Subject: SMML VOL 3014 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:30:11 +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 RN Seacat directors ­ revised edition 2 Gato radar masts 3 Re Sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse 4 Re Ships Sinking Stern First? 5 Differences in Revell's U-boat now-available Type VIIC, #5015, and their projected Type VIIC/41, #5045 6 Competition or having fun? 7 1/700 Essex CV Comparison...Dragon v. Trumpeter? 8 Poll...If you could only build one Essex class CV ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From potter4@att.net Subject RN Seacat directors ­ revised edition Tim Stoneman has corrected and expanded my original post (SMML VOL 3011) about RN Seacat directors. Tim notes these are “mostly based on notes from various courses I attended (note that ‘the instructor is always right’ is not always the case; what follows should be read in that light!).” If you have modeled a Seacat ship what scale, and what was your parts source for the launchers and directors? These seem to be the most authoritative published sources about Seacat directors. As secondary sources they may have discrepancies from official sources 1. WARSHIP volume II (reprint of quarterly issue 7), article by Peter Hodges about RN Leander class frigates 2. WARSHIP volume III (reprint of quarterly issue 9), article by Peter Hodges about RN Tribal class frigates 3. Norman Friedman, NAVAL RADAR 4. Norman Friedman, WORLD NAVAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS 1991-92 Based on these articles, several Seacat directors (GWS-series, for guided weapon system) were variants of radar gun directors, termed medium-range systems (MRS). This seems to the evolution of the relevant directors. 1. MRS Mark 1 was the close-range blind-fire AA gunfire director (CRBFD). It was the cylinder-shaped gunfire director on the DARING class destroyers and Type 15 class frigates, mounted aft on both designs. RN radar type 262. 2. GWS-20 was the initial manually-worked Seacat director. GWS-20 was fitted to HMS SALISBURY, LINCOLN, FEARLESS, INTREPID, NAIAD as built, EAGLE (see GWS-21 below) and the modernized ROTHESAY class. Illustration in Warship II, page 161. GWS-20 was physically the smallest Seacat director. 3. GWS-21 was a variant of MRS Mk 1 (CRBFD). An addition had to a continuous wave illuminator (CWI) radar transmitter. GWS-21 was fitted to HMS DECOY, the Battle-class DDRs, the Tribal-class frigates, first 4 County-class DLGs as built, and HMS EAGLE (one GWS20 (aft below flight deck) and five GWS21 systems). Illustration in Warship III, page 54. 4. MRS Mark 3 was an AA gunfire director derived from the USN Mk 56 gun director. The radar was RN Type 903, derived from USN Mk 35 radar (later termed SPG-35). Two variants in appearance * The original directors had a canvas hood to the aimer's position; illustration in Warship II, page 163. * A solid housing with windows to the aimer's position was part of a modification program known as re-engineering and was not directly linked to the GWS-22 variant (see next entry). Illustration in Warship III, page 54, shows the solid-cover version as "MRS3 MOD1." * Several ships had the original directors until they paid off, several had their directors modified, and others had the re-engineered ones fitted when converted. 5. GWS-22 was developed from the MRS Mk 3 director. The radar was RN type 904, which as a guess comprised radar Type 903 plus a CWI. Five designations were used * GWS-22 - the original version on gun LEANDERs, HERMES, the last 4 County-class DLGs as built, and later two early County DLGs (KENT and LONDON). * GWS-22A - MRS3 director converted to control Seacat; one director controlling one launcher - only fitted in TIGER and BLAKE. * GWS-22B - one director controlling two launchers - Batch 1 LEANDER conversions (Ikara), including NAIAD. LEANDERs modernized to batch 1 and batch 2 designs had two Seacat launchers aft to widen the arcs of fire on forward bearings. * GWS-22C - one director controlling two launchers - hangar roof on Batch 2 LEANDER conversions (Exocet/Seacat). A 2nd channel for fire control used a simple pedestal sight at the side of the hangar. * GWS-22D - one director controlling one launcher - fo'c'sle on Batch 2 LEANDER conversions (Exocet/Seacat). Below-decks differences from GWS-22. This director and the forward Seacat launcher were removed from the 4 Batch 2 LEANDERs that were later modified to mount towed-array sonar (Type 2031). 6. GWS-23 may have been unrelated to Seacat. I have no information about what system GWS-23 designated. 7. GWS-24 used the Italian radar designated as RN radar Type 912. The CO of a Type 21 frigate wrote in the Ian Allan book TYPE 21 that GWS-24 was greatly superior to GWS-22. 8. Many non-RN users of Seacat mounted lightweight Dutch M44 directors, one per launcher. These included the Dutch and Indian LEANDERs I expect that the RN ordnance museum at Gosport has official records about these various systems. Again, I would be interested to know of modelers’ experience in depicting Seacat launchers and directors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Rick Nelson" Subject Gato radar masts I am looking for mechanical information on the Late SJ Radar and SS antennas/masts used on Gato-class submarines near the end of WWII for a model of the Grouper I'm building. I have pictures from the Pompanito and the COD but could really use 3-view mechanical drawings. The Late SJ and the SS parabolic reflectors were ventilated (i.e. appeared to have individual horizontal and vertical members) whereas the Early SJ had a solid parabolic reflector. Thanks for any and all help. Rick Nelson "Damn the Pressure, Six-Zero feet!" "Boomers Hide With Pride" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "John Snyder" Subject Re Sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse >> Another bit of information about the Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo can be found at http//www.j-aircraft.com/research/bryan_wilburn/ijnaf_torpedos.htm , and includes attack parameters that line up with the interview above and from the eye witnesses accounts. << Except that the subject of discussion was the Type 91 aerial torpedo, which was NOT the "Long Lance" Type 93 oxygen-fueled torpedo. Best regards, John Snyder White Ensign Models http//WhiteEnsignModels.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From John Mianowski Subject Re Ships Sinking Stern First? From George Levine >> I don't think you intended to say it, but the models intended for combat do not represent the actual ships when it comes to their sinking characteristics. << Absolutely true! My point was that I've had the opportunity to see the same ship (not just a similar ship, or even an "identical" ship) sink repeatedly & have been able to note certain consistencies. It's great to have a real Naval Architech chime in on the subject! JM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Differences in Revell's U-boat now-available Type VIIC, #5015, and their projected Type VIIC/41, #5045 According to http//www.uboatwar.net/VII.htm , the Type VIIC had the following Armament 1 X 8.8cm C35/L45deck gun (removed from requirements during 1942) Several different flak weaponry combinations were used by the Type VIIC, becoming more prevalent as the war progressed. The following combinations illustrate some of these 1. 1 X 2cm C30 AA gun 2. 1 X 2cm C30 and 2 X MG151 machine guns 3. 2 X 2cm C30 (on twin LC30/37 mounting) and 4 X MG151 machine guns (2 X 2) 4. 1 X 2cm C30 and 4 X Breda machine guns (2 X 2) 5. 2 X 2cm C30 AA weapons, one on each Wintergarten level. 6. 4 X 2cm C38 (2 X 2 on upper wintergarten) and 4 X 2cm C38 Vierling (lower level) 7. 4 X 2cm C38 (2 X 2 on upper wintergarten) and 1 X 3.7cm automatic flak With the Type VIIC/41, the primary changes were to the boat's weight, pressure hull thickness and bow. Coupled with this the forecastle was slightly widened and a 13cm extension to the bow - named the 'Atlantic stem' - fitted to improve seaworthiness and decrease water resistance. Again, several different flak weaponry combinations were used by the Type VIIC, becoming more prevalent as the war progressed. The following combinations illustrate some of these 0 X 8.8cm C35/L45deck gun (removed from requirements during 1942) 1. 2 X 2cm C30 AA weapons, one on each Wintergarten level. 2. 4 X 2cm C38 (2 X 2 on upper wintergarten) and 4 X 2cm C38 Vierling (lower level) 3. 4 X 2cm C38 (2 X 2 on upper wintergarten) and 1 X 3.7cm automatic flak So, it seems that one geets a slightly widened forecastle and a hull with the 13cm extension to the bow, no 8.8cm C35/L45deck gun, and a slightly different AA suite, and all of this for a price increase of 50% over what the original Type VIIC can be bought for. Is it worth preordering the kit and get free shipping from S/S on USA orders? What can you do? It's the only game in town. So tell me how soon the aftermarket firms will be churning out modification and conversion sets for the Type VIIC/41? As soon as the first kits are seen to see exactly what Revell hasn't included in this one. They have sure capitalized on their original molds on this one. And I can see the adds next year for Revell's new Type VIID minelayer with an entire 9.8 metre long hull section aft of the control room which incorporated five vertical mineshafts. The Armament for the Type VIID minelayer was 5 X Mine chutes, carrying a total of 15 SMA mines. 5 X 53.3cm TT (7 reloads, or 26 TMA or 39 TMB mines) 1 X 8.8cm C35/L45deck gun with 220 rounds. 2 X 2cm (2x1) C30 AA guns with 4,380 rounds. After 1942 defensive armament changed to 1 X 3.7cm Flak with 1,195 rounds 4 X 2cm C38 (2x2) with 4,380 rounds. Oh well, where is my credit card number? Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Ned Barnett Subject Competition or having fun? From "einar kr holtet" >> For all experts I admire you! And for all of you who are in historical research I admire you, too! I have to say that SMML is a goldmine for all of us who like ploughing not only the seas but also the deep sources made available to us by you! This is extremely valuable for those of us who are fortunate enough to enjoy the SMML access. For expert modellers, there is only one thing that I wish to convey Eact time I open the Fine Scale Modeller or go through the Norwegian Limtuben - or simply look at the modelling results presented at yearly exhibitions, I feel asahmed by not being able to come up with half of the glorious finish myself! Is it time to give up? Or do you have a tack that I never discovered? << Einar Modeling is supposed to be fun. "Competition" makes sense in the workplace (fight for a client, or a better job, or a promotion, or something like that). Competition makes sense in love (fight for the woman of your dreams), but "competition" doesn't make sense when you're trying to have fun - UNLESS you get your kicks winning (instead of building). Many moons ago, I built kits that won awards - lots of awards - and I had fun at those contests, even though I had no place to put all those plaques and trophies (I finally started using the plaques as bases for small vignettes and dioramas). But I hit my peak about 1982 (when I had one of my models in the original issue of FineScale Modeler) or 1983 - the year I won an award at IPMS Nationals. However, at that show ('83) I could already see the writing on the wall. Younger modelers with better techniques than I felt I could reasonably master were coming after me, and I knew I didn't have the dedication to master those techniques (or rather, I knew I'd no longer have fun modeling if I went after those techniques). So I decided to step away from competition - except as a judge, on occasion - and started to go to shows just to look at the really great models (and enjoy them for what they are), and to talk with fellow modelers. I'd always bring at least one (they always ask - and if you didn't bring one, you're presumed to be a tourist instead of a fellow modeler), but I no longer expected to win. So now it's fun, and I can appreciate the great stuff I see, without feeling the necessity to devote myself body-and-soul to keeping up with the Joneses. I encourage you to do the same - that way, you can enjoy modeling again. Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Cameron Lynch" Subject 1/700 Essex CV Comparison...Dragon v. Trumpeter? Anyone had a chance to compare the new Trumpeter kits with the Dragon offerings? I'm keenly waiting for a comprehensive pro versus con. Cameron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Cameron Lynch" Subject Poll...If you could only build one Essex class CV If you had limited space and could only build one model of an Essex class carrier, which one would it be, what time period and why? I'm leaning toward either the Yorktown (CV-10) in April 1945 during the Okinawa invasion and the sinking of the Yamato or the Lexington (CV-16) at the Philippine Sea in June 1944. I do like the short hull Essex carriers because I think they personify the ultimate in WWII carrier design and also look more different than the earlier Yorktown class. I appreciate your opinions. Cameron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume