Subject: SMML VOL 2997 Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:17:39 +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 HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse 2 "Yorktown and Force Z AAA Armament" and the "effectiveness of US WW2 AA weapons system 5" gun" 3 effectiveness of US WW2 AA weapons system 5" gun, and RFD 4 CMK 1/72 U-Boat sets 5 FAA Redux ETC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1 Task Force 72 10th Regatta ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Allen Stevens" Subject Re HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse I think the lesson (which should have been learned earlier) is that big warships operating without air cover were likely to be at high risk. No amount of AA fire was proof against attack, look at the amount of lead put up by US ships in the pacific some of the Kamikazes still got through ships still got sunk. This lesson was repeated to a smaller extent in the Falklands war with Argentina where even with air cover modern missiles and radar strike aircraft still got through(how it would have been if we still had large carriers with AEW and strike fighters is an interesting what if, darned politicians). I have read in several books written by WWII bomber pilots/crew that German flak whilst not terribly accurate did have the effect of distracting the bomb aimers and pilots when they were starting their bomb runs (Enemy coast ahead by Guy Gibson is a good example) the 5.25" DP guns on the POW could have been effective in doing this but the loss of power early on in the fight made this difficult. Unfortunately for all concerned It took the destruction of force Z and the attack on Pearl harbour to finally shake our respective navies out of the Battleship mentality. Final note on Japanese scrap merchants I have also read this (what a world we live in) I say park a Destroyer over the top and invite them to try! Regards to all Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Harold Stockton" Subject "Yorktown and Force Z AAA Armament" and the "effectiveness of US WW2 AA weapons system 5" gun" Mark Shannon wrote that "Experience through WWII showed that the 37mm-47mm range was the optimum for one-hit disruptive damage, with the existing state of loading and directing gear of the time.", which can be proven throughout the entire war period in all area of combat. Additionaly "The early WWII close in defense of 0.50 caliber machine guns, without explosive rounds, or 20-25 mm cannon with light explosive rounds, was capable of shooting down the attacking aircraft, but typically not until torpedoes or bombs had been released. These lighter weapons required precise hits that killed or incapacitated essential aircrew, set off the plane's load in a 'miracle hit', or did immediate damage to the engine. Such hits only grew in probability as the range shrank, and the Japanese (and the Italians, who taught the Germans) released torpedoes outside of that range (1600 yards)." Proven again and again in the assaults against Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Summing up Mr. Shannon's point, the stopping power of ANY machinegun armament was incapable of "knocking down" much less deterring aerial attackers. WW-II submarine crews sadly found this out while trying to defend themselves against aircraft, and the U-boats kept increasing their armament until the festoned with MGS, multiple 20mm mounts, and the venerable 37mm cannons. In studies after the Korean war by the USAF, it was clearly shown that it took almost 500,000 rounds of .5-inch ammunition expended for each MiG-15 shot down, a lot of this was a result of other circumstances, but this weapon just could not bring down an aircraft except for the 'miracle hit' as stated above. All of these lessons had been learned by the RAF in their studies during the Battle of Britain. The USN's, and the USAF's eventual, use of the 20mm for aerial combat brought about more telling results in bringing down an aircraft. On the other hand, when the USAF evaluated the effectiveness of the "all cannon" armament of the MiG-15 (of two 23mm and one 37mm cannons) they found that two or three rounds of 23mm would bring a fighter down, but a single hit by the ever so slow-firing 37mm cannon would take the wing off of a B-29. The Luftwaffe carried out similar experiments during WW-II on cannon armament and they found out that it took mutiple hits from a 20mm cannon to bring down an aircraft or destroy a tank. But, a single 37mm round could obliterate a fighter, take a wing off a four-engine bomber, or completely open up a tank. It took not only accurate firing of all AAA weapons to be effective against any aerial attack, as Mr. John Reid wrote, more of his statements will follow, but there had to be an effective stopping power to detere the attack from starting. In summing up the above, I really like Mr. Shannon's comments where he stated that ". . . the 20 mm was nicknamed 'the doorknocker,' because their firing just let the crew in down below action stations know the attackers were coming in." John Reid wrote "Was it any of these factors alone? No - the whole of the weapons system was much greater than the sum of the parts." He states a number of points about the effectiveness of direstors in fire control which is a correct one, and he does state the additional fact about the superiority of the AA system when adequate fire control directors started making themselves available by 1942. On the DE-220 site at http//www.de220.com/Armament/Fire%20Directors/fire_directors.htm , there is a complete discussion about various American wartime fire control directors from the original Mk 44 Director (the common name for this director was the Mk 1 "eyeball."); the Navy's first director of the 1.1" AA machine cannon, the Mk 14 gun sight (originally designed for the 20mm cannon) and its incorporation into the Mark 51 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS, was the original equipment for the 40mm Bofors and 3"/50 main guns, and the first fleet installation of the Mark 51 GFCS was in June 1942.), and many other fire control systems including the excellent Mk 37 director which was only used with the 5-Inch/38 caliber weapon. Returning to the above site, they state that the 20mm cannons "Once firing, you had to watch the tracers to see where the projectiles were going. This was because the Mark 14 had a fixed range of 5,000 yards. If the target was closer than 5,000 yards, the tendency was to lead too much. Targets more than 5,000 yards were led too little. The only way to adjust fire with the Mark 51 GFCS was to manually lead the target more or less." Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Harold Stockton" Subject effectiveness of US WW2 AA weapons system 5" gun, and RFD John Reid wrote correctly about the effectiveness of the MK 37 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS) as it relates to the effectiveness of the 5"/38 gun mount, either single or dual. An interesting site at http//artn.hostcentric.com/midway/cotton.html , has a discussion about this subject from a Mr. Bernard C. Cotton, USN Ret., who was a pointer in the aft MK 37 gundirector aboard the USS Hornet at Midway, relates the role of the different personnel in a MK 37 (Mk XXXIII) gundirector crew, and gives an interesting perspective of an aerial assault taking place and what a well trained crew could do. Mr. Cotton's statements about the director type does not line up with the historical data, and he must be referring to the earlier Mk XXXIII (Mk 33) director of which more later, but his words still apply to this discussion. Positionaly, "Yorktown and Enterprise were always within line of sight and yes they were communicating via signal lights. I could see the Enterprise which was bearing about 45 degrees off our starboard bow at about 20k yards while the Yorktown was on our port beam ranging around 20k yards. We could witness the dive bombers and torpedo planes making the runs on her and she was responding with pretty accurate gun fire." "The directors, one forward of the island and the other aft placing us well above the bridge, gives us an excellent vantage point around the entire horizon. We on Hornet as well as the Enterprise were fortunate in that no Japanese planes made a run at us. I was able to see the several attacks on the Yorktown and unfortunately they were beyond our range. The one other unit that the director controls is the two 36" searchlights and the night of June 5th with darkness closing in and not all of our aircraft had returned, the skipper (Marc Mitcher who later became Admiral in charge of Task Force 78) had us illuminate with both lights posing a huge VEE in the sky as a homing device for our aircraft." The Mk 33 (Mk XXXIII) GFCS was a power-driven fire control director, capable of obtaining firing solutions for targets moving at up to 320 knots, or 400 knots in a dive and was designed and initially installed without fire-control radar. Its installations started in 1941, through 1942, with two Mk 33 directors mounted fore and aft of the island, and they had no fire-control radar. Between late 1942 - 1943, the two Mk 33 directors were equipped with Mk 4 fire-control radar. The Mk 4 could detect large aircraft at up to 40,000 yards with an accuracy of 40 yards. It was less effective against low-flying aircraft and only capable of detecting large surface ships at 30,000 yards. Dealing with the training mentioned by Mr. Reid as it applied to the Mk 37 GFCS, these are the training requirements asa laid out for the then present Mk 33 (Mk XXXIII) GFCS, according to FTP 165-2 (Reports on Gunnery Exercises 1936-1937) [at http//www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm ] "For the secondary (AAA) - i.e., 5-inch battery, Short Range Battle Practice was 1,900 yards." Quite a bit closer than what was found to be needed during the war. Coming to the Mk 37 GFCS mentioned by Mr. Reid, it was a fully-enclosed, power-driven fire control director, designed to accommodate fire-control radar. In addition, certain components of the Mk 37 were located in armored compartments below decks, including the firing solution "computer" itself and was capable of obtaining firing solutions for targets moving at up to 400 knots level speed, and up to 250 knots vertically. Installations of the Mk 37 GFCS did not start until late 1943 - 1945, with two Mk 37 directors mounted fore and aft of the island, with Mk 12 fire-control radar. The Mk 12 could detect aircraft at 45,000 yards with an accuracy of 20 yards, or ships at 40,000 yards. Concerning the radar "RDF" fits to the three similar carriers of Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet, which all had the either the CXAM or later CXAM-1 Search Radar Description and its associated large mattress-like antenna. The CXAM-1 was an improved version of the Navy's prototype search radar, the CXAM. Enterprise's sister ship, Yorktown CV-5 was the first US carrier fitted with radar, a CXAM. Installations of CXAM-1 sets began in late 1941, with some sets remaining in service through 1943, and were capable of detecting large aircraft at 10,000 feet altitude at 70 nautical miles (80.5 statute miles), or fighters (small aircraft) at 10,000 feet altitude at 50 nautical miles (57.5 statute miles) [according to http//www.cv6.org/ship/camo-radar.htm ], and had an accuracy to within 200 yards. The following SC-2 Search Radar was a second-generation air search radar was approximately half the size of the CXAM-1. It included an integral IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system and limited altitude detection capabilities. An SC-2 set was installed as Enterprise's secondary search radar in late 1942, mounted on the starboard side of her funnel. It was capable of detecting large aircraft at 10,000 feet altitude at 80 nautical miles (92 statute miles), or fighters at 10,000 feet altitude at 40 nautical miles (46 statute miles), and had an accuracy to within 100 yards. Later still was the SK Search Radar Description and was essentially an SC-2 with a larger (CXAM-sized) antenna, and was capable of detecting a medium bomber at 10,000 feet and 100 nautical miles. Enterprise's SK set was installed during her fall 1943 refit at Bremerton, Washington, replacing the CXAM-1 set, along with an SM height finder. The SC-2 secondary search radar was retained. The SM height finder, located atop and at the rear of Enterprise's tripod mast, could detect large aircraft at 10,000 feet altitude at 50 nautical miles (58 statute miles), and had an accuracy of within 100 yards; SM accuracy was 200 yards, or 500 feet in elevation. All very important for those small details for an accurate model during a specific time period. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Harold Stockton" Subject CMK 1/72 U-Boat sets CMK Navy Series #7205 172 German U-Boat Type VIIc Officers ward rooms and galley (designed to be used with the Revell kits) at http//www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=CMKN7205 . It almost makes one wonder how much of the Revell kit will still be there if one added all of the CMK and other company's interior and detailing sets. But, I am not complaining. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From John Sweetman Subject FAA Redux ETC Dear Ned, (2995) If you can get hold of pictures going back to 1918, then brace yourself, you will probably need a bag over your head, as compared to Westland Walrus (not Supermarine!) Avro Biso , Blackburn Blackburn, Blackburn Dart etc. The Skua /Roc etc are almost graceful. The American aircraft only became available, from 1940 onwards, thanks to the generosity of the Americans & the efforts of Roosevelt & Churchill. WWII began with biplane fighting biplane & ended with jets and rockets. As always in wartime development accellerates as more money is made available for better & better & bigger! Naval Aircraft almost by definition are defensive, existing to destroy threatening bombers and other warships so absolute speed is not of an essence. The need to carry a navigator (to find the way back, didn't help!). We British navalised rapidly the Spitfire & Hurricane to meet up with changing, fast moving require ments, but it wasn't until the arrival of the lend lease that we British had sufficient Naval aircraft to go onto the offensive, the courage and daring that made Taranto such a success was carried out with obsolete aircraft and the advantage of surprise. This was copied by the Japanese (always excellent copiers!) If had not been for the Australian officer in the Royal Navy (Whose name escapes me for the present!) who cracked the Japanese codes, Pearl Harbour would have been a success! They got some ancient warships (all but one were back in sevice in 6 months,) destroyed a lot of buildings easily replaced, also killed a lot of people also relatively easily replaced (except to their families!) To do little more than in the words of the film "I fear we have awakened a sleeping Giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve!" Pearl Harbour was a failure in that they missed the Aircraft Carriers! The War would have gone a lot differently if they had! Political shenanigans not withstanding, the need to get the Americans involved in the war in Europe, Pearl Harbour was allowed to go ahead. 6 monthes later, the Battles of the Coral Sea & Midway stopped the Japs in their tracks - They were dead, but wouldn't lie down! The Americans couldn't have succeded without carriers & air power! It took those two enormous lifesavers, the Atomic Bombs to end the War, because even at the end the Japanese military mind refused to accept defeat, and it would have cost hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of Allied, Japanese & civilians lives had it been neccessary to winkle the japs out of all the islands, China & invade Japan!! I have diverged onto one my favourite hobby horses! However back to things with wings! The Gentleman, who admitted he wasn't a "Buffalo" fan, obviously overlooked the incredible success the Finns had with a near obsolete aircraft! The Japanese were fresh from success in China (even if the Russians clipped their wings a bit over the "Nomohan" incident!) The allies simply used the wrong tactics (& it can take a while to change the military mind set!) instead of exploiting the superior speed particularly in a dive to pick a target blast it and run, climb @ start again relying on their armour to protect them (You don't think Baron von Richthoven & others amassed such huge scores in WWI by mixing it intentionally with the opposition?). Also the climate out in Malaya Burma, Dutch East Indies, played havoc with engines, guns,& maintenance in general! The secret of the Zero & Oscars success was they were so lightly built, mainly with rifle calibre weapons, no radio, or armour plating, that a relatively small engine enabled them to climb like a homesick angel, and turn like a barmaid. In the case of the Zero, although nearly obsolete at Pearl Harbour was able to be upgraded, albeit at the expense of a reduced performance until the wars end. When they were hit they stayed hit! Take the famous case of Flt Lt Jack Archer who although flying a Wirraway ground attack/army cooperation aircraft (basically a souped up Harvard/T6) 0n 26/12/42 caught a zero napping over New Guinea, dived & blew it away. That little bit of initiative earned a case of beer, an item of rarity in that location! It also shows what could have been done, as it was, once the allies realised what the score was, the Japanese did not get it all their own way. Buffaloes and belatedly Hurricanes & other oddments available were surprisingly, though much played down by the Japs, successful! If one gets hold of the Japanese records at that time, one will realise that the elite core of Japanese pilots at the start of war, had been wiped out almost to a man by Midway! This is not the hallmark of a successful war! The new recruits were definitely not up to the calibre of the old, mainly as a result of lack of training, being chucked into the fray as soon as humanly possible! A fact overlooked by all the Axis forces, none of them being prepared for along dragged out "knuckle & skull" war aiming instead for "Blitz Krieg!" So with intelligence performances, like "Enigma", Automedon, Pearl Harbour, "The man who never was!" There were successes & failures on all sides. It could be argued that "Munich" was a sellout, or that it very cleverly bought Britain time to rearm, as for certain, had war broken out in 1938 things would have been vastly different! America had 2 years grace, which in spite of the efforts of some of her politicians she used relatively wisely, using her manufacturing genius to rearm fast! Car factories & Deserts into aircraft plants, swamps into shipyards. The liberty ship based on the "S.S. Dorington Court" initially paved the way into getting the equipment to were it was needed. "The cause was just therefore my arm was strong!" enabled a lot of set backs to be overcome, on the way to eventual success, that & more & better weapons and men than the enemy! "War is far to important to be left entirely to the Military", that phrase certainly opens up a case into a lot of research into finding out exactly what went on. It is also agood point to end this epistle! All comments gratefully received & answered if at all possible!! Best Regards John Sweetman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From M Brown Subject Task Force 72 10th Regatta Task Force 72's 10th Annual Regatta will be held at Wentworth falls next weekend (26/27 November). Saturday is 1/72 scale onle. Sunday is an all clubs day. All are welcome to come. Regards, Michael 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