Subject: SMML VOL 2954 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:02:12 +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 DE - Destroyer Escorts 2 Various (long-winded) comments about the FAA, Fulmar, Wildcat, et. al 3 Motorized Plastic R/C ships 4 Re FAA 5 White Rings on Turrets 6 Without trying to fan some flames ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Ned Barnett Subject DE - Destroyer 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. << As much as I like to brag on the USN as the fount of all wisdom, virtue and glory, it's my recollection that the DE design came about based initially on an RN need for something better than a destroyer for anti-sub work - something dedicated to Atlantic anti-sub combat (not something dedicated to Pacific jack-of-all-trades combat). To be sure, the DE remained a compromise; for instance, they carried a useful battery of surface-launched torpedoes (something with almost no ASW value in the days before dedicated ASW torpedoes) and even the least of them had an AA suite more appropriate to defending a vigorous attack than to driving off a lone-wolf Kondor. Still, my understanding is that the RN shaped their order (perhaps their design) and received many of the first production run. Sources on this (from memory) include the Friedman Destroyer book and a Squadron In-Action book on DEs. Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Ned Barnett Subject Various (long-winded) comments about the FAA, Fulmar, Wildcat, et. al From "Erhardtsen" >> 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. << I didn't try to find the date, primarily because I've never seen a definitive "first use" date published for the FAA Martlet on carrier service. However, I'm morally certain that the USN was the first to put the Wildcat on regular carrier use. I've heard that the Ranger was the first, but I'd need to recheck my sources to confirm that - I think my sources on this include Tillman's Wildcat book, the In-Action book and probably a half-dozen other books dedicated to the Wildcat (I have a long-term passion for the 'Cat, and read everything I can find on it). >> 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) << That doesn't surprise me - they had very similar performance envelopes. Of course, with the Hurricane, you need to pick your model - a Hurricane 1 (once it got the "good" propeller) had excellent performance for '40/'41, but the IID with the anti-tank cannon was far less fast and maneuverable. I think it's fair to compare the two at any time when they were operational at the same moment in time)- I think it's less fair to compare them each at their best, because the Hurricane was the first to service. >> 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." << Of course, the Wulf was a much later design than the Wildcat, and entered service much later. Also, that would apply equally to the Hurricane of any Mark - the FW-190 was superior to it's contemporary Spitfire when it was introduced, at a time when the Hurricane performance had already stagnated (reached it's peak), while the Spit and Wulf each had much more room to grow. However, the Wildcat remained competitive to the end of the Pacific war, often against aircraft that were "technically superior" - primarily because of the combination of maneuverability, armor/ruggedness and pilot skill. But only a fool would eagerly accept a seat in the Wildcat for a one-on-one with a Wulf - the planes were of different eras, with different performance potentials. >> 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. << I saw three sources that confirmed 273 - but I'm also convinced that this is an artificial number, based on "Test" performance with a new, finely-tuned aircraft in a light-load condition. In combat in the Med, all the reports I've read (several) suggest it could sustain about 250 and fight at altitudes up to 14,000 feet (after which, performance fell off rapidly) - numbers too low to make it a good interceptor against bombers that could at least match that speed, and at higher altitude. Enzo Angelucci gives the Fulmar even lower marks, in WWII Combat Aircraft, he credits the Fulmar with a top speed of only 259 - at 9,000 feet! Hardly a world-beater. But even if Green or Taylor is right (273 or 280), this is not up to 1940 performance. The A5M Claude (retiring at that time) did 280 at 6,900 feet, the much-maligned Buffalo (dash-two version) did 323 at 16,500 (some say 340, but I'll keep to Enzo to compare apples to apples, source-wise), the Zero did 332 at 14,900. From that same source, the SM-79 could top out at 267 - 10 mph faster than the Fulmar (from the same source) - the JU-88A could do 280 - equal to the highest published estimate for a Fulmar. Which is another reason why I say the Fulmar was a dog - it couldn't fly as fast as the bombers it was defending against. >> The Fulmar was not such a bad fighter. Itīs kill/loss ration was positive. << But given it's role, what did it kill? Snoopers? Stukas? Lumbering old second-rate Italian "targets?" As noted elsewhere, it relatively seldom went head-to-head with fighters - unlike the Wildcat, which never shied from duking it out with Zeroes. >> As it was deployed (on Ark Royal, I think) in June 1940 << Enzo Angelucci in WWII Combat Aircraft says the Fulmar began to enter service in June, 40 (not that it was operational, in squadron strength onboard a carrier, just "entered service" - the plane's prototype first flew in January of '40, suggesting a very fast test-to-production cycle (about the only good thing I've read about the Fulmar) >> 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. << I can't agree, if only because the entire design concept (2-seat recon fighter) went out of favor in the early 30s with other Carrier powers. And you can't really compare the Fulmar (a brand-new aircraft at the beginning of it's life cycle) with obsolete aircraft winding down their service. The just comparison is against those competitive aircraft that were just entering service. The early-model Zero was approved for service in July, 1940 - a month after the Fulmar began service - and saw combat in China in '40 (September 13th) - I 'think' from Carriers, but can't confirm that. The Wildcat had passed it's final design hurdles in mid-1940 and was in production , ready to enter squadron service (something delayed to better support British Lend Lease needs, but still roughly contemporaneous). The "dash-three" Wildcat could do 330 at 21,000 feet, and had room to grow, which it did. Even the oft-disparaged Buffalo, which was, of course, in squadron service by then, could run rings around the Fulmar (even though it was of an earlier generation, design-wise). Compared to the Fulmar, it was dramatically superior. In World War II Combat Aircraft by Enzo Angelucci and two others, the Buffalo is listed as performing at 323 mph at 15,500 ft. and with a range of 1,015 - the same source gives the Fulmar a top speed of just 259 at 9,000 feet, with a range of only 783 miles. Beyond that, the Buffalo had at firepower at least as potent (those .50s were great equalizers), it's range on internal fuel was more than 1,000 on internal fuel (better than the Wildcat, not as good as the Zero), and it's top speed (in the "dash-two" model) was quoted in Air & Space (Smithsonian) as 340 mph (Enzo has it at 323 - either way, a quantum leap from the Fulmar's 259/273/280). It should be noted that as the Buffalo design grew in weight (armor, self-sealing tanks, heavier weapons) the performance dropped dramatically (it didn't have the stretch of some contemporaries); it was never particularly maneuverable, and it had "weak knees," a fatal flaw for a carrier aircraft. But in it's worse version, it still flew rings around the Fulmar. >> 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. << In 1939, there were no carrier air-to-air battles, and all the planes noted were on the downward slope of their careers. Some Gladiators and Claudes saw combat, but no F2F/F3F saw air combat in their designed role (Don't know about the Dewoitine, but the French were hardly competitive in ANY regard when it came to carrier aircraft - they did make the Brits look good. ODDLY ENOUGH ... Enzo Angelucci lists the Gladiator as having a top speed of 257 - the same number he gives to the Fulmar (but the Gladiator reached this performance level at 14,500 feet, a mile higher than the weak-lunged Fulmar. The obsolete Claude could do 280, and was fazing out to the Zero, with 332 mph as it's performance limit. And the F3F series, which was fully retired before the US saw combat, still (according to your number, above) - at 264 - out-speeded the Fulmar's blazing 257 mph top speed. In short, by any comparison, the Fulmar was a dog - and not even an AKC-registered dog. A real mutt. >> I do not think, there was many U.S. carriers in the Indian Ocean to join in 1942. << There were none in the Indian Ocean in '42 - my point was that the Hermes faced Japanese carriers there, and was overwhelmed - and her carrier fighters were outclassed. I made this point in reference to someone's comment that the Fulmar didn't face enemy fighters, and at least in the IO, that isn't true. >> 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. << Then you don't see the Battle of Cape Engano as a carrier battle either? If she was commissioned as a carrier, and if she was sunk by carriers, I don't know what else you'd call it. Though admittedly, a carrier with a max load-out of 15 aircraft is pretty obviously not much more than a Mk-1, Mod-3 Floating Target. Only the Brits would unload a carrier's air complement before sending the carrier into combat ... >> 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. << Given the long-range performance of the Hellcat, and the large complement of fighters on each US carrier, I'm sure the US Admiral was just being polite to his RN guests. Our carrier task forces from '43 onward always had enough AC on board to both escort strike missions and fly effective CAPs over the fleet. At best, the Seafires complemented the CAP, perhaps freeing up a few extra Hellcats to accompany the strike missions - but I doubt that any US Admiral would leave fleet defense entirely to the RN's Seafires. That, however, is no more than a guess. >> In the Atlantic - no enemy fighters. << Not even long-range JU-88 fighters or ex-range BF-110s? I know it wasn't often, but some German fighters did venture out (though maybe not against carriers). >> Norway - nothing before April 1940. << That's like saying, "before the war, there was no combat." Combat off Norway started April 10, 1940 - of course there was no combat there before April '40. I was thinking about after - all the RN (along with a few USN) strikes against the Kriegsmarine in Norway AFTER '40. >> 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........." << RN Martlets seemed to have seen mostly escort carrier duties, flying strikes against U-Boats. Pity the book didn't mention how the Fulmar scored more than 54 kills (or what it killed). In a long career, the 602 Fulmars saw combat mostly in the Med - 100 of them serving as night fighters, when they'd almost never see enemy fighter opposition. >>> The FW-190 was a short-range fighter? Better tell the Luftwaffe right away ... (they probably think otherwise). << Please Ned, be serious. <<< I am. The FW-190 was a long-range (by European fighter standards) aircraft. It's range was 521 miles without drop tanks (it could easily carry one, two or three external tanks). By comparison, the carrier-based Fulmar had a range of 783, and had no fitting for extra-range tanks. In the Med or off the Euro-coast, 521 (plus drop tanks) was enough to put the FW-190 in British carriers' faces. Other range factors - the widely-used Bf-110G could range out to 1,300 miles without drop tanks (the earlier C-model had a range of 680 miles, and it could carry a long-range tank (D model) to give it a range out to 1,000 or so miles. The 109E WAS short-ranged at 410 miles, hardly better than the Italian CR-42's 480 miles 9though it, too, could extend with a drop tank) - the Fiat G-50 was, at 420, about the same as the 109, and I never saw one with drop tanks. By comparison, the Spit could fly 459 miles on a tank of gas while the Seafire could extend to 725 miles. Lots of stats - but my point is this - in the Med, the RN carriers were almost never outside the range of combat-capable land-based fighters, and the Fulmar was outclassed by all of them. >> 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 << That 1930 mile range for the Zero, with fixed external tanks (which made them vulnerable - look what it did to Saburo Sakai) is an exaggeration, IMO. Their real operational range was "just" a phenomenal 1500 miles. The F4F-3 had the range you note, but later models could also carry drop tanks to extend range, and one (the F4F-7) had a range of more than 2000 miles - but it was an unarmed photo-recon plane, a flying gas tank (about 100 were made, and some saw combat - but that's just an aside). On range, the Fulmar was near the average for carrier fighters - however, my earlier point was this - Axis land-based fighters had the range to reach out and touch the RN carriers in the Med, where the Fulmar saw the bulk of it's service. Those who contend that the Fulmar had little chance to fight other fighters need to consult a map, consider the Malta and Alexandria runs, then do the math. >> The fact that the Roc has been flown from RN battleships is new to me. Where can I find more about that? << Saw it on a couple of Roc websites. Do a Google on Blackburn Roc and you'll find them. >> Yes, the Fulmar was build out of the P4/34, but I donīt think we Danes can take the glory fore that. << Good move, Erik - not much "glory" in the Fulmar, let alone the Battle. >> 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. << From "GRAHAM BOAK" >> Perhaps I may make a few corrections to Ned's posting, as he appears to have a few misunderstandings whilst widening the discussion markedly. << I've been known to do that (widen the discussion). "Misunderstandings" - that's another matter, mate >> 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. << Can you cite numbers (for success) such as loss ratios? I can't find them. I know the Hellcat set the standard with it's 19-1 kill ratio against the best the Japanese had left to throw at the US in '43-45, but even the Wildcats had a favorable kill ratio when compared to the longer-ranging, sharper-turning Zeroes. How did the Fulmar compare, and against what? >> 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. << That the Axis didn't use fighters against the RN carriers - well, I'll have to take your word for it. But in the Med, where the Fulmar saw most of it's service, the carriers were seldom out of range of land-based Italian or German (think BF-110) 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 Zerstorer was, by definition, a long-ranged fighter - and the D model, with conformal fuel tanks, could range out more than 1000 miles - but were they used against RN carriers in the Med? I just don't know. If you say "no," I'll have to take your word for it (though the Axis logic in that frankly escapes me). >> 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. << Saw it on a Roc website - my only source. It was specific, detailed, but that means only that the author thinks he's right. >> 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. << My sources say they were built on the same assembly line at the same time ('39) - I'm not sure why you say otherwise, and you may be right, but my sources say that they were built on the same line at the same time. What were your sources (they may indeed be better than mine)? >> 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. << IMO, they were far more successful in SE Asia than is generally given credit - but they fought in a lost cause, and they fought until they were all destroyed, which makes it harder for them to be seen as "effective." At Rangoon, they shared air defense efforts with the fabled Flying Tigers, and several sources on the FT suggests that the Buffaloes held their own against the primarily JAAF opposition (Nates and Oscars) - especially when fought vertically (as the FT did) rather than horizontally, where the Japanese excelled (their planes were light and maneuverable - they turned well, but couldn't dive well). And the Buffalo outgunned them - any JAAF aircraft in their gunsight was almost sure to be knocked down by the Buffalo's firepower. >> 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. << The comparison (to me) is this - the Hurricane was near the end of it's development life cycle, while the F4F-3 was at the very beginning of it's life cycle. Next to come - folding wings, more guns, more powerful engines, better armor, longer range. None of this happened for the Sea Hurricane, but all if it was coming fast for the Wildcat. >> It is notable that the FAA only rarely fielded the Martlet on its fleet carriers, preferring the Sea Hurricane. And, perhaps oddly, the Fulmar. << Interesting - any reason for that? Early on, I can see the preference for the Sea Hurricane (familiarity, if nothing else), but not the Fulmar. However, national politics has often been a deciding factor in such decisions (many USAAF leaders opposed Hap Arnold's desire to get as many Mosquitos as he could for USAAF operations, for instance - all based on chauvinism, rather than on performance standards - and Admiral King long-rejected US coastal convoys, primarily (IMO) because he didn't want to emulate the Brits, whom he cordially despised). So maybe it was that - but if there's another reason, I'd love to know it. >> 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. << Hurricane performance - Mk I, 320 mph, 460 range - Wildcat F4F-3 was clearly superior - it had 13 mph on the Hurricane and about double the range. Mk II, 339 mph, range 480 - Hurricane had 7 mph on the Wildcat on speed, but was still vastly inferior in range. These numbers are for land-based Hurricanes, and I presume that the extra weight of carrier equipment (catapult spools, hook, radios, life rafts, etc.) would marginally degrade their performance). At best, the Hurricane could hold it's own with the Wildcat close in - but in missions of 500 miles or more, the Hurricane pilot would be floating while the Wildcat pilot would still be flying. Considering the nature of carrier air operations, I think range is HUGELY significant, even in the Med (longer standing patrols, ability to escort strikes, ability to hang in combat against several waves of attackers, etc.). But if you choose to measure based on speed and firepower, they probably were a toss-up. This is not USN snobbery - it's a direct reflection of same-source performance statistics. For short-range missions, the two were largely equal - but for anything else, the Wildcat was clearly superior. >> 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. << Whether land-based or carrier based, that was my point - the Fulmars did meet Japanese fighters, and they were clearly NOT competitive. >> However, the RAF managed some successes - guess what, that's Hurricanes again - whilst also suffering losses. << Of course they would - especially if they fought in the vertical plane. Hurricanes shared with Wildcats both ruggedness and dive-ability, neither of which the Zero had. I'd expect them, especially in experienced hands, to do well. However, hubris is important here - in '42 or '43, when some Spits flown by combat-experienced pilots tried to defend Darwin, they got their heads handed to them on a platter, because they believed their own PR and tried to turn with the Zero. Not even the Spit could do that and hope to win (of major allied fighters, only the Hellcat had a real chance of turning with the Zeroes, and part of that, IMO, had to do with relative pilot skill - in '44, over the Marianas, a one-eyed Saburo Sakai had no trouble handling Hellcats - but at any age, in any air force, Sakai was a superb combat airman). >> How the well-trained 881 Squadron would have fared against the Japanese is one of the fascinating what-ifs of history - << (see above for Darwin example) >> 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.) << The Japanese sent unescorted bombers after the PoW and R - and Buffaloes were well-armed, fast and long-ranged enough to have taken out many of those attackers (if they'd been there) - especially in the hands of experienced pilots. They were vulnerable to combat damage (IMO), but the Japanese bombers (like Brit bombers) were enamored of light-weight rifle-caliber air defense machine guns, and even a Buffalo could generally absorb some of those hits and keep fighting. >> 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. << That was VERY late in the war, after the Japanese air force and Naval air force had been decimated. Planes were few (and being husbanded for Kamikaze missions) - ditto for fuel, and most all the good/trained pilots were long gone. This was also months after Halsey's carriers had repeatedly pounded Formosa (adding to the difficulties of the Japanese defenders to mount attacks against the Japanese). By spring/summer of 45, the Pacific was an allied lake. I was referring to the '43/'44 joint missions between RN and USN carriers (the Saratoga was involved in several of these). But they were all in the Indian Ocean and Solomons area, not the largely-pacified husk of the empire in mid-45. >> 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. << I'll take your word on that - but US carrier defense battles often duked it out at 20,000 feet (as well as on the deck), and high-altitude performance and a quick climb were essential for CAP missions. Deck-level combat was reserved for torpedo bombers early in the war (critical, to be sure) and against Kamikazes late in the war. And I won't object to the contention that the Spit's cannon armament was superior (after all, the USN was converting to cannon, even in '44), but for lightly-constructed Japanese aircraft, the 6x.50 cal machine guns was clearly sufficient (hence the Hellcat's 19-1 win-loss ratio). Rather, I'd contend that since the only thing the Seafires could do was close-in air defense, that's the job they were given (they had to be given SOME role, after all) - it had little to do with their "superiority" and more to do with their pathetic (by Pacific carrier fighter standards) range. Or so it seems to me Whew (that's enough for now) Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Kelvin Mok Subject Motorized Plastic R/C ships >> 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 shall be doing the same but haven't done it yet. Learned a few things along the way. One is that the tiny motors are brushless motors that are driven by three alternating waveforms generated by that postage stamp PCB. The RC PCB generates the waveforms frequency (speed) as well as the direction of rotation. This new technology allows the manufacture of really tiny motors complete with RC. But it also means that one cannot just wire more motors to the PCB as one can with a regular DC commutator motor. However it should be easy enough to extract the (same RC frequency) guts from two toy boats to power all four screws of a BB and controlled from one transmitter. The RC boats come in 2 frequencies (27MHz & 47MHz?) to allow the operation of two boats simultaneously. I would love to extend the range of the Tx but haven't figured how to do that yet. One cannot just add a longer antenna. Another modification I haven't tried yet is the extend the storage capacity of the battery that came with the toy. The toy battery (a capacitor ? charged from a double AA cell charger) lasts a few minutes running time. I should be able to connect that double AA charger 'permanently' to the capacitor and let the AA cells drive the system instead. The toy boat comes with a pack of spare propellers that are the size ideal for 1350 ships, my original reason for buying the toys. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "William H. Shuey" Subject Re FAA >> 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. << Martlet Mk.I issued to 804 Sqdn at Hatston in the Orkney Islands starting in August of 1940 and scored their first confirmed kill, a reconnaissance Junkers 88 on, of all days, Christmas Day of 1940. The propeller of one of the victorious Martlets was sent to Grumman as a trophy. First use of a Grumman Martlet at sea was the Mk. II aircraft issued to 802 Sqdn. with 2 aircraft aboard H.M.S. Argus for a convoy to Murmansk in August of 1941. Next was the deployment of 6 802 Sqdn. Martlet IIs aboard Britain's first escort carrier H.M.S. Audacity for a convoy to Gibraltar in September 1941. This trip to "Gib" and back was described by Eric "Winkle" Brown in one of his writings, including his gleeful description of seeing the cockpit of a Condor disintegrate under the fire of 4 Browning 50s in a head on attack. ref "Grumman F4F Wildcat, Warpaint series #9" Glen Phillips, Hall-Park Books,Ltd. ISSN 1361-0369 Bill Shuey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "dengar" Subject White Rings on Turrets Hello Alain, If you drop me a line I can Email you some photographs of a 1/100 scale Model Lutzow that may help. Regards Gary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Phil M. Gollin" Subject Without trying to fan some flames Re. Aircraft Carriers The main driver behind the RN Armoured decked carriers was the need to operate within range of enemy airforces WITHOUT radar (i.e radar although invented by then wasn't regarded as something to be capable of going to see). This led to the decision to go for armoured decks and guns rather than using fighters. Any valid criticism of the design should take this into account. A very early post again used the incorrect info (included in Friedman's book) that at least one (if not 3) of the armoured decked carriers were so damaged as to be either permanetly impaired or incapable of modification. Totally wrong. All 6 were at one time or another considered for modification and were surveyed, no problems. Re the comparisons of escorts, two points 1 In terms of equipment (sensors and weapons) the RN were always ahead and indeed the most efficient ASW weapon was the squid (Lochs and Rivers). Indeed, the Lochs are often quoted as the first true "weapon system" as they were designed around the ASDIC suite and squid (and radar - the squid could be fired radr-controlled at a shallow setting to attack S-boats !). The Black Swans are the "Rolls-Royces" of the Escorts. The US DEs don't come close - but certainly beat the corvettes. (P.S. when are WEM going to produce a 1/350th kit of the best escort of the war - the Loch ?) 2 The US DEs bring up the interesting point of seaworthiness. The RN found them poor seaboats and took measures to improve their handling. However, the USN thought them good seaboats. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume