Subject: SMML VOL 2948 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:54:07 +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 Re Fleet Air Arm 2 Re Sinking the Supership vcr alert!!!!!!! 3 Re Museum ships 4 Yamato sinking 5 Re Museum ships 6 Re Leander Ikara magazines 7 Re Museum Ships 8 Re Museum ships double duty?? 9 Preparedness ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Subject Re Fleet Air Arm >> I would point out again that the equipment provided to the Fleet Air Arm, whilst the RAF was in control, was as good as that any elsewhere in the world << The swordfish against the Devestator or the Avenger and the Kate? Surely not! Japanese and US carrier aircraft were leagues above the Fleet Air Arm! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "John Snyder" Subject Re Sinking the Supership vcr alert!!!!!!! Yeah, well, I just had a look at the Nova website and trawled through the slide show that accompanies. Imagine my surprise to find out that YAHAGI was a heavy cruiser with 8-inch guns, and that all 8 of YAMATO's escorting destroyers were sunk in the final battle! Wonder how many naval historians they thought to consult? I'd have expected better from Nova.... Best regards, John Snyder White Ensign Models http//WhiteEnsignModels.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From George Levine Subject Re Museum ships Quite true. Keep in mind that these ships became museums because whoever was operating them felt it was no longer worth the cost of maintaining them. After becoming museums there was even less money for basic repairs. With regard to why this idea has not been studied, it has been. Every few years someone has proposed that this be done with one ship or another, usually with government money. It was never found feasible. George Levine Currently at anchor in Edgewater Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Norman Samish" Subject Yamato sinking >> I have just come across an up coming program by PBS Nova on the Battleship Yamato airing on October 4. Here is the link for those who are interested http//www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/supership/ << Thanks for the URL - very interesting. One of the Yamato survivors said US pilots machine-gunned survivors. Is that true? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject Re Museum ships Warships are mothballed for economic reasons. If you have12 ships, need 5 million dollars to have one on-line for a year, and have been allocated only 50 million (of the 60 you requested - do the maths) then you either run all 12 ships below par, or you take two off-line by mothballing them. Why should a bunch of civilians dictate that the Navy continue to operate oudated ships? Would YOU want to fight a war today with a WWII ship (50 years old)? Upgrading a hull is a VERRRRRY expensive proposition. Consider ripping-out the engines to insert aset of turbines, or a reactor. Australia realised this (no reactor, though) and recently sank the HMAS Brisbane (F - Forty-one) - and the HMAS Torrens - as an accessable artificial reef and dive site. Instead of COSTING money, she will GENERATE money. The WWII sloop(?) HMAS Dimantina is drydocked in Brisbane as a museum ship. Like ALL other museum ships, she relies on an aging group of dedicated volunteers, donated (or recovered) equipment, and the shrinking generosity of a public with reducing interest (= not bankers). I, for one, am happy to support museums. Thank you for preserving the Queen Mary, the HMAS Vampire, the HMAS Dimantina, the USS Alabama, and the HMS Victory. And thankyou to the people who worked them then, and work them now. George, out................. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From M Brown Subject Re Leander Ikara magazines The 1/24 demo model the RN had built seems to show either 28 or 42 as the number. have sent copies of photos in plus a Sea Dart demo model. Regards, Michael Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Tom Detweiler" Subject Re Museum Ships You all have had some good arguments pro and con, thanks. I agree with Jodie that old ships are a hard sell and an ongoing maintenance and funding headache for cities and volunteers. Oakland managed to buy and fix up the USS Ranger which is tied up pierside in Alameda and open for visitors, it has had some real ups and downs in funding which is mostly done by private donations. (It gets a lot of publicity for its well known and well-documented ghost sightings, too!) However, Mark is also right, Political Correctness DOES strike-- for example, the great battleship Iowa was investigated by and later offered to the City of San Francisco as a potential museum ship, emergency response center and tourist draw. The gay mayor and PC "city council" then REFUSED the Iowa, as "a protest against the military's treatment of gays", and the military in general. This was after a former council had spent money and formed a commission to investigate Iowa for tourism. There were other reasons equally absurd, but we do see that kind of PC nonsense out here on the Left Coast. As of now, Iowa is anchored with the mothball fleet and the Port of Stockton has bid on giving her a home. Let's hope Stockton is successful and we can all visit the Iowa in the next few years. Tom Detweiler, in Grass Valley CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Ouellette, Lawrence M" Subject Re Museum ships double duty?? Tom, >> Why aren't the state and local governments keeping them up and using them as disaster management headquarters in time of need? << Because most cities and states do not have the money to spend on private, non-profit museums, which is most of the museum fleet. Very few get any money that they don't raise themselves, and that money is just barely enough to keep them open. >> How many flood refugees could be housed dry and safe on a carrier's aircraft storage deck? << Not nearly as many as you think. Most museum ships clear out berthing spaces to house exhibits. The USS Salem could handle a complement of about 1800 as a Navy ship, but only 300 as a museum ship. Most of the museum ship are older, with the heads that flush right over the side. That is not allowed these days. >>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. << If the ship was mothballed before donation as a museum, then 99% of the systems were offline and unusable when the ship arrived. Many hundreds of volunteer hours are needed just to get the lights on, as every breaker is in the off position, every fuse is pulled and much equipment is in a state of preservation, not immediate use. The Salem has two large diesel generators, but they were mothballed (semi-disassembled), there is no fuel in the tanks, and the top of the funnel (exhaust) is plated over to keep the rain/snow/birds from totally destroying the equipment. The evaporators run off the ships engines, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to reactivate, and a permanent 24 by 7 crew to keep running. >>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. << Even civilians can figure out how to open a Navy watertight hatch. As any museum person can testify. Off limits areas would have to be padlocked. The few museum ship that actually operate under their own power only run their engines when they are underway. At the pier, they are on shore power/water/sewerage/heat just like all the static ships. As other have mentioned, a Navy ship is not a pleasant place to be if the power goes out, which is very likely if the hurricane gets fairly close to the ship (USS Alabama.) The best ships for your scenario are active duty gator freighters (without the Marine complement), hospital ships, and even cruise ships. All must be currently fully functional and manned. Larry Ouellette Volunteer, USS Salem (CA 139) United States Naval Shipbuilding Museum Quincy, Massachusetts, USA http//www.uss-salem.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Christopher & Kayo Amano-Langtree" Subject Preparedness >> Certainly not true of Fighter Command. Thankfully. Nor, in terms of equipment at least, of Bomber Command either. The Wellington was as capable a bomber as any in the world. In any case, it is rather a startling statement to suggest that any of the British services were more poorly prepared than the Army. The history of the British tank is a long saga of incompetence and misapplication. << Tactically though Fighter Command was not well prepared - they had failed to pay any attention to modern fighter techniques and fought in a very outmoded style (No1, 2 and 3 attacks etc) Equipment wise they were better off but only just. The Wellington like all British bombers suffered from inadequate delivery systems. It was unable to bomb safely by day and its navigation and bomb aiming systems were useless for night bombing. Area bombing was not an accident but a direct result of the RAF's failure to consider and prepare adequately. We also have to look at the rest of the equipment, the Whitley, the Blenheim, the Battle, the Hampden - hardly adequate. If we look at British tanks we find a better level of preparation. The Matilda Mk 2 was easily superior to anything the Germans had. >> I would point out again that the equipment provided to the Fleet Air Arm, whilst the RAF was in control, was as good as that any elsewhere in the world. That its use was not properly integrated into naval operations is a fault to be laid at the door of the Admiralty. It was the Admiralty's lack of grasp of the realities of aircraft design that lead to unrealistic specifications and the resulting inadequate aircraft, once they had retaken control of such matters. That they had failed to keep an eye on such matters earlier cannot be blamed solely on the RAF. << Whilst the USN was developing monoplane torpedo bombers the RAF was developing the Swordfish for the FAA. The idea that the RAF paid much attention to the FAA is a falicy but if you note my earlier post I referred to the Air Ministry as well. They did not understand the nature of warfare over water and allocated it very little priority because they focused on the strategic bomber. In a stringent financial environment it was also very difficult to get funding for naval aviation and given that the Air Ministry did not allocate much importance to the subject it came far down the list. I would also hesitate to equate the aircraft the FAA was equipped with with either the Japanese or American machines. Christopher ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume