Subject: SMML VOL 3018 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:09:39 +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 Super-Bug, Technology and Strategic Defense 2 Poll...If you could only build one Essex class CV 3 Old US model kits 4 Re Super-Bug, Technology and Strategic Defense 5 This model of a Submarine - What is it? 6 Re What are These 7 Re What are these? 8 Carrier Defence Mechanisms 9 Re What are these? 10 Horatio Nelson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Rick Nelson" Subject Re Super-Bug, Technology and Strategic Defense Ned writes >> Yes, technology has advanced to the point that small computers can do what was once done by large computers (I recently toured an E3 AWACS aircraft, and it still has the late 70s/early 80s-class IBM computers - I suspect that many of us have computers about as powerful sitting on our desktops). They get the job done, with brute force instead of elegance. Ditto the Space Shuttle, which still flies with 1975-era computers. Not sure why (other than cost) they don't upgrade these two). And I know something of the same thing applied to the Tomcat - it was 60s technology, and while some of the electronics were upgraded, it was an old bird. << The strongest rational for continuing with "old" computers is the software issue. If you want to see some really ancient computers, go to a FAA Inroute Center. Again, very old and tired equipment. In these cases the cost of testing new software to insure that it isn't buggy and is truly as safe as the old stuff that has been running for ages is prohibitive, if not impossible. However, the safety/liability issue is the BIG overriding concern. The amount of error-free run-time on the old code can't be purchased with a new software investment. In these cases it's "Better the devil you know then the Devil that may have bugs!" As an example, would you really want your Windows 2000 PC upgraded to XP if your life literally depended on it! BTW, I was involved with the E3 when that iron was state-of-the-art! Rick Nelson "Damn the Pressure, Six-Zero feet!" "Boomers Hide With Pride" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Michael Smith" Subject Poll...If you could only build one Essex class CV I'd go with a post-October 1944 refit USS Yorktown (CV-16). It had the full batch of 40mm quads, so it was essentially the fully-loaded ship, but more importantly had the best camouflage and the dark blue deck. That's why I chose it for the cover of the Squadron Essex class book when I did it a few years ago. Close runners up are a June 1944 Lexington (CV-16) - fully loaded, but in the most common camouflage (Ms 21) with the lighter blue flight deck. For a long-hull, I'd pick the Ticonderoga as finished in May 1944 - same camo as Yorktown, but displays the long hull and has the lighter blue flight deck. I have built the latter two from the Hasegawa kit - have been holding off on the CV-10 until I get some decent airbrushing skills. Michael Smith Marshall, Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Leslie D. Foran" Subject Old US model kits Hello everyone, I read with great interest and enjoyment the recent thread about plastic ship kits available in the US back in the 1960's. Would like to add my own observations about same. Back in the early 1960's, I was interested in building plastic models of all types, and had my share of both Revell and Lindberg model ships. While I don't recall ever building any of the Renwal series, I did do quite a few of both the Revell and Lindberg ships. Revell's ships were indeed "flat-bottomed boats" in many cases, but then again, lack of hull detail does not seem to conscern today's builders of water line models, so maybe it was a moot point even then. What concerned me more was the lack of consistent scale between the models (even a kid likes to have his models look good displayed together). The Revell ships were apparently scaled to the size of the box used. Some of these kits are still around today and are marketed with the scale given on the box. I have built a few of these in recent years and it was a lot of fun to revisit these old friends. Two of the ships with full hull detail (Forrestal and Saratoga, CV59 and CV60) have been reissued with post-rebuild weapons and air groups, and can produce quite presentable models. Their Baltimore-class heavy cruiser and USS Missouri can also produce a nice model. The "Lindberg Line" was something else, but it came along at the right time for Baby Boomers like myself. I recall their having a line of ships that were built to a consistent size the hulls were all one foot long, and the rest of the model was scaled to that. Models I recall were an LST, a WWI British Q ship, a DE, a modernized Essex-class carrier, and a model of the tanker Neosho. The latter was by far the nicest detailed ship, and one they should repop, in my opinion. This group of ships were retailed as both powered and non-powered models, the powered kits going for about 50% more than the display models. There was a bit of chance involved in the purchase of a powered model, the box stating "Kit Motor included". This ambiguous statement either meant the kit included a metal-cased motor for powering the kit (hence a "Kit Motor"), or unfortunately, it meant that the motor iself was built from a kit. In fifty years of model building, I have yet to encounter a single soul who successfully assembled a Lindberg kit motor and had it actually work. An interesting product that Lindberg produced (and I think may still be in production) is their large-scale battleships equipped for independent power cruising. Back about 1972 I built their KMS Bismarck, sold as 1/350 scale but actually a little smaller. This kit included parts to make the ship run in a predetermined path. I had a bet with one of my buddies that my ship would make it across the local lake (a distance of about 1/2 mile) but my roommate's cat destroyed the ship before I had a chance to lose the bet. I did find a Lindberg HMS Hood kit a few years ago, and with much "accurizing" and liberal help from WEM and GMM PE, produced a nice (in my opinion) model, albeit semi-scratchbuilt, as much of the included detail was either incorrect or missing altogether. This kit was in 1/400 scale. Later did the same with their Tirpitz kit Last year I revisited Lindberg's Bismarck again, correcting the superstructure and putting in a full R/C drive. Have not tested this one yet, but no bets this time. Anyway, in my neighborhood kids did not steer clear of Lindberg kits but had a good time with them (and didn't blow too many of them up). Les Foran Too Long out of Salt Water ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "GRAHAM WALKER" Subject Re Super-Bug, Technology and Strategic Defense Ned the Spitfire did not win the battle of britian, there was more german plane shot down by hurrcaines than spitfires, the hurricaine could take more damage and was a more stable gun platform ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject This model of a Submarine - What is it? G'Day all SMMLies, 1. I've just received an Alanger 1/350-scale model of a Soviet Submarine, and the instructions are wholly in Russian (I believe). It is listed as a "K-267". Does anyone know what type of Submarine it is? I consulted John Jordan's "Soviet Submarines, 1945 to the Present" (= 1985) and have narrowed it down to a Victor, a November, an Alpha, a Serria or an Akula (which I understand translates to Shark). 2. I will waterline it, depicting it receiving stores and personnel from 2 x Helix helicopters. Would this type of submarine be capable of the insertion of a small group for covert operations? 3. The model has 8 raised masts/periscopes of various shapes, for the conning tower (parts 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24). Which, if any, of these would be raised for surface activity - I may have to leave some off (Great!) and close the hatches. Additionally, there are 2 fittings on the hull forward of the conning tower - a blade and three side-by-side hotdog-shaped spindles. What are they, and would they be visible for surface activity? 4. I will build the model as stated above ('cos it should look cool), but I'd like some 'top-cover' in case someone questions my presentation. Many thanks, in advance. George, out.................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From "Wetherhorn" Subject Re What are These >> I have frequently observed something in pictures of WW II RN destroyers that I cannot quite identify. It appears to be an antenna or direction finder of some sort, mounted on the front of the bridge, almost at the top. The antenna(s?) sits on a horizontal bracket supported underneath by two inclined supports. What precisely were the functions of these structures? And is there a reference to a drawing--not necessarily a detailed drawing either. Thanks. If you have a copy of R. A Burt's "British Destroyers in World War II," you can see the structure in these image/caption numbers (not page numbers) 11 HMS Vega 1942 17 HMS Verity 1943 40 HMS Icarus 1942 48 HMS Javelin 1944 There are other photos as well but these show what I'm referring to fairly clearly. Interestingly the same sort of bracket is shown on a Town class DD in image 120 of HMS Ripley. I'm guessing that the actual antennas changed as technology progress during the war, though the essential design for the mounting bracket appears similar. Now if I can only replicate it in 1/600........It's interesting how one comes to appreciate the significance of electronics in the war. When I was a kid, anything with 16" guns was an easy favorite. Now I look at the evolution of sub hunting and air defense equipment on Battle of the Atlantic escort vessels and I'm amazed at the applications of science. (I still think 16" guns are cool too). << The device illustrated is a medium frequency direction finder, better known as MF/DF. the specific equipment associated with this antenna is often admiralty model FM7. Aryeh Wetherhorn Elazar, Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Dan or Connie Black" Subject Re What are these? To Gayle and Phil Unless I am mistaking your description, you are referring to a MF/DF antenna (Medium Frequency Direction Finder), which looks like a squared-off eggbeater on a tripod base, affixed to the forward bulkhead of the bridge. It's actually two rectangular "loop" antennas, mounted so the loops bisect each other, giving it an almost carousel-like appearance. It is often called "muff-duff", derived from its abbreviation. Hope this helps! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject Carrier Defence Mechanisms 1. Interesting direction on carrier-defence mechanism(s). As a foot-slogger, I'd have radar-picket ships out some distance away from the carrier. In a high-threat scenerio, I'd have my airbourne missile-carrier killers (= aircraft) just inside the edge of the picket-ships, or near the edge of the picket-ships 'radar horizon'. This puts the engagement of the enemy as far away as possible from the carrier. The patrolling aircraft would conduct a relief-in-place at the edge of the radar screen - not on the deck of the carrier. This would ensure that the screen is always in-tact. 2. In a low-threat situation, the carrier would wait for the radar picket ships to detect incoming hostile aircraft/missiles, before sending-up its defence aircraft. This is when you'd really need a fast airceaft armed with long-range accurate missiles. I'm pretty sure that's how the US Navy would conduct it's protection-of-the-carrier operations. George, out.................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Subject Re What are these? I don't have the reference but from the description it has to be the Huff-Duff antenna, the High Frequency Direction Finder that was one of the main weapons against the U-Boat as it allowed ships, aircraft and shore bases to triangulate U-Boats, the boats surfaced daily to send reports on weather, sea state etc with no idea that the signal could be tracked, and even de-coded. The antenna was normally two loops, either square or round, but I have seen early models which comprise two "U" shapes at 90 degrees to each other. They can be seen best on the Flower Class photos mounted to the fore part of the Bridge. They are still in use but now mounted on the foremast usually, they are a legal requirement on British ships above a certain size and monitor for distress signals. An automated receiver mounted in the bridge of comms office swings a pointer round to give a bearing of anything on the distress channels. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From "Andrew Barton" Subject Horatio Nelson Hi George, Having ready a number of books on Nelson, I can recommend Tom Pococks version "Horatio Nelson" published by Pimlico. A more recent biography is that by Roger Knight, "The pursuit of victory The life and achievement of Horatio Nelson". Colin White (curator at the National Maritime museum) stated that this is the best book on Nelson for sometime. I haven't read it yet, but it is sitting in the pile waiting for me to get to it. Of course, the thing you should be aware of, is that Nelson probably was a bit of a whiner, at least to anyone outside of the service. Famously, Wellington was initially very unimpressed when they first met, but later, once Nelson realised who he was, stated that it was the most interesting and useful conversation he ever had. Hope this helps Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume