Subject: SMML VOL 2995 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:53:52 +1100 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 Repulse radar fit 2 Re 1/72 subs.. 3 MAC ships and aircrews 4 Re Force Z, Radars etc 5 FAA Redux 6 Re Repulse RDF and AA 7 The more I learn, the less I know 8 Reply, thrust & counter thrust - This is informative fun 9 WWI Subchaser Models 10 Political Z 11 SS Brussels 12 Force z AAA and facts about US carriers 13 Re Repulse and Yorktown AAA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject Re Repulse radar fit I am more confused. What has Paperclip to do with types 286 and type 284 radars on the Repulse? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Herron, Danny Civ TSCHOOL" Subject Re 1/72 subs.. Just a couple of real quick questions. I have the 1/72 scale German U – Boat Type VIIC by Revell. I have glued the two hull halves together but nothing else…. The first question is Am I too late in being able to insert the interior resin parts offered by CMK without doing a lot cutting or trying (read-having) to separate the halves. And the second question is. Does anybody have the article(s) or (can I say this here “copies” of) by Harry Ohanian in the “Nautical research Journal” “Super Detailing the IJN Yamato” parts 1 and 2 I would be willing to pay for shipping to and from me. And yes I will be happy to pay for the copies if you’d care to sell. I know they are available from Nautical Research but was looking to get it sooner… I have been in the past an avid Armour builder but this boat stuff is actually quite neat…especially since the colder days are settling in…got to have something to do on those cold winter nights (and days) Thanks guys. DANNY R. HERRON LTC, AVIATION USAR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Paul Giltz" Subject MAC ships and aircrews On the web I found a posting by a fellow who is researching a book on the MAC ships. He suggested that "MAC" was an acronym for "Mad Avian Crew" considering the conditions they worked under. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "GRAHAM BOAK" Subject Re Force Z, Radars etc >> Bombing of ships had been unquestionably disapproved of since 1925, when the Admiralty stipulated that naval aircraft would never carry bombs weighing more than one hundred pounds. . . .Consequently, coastal command aircraft were not equipped with bomb sights, and depth charges were not adapted for use from aircraft." And this same mentality spilled over into the Air Ministry were the AW Whitley was condemed to a poor performance when its bomb-load was the same "one hundred pounds" and its wingspan limited to 100 feet in order to fit into existing RAF hangers. << This may have been true of 1925, but as the Admiralty was not in control of Naval Aviation at this time it is difficult to judge the value of such a statement. Certainly by the 1930s naval aircraft were in service capable of carrying heavier weapons - the Hawker Osprey was a variant of the Hart, where 2x250lb bombs was normal carriage. The Swordfish could carry four, I believe - or a 2000lb torpedo. More evidence that the Admiralty did believe that aircraft could sink ships - just a difference in the preference of weapons. The lack of a suitable depth charge was indeed a mistake, but Coastal Command was never under the control of the Admiralty. Coastal Command was however equipped with dedicated torpedo bombers - choice of weapon here again. It was, I believe, a British Admiral who pointed out that ships were more likely to sink from water pouring into holes in the hull than from air pouring into holes in the deck. The comment on the Whitley seems to be a misplacement of the usual myth about the Stirling and hangar doors. The Whitley was a smaller, earlier aircraft. The Air Ministry did indeed request that the Stirling be limited to a span of 100 ft, but this was to resist the creation of grossly oversized underpowered monsters such as the US B-15 or B-19. The standard British bomber hangar of the time had a span of 116 ft, if I remember correctly. Certainly well over 100ft. Given that the successful contemporary B-17 and Halifax came in with spans under 100ft, and the slightly later Lancaster and B-24 were not a lot larger, it is difficult to argue that the AM got this wrong. Later bombers with bigger wings (eg the B-29) were designed around twice the power of the Stirling. Both the Stirling and Halifax were designed around the 2000lb Semi-Armour Piercing bomb - hardly a weapon which suggests that sinking ships was not considered by the UK hierarchy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Ned Barnett Subject FAA Redux I saw the Fairey Firefly at an airshow this weekend - aesthetically, it's impressive, and that big Griffon makes a nice sound. So I went and looked up the stats - the damned thing went operational in '43 - and when it did, it had a high-speed performance that was less than that of the '40-vintage F4F Wildcat. Top speed on the Mk-1 - 311 mph for the Firefly - the Wildcat of '43 had a top of 332 mph, and by then it was relegated to Jeep carriers (where it provided useful service through the end of the war) and not the front-line fleet carriers. BTW - the Firefly scored it's first (and perhaps only) air-to-air victory in March '45 over Sumatra (defeating an Oscar III whose pilot must have been asleep at the controls). As a ground-attack aircraft, the Firefly had it all over the Wildcat - 4 20mm vs. 4 or 6 .50 calibers, plus lots more underwing weapons, but it had nothing on the F4U or the Hellcat, both of which could do 80-100 mph more than the Firefly (in aircraft in the same vintage), and with equal or greater underwing weapons abilities. I guess I'll just never understand why the FAA embraced such performance-inferior aircraft, especially when better planes were available (and used by the FAA, too). Misplaced national pride? And while aesthetics aren't the prime measure of effective combat aircraft, what's with the FAA's apparent love-affair with ugly aircraft - from the Roc/Skua to the rare but extraordinarily ugly Fairey Firefly Mk. VI (but only the Mk VI - the Mk V was gorgeous), to the butt-ugly Barracuda? I admit that the Helldiver was a mother-ugly beast (I've never understood THAT aircraft, either, though when it worked - which was all too seldom - it did have range and weapon-load superiority to the trim, attractive Dauntless). Ned Barnett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re Repulse RDF and AA Art Nicholson correctly wrote that "the 5/38 gun carried by the Yorktown and many other USN ships in WWII was not a LA gun but a DP gun of great effectiveness." On the Naval weapons site they say that "This was unquestionably the finest Dual Purpose gun of World War II. Originally designed to arm new destroyers being built in the 1930s, the 5"/38 (12.7 cm) wound up being used on nearly every major US warship built between 1934 and 1945 and . . . It was also used on many auxiliaries and smaller warships as well as on US Coast Guard vessels. This standardization, unique in any navy, greatly helped the logistical supply situation of the Pacific War. . . . "These guns were hand-loaded, but power-rammed, which gave them a high rate of fire and a capability of being easily loaded at any angle of elevation, both of which are highly desirable qualities for an anti-aircraft weapon. The introduction of proximity-fuzed AA shells in 1943 made this weapon an even more potent AAA gun. . . . "These guns were introduced to the British Royal Navy in 1941-1942 when HMS Delhi was rebuilt in New York Navy Yard. The British were impressed with the combination of the 5" (12.7 cm) gun and Mark 37 Fire Control System and tried to purchase additional units, but the rapid ramping up of US warship construction prevented any diversion." Even in todays electronic navies, there is no absolutely secure AAA system. The USN Phalanx system is known on board as a "last ditch" defence weapon and that the enemy has already got too close if this system starts to be engaged. My thanks to Mr. Nicholson for keeping the facts straight on this matter. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Paul Giltz" Subject The more I learn, the less I know As a builder of scale model ships I rejoice in the virtual explosion of information that is now finding its way out of secret files and older sources.It hasn't been that long ago when you couldn't find ANY photos of WWII ships with "radar"( huge wartime secret) on them. This information is a great aid to the hobby. Equally interesting is the history of "what really happened", not the official line. I believe that it was Napoleon Boneparte who remarked ," History is the lies that we all agree to..." or something to that effect. There has been a discussion going on about the action of the Repulse/Prince of Wales against the Japanese. As a modeler I enjoy learning more about the ships and their operation, but I believe that we will not be denied entry into Heaven if we get some of the details wrong on the models we build. We read about the equipment that was used. We read about how they went there and did that. We read about how brave,skillful and lucky they were at times.But then information comes out that throws everything into an entirely different perspective. I was unaware until recently that the German navy had captured the British war plans for fighting the war in the Pacific, including the defense of Singapore. Apparently one of the commerce raiders captured the Blue Funnel liner "Automedon" while it was on its way to deliver the war plans to the Far East Command.The Germans passed this information on to the Japanese.It is possible that this information emboldened the Japanese to initiate their own war plans. The article suggests that although the British became aware that the Germans and Japanese had this information, they did not notify the Australians, Americans, or the commander of Singapore.Nor did they change their plans. It makes a good read at (article" The sinking of the Automedon"-new light on intelligence disasters in WWII.) Paul Giltz, Toledo, Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From John Sweetman Subject Reply, thrust & counter thrust - This is informative fun Felicitations Gentlemen, To Harold Stockton, Sir, for me research is at least half the fun of modeling. History is research. It is amazing where interesting titbits come from - This forum for one. History covers an enormous field, one must be careful in sorting through "facts!" to think as people thought then and not to put a modern slant on things, and in doing cut through misconception, half truths, down right lies and "political correctness" (not a new idea!) Thank you for that illustration of the Admiralty mind, if that is not an oxymoron! Far better than anything I have to hand. Brilliant! To Graham Boak, Sir you are correct about the aircover, incorrect, as there was none available, and what there was was thinly stretched, and inadequate. (One myth that should be scotched, quickley, is that the allied forces were inferior to the Japs! Wrong tactics, and inadeqaute training count against us here, but if one compares actual japanese losses from their records against allied claims, a very different picture starts to emerge! The Allies were alot better than they are usually given credit for. "Kamikaze" has always been a Japanese trait, possibily explained with a "No Surrender!" atttude allied to the concept of loss of face. There are lots of examples in china, for instance against the Chinese and the Russians. Though its hard to be a hero if your aircraft comes to pieces under you, good intentions not withstanding! One other point is that, one must be careful of photos, they don't "lie" they don't say anything, just record an instant in history. The "spin" is then put on them later. It is good that forums like this throw ideas and theories, technical information and often personal knowledge about, allow people access to often difficult to come by information, Thankyou, Gentlemen all this is most informative. Best Regards John Sweetman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Todd Woofenden Subject WWI Subchaser Models For anyone who might be working on a WWI subchaser model There is a new section of the Subchaser Archives for model makers, here http//www.subchaser.org/index.cfm?section=9 which includes a number of high-resolution photo scans of chaser details, and some other things. More to come... Suggestions and comments are welcome. I am particularly interested in showcasing subchaser model projects. Todd Woofenden Editor, The Subchaser Archives www.subchaser.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Subject Political Z >> A monument to British Incompetence and Unpreparedness in South East Asia, paid for in the blood of Brave Men << Harsh, but a little unfair I think in that it seems to single out British unpreparedness, I will not start a bun fight by mentioning other disasters about the same era brought about by unpreparedness. The plain fact is that in the face of a determined aggressor a democracy is always going to be caught wrong footed, how can democratic procedure match up to a dictator's when it comes to ordering attacks, or even an arms build up. Force Z has a number of lessons, but the main one was the vulnerability of ships to aircraft. A bitter fight fought all across the world, not just in Britain, you have only to look at the aftermath of Billy Mitchell's successful bombing tests in which authorities re-wrote the results to hide the effectiveness of the bombing. I am reminded of the Japanese war games which showed an attack on Midway could end in disaster. The results were discounted as a "foul". We have hindsight to dazzle us, but in that era the Battleship was it, the Battleship was the H bomb and the super carrier and the Trident missile sub and an amphibious assault force all rolled up in one. A nation was counted and ranked by its Navy (Many nations complained of being dealt a bitter insult by being ranked below another in the number of ships allowed in the Washington Treaty). Battleships did not just decide wars, they formed policies. I wonder how many trade agreements, disputes and who knows what else were settled with an eye to the current location of tens of thousands of tons of floating steel! This had gone on for so long that the incredible inertia that had to be overcome to accept the age of the Battleship was over, and to surrender it moreover to the upstart youngsters in their blasted buzzing insects was too big a pill to swallow. Add to that the massive investment in the fleets, the sheer terror at the prospect that suddenly any upstart nation could put together an air force and negate the Super Powers must have sent many a commander and politician scrambling for the gin. To my mind the real tragedy of Force Z was by that time the lesson had already been learned in Crete and Taranto, it took ultimately the loss of two fine ships to hammer it home. But given the political significance of withdrawing Battleships - or even not committing them - it may be that it would have been political suicide to do so. We could now be arguing "Well if they had not pulled Force Z out Singapore would never have fallen." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From "Daniel Taylor" Subject SS Brussels Hi All I'm looking for visual information on the Great Eastern Railway Steamer SS Brussels. I know she was built in 1906 by Gourley Roos & Coy, Dundee. She was a twin screw Packet boat and sailed the Tilbury - Antwerp route before the Great War. During the War she was requisitioned by the Admiralty and maintained contact with neutral Holland until her capture by the Germans in 1916. She was scuttled by her new owners in October 1918 at Zeebrugge. I have access to some plans, all from above, so could really do with a side on view and rigging plans. If anyone can suggest sources for these or anything else I would be most grateful. All the best Dan Taylor West Malling UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From "Stephen Allen" Subject Force z AAA and facts about US carriers Harold I don't know what sources you are using, but you are not correct in your comments about Yorktown (CV-5) and its anti-aircraft armament. Yorktown's 5/38 mounts were always dual purpose mounts not 'low angle for dealing with torpedo craft', they were one of the earlier marks of the standard USN HA/LA mount. Yorktown's CXAM radar was not fitted at the expense of either of the two Mk33 DP directors - both were retained, the CXAM actually displaced the 0.50 cal watercooled mgs fitted in the foretop (and later refitted in tubs at the extremities of the flight deck). Incidentally the .30s you keep referring to were watercooled single 0.50s - some air cooled .030s were mounted in ad hoc fashion at Midway but they were never Yorktown's standard close range mg. The 1.1s were certainly not terrific mounts, complex and prone to failure, but surely not a lot worse than the multiple 2pdr. Yorktown first received 20mm mounts on 12 December 41, while preparing to transfer from Atlantic convoy duty to the new war in the Pacific. At the same time work had been intended to start on the fitting of additional 1.1 mounts, MK44 directors and foundations for the 40mm mounts to come - this was all postponed by the urgent need to get Yorktown to the Pacific. Incidentally all of the Atlantic fleet carriers had already begun practicing FAA style fighter direction techniques in conjunction with their new and very capable radar - before Pearl Harbor. The information that the USN learned from observation of the RN's experience in the early part of the war, exchange of officers, and its own quasi-combat experience in the Neutrality Patrol, were invaluable lead-ins to its involvement in ww2. Yorktown spent half of 1941 involved in quite intense convoy escort and patrol operations in the Atlantic and had effectively been at war since May of that year. Try Friedman's US Aircraft Carriers or Cressman's 'That Gallant Ship' for some accurate information on the weaponry, director systems, radar and capabilities of CV-5 and her sisters. cheers Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re Repulse and Yorktown AAA As Mr. Art Nicholson and others have so correctly pointed out in this ongoing thread, an adequate AAA and RDF fit may or may not have had any effect on the sinkings of either the PoW, Repulse and Yorktown. One is struck by the fact that all of the above mentioned ships had either rudimentary or the latest RDF gear and were all faced with the threat of Japanese torpedo bomber attacks. One specific USN photograph, seen at http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/020520.jpg , clearly shows the amount of AAA fire being put up by hte Yorktown during the Battle of Midway. The captions on this photograph state that "The Japanese carrier Hiryu's Type 97 shipboard attack aircraft fly through anti-aircraft shell bursts while closing on USS Yorktown (CV-5) to deliver a torpedo attack, during the mid-afternoon of 4 June 1942. Photographed from USS Pensacola (CA-24). At least three Japanese aircraft are visible in this image, in a shallow arc from near the left side to below and right of the camera aiming cross." http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/020509.jpg "A Japanese Type 97 shipboard attack aircraft flies near USS Yorktown (CV-5) during the mid-afternoon torpedo attack by planes from the carrier Hiryu, 4 June 1942. This plane, which has already dropped its torpedo, is trailing a thin stream of grey smoke from its port wing. Photographed from one of Yorktown's gun positions, with the shield and barrel of a 20mm gun visible at right." http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/020516.jpg "Two Type 97 shipboard attack aircraft from the Japanese carrier Hiryu fly past USS Yorktown (CV-5), after dropping their torpedoes during the mid-afternoon attack, 4 June 1942. Note heavy anti-aircraft fire. Photographed from USS Pensacola (CA-24). The destroyer at left, just beyond Yorktown's bow, is probably USS Morris (DD-417)." http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/020517.jpg "Two Type 97 shipboard attack aircraft from the Japanese carrier Hiryu fly past USS Yorktown (CV-5), amid heavy anti-aircraft fire, after dropping their torpedoes during the mid-afternoon attack, 4 June 1942. Yorktown appears to be heeling slightly to port, and may have already been hit by one torpedo. Photographed from USS Pensacola (CA-24). The destroyer at left, just beyond Yorktown's bow, is probably USS Morris (DD-417)." http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/020518.jpg "Two of the Japanese carrier Hiryu's Type 97 shipboard attack aircraft (far right) approach the drop point, during the torpedo attack on USS Yorktown (CV-5) in the mid-afternoon of 4 June 1942. The lower plane's Type 91 torpedo is clearly visible below the fuselage. Note heavy anti-aircraft fire, with shell fragments splashing in the water below the bursts. Photographed from USS Pensacola (CA-24)." http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/020519.jpg "Japanese Nakajima Type 97 shipboard attack aircraft from the carrier Hiryu fly through anti-aircraft shell bursts while approaching USS Yorktown (CV-5) to deliver a torpedo attack, during the mid-afternoon of 4 June 1942. Photographed from USS Pensacola (CA-24). At least five Japanese aircraft are visible in this image, three in a "V" directly below the camera aiming cross, one somewhat further left and one low at the extreme left, next to the "H"-shaped A.A. burst." Other photographs in this series at http//www.navsource.org/archives/02/05.htm , clearly show certain facts about a determined aerial assault from trained aircrews. Despite having somewhat of an AIRCAP present, adequate supporting AAA fire from the adjoining ships, and an apparent "wall" of AAA fire, the aircraft do get through to deliver lethal attacks. And what proved to be the case in the Repulse and PoW attacks, which can be visualized from the above mentioned photographs, other lesser targets of opportunity, the accompanying destroyers and the USS Pensacola (CA-24), as was the case of the Yorktown, the main targets of the capital ships was always followed in the Japanese flightcrews attacks. Though it should be remembered that one torpedo attack was diverted away from PoW when it was noticed that Repulse presented herself as a more vulnerable target when she was already committed to "combing" another torpedo attack. I am not saying that aircraft always get through to deliver their attacks, there are many examples where attacks were broken up, but here are very similar, and not too distant examples, of where a similarly trained and committed enemy pressed home their attacks to deliver telling results against their intended targets. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume