opponents was there, the armour suite should suffice if the ship is properly commanded. (To have done up a 2/3s citadel rule with a heavy AD like that of the G3, for example, the ships would well have grown into 60,000 ton monsters.) Don’t neglect the fact that all ship commanders have “fighting instructions” to maximize ship characteristics. For all those out there who are not aware, the good Baron’s book on Bismarck points this out! Keeping in mind the operational doctrine for the Hood was altered also by virtue of the diminution of numbers in the battle line, the Hood simply fell between the stools on the clash between design and need. One could of course quibble as to the type of overhaul needed to address deficiencies (quilting in armour on decks in the US was of relatively short duration) but absent increasing bulges to restore freeboard, the Hood would need that lengthy overhaul to address such needs. Therein lies a political issue – after all, the USN rolled the dice on the Big Five. The RN and their political masters decided Hood could not be spared. So – Vadm Holland tried the next best thing. MJBurmaster ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Kelvin Mok Subject DC Motors >> I just stumbled upon this, which may interest the RC types... http//www.hobbyengineering.com/SectionM.html << Just when I thought I knew about motors for models there comes this superior DC brushless motor technology. http//groups.yahoo.com/group/lrk-torquemax/ http//www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37545 The torque at low speed is superior to regular DC motors and it has a high power output for a given size. With a full function controller the rpm can be controlled in both fwd and rev directions. Do a Google search and there are many sources on how to build your own brushless motor and the controller. My initial introduction was perked by Sharper Image's minispeedster at http//www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/productview.jhtml?sku=NK001 and on opening one up found two motors with three lead wires. I couldn't figure out how three wires enabled a fwd-rev function on the motors. The above URLs gave the technical explanations. The RC receiver was also very small and controlled two motors in the boat to effect differential steering (without a rudder.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "Allen Stevens" Subject Re HMS Hood Good discussion ! Of course we should all remember that Hood was a Battlecruiser and as such was not really designed to go up against modern battleships (certainly not as tough an opponent as Bismark). She was actually quite well armoured for a Battlecruiser when she was finished in 1920 but the Battlecruiser concept was that they would function as fast well armed scouts for the main battle fleet, which they did (despite the losses) quite well in WWI, I think Admiral Fisher summed it up thus 'Faster than anything that can destroy them and powerful enough to destroy anything smaller' By WWII the Battlecruiser concept was well and truly outdated unfortunately for Hood the war started too soon for her to be completely refitted, I read something by DK Brown recently that stated that the planned refit for Hood would have rectified the deck armour problem, fitted more modern secondary armament (the same as Renown) and fitted a completely new bridge superstructure on the same lines as Renown and the KGV class unfortunately this refit was put off in the 1930s due to budgetary restrictions (where have we heard that before!). The only really significant role Prinz Eugen played in the battle was to confuse the British ships with her similar profile Hood was armoured against 8" fire and POW certainly was. Regards to all worldwide Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Allen Stevens" Subject Re Graf Spee Certainly the Graf Spee's Captain thought that heavier British ships were on their way, whilst he was in port British agents were very successfully putting it around that a Battleship or two were just over the horizon (early case of spin doctors !). It is just a personal theory but I have always thought that Langsdorf (Spee's Captain) scuttled his ship because he didn't want to see his crew killed, he was most definitely not a Nazi or a Hitler supporter as shown by his actions, maybe he just didn't have the heart for it. Speculation I know but certainly one of histories question marks. Incidentally anyone heard any more re the raising operation on the Graf Spee ? Regards to all worldwide Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Stephen Allen" Subject Benches for Hood - Thanks A big thank you to Tom Harrison who responded to my request in the last edition of SMML. regards Stephen Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From GORDONBUT@aol.com Subject Re Graf Spee Graf Spee was Diesel fired but To make distilate fuel from bunker fuel would be extravigant. what do you do with the waste after distilling it. After a few weeks cruise you would have more waste than diesel. The fact was that it was thought that the British with reinforcements was waiting outside for her to come out, Hitler wanted to save face so he ordered the scuttling of the ship Gordon Buttress Resercher Surface Warships Association ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject RMS Queen Mary G'day SMML, My name is George Oh from Sydney (specifically, near Liverpool). I am an Australian Soldier (by trade) and a model-builder by hobby. I am interrested in building a model of the RMS Queen Mary in her war-time role as a troopship. She was fitted for that role here in Sydney, and I have obtained an overhead plan of the Queen Mary for that refit. It shows the postition and size of the guntubs with which she was fitted. However, I cannot assertain the type, caliber (size) and number if guns with which she was fitted (in the tubs). From the size of the gun tubs, I deduce that she had weapons of various sizes/calibers. As she was faster than anything that could sink her, except aircraft, I surmise that most of her armaments were anti-aircraft guns. As she was fitted here in Sydney, I am guessing that she was probably equiped with standard Royal Navy or British Army issue weapons. So, I am guessing that she was fitted with the following weapons RN quad-50-caliber machineguns, RN 8-barreled 2-pounder pom-poms, RN 20mm cannons, British Army 40mm Bofors guns, or RN Pom-Poms (though I'm not certain what these are) and possibly British Army 3" anti-aircraft guns. The first four are for defence against low-altitude bombers, dive bombers or torpedo-carrying aircraft, as high-altitude bombers proved ineffective against a moving ship, let alone a fast moving ship. As a serving soldier, I would have included the 3" A-A gunss in order to commence engaging attacking aircraft at long range. However, I noticed from the Queen Mary website, that in Apr 1945, she had all armament, except her 6" gun (singular, not plural) removed. If fitted, I suspect that it would have been fitted at the stern in order to discourage something large from which she would run. Can you confirm this? I was attempting to get suitable weapons from White Ensign Models in the UK, but they do not currently stock the items listed in their internet web-site that I think may be suitable. The items were the L'Arsenal 1/400 A. AC400-03 for 20 x 1/400-scale 20mm Oerlikon guns in resin & photoetched metal, B. AC400-21 for 6 x 1/400-scale quad-Bofors guns (new) and C. AC400-25 for 6 x 1/400-scale twin-Bofors guns (new). Nor did the catalogue state if B & C the US-Style 40mm guns? Being quads, I suspect that they just might be US guns. Was the Queen Mary fitted with these weapons? Can you advise me as to what weapons the Queen Mary had, and if you stock/have access to suitable weapons I could fit to the model? Additionally, I would appreciate information (if available) on who manned the guns. Was the ships crew trained as gunners? I suspect not because, due to the cost of the ship, and the nature of her passengers, I (as a professional soldier) would have tasked professional gunners with her defence. Did they rely solely on the embarked troops to man the guns? Again, I would not rely on a hope that the embarked troops have enough professional gunners, familiar with the guns with which she was fitted, to defend her. Or, did she have a detachment of professional gunners permanently assigned to her as ships crew, to man her guns (and when not required at their primary duty station - ie. their particular weapon - to perform other tasks)? This is the option I would have chosen because they could defend her when there were no troops embarked. As to her colour, I suspect that her vertical surfaces were probably painted "Battleship grey" - reference her nickname of "The Grey Ghost". I also suspect that her wooden decking was not painted "Battleship grey". WEM suggests that her vertical surfaces were painted US Haze Grey (US05) or AP507 Light Admiralty Grey. All models of the Queen Mary that I have seen depict her in her peacetime livery. I have selected her wartime livery and configuration for something different, and because I see this as the Queen Marys most significant role. So, I would appreciate any information you could provide me. I have previously sent this E-Mail to the Queen Mary web-site, but I have not received a reply. Regards, WO1 George Oh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Billgior@aol.com Subject Task Force Hobbies ISW Fall Sale on Battleships & Heavy Cruisers Hi Everyone I am having a fall sale on ISW Battleships and Heavy Cruisers and here are my low prices, (1.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-114 USS West Virginia BB-48 DEc.7th 1941 fit. your low price $230.95 + shipping nice kit. (2.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-064 USS Alaska CL-2 your low price $250.95 + shipping very nice. (3.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-113 USS Maryland BB-46 Dec.7th 1941 fit. your low price $250.95 + shipping very nice kit. (4.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-115 USS Nevada BB-36 Dec.7th 1941 fit. your low price $250.95 + shipping nice kit. (5.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-116 USS Oklahoma BB-37 Dec.7th 1941 your low price $250.95 + shipping very nice detail. (6.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-100 USS Arizona BB-39 Dec.7th 1941. Your low price $240.95 + shipping very nice. (7.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-105 USS Pennsylvania BB-38 Dec.7th 1941 fit. Your low price $240.95 + shipping nice detail. (8.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-042 USS West Virginia BB-48 1944 version you can make the USS Tennesse & USS California also from this kit. Your low price $250.95 + shipping very nice kit. (9.) 1/350 ISW kit#4-066 USS New Mexico BB-40 your low price $215.95 + shipping very nice. (10.)1/350 ISW kit#4-060 SMS Seydlitz German WWI Battlecruiser your low price $190.95 + shipping very nice kit. (11.)1/350 ISW kit#4-095 USS Arkansas BB-33 your low price $215.95 + shipping very nicely detailed. (12.)1/350 ISW kit#4-145 USS Michigan BB-18 WWI your low price $205.95 + shipping very nice kit. (13.)1/350 ISW kit#4-118 USS Texas BB-35 1944 version your low price $250.95 + shipping very nice kit. Also all heavy Cruisers are on sale from these low price ranges, $160.95, $170.95, $190.95, $215.95, $250.95 plus shipping. Call for which price goes with which cruisers. You can pay me three ways, PayPal, Money Order, Cashier Check. You can e-mail me at (billgior@aol.com) or by phone at (313)295-0293. If you find any of these kits at a lower price any where else I will match the price that's my guarantee so check us out. Happy Modeling, Also discounts include (yankee modelworks kits). Sincerely, Bill Giordano www.TaskForceHobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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