Subject: SMML VOL 2951 Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:05:29 +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 Imperial German Navy white "O"s on turrets--when??? 2 Re Yamato Sinking 3 Re British Fleet Fighter Aircraft, Early WW-II 4 Re Yamato Sinking 5 Re British Fleet Fighter Aircraft, Early WW-II 6 Re Stringbag 7 Re British Fleet Fighter Aircraft 8 Wildcat in FAA 9 Re Yamato 10 Swordfish radar 11 Re Yamato 12 FAA, Swordfish et al -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 That dreaded "Holman Projector" theme ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From David Rinker Subject Imperial German Navy white "O"s on turrets--when??? Hello, First post here and I apologize if this is an old question (couldn't find anything in the archives) Could anyone please provide me w/ a reference(s) for when the aircraft identifiers were added to the tops of German turrets? One web page (http//german-navy.tripod.com/sms_paint-overview.htm) puts them as a post-Jutland addition, but I have seen many "Jutland" ship models with them on the turrets. Thanks, Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Sab1156@aol.com Subject Re Yamato Sinking Hi Bill, Your example with the paratroopers leaving a damaged plane is a total different scenario, because when they reach the ground, they are able to fight on! I do not think,that survivors of a sinking ship are in the mood to pick up a fight, hundreds of miles away from the next shore. It is a clear violation of the Geneva convention and the haag rules of warfare! By the way,the original story is about Yamato survivors and if you check out history books,this was not a single incident! greetings Detlef ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Richa5011@aol.com Subject Re British Fleet Fighter Aircraft, Early WW-II Ned wrote >> Example In the Med, the Fairey Fulmar - nothing much more than a stretched, two-seat Spitfire (i.e., they both had 8 guns and a Merlin) had a top speed of about 250 mph - slower than the top speed of many attacking Italian and German a/c (notably the Ju-88), and with a lower service ceiling. << A better description would be that the Fulmar was "a scaled down Fairey Battle"...and about equally as effective. Though they could deal with the occasional "shadowing" Cant 501 or Do 18, they were totally out of their league when up against another fighter. Many were lost in the defense of Ceylon in 1942. >> Earlier in the war, they went into combat with the Roc, basically a Skua with a four-gun turret (akin to the Defiant). It was slower than all but floatplanes and seaplanes - almost useless against any modern attack aircraft. << I've seen the following statement in print from various sources, but find it hard to believe...that the Blackburn Roc never actually operated from a carrier. It must have passed some sort of carrier certification trials...but did it ever depoly about a carrier before or during the war? There is the account of the only known Roc air-to-air victory when one was credited with shooting down a He-59 floatplane after a long running battle south across the channel. The He-59 was skimming the wave tops and the Roc's guns could not depress past level...so the pilot had to roll the aircraft to allow the gunner to fire (the Roc had no forward firing guns). Nat Richards ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject Re Yamato Sinking To Bill Clarke 1. Yes. Troops (para or ground) being transported in an aircraft or ship (or truck, for that matter) are targets as they are just another materiel of war - same as fod, fuel or ammo. Any normal military member would clobber them while they are relatively helpless in the plane, ship or truck. Those machines (& their "cargo") are targets whereas civillian-carrying passenger airliners, passenger ships or cars & busses are not because they are not carrying civilians - not materiels of war. George, out...... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Matt Subject Re British Fleet Fighter Aircraft, Early WW-II From Ned Barnett >> It may be useful to remember that the Brits at the outset of WW-II were wedded to a two-man fighter concept, a position the US tried and abandoned at the beginning of the 30s with the Grumman FF-1. They used fighters (as scouts) the way we used dive bombers (as scouts). In their case, this compromised the planes' performance, critically, while in the case of scout bombers, there was no compromise at all. Example In the Med, the Fairey Fulmar - nothing much more than a stretched, two-seat Spitfire (i.e., they both had 8 guns and a Merlin) had a top speed of about 250 mph - slower than the top speed of many attacking Italian and German a/c (notably the Ju-88), and with a lower service ceiling. Earlier in the war, they went into combat with the Roc, basically a Skua with a four-gun turret (akin to the Defiant). It was slower than all but floatplanes and seaplanes - almost useless against any modern attack aircraft. << Defiant was quite a bit better than the Roc...Unfortunately the Fulmar was based on the poorly designed Fairey Battle that was basically massacred during the Battle of France, however it can be argued that the Fulmar did not fare quite so badly as the land version, indeed its rated speed is about equal to that of the SM 79, which up until Germany's involvement would have been its most common adversary. The Fulmar ended up in the form of the FireFly, this proved to be quite successful in the asw role. The Roc was a failure, they even knew it at the time...But it was available at the time when almost anything would do, however the best thing one could have done with them was to ground loop them (a battle of britain squadron did this with their Brewster Buffalo's). >> This was a design philosophy that the Brits were loathe to give up; it gave them both a "fighter" and a recon/scout aircraft, but it left them without a real fleet defense fighter until the Spitfire was modified (hastily, and not all that effectively) into a carrier fighter, pending the arrival of sufficient US carrier fighters (Martlet/Wildcat, Corsair) to actually defend their carriers. This certainly makes their decision to armor their flight decks seem logical - since they couldn't defend their decks, they might as well armor them ... << Who knows what the Admiralty's thinking was about having two seats, it may have been Northern Atlantic weather oriented ). Seafires did fine, but as you say it was not really built as a rugged plane for shipborne operations, unlike Hellcat's, Wildcat's or Corsair's. Weren't the Corsair's banned from US Carriers at one point? Armoring flight decks just seems logical ). But I think you're trolling on this point.... Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Matt Subject Re Stringbag From >> I never meant to denigrate the dear old Stringbag, only to wonder how much more effective RN carrier groups might have been with state of the art aircraft. << What would have been state-of-art? Actually I have seen first hand just how great the Stringbag was during an Airshow, a very heavy mist rolled in and even modern jets were canceling due to the conditions, apart from the one Stringbag which emerged gracefully out of the mist with two very cold looking crew members aboard! The Stringbag was arguably the best torpedo plane in poor conditions of the North Atlantic and in areas of low worthwhile enemy fighters. I doubt they would have fared as well in the tropics though... Its amazing that the Stringbag even had a torpedo when you consider that the Admiralty generally considered its air arm as a spotter for the fleets guns... >> One legend has it that Bismark could not hit the Swordfish because it's fire control systems could not be set to such a low speed as that flown by the Swordfish. I can believe that after reading an article about the "Sundown Charlies" ("Five o clock Charlie" in MASH) bi planes from training schools used to attack US airbases, the jets deployed against them could not engage such slow targets. And was there not a case recently where two modern fighters could not hit a runaway weather balloon because it was nearly stationary? << Thats one reason, another reason is the difficulty in hitting a target coming straight at you. Try visualizing it and maybe move an object across you versus one coming at you, then visualize the bullets and aim points and I read that the AA gunners aboard the Bismarck lacked training, although whether or not this is true I do not know. So much speculation out there its sometimes hard to know what is really true or not... If you have no already read the book, "To War in a Stringbag" by Commander Charles Lamb then do so, its a must read. I cannot recommend the book highly enough, especially as he took part in the Taranto raid, but it also details many other facets of the FAA also. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Erhardtsen" Subject Re British Fleet Fighter Aircraft To Ned Barnett The top speed of the Fulmar was 275-280 mph - not 250 mph, The Ju 88 might still be to fast, but the rest is another story. The Roc was build fore carrier use, but it was newer used on carriers. I don't think it ewer did fight. You write "..it left them without a real fleet defense fighter until the Spitfire was modified ". Arnīt you forgetting the Sea Hurricane? And after all, the Marletīs did fight from British carriers in 1941. The war was different fore British carriers than fore American. Germany and Italy newer put any carriers to sea, and there fighters was short rang types, so British carrier fighters did very seldom meet enemy fighters at sea. In the U.S. / Japanese carrier battles it was quiet another case. At the time the British joint that fight, they used Corsair (and the Japanese build carriers with armored flight deck (Taiho and Shinano). Regarts Erik Erhardtsen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Erhardtsen" Subject Wildcat in FAA Hi John Are you sure of that? In the book "World War II Airplanes volume 2" (Rand McNally & Co 1977) page 23 "The Royal Navy put the Wildcat into service before the U.S. Navy did. A total of 81 of the new fighters went into service in Britain in the summer of 1940....." On page 24 it is told "... saw combat over Scapa Flow in December, 1940. That same month the U.S. Navy received its first F4F-3s....." Aircraft in Profile No. 53 page 5 tells, that VF-4 of the Ranger and VF-7 of the Wasp received them in December and January replacing the biplane F3Fīs. Combat Aircraft of the World by John W.R. Taylor page 500 tells that "...these aircraft began to reach the Fleet Air Arm at the end of July 1940." but William Green in "Fighters Volume Four" (Macdonald's serie War Planes of the Second World War) page 92 writes "....eighty-five reached the United Kingdom where, in October 1940, the type entered service with No. 804 Squadron of the Fleet Air Arm at Hatston. The Marlet 1 gained the distinction of becoming the first U.S. aircraft in British service to shoot down a German machine in World War II, this event occurring on December 25, 1940 when two Marlet 1s of No. 804 Squadron patrolling Scapa Flow intercepted and destroyed a Junker Ju 88." But still you might be right. 804 was not carrier based. I can not see, when the first Marlet was flown from a British carrier. Only that "..On September 20, 1941, Marlet IIs of No. 802 Squadron operating from the small escort carrier H.M.S. Audacity destroyed an Fw 200C Condor of K.G.40....." (William Green page 93) - so the use on British carriers started before that. And fore sure - British carrier based Wildcats did fight before U.S. carrier based Wildcats. (and after all, isnīt fighting the use of fighters at war -) Regards Erik Erhardtsen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Cathdanjon@aol.com Subject Re Yamato I Just looked over the PBS site this evening. I was flabbergasted to hear that the Yamato had been found in 2002. Does anyone know of a site which carries more pictures than the one PBS picture? Thank you, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Subject Swordfish radar >> According to Musciano, the Victorious Swordfish were recently equipped with airborne radar, which enabled to them to find Bismark during an overcast night, during the earlier first strike. << No IFF though, which the Sheffield can attest too! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From Subject Re Yamato >> It is llike an aircraft carrying paratroopers, if the plane is shot down and they jump they can legitimately be fired upon, the aircraft crew cannot though. Just my 2 cents worth, if anyone can offer a legal perspective on my argument please by all means do so. << My two cents, and this is just my personal opinion, not a "get at" anyone. The idea of shooting any survivor makes me sick, I think only a pilot could even consider it as they tended to be "above" the muck and the blood. As a former sailor the idea of letting a man drown or worse shooting him in the water is obscene, I don't care if they were crack commandos, when a ship or aircraft goes down in the ocean the sea levels all. I accepted there would be times when you cannot pick up survivors if there is a submarine lurking waiting for just that, or in the middle of an air raid. But to ignore survivors just because they might fight again? Well hell, why not shoot the enemy kids as well, in case they grow up to be soldiers? To put another perspective My grandfather died haunted by the memory of shooting Japanese prisoners in Burma. They were a small recon party of Royal Artillery looking to set up an spotting post and stumbled on a half company of Japanese who promptly surrendered in the confusion (which sort of begs the myth about the all conquering Japanese troops). Once the Japanese realised their mistake and that they outnumbered their captors ten to one they made several attempts to reverse the situation, culminating in nearly overpowering the sentry at night. My grandfather as section leader made the cold blooded decision to shoot the prisoners rather than release them to go fetch reinforcements, or risk being overpowered on the journey back to base. I can accept the logic, but he was never free of the guilt of that action. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From "rtr" Subject FAA, Swordfish et al As an ex "Wafoo" CPO I have been following with great interest the SMML debate on the relative merits/demerits of the Fleet Air Arm ships and aircraft vs those of our cousins across the pond. For whatever reasons, and there are many, the FAA was in an ill prepared state pre 1937 in terms of the age of both aircraft and ships; and it took men like "ABC" Cunningham to realise the true potential of the carrier. But let's not forget the men who flew and crewed the old stringbag and its equally weird, wonderful and sometimes dangerous companions - the perils of the Barracuda were even immortalised in song (copies available privately!! During my time in the R.N. (!957-79) I was honoured to meet many of the "TAGS" (Torpedo Air Gunners) at the annual TAGS Ball which used to be held in the CPO's mess at the FAA headquarters in Lee-On Solent. Some of these men had served with squadrons and in ships which hunted the Bismarck and/or attacked the Italian fleet at Taranto. Their love of the stringbag stemmed basically from the fact that it could take vast amounts of punishment and had to be virtually destroyed before failing to return back to ship or land. Its low stalling speed was legend, to quote one example; during the search for the Bismarck the Ark Royal was in bad weather and almost "shipping it green" over the flight deck. But it couldn't steam too fast into wind because the wind over the deck would have been greater than the stalling speed of the stringbag which would have disappeared over the round down as soon as lashings were removed!!! Having met these men, I have no doubt that it is their courage and fortitude which overcame all the problems they encountered with outdated aircraft, equipment and thinking!! Yours Aye Ransford "Taff" Rogers CPO RN (Rtd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "John Lambert" Subject That dreaded "Holman Projector" theme John Lambert Plans has recently returned to the fold after a three month gap. (Not a rest I can assure you). We moved our address, moving in on 2nd August. We have now gained a new telephone number (01525 864862) and a new e-mail address. I am making plans to have my Web Site up and running in the near future. (He says). I'm back daily on my drawing board, this time working on original detail drawings for the Fairmile "D" combined MGB/MTB. (Drg. L/S/257 at present). I have two sheets in my Weapons lists that detail the Holman Projector. L/O/48/A-B. Sheet "B" covers my original Holman drawing. My L/O63, drawn later when I discovered the information contained in BR 267/41 and BR 1009/43. (Their respective gunnery manuals). This gives details of the Holman Mark IIA (Air) IIS (Steam) and the later Mark III version of 1943. My lists contain about 160 different naval weapons and 257 different warships of DD size and below. All I need are more hours in each day! Yours "Aye" John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume