Subject: SMML VOL 2958 Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:50:06 +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 Submarine slightly off topic 2 And now for something completely different 3 Re Rule Britannia 4 Re FAA discussion 5 Baltimore & Gearing kits 6 AIRCRAFT, ETC. DEBATE 7 Re DEs and Frigates 8 Re RN escorts in WW2 9 Re FAA 10 Naval History 11 Air Defence During Pedestal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 model building tools for sale ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Dennis Getz Subject Submarine slightly off topic This is for "bubbleheads" and wanna be bubbleheads. Has anyone read the book "Red Star Rogue" by Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond. It is about the Echo II K-129 and the Glomar Explorer. Basically the writers are refuting the CIA's story concerning the sinking and recovery. I was just wondering what other you all thought. Dennis Getz "SubSafe, Sound Isolated and Drains to the Bilge" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Ned Barnett Subject And now for something completely different Since mid-summer (i.e., after my open heart surgery), I've had some time on my hands and have used much of that time to read extensively into areas of WW-II nautical history that I'd more-or-less overlooked (and I've revisited a few old favorites, too). My depth first-time reading about the incredible (though apparently misguided) heroics of the US Asiatic Fleet (and the ABDA Fleet) in the defense of what's now Indonesia and the Malay Barrier have brought into sharp focus a divergence in equipment between opposing forces that, on reflection, seems to reflect some unsound decisions by the allies (or at least Americans). Specifically, it seems that the Japanese kept torpedo tubes on ships larger than destroyers - their light and heavy cruisers had torpedo batteries, and at least one read of the battle off Savo Island (specifically the ones in the second week of November, '42) suggest that perhaps even their modernized battleships had torpedo armament. Perhaps it's because the Japanese kept torpedoes on larger craft (i.e., virtually all fleet-level combatants) that they took the time to create really effective torpedoes (it's certain that the US didn't make that effort), or perhaps because the Japanese seemed more focused on what we now call "littoral warfare" where combat fleets would be closer than the max-range of the big guns - clearly, I don't know exactly why they zigged while we zagged. What does seem clear - for the combat seen in the Pacific in '41-43, torpedo-armed cruisers did make sense (though by '45, we were even dismounting torpedoes from destroyers to provide space/weight allowances for heavier AAA batteries). (As an aside, I'll also note that many more classes of Japanese fighting ships - and even Marus - carried depth charges and considered themselves secondary ASW ships, whereas for the Allies, this function was limited to DD-and-smaller ships - a different discussion, but along same lines, perhaps). In some ways, our light cruisers (Cleveland and Brooklyn class, perhaps - and the Atlanta Class for sure) were little more than "destroyer leaders" - and at times, they seemed handicapped by a lack of torpedo armament (the night battles of Guadalcanal spring to mind). Did that detract from their overall effectiveness as fighting ships, or is it just one more case of ship A being sent to do a job better handled by ship B (because B, no matter how much more effective, wasn't on-site)? Related, and compared to other navies, were Cleveland and Brooklyn effective light cruisers? Seems they were light cruisers built to what had until recently been the displacement reserved for the heavies - and that they used this extra displacement to max out on the main battery (Brooklyn) or on AAA armament (Cleveland), and later in the war, top-hamper-clogging radar). I've always had a warm place in my recently-repaired heart for the Clevelands (my dad served on Montpelier), but I've never much stopped to consider if they were effective ships, or even if the lack of torpedo armament made sense or not. What say you? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Michael D'Silva" Subject Re Rule Britannia chrisquirk@ntlworld.co.uk wrote >> Ive followed with interest the various posts re whether British or US carriers/escorts/aircraft were best,and how some Axis designs were superior,at the end of the day we should bear this in mind WE WON. Rule Britannia.<< Ah, how refreshing; someone who shares my sentiments… Indeed, Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves… Michael D'Silva Australia (but dreaming of Blighty) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "GRAHAM BOAK" Subject Re FAA discussion OK, lets take this offline. Just a few point to finish with. Re sources on Roc Alec Brew worked for BP, is a main mover in their historical section, and did have access to their production records. but by your own account the Roc was in production a year before the Defiant. The truth remain that despite what happens in the narrows, for most of the RN's operations in the Med they were out of range of enemy fighters. Even considering the 109 at your estimation, they did not appear until two years into the war. Halfway through the major combat period. I sugest you try plotting radius of action from the actual bases used - it might give a more representative impression. How did the Luftwaffe use Bf.110Ds as maritime fighters in Norway? The Luftwaffe lacked specialist anti-shipping bomber units at this time, let alone escort fighters. Most of the damage done to British warships occurred within the fjords, in narrow waters. Incidentally, despite the propaganda, the Mosquito suffered as heavy losses in daylight bombing as the Blenheim, which is why it was withdrawn from 2 Group and placed in Bomber Command for night duties. It was later to return as a fighter-bomber under very different conditions. But this has nothing to do with the FAA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From beyondsun@mindspring.com Subject Baltimore & Gearing kits Gene, Your friend was saying "Gearing-class" destroyer, and yes I have seen both plastic and resin kits of that, as well as the Baltimore-class cruiser. I am sure these exist - in plastic - in 1/700 scale, but I'll let others more expert than myself identify those for you, as well as the (1/350 scale) resin kits. However I do know something about older plastic kits - in more "oddball" scales - all of which I have found on eBay in recent years. For a WWII-era Baltimore-class cruiser there was a classic Revell kit in 1/480 scale; it goes by many names including (at least) Helena, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles. It is a "flat-bottom-boat", that is, its hull is flattened and toylike below the waterline. An almost identical hull - the mold very similar in many ways - can be found in Revell's 1/480 scale guided-missile Baltimore conversion (Boston-class), released as Boston and as Canberra. For an accurate full hull - in fact one of the nicest in plastic anywhere - there is also the Monogram 1/500 scale guided-missile Baltimore conversion (Albany-class), released as Chicago, Columbus and maybe also Albany as well. And finally a WWII Baltimore, resembling a smaller version of the Revell Helena kit - right down to the flat bottom - is the Aurora 1/600 scale Saint Paul, which may also have come out under different names as well. Aurora also released - as one of its very first offerings - a 1/300 scale kit resembling a Gearing-class destroyer. It was (mis)named "Halford" - which was actually a Fletcher-class, but the kit is clearly modeled on a Sumner/Gearing (the two looking very similar). But this kit is also very toy-like, with a flat bottom and thicker, more crude pieces than any of the others above. The advantage of any of the above kits over 1/700 scale is that they are considerably larger. All can be gotten on eBay, and all except the Aurora Halford can be got for under $50 - the Monogram Chicago even under $25, if you're prepared to watch and wait for the opportunity. The Halford is so rare as to be in a class by itself; might cost $100 and definitely not worth it for building. (I guess I only mention it as an interesting note.) Now more accurate - much more accurate - renditions can also be had in 1/350 scale, in resin; again, I'll let more expert modelers tell you about those. However their prices could well be over $50 or even $100 in most (if not all) cases. So I guess I'd recommend if this boy is very young and/or saving money is a factor, you might want to look into the above classic kits on eBay. If he is older and capable of doing it justice - and if the cash is on hand - then he could go with a high-end resin kit. (Which you might also have to go to eBay to find, as many of them are also out-of-production [OOP]). Hope this helps - if you want to rap with me more about any of the above just drop me a line. Cheers, Matty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "DUCKMAN" Subject AIRCRAFT, ETC. DEBATE HOWDY ALL, BOTH THE BRITISH AND YANKS HAD SOME FINE AIRCRAFT FOR THEIR INTENDED ROLES. COMPARING THEM IS ALMOST LIKE COMPARING MIDWAY TO TRAFALGAR, WE BOTH DID JUST FINE, AND A HAPPY 200TH TO ALL OF YOU WHO SAIL UNDER THE WHITE ENSIGN, THE RED DUSTER, AND THE UNION JACK!!!!! HOPE THIS HELPS, DAVID IN DIXIE (WE HAD THE FIRST SUB THAT MADE A KILL) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From Maarten Schönfeld Subject Re DEs and Frigates Hey Allan Stevens, You triggered me mentioning the name of your wife grandfathers Flower class corvette HMS Carnation. This same ship (pennant K00) was lent to the (exiled) Dutch Navy from June 30 1943 to October 4 1944 and served under the name of "Hr.Ms. Friso", and was afterwards returned to Royal Navy command. As I have only one image from the port side I would be very interested if you happen to possess more pictures of this ship showing all parts of her camouflage, since I certainly have a plan to make a model of her, being it the only Flower class corvette having flown the Dutch flag. Regards, Maarten Schönfeld IPMS Netherlands - Ships SIG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "William H. Shuey" Subject Re RN escorts in WW2 From potter4@att.net >> About this item in SMML 2956 "Some Americans referred to Flower class corvettes as 'poor seaboats' with which the RN would hardly agree. This was because the Flowers, small and buoyant as corks, were very uncomfortable." It isn't only Americans. David K. Brown of the RCNC emphatically states that the Flower class were below the size necessary for human effectiveness in typical north Atlantic seas. << Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that the original purpose of the Flowers was essentially coastal patrol, they were not intended for the Atlantic deepfield but when the excretia hit the rotating blades the Royal Navy had to go with what was in production. This little take off of a Smith's Dockyard whale catcher did quite a job considering it was a make do solution. Bill Shuey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Christopher & Kayo Amano-Langtree" Subject Re FAA >> You are right that in '42 the USN had something yet to learn about vectoring aircraft (it was operational policy, but our coordinators needed training - see Battle of Santa Cruz as a good example). But by '43/'44, the time when the Seafire flew on missions with Hellcats, we'd worked out the bugs in the system - our folks were at least equal to the RN (and on a carrier basis, generally more experienced). And head-to-head, the Seafire was not really more maneuverable than the Hellcat - see the US fighter competition of '44 (Brown and Meyer have both written about this extensively) - and the Hellcat showed how amazingly maneuverable it was (those huge wings were the reason why). << Actually the USN hadn't and still had lessons to learn even in 1945. Remember the USN developed radar pickets because they couldn't vector fighters onto attackers effectively enough. >> Yeah, I always liked Wallace better than Darwin, too - that beard, man, was just too "Smith Brothers" for me. Yeah, Darwin was a freak. But in point of fact, the Zero could easily outmaneuver the Spitfire - the Spit was a great plane, but when it came to maneuverability, the Zero had no peer (the Hellcat was close - but with an experienced Zero pilot, even the Hellcat couldn't turn with a Zero). Sorry, but I think you're just wrong, and have never seen any expert who claimed the Spit was more maneuverable than the Zero - all seem to say the opposite. << The Hellcat was not a partcularly effective dogfighter at all (the Corsair was better). However with regard to the Spitfire - it was better in three dimensions than the Zero. Turning circle is not the be all and end all. Christopher Amano-Langtree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From "Peter Chant" Subject Naval History I would like to recommend a new paperback by Prof. Eric Grove "The Royal Navy since 1815", that I found fascinating. It assumes the sort of general knowledge of battles and ships that all readers of this list will have, and concentrates more on the politics and economics that shaped the RN between 1815 and 2000. The chapter on the interwar period, for instance, explains the background to the naval aircraft that have recently been discussed to death, and gives the reasons for the different RN and USN approaches to the various Naval Treaty conferences of the period. Well worth the 15 pounds, 25 dollars, or so it will cost you. Peter Plymouth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject Air Defence During Pedestal Could somebody go over the compliment carried by the four carriers during Pedstal, and what types and numbers of enemy aircraft they engaged and with what result? Also, did the Nigeria act as the controlling vessel for the air defence while the carriers were with the convoy. If not then how did the carriers co-ordinate the air defences? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From David Fisher Subject model building tools for sale To group members in the US Because of a health problem I am forced to discontinue scratch/semi-scratch building and thus want to sell some supplies and tools. I have a large supply of dimension wood, planking tools, Dremel contour sanding set, several Dremel drills and chucks, MicroMark jig saw and much more. Will accept best offer. I am in the Baltimore area and invite interested members to look over the items. Please respond off-line to dlfisher1@verizon.net David Fisher ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume