Subject: SMML VOL 2953 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:55:46 +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 RN/USN Escorts 2 Some informations please 3 Re White rings on turrets 4 Re FAA 5 Re FAA 6 Re Yamato 7 motorised r/c plastic ships 8 Holman will not die 9 Hurricane at Sea ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1 Small Warship Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Jon Holford" Subject RN/USN Escorts I have been following the controversy over British versus US carriers and naval aircraft with great interest. It seems to me, in regard to the carriers, neither were perfect but each met its navy's staff requirement reasonably well in its day and its navy's state of knowledge at the time the staff requirement was formulated. We are all too clever in hindsight! However, I would like to start another thread of controversy. I served in the RN from 1960 to 1973 and encountered the wartime frigates and DEs towards the end of their lives. Offered a choice of which I would have wished to command in, say, the last year of the war, I would opt for the Buckleys and their derivatives hands down for any wartime frigate role. By comparison, I would not give the Rivers, Loch/Bays or Black Swans a look in on any count. If I could be even fussier, I would have looked for one of the diesel DEs (for its long legs) in the Atlantic and a Rudderow or John C Butler (for is AA armament and speed) in the Pacific. The US action information (CIC) system alone would give the Yanks an edge. Despite their late start, the Americans were way ahead of the Brits on escort design, and remained so for many years post war. I throw down my gage at that and wait with interest any differing views. This challenge is part of my reearch for a book on escort types of the 40s and 50s. Regards Jon Holford ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Alain PINEAU Subject Some informations please Hello, i'm a frenchman, i leave near la Rochelle, i've just bought a superb model of the USS Missouri by tamiya scale 1 350. I'm going to paint it in the colour of 1945 (measure 22 camouflage). I would like to have your opinion about the colours that i'll have to use to paint - The turret (1st turret for example). - The deck. - The upper bridge. More precisely, could you advice me by giving me your choice for the colour numbers, because there are several possibilities in the document in the box tamiya. Thank you very much. Alain Pineau ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From David Rinker Subject Re White rings on turrets >> While sources generally say the rings were applied in late 1916, Seydlitz, at least, had them at Jutland. They show quite clearly in the pictures of her on her way back from the battle. These pictures are available in many sources. Because I have been unable to identify them on other ships at Jutland, only my Seydlitz has them. However, common sense would dictate if one ship used them, most did. << Thank you for your reply. Can you possibly provide a source for the photograph(s?) you mention? I have several photos of Seydlitz post-Jutland, but none of them show her turret tops. For what it's worth, I'm building up a Jutland (possibly pre-Jutland) Lutzow. This is proving to be more challenging than I had anticipated, as most of the (quality) photographic sources I have access to are post-Jutland. Thanks again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Erhardtsen" Subject Re FAA Hallo Ned Barnett As I understand you, you also could not find the date fore the first use of Wildcats on British carriers, but I think, that we can agree, that FAA used the Wildcat (land based) before the U.S.Navy, and British Wildcats did fight before America got into World War II. In "Ospray Aircraft of the Aces 3 - Wildcat Aces of World War 2" Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown tells about flying Wildcat against Spitfire and Hurricane. "It handled itself well against both types, being very comparable overall to the Hawker fighter....." (page 78) He also mention on the same page " ....our postwar evaluation of the Fw190, it was perhaps just as well that we never encountered these fighters in our Marlet IIs." About the Fulmar "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft 1914 to the present" by Enzo Angelucci, Chartwell Books, inc.2001 and "Combat Aircraft of the World" by John W.R. Taylor has both the Fulmar listed at 280 mph., but "World War II British Aircraft" by Bill Gunston and "War Planes of the Second World War volume 2 Fighters" by William Green has it at 272 mph. I think your 273 mph is a correct estimate of the top speed. The Fulmar was not such a bad fighter. Itīs kill/loss ration was positive. As it was deployed (on Ark Royal, I think) in June 1940 the Japanese carriers had only A5M Claud (Zero became operational in July) of the same speed, and the U.S. carriers used the Grumman F3 biplane (231 - 264 mph.) (apart from the 11 Brewster Buffalo on Lexington). The Fulmar brought the British carrier fighters up to the international standard again, but not ahead of the other, and they was already preparing the next generation. The British carrier based fighters was not one generation behind, but maybe a half. Looking fore details fore this debate, I noticed, that the Sea Gladiator was in use in August 1939. This mean, that the carrier fighters at the start of world war 2 was U.S. Still using F2F1 until 1940 but normally F3. Japan A5M Claud France Dewoitine 373/376 and U.K. Sea Gladiator. The Japanese fighter might have the upper hand, but the difference is not big, and I think, that they are all at the same level. >> Better not tell that to the RN's Indian Ocean fleet in '42 ... the Japanese carrier fighters/bombers tore the hell out of at least one Brit carrier their in '42, and FAA fighters had to face down Zeroes all across the Indian Ocean in '42. << I do not think, there was many U.S. carriers in the Indian Ocean to join in 1942. At the time Hermes was sunk, she had transferred her aircraftīs to land base. I donīt think, she had any planes on board at all, but she might have had 2 or 3 Swordfish. Hermes was the first ship to be constructed as a carrier and had a max capacity of 15 aircraft's (Hosho was faster to be build). She was still in the navy, but I canīt see her sinking as a carrier battle. By 1944 it was the British fighters, that was the umbrella fore the U.S. carriers. The reason fore that was, that the Seafire did not have the range of the American fighters, so the American admiral in command did think this the best way to use the short legged British fighters. >> I'm sure that you're reading different history than I am - in my book, the British carriers met fighters frequently in the Med (where they had enemy bases to port and starboard, many within easy range), off Norway and in the Indian Ocean/Pacific. << In the Atlantic - no enemy fighters. Norway - nothing before April 1940. One of the books I read is "Ospray Aircraft of the Aces 3 - Wildcat Aces of World War 2". On page 76 I read "The Fleet Air Arm produced some 16 aces, including those seconded to the RAF. However, very few scored five or more victories in any one FAA aircraft type. Lt. C C Tomkinsonīs 2.5 (all Vichy French aircraft shot down over northern Madagascar in May 1942 whilst the pilot was attached to No. 881 Sqn) remained the highest score for the Marlet/Wildcat, while No 882 Sqn was the most successful unit with seven kills. ...................Despite this apparent disparity in individual scores, the Marlet/Wildcat showed very favorably in total victories credited. The 54 attributed to the type was exceeded in the Royal Navy only by the Fulmar. The difference is explained by the exceptional variety of service provided by 1082 Marlets/Wildcats flying with more than 30 squadrons........." >> The FW-190 was a short-range fighter? Better tell the Luftwaffe right away ... (they probably think otherwise). << Please Ned, be serious. Fw 190A had a rang of 500 miles, Fw 190D had 520 miles. Even the Me 109G did better with 528 miles. The British carrier planes was seen as relative short range, but still, the Fulmar had a range of 800. The Wildcat F4F-3 had a range of 845 miles. I have tried to find a Japanese fighter with shorter range than the Fw-190, but I have not succeeded. The early Zero (A6M2) did have a range of 1930 miles The fact that the Roc has been flown from RN battleships is new to me. Where can I find more about that? Graham Boak writes >> ......Fairey was much more interested in selling his fighter derivative of the P4/34 bomber (a slimmed-down Battle ordered by the Danes, IIRC)...... << Yes, the Fulmar was build out of the P4/34, but I donīt think we Danes can take the glory fore that. As I know the story, the P4/34 lost the competition fore a successor to the Fairey Battle - After that, the prototypes was rebuild to be Fulmar prototypes. Then the Danes came in buying the license fore the P4/34 and starting building 12 of them in 1938. I know, that the engines was delivered in 1938, but I can not find out what happened to these aircraftīs. The Danish P4/34 was to have the same speed as the Fulmar (273 mph.) and be armed with 4 mg and a 20 mm. - something else than the one wing mounted mg. in the Battle. Regards Erik Erhardtsen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "GRAHAM BOAK" Subject Re FAA Perhaps I may make a few corrections to Ned's posting, as he appears to have a few misunderstandings whilst widening the discussion markedly. The Fulmar was a carrier fighter version of the dive-bomber P5/34, which certainly can accurately be described as a slimmed-down Battle. Though I agree that it was hardly the ideal carrier fighter it was more successful in the Med than suggested, where the opposition was almost entirely bombers and flying-boat shadowers. Throughout the war the FAA had very little contact with land-based fighters, certainly not off Norway and but rarely in the Med - where during Pedestal Indomitable was attacked by two fighter-bomber Reggiane 2001s. The carriers were generally operated beyond the range of enemy fighters. Until the long-range programme undertaken by the USAAF in 1943, the range of all land-based fighters was short. Neither Germany nor Italy ever fielded a long-range fighter, certainly the Fw190 cannot be so considered (not that it was available against the Med-based carriers before 1943, and then mainly as a fighter-bomber). The actual service use of the Roc has been debated recently elsewhere. It did indeed operate briefly from the Ark Royal. I don't know of any use as a floatplane from any battleships, however. Boulton Paul built the Roc as a temporary measure to provide work for their workforce working up for the Defiant. It isn't true to say the two were built side-by-side. Buffaloes were delivered to the UK in mid-late1940. The intention was (briefly) to equip 71 (Eagle) Squadron with them but they were hastily transferred to the FAA, which equally hastily sent them to Crete. Where they were unsuccessful. It is true that 71 Squadron missed the Battle of Britain, but not by much. I believe the taxiing until they crashed story is indeed a myth. Others were sent to the Far East, but although a few were present at Rangoon and the defence of that city was brief. They played a larger part in the defense of Malaya, Singapore, Sumatra and Java for rather more than two months, although most of the success there was due to the Hurricane. The performance envelopes of the F4F-3 Wildcat and Sea Hurricane are almost identical, there is very little to choose between them, and the Hurricane was also a fairly robust airframe. It is notable that the FAA only rarely fielded the Martlet on its fleet carriers, preferring the Sea Hurricane. And, perhaps oddly, the Fulmar. I can only think of one major action where the Martlet was on a fleet carrier - Pedestal, where it was overshadowed by the Sea Hurricane. Anyone thinking that the early Wildat was clearly superior to the Hurricane is sadly mistaken - rather like the Luftwaffe's Spitfire snobbery.. Note please I do not claim that it was inferior, although the RN's apparent reluctance to field it is worth investigating. The RN Carrier sunk by the Japanese off Ceylon was the tiny Hermes, which was travelling independently of the Eastern Fleet and had no on-board fighters. The only encounter between FAA fighters and the Zero during the Indian Ocean raid was during the Trincomalee attack, where a handful of land-based Fulmars met the end which could only be expected. However, the RAF managed some successes - guess what, that's Hurricanes again - whilst also suffering losses. How the well-trained 881 Squadron would have fared against the Japanese is one of the fascinating what-ifs of history - but for an accident they would have been protecting Prince-of-Wales and the Repulse! (However, the Buffalos could have done that, given a better guide from the RN commander.) In the Pacific the BPF initially operated as a separate Task Force 57 and was placed in a most intense operating position between Formosa and Japan. It was well outside any "Big Blue Umbrella" and operated its own CAP. In later missions the Seafires from Implacable and Indefatigable flew CAP/Jack patrol for the BPF and nearby USN forces partly because the Hellcat's superior range was better employed on escort and strike duties, but also because the Seafire's superior climb and acceleration at low-level, with its cannon firepower, made it better for coping with the attackers. I suggest anyone querying this judgement should consult the relative performance of the two aircraft. The Seafire III was basically a Spitfire LF Mk.V, with its unmatched climb rate (and hence acceleration) below 5000ft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Frank Bowron" Subject Re Yamato Shooting survivors. Quote 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. Unquote.. 4 Escort ships of Canadian Mid-ocean Group C1 sank U845 in the North Atlantic in March 1943. Four hours of depth charging followed by a running gun battle lasting another hour. Around fifty survivors were rescued by the escorts and brought back to Londonderry for internment as POWs. They were surprised to find themselves well treated in the RCN and RN ships - in HMS Forester they were accommodated on the Stoker's Mess deck, shared the same food and were put on the 'special duties' roster. Forester was quite ship-shape by the time they docked in Londonderry. It is just as Michael put it - 'the sea levels'. Once they're in the water they're just another bunch of cold, wet sailors. My two-penn'orth, Frank ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Gregory Turek" Subject motorised r/c plastic ships Hi all, posted some months ago with details of motorised r/c revell 1400 queen mary2, now finishing 1400 revell titanic also r/c. Done the same to previously built 1600 king george V. All go well on still water(no wind) of backyard pool. kG V deck is all one piece and lifted off for access to r/c gear. As mentioned before r/c gear is out of cheap toy boat ($10-20) has range of 20-30feet, circuit board size of postage stamp, motors size of small jelly bean, steering by alternating the direction of the 2 props. I find r/c adds interesting and challenging direction in scale ship modelling. Extra planning in construction to facilitate access still allows good scale detail, internal ballasting for waterline and balance and aerial positioning for best signal all add to fun. Anyone else out there on this tack. will try to post some photos. greg turek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Subject Holman will not die As mentioned by someone earlier the "Allied Coastal Forces of WW2 Vol 1" contains drawings and photographs of the Holman Projector, including munitions, it seems an anti submarine bomb similar to a hedgehog were added to it's ammo locker, and a parachute flare, the flare appears to have been moderately successful. The book also contains an article where Holman Projectors were used during an air raid on Yarmouth. There were no known aircraft kills, but the Projectors on the local Coastal Defence Squadron convincingly murdered the local National Grid by raining grenades up into the high level pylons over the estuary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Subject Hurricane at Sea Was the Hurricane actually used on Carriers then? I had not come across any mention of them other than on CAM ships (A concept re-introduced briefly aboard the Alraigo in 1983 I believe) While researching the history of the Seafire a while back I came across the Navy demanding the Spitfire Mk 5 and refusing the Mk 1 which the RAF offered. But there was no mention of the Hurricane being considered which I found odd at the time, the Hurricane was supposedly a much more rugged aircraft, easier to maintain and better at ground attack than the Spitfire. Greetings to Taff Rogers, a small point, it is WAFU, not WAFOO, remember the U is for Useless! Tell me, is it true handlers were trained where to drop the chains and tackle on frigates to create the loudest possible bangs and crashes in the aft senior rates bunk space? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From brownatfareham@surefish.co.uk Subject Small Warship Group The latest issue of our magazine, Escort 55, has been uploaded on our website www.smallwarshipgroup.org.uk. Regards Les Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume