Subject: SMML Vol 3134 Date: 19 May 2006 09:57:48 -0000 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 WWII Liberty Ship Photographs 2 Re BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) 3 Re BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) 4 Re Bismarck vs. Iowa 5 20mm Oerlikon Bandstands 6 ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS 7 Re HMS Invincible - December 1914 configuration 8 Nautical Fiction 9 Re ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS 10 Re ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS 11 Re BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Robert Mosher" robertm@combatic.com Subject WWII Liberty Ship Photographs The following announcement just came to me via an academic historians list of which I am a member. The collection of online photos of Liberty ships sounded like something of interest here? Robert A. Mosher Title WWII Liberty Ship Photographs Date 2006-08-10 Description Ships for Victory J.A. Jones Construction Company and Liberty Ships in Brunswick, Georgia The online collection consists of eighty-four black-and-white photographs from the J.A. Jones Construction Company collection at the Brunswick-Glynn County Library that depict the companys World War II cargo s ... Contact dlg@mail.libs.uga.edu URL dlg.galileo.usg.edu/libertyships/ Announcement ID 150903 http//www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=150903 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Daniel Kurtz" DKurtz@Ameritech.net Subject Re BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) Matt wrote > Not to mention the First Lord of the Admiralty's intoxicated arrogance. > There is a rumour, not sure if its true, that the RN feared him more > than any enemy. Are you referring to Churchill? He was PM at the time, not First Lord. I don't even remember who was First Lord then, just that Pound, who was something of a lapdog, was First Sea Lord. I do recall reading that the insane order to Tovey, that he continue the chase even to the point where his battleships ran out of fuel and would have to be towed home (which would have certainly resulted in their being lost) came from Churchill, dutifully forwarded by Pound. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Daniel Kurtz" DKurtz@Ameritech.net Subject Re BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) Norman Samish wrote > Rodney, surely one of the ugliest ships ever built... Well, ugly is in the eye of the beholder . I've always loved Nelson and Rodney precisely because they're so 'weird' looking. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Ned Barnett" ned@barnettmarcom.com Subject Re Bismarck vs. Iowa >----- Original Message ----- >From "randy.nugent" >Subject Bismark vs. Vanguard > >I made this inquiry elsewhere, but I would appreciate the abundant >knowkedge and experience of you good folk being directed towards this topic. > >I have recently read about a new resin Vanguard kit, and as I was >doing so I began to wonder about the various new and innovative >features of the Vanguard as the last built British battleship. If >Vanguard had been the ship up against the Bismark, how do you think >events would have >developed? > >Likewise if the Iowa or Washington had to face Bismark, what do you >think events would have been. Here's what I posted to the Bismarck discussion group about Iowa vs. Bismarck - it would have been different with Washington (slower, less capable 16-inch weapons, etc.) - that fight would have been much more even. I've never been wildly impressed with the Washingtons' war record - but the direct fight with the Kirishima was a slug-fest and not a typical battleship stand-off battle (and when Washington finally got it's act together, it took apart Kirishima in almost no time at all). Against Bismarck, it would depend on training, leadership, and a flip of the coin, I think. Now, my assessment of Iowa vs. Bismarck (short answer - bye-bye Bismarck) A number of folks here have noted the difference in technology between '41 and '45 - and it's impressive. However, the Iowa was in service in '43 (not so much difference), and her first combat mission was against the Tirpitz (rumors that the Tirpitz had sailed launched the Iowa from Argentia on August 27, 1943 in a futile attempt to rein in a ship that had remained in port). So, they really weren't so very far apart in time. And, they had approximately the same overall tonnage - they were, in effect, largely equivalent. However, the Bismarck had 8 guns of 15-inch caliber; Iowa had 9 guns of 16-inch caliber; and even setting aside the difference in radar (significant), Bismarck had main fire control outside the primary armored citadel, whereas Iowa had main fire control well-secured behind thick armor. In a stand-up gunfight, a well-protected fire control system could easily be the margin of difference. Which brings up the issue of who's going to come out on top - the initial challenge posited mid-Atlantic, daylight, no escorts, beautiful weather. In that case, Iowa hands down. Why? Better radar, bigger guns, faster top speed. She could engage from a good 10k yards farther out than Bismarck - a devastating advantage. She could disengage just outside Bismarck's maximum range, then circle back and pound the proud German warship (and do so with larger shells from more guns). With that advantage, it would take a mechanical breakdown on Iowa to enable Bismarck to even get into range. This advantage would apply in any weather - as long as Iowa's radar was fully operational, she'd always have the opportunity to strike first - and with her higher top speed, she'd have the sole chance (at least in the open sea) to dictate combat - engaging and breaking off at will. The Bismarck's one sole advantage (IMO) is that her main armament was in four turrets, not three. That made it harder to disable all guns - and minimized the destructive impact of any single turret direct hit. If each lost one turret, they'd have the same number of guns, and if they each lost two turrets, Bismarck would suddenly have more guns. However, that advantage would only begin to manifest IF Iowa let herself get into Bismarck's effective range - and didn't then immediately get the hell out of Dodge and back into the "safe zone" where she could fire on a defenseless Bismarck. The relative benefits of bringing heavy cruisers into the battle are nominal - Iowa would still be faster, and would still have better radar. She could stand out of range and pound the enemy, regardless of the number of consorts each had. "Like-era" heavy cruisers, the Americans had better armor and very likely better radar as well - but the more factors you throw into the mix (as the Naval battle of Guadalcanal showed), the more likely that a smaller ship could inflict serious damage to even the most powerful battleship. A melee is always harder to predict than a stand-up slug-fest between two largely equal combatants. Or so it seems to me. Ned Barnett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "Peter A Roberts" peter.roberts1@virgin.net Subject 20mm Oerlikon Bandstands I have been researching Landing Craft Flak Mk IV and have various photos, plans and drawings. I have just started to build the Acurate Armour Kit and have a question regarding the size of the bandstands for the 20mm Oerlikons. The kit is 1/76th scale and the bandstands scale up to 7ft6in dia. The DJParkins Great Little Ships 20mm Oerlikon kits have a bandstand of 9ft dia. John Lamberts plan indicates that the bandstand is about 8ft9in, but it is only sketched on the drawings. The P N Thomas Model Boats Plan has a size of 8ft diameter. Is anyone able to confirm which is correct? The Accurate Armour Kit bandstands appear to be too small when compared with photographs, but it is very difficult to be sure as most only show the outside view and this is not related directly to the diameter as the bulwarks do not pass through the centre of the bandstand. Accurate Armour claim that the model is basd on wartime drawings, but this may refer to the LCT common parts as they also make this claim for their 1/76 LCT. A small complication is that most LCFs were fitted with single Oerlikons, but LCF 36 had twins mounted in the amidships positions, although I wouldn't have thought that this wouldave made any diffrence. Any advice greatly appreciated. Incidentally, I am making the model as my father-in-law served on LCF 36 during 1944, at Normandy and Walcheren. Peter Roberts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Gary Mansfield" garynelson.mansfield@tiscali.co.uk Subject ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS Hi SMML Think Tank! I am trying to get more information on these 1870 -1890 Battleships/Ironclads Duilio, Dandol, Italia, Lepanto, Re Umberto, Andera Doria and HMS Invincible etc. I have a lot of information from John Leathers book 1976 "World Warships in Review 1860-1906" very good! Nice clear photos by Beken of Cowes. (Are they still going )? I have most of the English books on the subject of Ironclads. English plans on 1881 HMS Invincible via NMM. "Model Boats" Magazine on the same, Warship Vol 15 on the same. And "Modelling Late Victorian Battleships" by Brian King VERY GOOD!!! The "Birth of the Battleship" by John Beller. (Again very good), Conways "Steam, Steel & Shellfire" D K Browns "Warrior to Dreadnought" I only known of the 1250 card model of Duilio and a 1250 plan se of her from Germany. Are there out in SMML land more books, plans models? (The card model was going to Australia but a very hot "Coffee-Arm-Desk" missile destroyed it!! - Sorry Peter). I think there might be something in Italian? I had great help on IJN Aircraft Carriers from the SMML Think Tank! And want do you do if you wish to buy photos from the U.S. Naval Historical Centre? The web site is very confusing. I have a list of US photo numbers like NH88685 of Dandlo's 17.72" (45cm) guns and NH60025 of HMS Invincible. Thanking you in advance. Gary Mansfield garynelson.mansfield@tiscali.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Brooks A Rowlett" brooksar@sbcglobal.net Subject Re HMS Invincible - December 1914 configuration Begin forwarded message >Brooks, > >Campbell's WARSHIP Special 1 Battle Cruisers has a profile of INVINCIBLE >purported to be herappearance as of Dec 1914. The alterations which I can >detect are as follows - > >1. 4-inch anti-torpedo boat guns removed from A and X turrets, but retained >on P and Q turrets. Those removed from A turret (at least) re-located to >the forecastle. > >2. All forecastle 4-inch gun positions plated in. > >3. Flying bridge extended back to encompass the foremast. > >4. Next bridge level below extended aft alongside the fore funnel and both >s/l's raised to that level. > >5. Main topmast and gaff removed; topgallant and cross yard re-positioned >atop aft spotting position. > >6. Fore topmast and all yards removed; topgallant re-positioned atop >foreward spotting position and rigged with spiral anti-r/f structure. > >7. Fore top spotting position re-configured and extended forward over the >small control platform immediately below. > >OTOH, Yates give a photo of INVINCIBLE on page 198 of his book "Graf Spee's >Raiders" which differs from the above in several particulars. The photo is >described as Sturdee's flagship, but is undated. > >Byron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "John Kutina" JRKutina@webtv.net Subject Nautical Fiction Discount pricing http//www.nauticalfiction.com/ Regards, John Kutina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Pietro Caltabiano" pietrocalt@interfree.it Subject Re ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS Hi Gary, A.N.B. (Associazione Navimodellisti Bolognesi) http//www.anb-online.org/index.php?cPath=3000&language=en has lots of plans and original drawings, pay a visit to their site and you'll find some of the plans you're looking for. Pietro Caltabiano ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From "Gary Mansfield" garynelson.mansfield@tiscali.co.uk Subject Re ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS Hi Pietro, Thank you for that. How do I order the "Duilio" plans 13 sheets at €28? Are they plans of the real ship or to make a model? No books on these battleships in Italy? Kind regards Gary -----Original Message----- From smmlonline@yahoogroups.com [mailtosmmlonline@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pietro Caltabiano Subject Re [SMML] ITALIAN EARLY BATTLESHIPS/IRONCLADS Hi Gary, A.N.B. (Associazione Navimodellisti Bolognesi) http//www.anb-online.org/index.php?cPath=000&language==en has lots of plans and original drawings, pay a visit to their site and you'll find some of the plans you're looking for. Pietro Caltabiano ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From "Norman Samish" ncsamish@ptera.net Subject Re BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) You're right - I should have said weird, not ugly. There are lots of photos at http//www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4433/r_pics2.htm . The fronts of Nelson and Rodney were very imposing, but that chopped-off rear is jarring. Norman ----- Original Message ----- From Daniel Kurtz Subject Re [SMML] BISMARCK's LAST BATTLE (Re Bismacrk vs. Vanguard) Norman Samish wrote > Rodney, surely one of the ugliest ships ever built... Well, ugly is in the eye of the beholder . I've always loved Nelson and Rodney precisely because they're so 'weird' looking. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume