Subject: SMML VOL 2944 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:54:31 +1000 The Ship Modelling Mailing List (SMML) is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com For infomation on how to Post to SMML and Unsubscribe from SMML http//smmlonline.com/aboutsmml/rules.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Yamato deck surface 2 Re Submariner question 3 Re Carrier Decks 4 Re Submariner question 5 Re Carrier Decks 6 Re "sub-mariner" or "submarine-er"? 7 Re USS Alabama - Hurricane damage 8 Kamikazi speed boats 9 Holman Projector 10 HOLMAN PROJECTOR 11 HOLMAN MORTAR 12 HOLMAN PROJECTOR 1/72 Kit 13 Re Carrier Decks 14 Hobby Japan 15 Steel Deck Carriers 16 s- boats 1/700 17 Submariners 18 Re Carrier Decks 19 Re Submariners ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Herron, Danny Civ TSCHOOL" Subject Yamato deck surface Hi guys just wanted to ask a quick question concerning the Yamato 1/200scale. Got those pesky little aircraft done so off to start the decks. Yes I have read Mike Ashley(sp?) book but wanted to see if anybody had some SPECIFIC ideas concerning the ridge line or line that is there when the decks are put together, in other words how in the heck do I get rid of that ugly seam(s). Thanks and have a great one. Later! Danny R. Herron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Steve Singlar Subject Re Submariner question >> Is the proper pronunciation "sub-mariner" or "submarine-er"? << I think the answer is "Bubblehead". Steve A skimmer 1968-1972 Pelham, NH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Andy Airlie" Subject Re Carrier Decks From Steven P.Allen >> Wood decks do not create the kind of splinters that steel ones do, and they are much easier to repair that steel decks are. That was the rational the Bureau employed in the design phases. There was no way to put the thickness of armor needed high enough to armor the flight decks. In practice, the USN design proved superior. Certainly, the RN carriers seemed to be less damaged by bomb and Kamikaze hits, but the fact is that the RN carriers damaged were never restorable to complete pre-damage condition. The US carriers not only were but were able to serve as front line units for another twenty years. The brits had no fighters capable of defending their carriers in the pre-war years, so they willingly traded off fighters for armor (RN carriers never matched USN for a/c capacity). In places like the Med, the trade off worked. In the PTO, RN carriers were next to useless it took an entire RN CarDiv to marshal the same strike capacity as a single US carrier. << I'd disagree, The RN Carriers were designed to different briefs and in action their decks were more readily repaired than US Carriers...How long was the Franklin etc. out of action ? The lack of effective fighters was due to the situation with RAF involvement in FAA affairs and was addressed during the war, and whilst the A/C capacity was superior in US designs, the RN carriers were slightly less like floating 'Gas' tanks. I know you are justifiably proud of the US Fleets carrier operations in the PTO, and rightly so, but have a look at your modern Carriers....Angled Flight Deack, Mirror landing sights, Steam catapults, Metal/armoured decks and have a think about where these ideas developed ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Gary Subject Re Submariner question Thanks guys. I enjoyed the explanations. I personally have always used submarine-er. Let me recommend my two most recent readings, Black May, and Torpedo Junction, both about the U-Boat war. I found Torpedo Junction to be more "readable" while Black May, though a little technical, revealed many aspects of the ASW war I was unaware of. Gary Schurr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Gary Subject Re Carrier Decks In my current ongoing read, Friedman's Carrier book, it seems to me that the choice for wooden US CV decks was a compromise based on the tonnage limits of the treaty in force, and the ability to transit the Panama Canal. (This might not be entirely correct but..) If a steel flight deck was used it restricted the air group size (the British problem) unless the beam was increased, which would make transiting the canal impossible. All this extra tonnage was limited by treaty on the Yorktowns, the Essexes were larger, but beam was similar, so no armored flight deck. Another justification for no steel deck at the time, IIRC, was because US CVs carried their air group on deck, a bomb penetrating the flight deck and exploding on the hangar deck would no severly damage the air group (of course they then put the ready rooms in the gallery deck!!) On the Midways (the next chapter), limits were thrown out, and they had steel flight decks. Gary Schurr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject Re "sub-mariner" or "submarine-er"? According to my unabridged Webster's the American preferred pronunciation is "submarine-er" whereas our British cousins across the pond have as their preferred pronuncation "sub-mariner." Kevin (who still says sub-mariner, in spite of being an American) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Ouellette, Lawrence M" Subject Re USS Alabama - Hurricane damage (John Kutina) wrote >> Note 8 degree list plus hull moved 10' {note entry ramp damage] Also note severe damage to WW II warplanes - P-51, Kingfisher etc. http//www.ussalabama.com/html/photos/index.php << I read where the list is caused by a shift and build-up of sediment under the Alabama during the storm surge, and she has not taken on any water. The surge also destroyed one of the cement walkways to the ship and did extensive damage to the park, the buildings and some of the aircraft. I didn't see anything in the photos that looked beyond repair, but of course it will take lots of money to fix everything. I checked the USS North Carolina website, but saw nothing to indicate they suffered any damage from the recent hurricane in their area. Let's hope the USS Texas rides out Rita well. Of course, my thoughts are first with all the people impacted by all these recent storms. Larry Ouellette Volunteer, USS Salem (CA 139) United States Naval Shipbuilding Museum Quincy, Massachusetts, USA http//www.uss-salem.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "RAY MEHLBERGER" Subject Kamikazi speed boats Okay...I didn't get an answer the first time...so will try again. Does anybody out there know if a model kit exists of the kamikazi speed boats that the Japanese used at Okinawa? Would appreciate knowing. Thanks in advance. Ray Mehlberger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From אלישע Subject Holman Projector The Holman Projector (named for the company in Cornwall that produced it) was an early wartime development from the Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development in the Admiralty. It was an adaptation of a simple mortar tube, in this case about 6 feet long, designed to use regular auxiliary steam (usually at about 220 psi) to throw a standard issue "mills bomb" (hand grenade to the Yanks) into the air in the path of an attacking aircraft. It was probably quite hazardous to use, but in the early days of the war people were willing to try lots of hare-brained ideas. This one actually turned out to be fairly reasonable. It was creditied with bringing down a HE-115 that attacked SS HIGHLANDER on the night of 1 Aug 1941. The device was manufactured in quantity (some 4500 were produced) in at least 4 different versions, each mark being a slight improvement over the one before. Most of the devices were mounted on merchant ships, including Norwegian and Polish ships. Others were fitted to coastal forces and escort vessels. The trawler NORTHERN GEM escorting ill-fated convoy PQ-17 had one. So did the converted British Power Boats Motor A/S Boats that became MGB-s. White Ensign had a 1/350 scale MGB-81 kit that included a Holman Projector aft. Aryeh Wetherhorn Elazar, Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Sell4853@aol.com Subject HOLMAN PROJECTOR Ref HOLMAN PROJECTOR following may be of help or interest From Norman of Tenterden UK Taken from Navy History (Chapter Three) MAKING READY FOR WAR (War at sea 1940-41) (Paragraph 10 onward) Holman Projector, a steam-powered piece of equipment not unlike a bit of fall pipe that comes down from the guttering of a house to allow the rain to find its way to the drains. We were to find out that this was all that it was fit for. Its crew was supposed to put down this pipe an ordinary hand grenade which nestled in a tin; the lever from the grenade came through a slot in the metal container and was held down by a pin in the safe position on the outside of the container. The drill was that when the crew were going to fire this 'thing', first they had to make quite certain that there was enough steam pressure on the gauge to project the grenade out of the pipe. They then took the pin out of the grenade, dropped the grenade still in its container down the spout of the pipe, banging their foot down on a pedal at the base of the pipe, and at the same time aiming the 'gun' at the target. If the target was a plane, the grenade was supposed to go off in the vicinity of the plane after parting company with the container as it left the mouth of the pipe. In theory I suppose that this was quite a legitimate description of its action if the steam pressure applied to the projector was correct; if it wasn't, the grenade and its container had a nasty habit of just managing to climb out of the end of the pipe, and dropping onto the deck where they separated, rolling about until they either exploded where they were, and fragmented amongst those of the crew who were panicking to throw them over the side, or in the sea out of harm's way if the crew had been successful in doing what they had set out to do. Most ships' crews found as time passed by that the best use for the Holman Projector was for throwing potatoes or empty cans at their 'chummy ships' as they passed by them in a channel. To be used for the job for which it was really intended was thought to be more dangerous to those actually firing it than to the aircraft supposed to be at the receiving end. Eventually, I believe, these Holmans were taken off most if not all ships ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From Sell4853@aol.com Subject HOLMAN MORTAR Ref Holman Projectors the following site gives full details not only of the holman mortar but many, many more items of British ammunition and ordnance from 1880 t0 1960 hope this also helps my previous e mail Norman SELLS Tenterden UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From Sell4853@aol.com Subject HOLMAN PROJECTOR 1/72 Kit For Holman projector kits it is well worth looking at the following site on 1/72 kits where kit is sold for this article http//www.djparkins.clara.net/gls/glsmain.htm New! - Holman Projector £5.90 This kit provides a super-detailed Mk.IIA version of this interesting but unsuccessful weapon that was, nonetheless, fitted to so many Coastal Forces vessels. Norman Tenterden UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From 03136040@brookes.ac.uk Subject Re Carrier Decks Royal Navy carriers might have been much smaller and 'not as good' as the USN carriers but considering the positioning of Britain being on the door-step of a then global threat and a majority of resources going towards the British Army and homeland Defence, the 'useless' Royal Navy carriers did an outstanding job. As a playful remark to the fact of several RN carriers having a similar capacity to one USN carrier, -Anyone ever hear about the 'game' played a while back between the RN Admiralty and USN? -A US carrier and HMS Invincible (I think) 'played' a cat and mouse game in the Atlantic... US ship hides.. HMS Invincible finds them 'hiding' in the middle of open sea within hours. Other way round, HMS Invincible now hides and US look for her.... for several days.... and can't find her. Answer She was tactically stationed near a small island which in effect 'protected' her from radar detection. -Without meaning offence, a nice story I think on how the US opt for size and the UK opt for brains. -Obviously this is now changing with the much awaited arrivals of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth replacing the Invincible Class. Out... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From Brooks Rowlett Subject Hobby Japan I looked at the newest-in-my-local-comic-store issue of Hobby Japan magazine tonight (may have been #8) - it had a photo of the new 1/350 MIKASA model, as well as a Navis/Neptune 1/1250 model..... There was also a new series of 'toyish' minis of WWII Japanese ships, that seemed a trace vertically exaggerated - all on similar stands. The included a HOSHO as built and if my guess is correct the caption stated that all the miniatures were 12 cm long, so common size rather than common scale. BR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From Subject Steel Deck Carriers I know British carriers were designed for a different theatre of war to the US and as a result they did have a poorer aircraft capacity. RN Carriers were designed to operate as fleet support, often in confined waters, so they continued the original concept of aircraft armed cruisers that started with the Furious. US carriers were designed as floating airfields to operate in the vast Pacific. But no denying your point about the shocking lack of fighter aircraft and the poor torpedo bombers. A lot of that, sadly, is politics. The Fleet Air Arm disappeared between the wars, swallowed by the RAF and in the savage cuts, the RAF saw the arming of Carriers as just a drain on their budget. Even when the Fleet Air Arm re-emerged it depended on the RAF for procurement and appeals for better aircraft fell on deaf ears, it took Churchill to intervene and get Spitfires assigned to Carriers, the first Seafires being Mk 5's with a tail hook added. The relatively narrow undercarriage, the inability to look down in front and the un-strengthened tail meant the early Seafire often nose dived into the deck and smashed its undercarriage, if it happened to actually hit the wire then the tail could promptly be yanked clean off the aircraft. Even the radio gear in the first Seafire's was RAF gear and would not work with the RN gear properly. It was not until the Corsair was made available to the RN that we got a decent strike and CAP aircraft. Coastal Command had the same problem, things might have been a lot different had modified Lancasters been made available to Coastal Command as they constantly pleaded, particularly in the crucial mid years. Unbelievably we are getting hints of a similar situation starting now, with talk of "integration" of Fleet Air Arm and RAF units, or "Cross Tasking". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From "Gerry and Jana" Subject s- boats 1/700 Pacific Front had them give bill a call ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From "Jon Holford" Subject Submariners Submariners are pronounced differently according to to which navy they belong to. In the RN they are thought to bear the same relation to mariners as sub lieutenants do to lieutenants thus SUB-MARINERS. However, unsurprisingly, Capt Ned Beach is right for the USN. They have SUBMARIN-ERS as some have suggested. Of course, the friendly rivalry between RN and USN comes into play here (See reference to Sludge-mariners!) multiplied by the rivalry between surface and submarine fleets. I heard a whisper that that perhaps the USN pig-boat crews are not "sub anything" because they have no real mariners for them to be subordinate to but that, dear NATO Allies, is a black lie!! Jon H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From "GRAHAM BOAK" Subject Re Carrier Decks >> but the fact is that the RN carriers damaged were never restorable to complete pre-damage condition. << This is a mis-statement. Two RN carriers, Illustrious and Formidable, suffered damage that was never fully repaired postwar, out of six. Neither damage was caused by Kamikazes. Both suffered massive damage from conventional dive bomber aerial attacks, surviving multiple hits where the equivalent US carriers with major damage were knocked out of line with a single hit. And neither Franklin nor Bunker Hill returned to full service, although it is said that they could have done. Victorious was rebuilt to a completely new standard postwar, Indomitable had suffered major damage both from dive bombers and (separately) from torpedo hit, but.returned to service. Had funds been available she would have been rebuilt postwar too. Implacable and Indefatigable had double the aerial strength of the first three carriers, both had kamikaze hits and neither suffered noticeably. These had to be retired early because the hangar decks were too small for the forthcoming 60s jets. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From "David N. Lombard" Subject Re Submariners From >> Neither, it is pronounced "..." or you can shorten it to "Sludge-Mariner" (Climbs into Fearnought suit and dons BA) << Surely, this is hardly sufficient... Another planet, maybe... David N. Lombard Rossmoor, Orange County, CA http//www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth?imgsize=320&opt=-z&lat=33.8&ns=North&lon=118.08&ew=West&alt=7&img=learth.evif ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume