Subject: SMML VOL 3057 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:03:09 +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 Imperial Russia Life Rings- Color? 2 U.S. Navy at work!! 3 Wood Planking for Revell U-Boat 4 Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) 5 Re How might it have happened? (was Scorpion) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Tom Ruprecht Subject Imperial Russia Life Rings- Color? What color were the life preserver rings in the Russian Navy circa 1904-05? My photos (including one of the recently discussed ones from the German album) show a single, solid color, clearly not white, and without any large stenciling. Red (doesn't appear dark enough on the photos)? Orange? Other? For my future efforts and for other readers' interest, how about other navies of the period up to WW I? TIA, Rupe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From JRKutina@webtv.net (John Kutina) Subject U.S. Navy at work!! http//home.peoplepc.com Regards, John Kutina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Will Noble" Subject Wood Planking for Revell U-Boat Having worked with a LOT of wood over the years, I'll weigh in on this one. 1. If I'm remembering correctly, the wooden U-Boat decks were painted, not varnished. 2. Spar varnish is a VERY difficult medium with which to work (it runs and makes 'snot-noses' when you look at it wrong), and should best be applied to large areas. While it's a GREAT product for encasing wood against the elements (I agree with you there, Ken!), you'll have to also realize that it's very thick by comparison to the other finishes with which we work as modelers. If you're going to go ahead with it, here are some application tips 3. Application I believe a 50/50 'thin' using your airbrush thinner, and an airbrush application would be best here. "Man O' War" satin would be preferable(it seems to apply the best and have the best 'life'), as a gloss would look VERY out of scale! Airbrush several thin coats, sanding the deck lightly with 600gr paper between coats until the raised grain is gone. At the end, if you want the deck to look flat, sand it one more time after the final finish coat with 1000gr paper. Remember that you'll have to airbrush first one side, then the other, paying attention to getting the cracks, crevices, sides of all cutouts, etc. One final comment about finish -- you'll have to resist painting over the spar varnish if you're tempted to do so at some point, as your result will be the wrinkling and lifting of the varnish -- literally, unless you're using a waterbased paint (not recommended for R/C, as your model is making contact with water), the thinned enamel you'll use to paint the deck will act as a varnish-remover!! Next, you'll have to figure out how to affix it to the model - if the model is going to be used as an R/C kit, it's important to remember that spar varnish doesn't last forever - you'll have to sand and reapply it every now and again depending on the use of your model, so the ability to remove that deck is going to be paramount. I'd use a 'goop' product or something that would affix the deck semi-permanently. (This was my initial reason for recommending the kit-supplied plastic deck in the first place - maintenance of this product would be a nightmare, and very problematic. R/C is, after all, about enjoying the finished model - not maintaining it ad nauseum!) Cheers! Will Noble Portland, OR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Ned Barnett Subject Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) IMO, John Sheridan wrote some pretty inflammatory comments - he seems to not like my theory (which is fine), but he's also decided to get personal, and at least a bit testy, which makes no sense. He asks a bunch of questions, perhaps assuming that I don't know jack about this. I have those answers, spread out in my research notes and collection of submarine books and primary sources, but I think Harold Stockton answered every one of his questions as well or better than I could have. In addition, Harold quoted Craven ((which John referred to - without quoting) to challenge and refute all of John's most aggressive arguments. In the quotes Harold included (see below) Craven clearly concluded that a torpedo explosion was the proximate cause of the sinking of the Scorpion. Beyond that, Harold noted (as I have before) that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that the Soviets bushwhacked the Scorpion. None of us knows all of the facts - no American alive today was there when it happened - but to casually and rather derisively dismiss my conclusions (conclusions based on months of research for the History Channel) impedes, rather than promotes, a fuller understanding of what may have happened at one of the darkest hours of the cold war. Below , John's rather caustic comments, and Harold's thorough, point-by-point refutation of them, using John's own favorite source to demolish John's contentions. I can add nothing to what Harold said - he basically said it all. I urge anybody who cares to review both and draw their own conclusions. (see SMML 3056 for what Ned is referring to here, as I don't particulary wish to repost the two posts again in total Shane) Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Ned Barnett Subject Re How might it have happened? (was Scorpion) Russ - some good questions - scroll down and I'll try to answer them. Also, see Harold Stockton's extensive response in Sunday's SMML, as it digs deep into some of this. >> I would be interested in your thoughts on how the possible ambush and destruction of the Scorpion might have been accomplished by the Soviet Navy - especially doing it without leaving any "fingerprints" (which I take to mean physical indications of an attack). (Understanding that you are theorizing to create linkages between individual bits of information.) << First, "no fingerprints." I mean by this that there'd be no witnesses and no immediate or easy way to figure why Scorpion sank. In modern terms (with nuclear capabilities), a "causus belli" generally needs to be "immediate" ("we have discovered nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba") and not something that happened months or years before. Too much was at risk for us to start popping nukes, a year (or however long it would take to discover the truth) after a "suspected" sinking, so IMO, the Soviets were safer in taking out Scorpion (if that's what they did) than were the NKs taking out Pueblo or the Israelis taking out Liberty. Speculation, most of this - but Scorpion was sunk (or sank) in deep water, well away from shipping lanes and SOSUS - so there were no witnesses. That's the first criteria for "no fingerprints," in my meaning of the term Next, because it was in deep water, there would be a vanishingly-small opportunity to bring to the surface critical pieces of hull or equipment that could be chemically analyzed for explosive signatures (or bringing up pieces of the weapon - if that's what it was - that precipitated the sinking). That's the second element of "no fingerprints" - no hard, physical evidence. Obviously, to any nation that had been able to put the Trieste and other bathyscaphs into operation, nothing would be permanently hidden - but the truth would take months, or years, to find - and then, at best, it would be equivocal. A long time between sinking and on-site inspection (plus the necessarily equivocal nature of determining causes by looking at exposed remnants of the hull) is the final part of the "no fingerprints." >> Given the some of the wilder Russian Navy statements made immediately following the Kursk disaster and the general tendency of navies everywhere to deny (until absoultely forced to deal with hard evidence to the contrary) that defects in their own equipment or operating procendures could ever possibly be the source of a sinking, I can see a Soviet Navy storyline developing that explained the loss of the K-129 as an American action. So, to keep the flow of theorizing from immediately running hard aground, let us stipulate at the onset that a powerful faction inside the Soviet Navy decides that "the explanation" for the K-129's loss is attack by an American submarine. Lets also stipulate that "they" decide that they want to retaliate in some form. << This would have been done at the Politburo level - I do not believe that the Soviet Admiralty had the power, discretion (or brass balls) to take out a US sub on their own. As the Admiral Painter character said in the movie Red October, "The Soviets don't take a dump without a Plan." (or words to that effect). For a novel, I did an extensive study of the post-Soviet Admiralty - they still seem to be timid, IMO, but that study can shed little light on what was going on in '68. So what I say here (and below) is what you asked for - speculation. >> Its what follows that I would be interested in reading about 1) Selling the story (who is selling it and to whom) to get permission to sink an American submarine in retaliation. (Was this a strictly inside the Soviet Navy submarine force job or did higher ups (Fleet/Soviet Navy GHQ, KGB, or even the Politboro) need to be involved? How long would making such a serious decison take?) << Pure speculation. The Soviets saw the US as vulnerable to sniping during Vietnam - we were so damned preoccupied that we were ill-prepared to take them on in any kind of "conventional" war. Plus, the Soviets were still smarting from the humiliation of the effective USN blockade of Cuba. They'd seen us ignore Pueblo and Liberty, and rightly judged us to be a paper tiger. So, for reasons of power politics, spite and raw opportunity, I can see the Politburo deciding to take a swipe at the US, believing that they could do it "for free." This is PURE speculation, with not one shred of facts, Russ. You asked for speculation, that's what you've got. >> 2) Deciding to specifically sink a submarine. (Not the easiest of targets.) << A lone submarine can be an easy target - if it doesn't know an attack is coming. Scorpion would surely have detected nearby Soviet naval vessels, but had no way of knowing their intention, and had no reason to expect/anticipate a sudden attack (if that's what happened). >> 3) Coming to know the top secret routing of American submarines. (Did the Walkers or other spies have access to such information?) << As Harold pointed out, Walker had been leaking like a sieve before and during this time-frame. I can't add to that, but there would have been a number of ways of tracking or finding a US submarine that didn't know it was being hunted. Spies, Bears, spy trawlers, a picket line, or something else. Speculation, not fact. >> 4) Target selection criteria. (Was any US submarine acceptable or was the Scorpion fingered for a specific reason - say, she was in the Pacific at the time of the K-129 sinking (i.e., kill the US attack sub that probably killed our sub)?) << My best guess is that this was a target of opportunity - a lone, unsuspecting sub, far from help and too deep to be in radio contact with Norfolk. Scorpion was not in the Pacific at the time of the K-129 sinking, which further makes this (in my mind) a target of opportunity. >> 5) Ambush site criteria. (You noted Scorpion sank/was sunk away from the SOSUS network - any other factors (i.e., ambush site along a known transit route for US subs, etc.)?) << I think the site was opportunistic. They wanted the location to be out of SOSUS range (if that's what happened), far away from support US Naval elements, and they wanted a deep ocean bed, to impede (slow down drastically) the search-and-recovery efforts (see above for "fingerprint" comments). >> 6) Getting the ambush force in position once the Scorpion was selected. (What would such an ambush force consist of; what kind of training is involved; and how much time would they have to get on station once they knew the Scorpion's routing?) << That's the 64 thousand dollar question. If they were looking for a target-of-opportunity, they could have sent in a strike force of some kind and just waited, nearby, for Walker or the Bears or the trawlers or something else to deliver. With the information in time, they could have spread out a patrol line to snag the target as it came steaming along, thinking the Atlantic was at peace. But that's all speculation. If they had a specific target, timing would have been damned-near impossible. If they were looking for a target of opportunity, it becomes much easier. IF they were looking for a random target, we have no way of knowing how many they missed before they snapped up Scorpion - IF that's what happened. >> 7) What the fingerprint-less attack device could have been. (Some sort of unmarked super hard penetrator to be subsequently broken up and lost in the implosion debris?), << None - if the bushwhack attack took place well away from land and prying eyes, and in deep water, that would constitute the "no fingerprints" scenario I had in mind. My suspicion is that they either planned a hull-bump incident or fired a homing or guided torpedo (or maybe several, to assure a kill). The deep ocean would hide the destruction site long enough to give them plausible deniability. >> As long as they don't involve Elvis, "fairy dust" (in the scenario writing sense of the word), or Atlantean/alien space technology, I would be interested in reading your ideas on how it might have been done. << Bermuda Triangle, man ... (but I didn't want to say so - you might not take me seriously ). Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume