Subject: SMML VOL 2945 Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:12:00 +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 Holman Laugh 2 Re Holman Projector 3 Yamato deck surface 4 Hobby shops 5 Holman Projestor and mortar ammuntion etc 6 Museum ships double duty?? 7 Re Carrier Decks 8 Japanese signal flag Hoists 9 Those guys on sub's...what do ya call em's? 10 US vs British aircraft carriers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Subject Holman Laugh The Holman Projector thread really tickled me, it so epitomises the desperation of the time, and the story of loading them with potatoes shows the humour remained. We used the Limbo mortars to fire toilet rolls at other ships of the NATO STANAVFORLANT squadron when leaving station. On one occasion someone sneaked in a sack of potatoes which gave a very unfortunate shock to the crew of the American ship which were mooning us at the time. Would that qualify for a Purple Heart? HMS Rhyl was used as the base for Navy days in Chatham in 1981 and the climax of the show was the same gag, firing toilet rolls over the crowd. We used light charges, the ones for firing light weight floating practise bombs. But on the last day some bright spark put full cartridges in the mortars, designed to propel a 400 lb bomb a mile. The effect was really spectacular, first we deafened the crowd, then rained burning meteors from a great height over them and parts of down-town Gillingham! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "David Griffith" Subject Re Holman Projector You will find details and drawings of Holman Projectors in "Allied Coastal Forces" by John Lambert and Al Ross. I think it's Vol 1 that you want, the one about Fairmile designs and the US subchasers. Regards, David Griffith Glasgow, Scotland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Dave Swindell Subject Yamato deck surface Hello Danny, I've got this kit "tucked away" (actually bought in a model shop just by the berth where the Yamato was built in Kure, I'd love to get back out there and have a look at the 1/10th scale model they've got in the new museum there now!) When the round tooits turn up, I'm planning on replacing the decking with plywood. Check your local flying R/C store, they usually do thin 1mm or less very fine grained ply. this can be stained and varnished to suit for colour. My original plan was to draw representations of the planking in sharp hard pencil between staining and varnishing, but after checking out the links on that large scale paddlewheel carrier recently the possibility of doing this with laser etching has occurred, however this may be a bit harsh in this scale. The whole deck could be cut from one piece using the kit parts as templates, and scored or part sawn through from the underside and bent to profile after steaming or soaking to prevent cracking. Some experimentation would be needed here on scrap methinks. The deck could then be clamped and glued to a pre-cut profiled frame before installation. Once you've got your replacement deck to your satisfaction then the old deck can be cut up to remove any deck fittings you want to re-use (without delving under beds and digging the kit out I seem to remember there were fittings moulded onto the deck). The other alternative is to glue it and fill it as you would a normal plastic kit deck. I don't like raised plank detail anyway so that would go, either very carefully re-scribe or use one of the various painting tricks to represent the planking. I've read various remarks about the decks of Yamato and Musashi being painted at various times during their careers, ranging from grey to black or camouflage schemes, but I'm not completely convinced especially of the latter. What is the Mike Ashley book you are referring to? I can't find any reference to anything Yamato related by him. Regards Dave Swindell ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Steve Singlar Subject Hobby shops I have plans to travel to Corpus Christie for the USS Enterprise (CV-6) reunion, Rita permitting. I plan to spend a day on the USS Texas (Yeah, I know a long drive) and USS Lexington. Can anyone recommend any good hobby shops in the area? BTW, I was recently in the Buffalo NY area and stopped at Niagra Hobby. It is a very large hobby shop with a very good selection of ship models and reference books. Steve Pelham, NH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Sell4853@aol.com Subject Holman Projestor and mortar ammuntion etc Sorry SMMLIer's the website for an illustrated treatise on British Ammunition and Ordnance for period 1880 t0 1960 is - http//web.ukonline.co.uk/stephen.johnson/arms/ well worth looking at as it covers all types with full details Norman Tenterden UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Tom Detweiler" Subject Museum ships double duty?? Ya know, a thought occurred, and I'm sure not just to me-- Here in America, across the nation we have all these large battleships, A/C carriers, and other large ex-Navy museum ships scattered around in US ports-- They are kept up in good condition already by volunteers. A lot of the original radar and comm equipment is still in them and much of it works. They are hooked up to sewers, fresh water, telephones, electricity, and other utilities, and that could be enhanced considerably. Maybe it is time for the museum ships to start serving Reserve or double duty. Why aren't the state and local governments keeping them up and using them as disaster management headquarters in time of need? How many flood refugees could be housed dry and safe on a carrier's aircraft storage deck? And, if the machinery were kept operable, onboard generators could provide power, evaps could provide fresh water, the CIC and radio rooms could keep the rescue forces in constant communication. The interiors of these ships are totally controllable-- that is, off limits portions can be sealed off to evacuees, and access controlled by security forces or police, who could even stay on board. Carriers with their huge flight decks are well suited to helo search and rescue collection centers. Maybe every American port city should have one of these ships which is kept in at least generator/electronic readiness and doubles as both a public museum ship, and in case of emergencies, a Disaster Control and Management Center. The Red Cross could also use them as permanent triage and treatment centers, as many capital ships already had hospital facilities aboard, even surgeries, which could be employed if needed. At the very least, they could be used as storm-proof, battle-hardened, compact and fairly comfortable headquarters for rescue personnel. Anybody else thought about this? Or has everybody on this list thought about this? And apart from the bureaucratic/jurisdictional squabble, what are the potential problems and drawbacks to doing so? Maybe, given the hurricanes, this is an answer waiting for a question. My thoughts are also that federal funding already goes towards keeping them; with a little more and the combined efforts of local and state emergency preparedness authorities and their budgets, these ships could be kept online and ready for duty in more ways than we know of. Tom Detweiler, IC2/68-71 DD-806 (BTW maybe the only form of ship not suited to this double duty would be... submarines!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "GRAHAM BOAK" Subject Re Carrier Decks >> 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. << It should be pointed out that as long as the RAF ran the FAA, the FAA was provided with aircraft as good or better than any serving on aircraft carriers of other nations. The policy of relying on AA defence was not the result of having no decent fighters but the other way around. The blame for the poor aircraft available at the start of WW2 can be placed at the foot of the Admiralty for their requirements and mistaken evaluation of air power. In mitigation, no doubt they were influenced by the widely-held belief internationally that the bomber would always get through. However, blaming the RAF has always been a cheap excuse that does not stand up to close inspection. It has perhaps some merit not in matters of equipment, but in the shortage of trained naval airmen. However, this was also due to the lack of promotion possibilities in the Air Branch between the wars. A bright RN officer choosing this route would find himself handicapped when it came to later promotions. It should be added that the Admiralty did look for a re-designed Spitfire some years earlier, but Richard Fairey refused to develop and produce it, insisting on his own Fulmar (which at the time did outperform any contemporary carrier fighter, remember, even if this state of affairs didn't last.). The Navy did adopt the Hurricane once airframes were available, an aircraft whose performance equalled or exceeded that of the US's later Wildcat. It had no problems landing on carriers. However, given the priority to Fighter Command in 1938 to 1940, it is unlikely that any modern fighters would have been made available to the fleet at the start of the war. It would be a brave man who argued that this priority was in error. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Russell Adams Subject Japanese signal flag Hoists I understand that the IJN used RN helm commands, in English, until nationalist fervour compelled change in1936. Togo used Nelson's Trafalgar hoist , same basic meaning, at Tsushima, 1905. IMHO, same flags. Russell Windsor, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Cathdanjon@aol.com Subject Those guys on sub's...what do ya call em's? I proudly served 8 years on the USS. Nimitz CVN-68. I was medically discharged, however, in the limbo period between my Nimitz time (in Bremerton, Wa.) and civilian life.....I was cast into the dept's of the SS guys (in Bangor, Wa.). I was shocked to learn that any surface ship was referred to as a "target." However, I digress. On the Nimitz, I was told that sub-guys were called sub-mariners...pronounced like the Marvel comic character. When I served my time among these so called "steely eyed killers of the deep," I was told that calling a sub-guy, a sub-mariner, was upsetting to them, as it seemed to imply low standard's as a serving sailor. This was never cleared up for me. I hope this help's. Written somewhat tongue-n-cheek, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Subject US vs British aircraft carriers I have read with interest the musings of the various writers regarding the subject of Brit vs US carrier design and effectiveness in WWII. While this is not a new debate, I have always looked upon it as Monday Morning Quarterbacking, in good old American parlance. It's easy to look back on the various ship designs and say that one nations' designs were "better" than another nations'. The RN had a plan, a mission and a design. It all worked for them, the steel-decked carriers a bit smaller and less capable of the large numbers of aircraft. I agree that politics played the role it did in airwing design, modernization and effectiveness of the FAA in the interwar years, which had a profound ripple effect during the war. That said, the Stringbag was a remarkable success at Taranto (the Japanese thank you for that lesson, by the way), as well as other successes (Bismarck comes to mind). I have always been a HUGE fan of the ESSEX class of ships, and feel they were the most versatile of carrier designs. That the RN was able to use the Colossus class escorts in such an effective way, and sell so many to other navies around the world to be used almost up to the 21st century, is a huge credit to the design, craftsmanship and seaworthyness of the class. I'd put the two classes of carrier up as worthy opponents in the "best carrier design in the world" competition, considering they both served similar multiple roles, only to have the USN never sell the ESSEX class to foreign friendly navies. The more affordable, smaller Colossus class was the winner there, a steel-decked escort ship with the ability to grow and expand it's role well beyond it's origninal design. In the end, I think that comparing the various ship classes is an exercise in amusement more than anything. That nations were able to use them to assure their future existence, to win the war in whatever way possible and defeat the powers trying to rule the world with evil intent was what was important. As a modeler, I love the history of the subject as much, sometimes MORE, than I do the modeling itself. The dabate will always exist- steel decks vs wood, larger diverse airwings vs smaller multirole ones, etc. It all depends on the mission, the budget and the political winds of the governments which fund these marvelous machines. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume