Subject: SMML VOL 1152 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:27:10 -0800 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re Nautical miles 2: Re: Russian Ships 3: Re: Milage questions 4: Audace 5: Re: U.S. Aircraft carriers 6: HR Products Photos?? 7: Re: Cabot 8: Re: Des Moines 9: Re: Saving of MIDWAY, RANGER, FORRESTAL..... 10: Re: USS DES MOINES 11: Russian Ships - photo-etch 12: Re: US Aircraft Carriers 13: Carriers? 14: Re: Gambier Bay 15: RN "base colour"? 16: Note to self: Words NOT to use on SMML 17: Polish Navy 1939 18: Re: Nautical mile 19: Seaphoto and good service 20: Revell/Matchbox Flower gunshield artwork 21: Re: U.S. Aircraft Carriers 22: Canada - WW2 Online Plans and Photos 23: Surcouf 24: Re: CV Battle Group futures... 25: ICM Essex in 1:350? 26: U-boat type IXc colors 27: Re: Baby oil and such-OT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation 1: Site update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: International Maritime Modeling February 2001 Update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "J. London" Subject: Re Nautical miles Craig Bennett in his listing on ship names asked why these were different to statute miles. The nautical mile was developed for navigational purposes and is the arc length subtended on the earth's surface by one minute of latitude at the earth's centre. The earth is not an exact sphere so there is a slight variation in the distance depending upon one's location, it being slightly greater at the equator than at the poles, though not sufficient to make it a navigational problem. A ship's speed is measured in knots a knot being one nautical mile per hour, or approximately 1.2 statute miles per hour. Michael London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Ramires, Filipe C" Subject: Re: Russian Ships Hello there The Gold Medal Model have an excellent set of photo-etch for modern Russian ships. My Sovremmeny and other Russian ships were fitted with this set. As far as I remember (I left the set in Portugal) it have rails, some radar's, the masts for the Krivak, the cranes for the Kiev and other small things for all the Russian ships. Krivak is probably the best model for this set. The set is still available I believe. Hope this helps. Regards Filipe C. Ramires Colchester, United Kingdom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: EDKRU@aol.com Subject: Re: Milage questions Is not the portion of the earth that is not covered with water curved also. I belive it was in the late 60's or early 70's the the U. S. Government tried to impose conversion to metric, did not get very far with the program after millions were spent. ED K -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Cataldo Torelli Subject: Audace Hi SMMLiers, Having seen the 1/700 L'Arsenal Regia Marina Destroyer Audace review on SteelNavy.com I must admit it: I felt in love with her ;8-). I ordered the kit and I would like to know more about the real thing. Could anybody share historical notes, drawings, photos (I haven't seen any!), etc. I tried a search on the web without results. Thanks in advance, Cataldo Torelli. Madrid, Spain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: mumfordlibrarian@netscape.net Subject: Re: U.S. Aircraft carriers The main argument for aircraft against ship to shore missiles is that once launched the missile is much harder to cancel or redirect a missile than an Carrier Alpha Strike, and the missile munitions cannot be recovered if the reason for the launch changes or if the assigned target is a decoy. The bottom line is that a manned aircraft has a decision maker in the cockpit that can assess the newest information and make decisions modifying the action on the spot. Yes a carrier task force is a huge target, but it is better defended than any land target. In almost all the littoral countries of the world, a U.S. Carrier task force is far more powerful that any but the most powerful countries air force. Paul T. Weaver -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: HR Products Photos?? Hello SMMLies Does anybody out there know of a site that includes photos of HR Products ship fittings? I've checked both the Floating Drydock and HR Products pages and all they have is a product/price list. A search of HR Products on the web brought all sorts of Human Resources services. Useable, but not interchangeable. The Stonehorse lightship's hull has emerged. I was unable to locate a bandsaw to rough-out the hull from a block of basswood.. Instead, I glued the butt lines from the plans in the Model Ship Journal to some 1/8 inch balsa, then cut them out. I laminated the balsa and once the glue dried, an hour or so with some files and sanding sticks brought the hull out of the block. Its progressed faster than I thought. Some Bondo putty tonight, followed by more sanding should have a smooth hull ready for the keel and some rub-rail appliques. Ed Mansfield, TX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: Re: Cabot yes, I am biased, John, :-) but that wasn't the intent of my post... since there was interest shown in the Cabot, I directed my comments to the other carriers either saved or on the way to being saved as alternatives to grieving two (Cabot and Oriskany) who are pretty much beyond hope. yes, there are a lot of other struggling ships and museums out there from PT boats up to battleships and carriers. to each one's own. and since we can't save them all, much as we might like to, we have to choose our battles. far better, in my mind, to support those who have the best chance of surviving than throwing money at a lost cause regardless of the sentimental value. Cabot was worth saving for all the reasons listed by others--Oriskany probably is, too, for just as many reasons, but since those fights are over, I agree with John, what about Salem? what about Hornet? or Kidd? or any of the other HNSA member ships? and as you say, it isn't just about money. there are many ways to help by volunteering to do any number of jobs on the museum ship of your choice. here in the SF Bay Area alone is a vast selection of ships to choose from: from a fleet sub, a victory, a liberty, to a carrier (and there's a little lightship, too). so rather than bemoaning the lost ships, as much of a tragedy as the loss of the Cabot is, how about pitching in on the found ones? because once a ship is saved, the struggle to keep it never ends--the cost of berthing alone can be astronomical (for us it's $800 a day), never mind the daily maintenance (most of these museum ships float in salt water), and operating costs (utilities and staff--museums do not run on volunteers alone). s. sachsen, archivist USS Hornet Museum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Craig R Bennett Subject: Re: Des Moines Hi Guys Well I'm today home sick first day in 3 that I can get out of bed for several hours. Any way I read the story about the Des Moines and I have something to share about it. I belong to the Philadelphia ship model society and this may be why Govenor Ventura isn't interested. I don't know who was Govenor before Jesse Ventura but apparently at a meeting of that club in 1998 a man appeared at our meeting asking about the Des Moines. Such as size so forth. He hated this Govenor because his son was the head of Highway Department and the govenor appoimented him Chief of Staff to the Govenor. This Govenor was so demanding to the point where it created anerresium and the guy died. He was out to stop the project(the father) against this Govenor.I won't be surprised if the story made the papers in Minnesota. The ship was supposed to go to Duluth and a naval museum worth several millions of dollars was proposed. Apparently it hasn't happen for the Des Moines. Today she sits in the mothball fleet at the Philadelphia Navy Yard near the gate to be towed away. Thanks for the reply on the difference of mileage guys and it certainly makes sense as to curve of the earth adding distance for measurement. Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: Re: Saving of MIDWAY, RANGER, FORRESTAL..... >> I have heard that there has been a snag regarding acquiring of MIDWAY to San Diego....the waterfront commission has indicated that the large CVA would cause 'blockage of view', or interrupting the harborfront view of the embarcadero area, << you're right about this. I've heard from folks in the area that models of the waterfront including Midway in the picture are dominated by the huge gray hull. Midway in San Diego is not necessarily a sure thing. there have been rumors of the Midway group being out of money, too, but to their advantage is the support of North Island which is currently storing all the aircraft they've acquired. they're also benefited by the huge Navy presence in San Diego--but this is also a hindrance: why pay admission to a ship when one can visit one of the active Navy ships on the weekend for free? >> Don't count on a FORRESTAL class to be saved, in my opinion. They are huge ships requiring huge manhours and continuous dedicated support to keep them from falling into disrepair. Maintenance and hull upkeep alone would be financially draining. << agreed... it's draining for an Essex let alone a Forrestal... those wishing to save one either have a hole card of funding or have enthusiasm beyond a sense of reality. >> RANGER is currently in Bremerton as is MIDWAY. With Everett slated for closure, is there a plan to put RANGER there???? << yes there is. we at Hornet have been hearing from them regarding EPA and assorted other hoops that we all have to jump through. (Midway is using our EPA plan also, BTW...) but this is new about Everett being closed--Alameda was closed in favor of the 'new' station at Everett moving 'our' ships (Vinson and Lincoln) up there before construction was even completed. do tell more! (off list--since this is certainly beyond the scope of SMML....) >> Infrastructural support and bags of money up front are needed, and these big ships will have to host dog and pony shows to pay their rents. Great in theory, these plans, but rarely in practice. << this is the beauty of a carrier for a museum ship: the Hangar Deck can also serve as an event space which Hornet has used to great effectiveness. still, it isn't simple or easy to maintain a vessel of this size, and one can only have so many events before the museum focus gets lost in the glitz of holding events (see Intrepid....) >> San Francisco will get the IOWA and they certainly will not need another museum ship after that, with HORNET just across the bay. << no they're not. regardless of what the Iowa group says.... there's no place to put it in SF. The Navy is prepositioning assets. since the NJ and MO are no longer in reserve and we have no BB on the West Coast, the IA is being moved here--to the Suisun mothball fleet. s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: tom Subject: Re: USS DES MOINES >> OK will all this talk about the CABOT and the ORISKANY - I thought I would give you some good news. There is still one ship that is tucked away under the Navy's care - long overdue for scrapping - about 25 years overdue. The ship is the USS DES MOINES. After a long effort by the wonderful group at Duluth they have finally had to give up since they got no support from Governor Jesse. << The attempts to bring USS DES MOINES to Duluth went sour long before Jesse came on the scene. For years the city didn't want anything to do with it and said they wouldn't provide space on city piers (has Duluth changed it's position?) ... it was felt DES MOINES would take just business away from the existing attractions and it was also felt that Duluth's prime tourist season is too short (barely 3 months) to make such an attraction financially viable. Tom K -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Mike Dunn" Subject: Russian Ships - photo-etch John wrote :- >> To the best of my knowledge, Gold Medal Models did produce a photoetch set for the Russian warships. I would think it is still available. << John, GMM indeed did (do?) a Soviet fret - there's a review on the site, in the Photo-Etch section. I have heard a rumour that Loren may be revamping it - perhaps he could comment on the validity of this rumour? Mike SMML Webmaster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Roland Mar Subject: Re: US Aircraft Carriers TO: Glenn and Kelly Neklason At the risk of stomping on several articles of faith, allow me to make a few comments. The truth lies somewhat between the idea that CVN's will be the center of the fleet forever and the idea that all you need is enough missiles at sea. The purpose of CV's and presumably missile arsenal ships, as the type is sometimes denominated, is power projection; the ability to enforce the will of the fleet, and by extension the will of the nation, on a foreign adversary. While this can be done by the act of physically delivering bombs or warheads on target; in most situations it is the mere presence of a CVBG in the area that modifies our opponent's conduct in the way we desire. Missile ships, be they huge BB equivalents or an FFG sized vessel, do not have the psychological presence to impress. A missile ship 100 miles off of the coast may indeed be able to inflict grievous damage a goodly ways inland. But its presence will not have the same effect as a pair of Tomcats or Hornets escorting a recon bird over the crisis area. The immediately visible prospect of being on the receiving end of a Precision Guided Munition [PGM] has a way of concentrating the mind wonderfully. The sole equivalent for a missile ship would be a demonstration shot into the target area. That tends to move you from the gray area of deterrence to that of war, with no chance of resolving the matter without hostilities. Then there is the cost/benefit analysis of missile versus aircraft based systems. Against most defensive systems, for the foreseeable future, sufficient manned aircraft will get through. This is subject to change in the future, but it holds for now. The weapon systems carried by the aircraft are to put it bluntly far more effective. Any aircraft carried weapon will be cheaper and more versatile than an over the horizon [OTH] missile [percentage of warhead/propellant both by cost and weight]. Aircraft borne weapons can be and are retrofitted, even the dumb iron bombs, with PGM kits that give them the ability to be guided to target by laser/IR designators [aircraft or ground based] whether that target is fixed or moving. A Tomahawk is great for a bunker or airfield, but how about a mobile command post or mobile POL depot for an armored division? There is the question of how many of these missile munitions that you can afford, stock, and deploy? The last time I looked, and the figures are very old, a BGM-109 Tomahawk cost on the order of $800k. A Harpoon cost on the order of $500k+. A PGM add on kit for a 2000 lb bomb [1000 lbs is explosive, about twice the Tomahawk payload] cost <$10k and the bomb itself not much more. Scale these figures up from the early 1980's. Note also, that during the Gulf War, despite massive use of missiles, the hardened targets had to be hit with aircraft carried weapons with a larger warhead than those available from OTH missiles. The inventory question is no small matter. How many cruise missiles do we have left? How many production lines do we have operational to produce more? What are the odds that we will be realistically able to design, produce, and deploy a new generation of multi-purpose missiles suitable for these arsenal ships/frigates before the current 1st Classmen at Annapolis retire? Remember also, that as of last week, President Bush announced that he is keeping the Clinton defense budget until 2003. Therefore, based on costs and effectiveness, we will have to keep flight decks and aircraft for the foreseeable future. In any case, we will have to have LPH type vessels for the Marines, if they are to get to the battle area. This does not mean that CVN's are either perfect or invulnerable. They are increasingly so. The new CVN(X) will reduce the ability to target the carrier, but not eliminate it. It is also dependent on the introduction of a new generation of aircraft that may or may not be produced. I can see that a new paradigm for naval/littorial warfare may come about in my lifetime, but I submit that the arsenal ship concept is not YET it. The most likely conflicts that we face are going to be "come as you are". I can see a most useful, strategic, role for the arsenal ship. First, there are a large number of fixed site targets that can be usefully attacked OTH, once the question of hostilities has been resolved in favor of action. These are the best defended sites, so lets hit them with missiles instead of aircraft. Aircraft are best at hitting mobile targets and in close air support to the troops on the ground [do that with a Tomahawk!]. As the capability and availability of the weapon systems on board the arsenal ship increase, its operational mission envelope can expand. No problem. Let's use synergy, let's use our strength against an opponent's weaknesses wherever possible. A second strategic role for an arsenal ship would be for a boost phase SDI off of the coasts of less than friendly and overarmed small states. A modified AEGIS system with appropriate missiles launched from a ship/TG stationed to cover the limited number of threat axis' for missile launches from say Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. where they can threaten either US territory, or those of selected allies could save millions of lives on our side. Also, there is the comforting thought that the radioactive pieces/parts of the hostile missile would fall on the territory of the country that launched it. It is a sad fact that we deploy new weapons on a multi-generational basis. The B-52's currently on duty came from a design study in 1943. The Tomcat had its first combat deployment at the end of the Vietnam war. The Tomahawk missile is old enough to vote, and maybe to hold a seat in the House of Representatives. There is nothing I know of in the pipeline that can yet perform the missions of the CVN and its associated air group either as effectively or hopefully more effectively. Would that it were so, for anything that protects the interests of the country more effectively than what we have now is something to be welcomed with open arms. I shall now don my Nomex suit with Kevlar shorts. I expect incoming, and I don't have a boost phase SDI! Roland Mar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Ned Barnett" Subject: Carriers? >> I believe carriers are a valuable part of US foreign policy and definitely worth keeping, and he believes they have outlived their usefulness and should give way to missiles; in his words "small, faster missile frigates". Anyone care to venture an opinion pro-carrier (preferably) or anti carrier? Does anybody think they're dinosaurs on their way out? << Glenn Missiles are a great, low-cost way of smashing things and killing people at minimal risk; however, if we're going for missiles, why use high-profile frigates when SeaWolf submarines can do it better, safer and cheaper? One reason is that submarines (and frigates) are lousy for power projection - and while it's certainly useful to be able to smash things and kill people, sometimes we want to do something else - such as blockade a coast, invade a location or just "show the flag" in a Kiplingesque kind of fashion. Nothing overawes the bloody wogs (just kidding, folks) like a nice big Nimitz-class bird barge. And, when you get ready to smash things and kill people, carriers provide more options. In short, we need them. IMO. Plus, they're fun to model. Ned -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Gambier Bay >> It had lots of very nice metal parts for the smaller stuff like chocks, deck wenches and hatches so you don't have to build all those little pieces. << "deck wenches" are a ton O' fun! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Jens H. Brandal" Subject: RN "base colour"? I have started looking at my 1:350 KGV to be finished as the HMS Howe in 1944, painted in the disruptive scheme of AP507A, C, B5 and B6 (hope I got the colours right), and I was wondering what colour to paint the insides of the gun tubs. Did the Royal Navy use a "standard" colour on the insides of such areas, or were they painted whatever the external camouflage finish in that area? If so, one Pom-Pom might be medium blue grey inside the splinthershields whereas another might be light grey. Similarly for the various external bridge levels. Any takers? Jens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Note to self: Words NOT to use on SMML Just thought I would pass on a personal note I made to myself. I have been known to let the spell checker slip and suffer the consequences of the slip. I keep a number of words and phrases I need to pay attention to after a lot of good hearted razzing here. Note to self: Words NOT to mention on SMML. Deck wenches! Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. You can now pay using your Visa / MasterCard Flagship Models - Photo Etched Details for Warships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Polish Navy 1939 John Biskupski wrote --- >> I am trying to locate drawings of small vessals (under 150') in use by the Polish Navy in September, 1939 - river craft, launches whatever. Any advise as to sources will be sincerely appreciated. << Have you tried http://private.psi.com.pl/pmw/start_n.htm Has a lot of good Polish navy stuff and possible links (if you can read Polish). Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: Nautical mile >> A statute mile is shorter as it is based on flat land. A nautical mile is based on the curvature of the earth, from one degree/minute to another degree/minute. The earth curves as we all know and if a statute mile was used at sea, a ship would have to go through the water (in a straight line) to travel 5 280 ft. But ships (not subs) don't travel under water but across it. Therefore, since the surface of water is curved, a longer footage is required. << So, Steve. Let me get this straight. The Earth curves, but only on the water filled portions? Tom Dougherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Seaphoto and good service I just wanted take a moment and mention a company that offers excellent customer service. I recently placed an order with Kurt at Seaphoto for a package of photos of a Charles Adams class destroyer (to help with my 1/350 Stoddart build) and a package of photos for the Sea RAM missile system Kurt said he had. I got the photos of the Adams yesterday and they are excellent. Obviously they were taken by a modeler. Lots of close-ups of details I crave most on ships. However, the photos he sent of the Sea RAM were photos of a RAM system. It's a common mistake I made myself before doing research on the project. However, the RAM photos were crystal clear and showed lots of detail of the weapon from every angle. I notified Kurt of the mix-up and he immediately offered to give me credit on my next order. I didn't think that would be necessary since I could still use the RAM photos for an upcoming model project anyway. So I thanked him and said that his offer was enough for me. And because of his attention to customer service, he did indeed retain a customer. I would not hesitate to recommend Kurt and Seaphoto to anyone in the future. Good customer service should be passed on to others. I have no interest in Seaphoto whatsoever. I'm just a satisfied customer. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. You can now pay using your Visa / MasterCard Flagship Models - Photo Etched Details for Warships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: "Bob Pearson" Subject: Revell/Matchbox Flower gunshield artwork Greetings all, To go along with my recent Flower class illustrations (26 so far) I have also begun to illustrate the gunshield artwork carried by many of the RCN Flowers. So far I have the following done: Arvida, Shawinigan, Shediac, Snowberry and Wetaskiwin with more coming. After seeing the monstrosity that Revell provide for Snowberry, I am wondering what sort of call there would be for a set of ALPS decals of various gunshield artwork and pennant numbers. Regards, Bob Pearson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "William Oreto" Subject: Re: U.S. Aircraft Carriers I'm not a military analyst but I have read many articles saying that the cruise missile is the answer to all things. I'm not so sure. I believe the carrier has it uses, sea control, air superiority role, close air support, escort, sustained strike capability. In my opinion Navy and Marine air have been mismanaged. Poor planning and lack of funding has led to a lack of airframes and those that exist are aged. Carriers are losing their versatility and punch. Believing that the F-18E/F is going to be all things to all naval aviation missions is extraordinary thinking (and more worn out airframes) So your friend maybe correct that carriers are becoming dinosaurs, but not because of technological innovation. Someone decided that the carrier's mission should change with the "new world order" and now you have a less capable weapon. When the next crisis breaks out and we run out cruise missiles what then? Call in the Air Force? Unfortunately international crises never seem to break out next to one our airbases. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: "Ron Hillsden" Subject: Canada - WW2 Online Plans and Photos The Canadian Navy is developing new training in customs and traditions - Project Pride. The website contains photos and some drawings of Canada's WW2 ships. Website is under construction, but very interesting! Even has some Fl*wer Class pics! http://www.navy.dnd.ca/pride_html/index_e.htm enjoy! Ron Hillsden Victoria BC Canada Club: http://members.home.net/vmss/ Flags: http://members.home.net/ron-hillsden/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: "George Hackett" Subject: Surcouf Thanks to Paul Weaver and John Wessell for their thoughts on the M1 vs Surcouf! Franklyn requested a little more info on the Surcouf. The following is my attempt at an intro to this most interesting submarine. Any other SMMLies please feel free to pipe in- most of my Surcouf info was lost in a WIN 95 hard drive disaster. The Washington Disarmament Conference of 1921/22 and the resultant Treaty stated that submarines might carry guns no bigger than 8 inches. The Surcouf contained a twin 8 inch turret and twelve torpedo tubes, with ten reloads. An innovative feature on the Surcouf was a quadruple mounting for firing small (15.7 inch) torpedoes against merchantmen. Though fast, these torps only had a range of 1,500 yards. The Surcouf could fire three 260-lb shells per minute to a range of 30,000 yards from her twin power-operated turret. She also carried a seaplane in a cylindrical hanger abaft the conning tower. Surcouf's tonnage- surfaced - 2880 submerged - 4304 Length - 361 feet Beam - 29.5 feet Speed(kts)- surfaced - 18.5 submerged - 10 Does anyone know if Surcouf was "dip-chick" capable? British M-class subs would suddenly rise to the surface, fire a round from their single 12 inch gun, and then rapidly dive. All in thirty seconds!!!! 22 June, 1940- Conclusion of the German-French Armistice at Compiegne. Disarming of large parts of the French Fleet, but no handover. At this time, in Plymouth and Portsmouth- two battleships, two large destroyers, eight ordinary destroyers and torpedo boats, seven submarines and 200 smaller vessels. Continuation of French government in unoccupied France. 3 July, 1940- In Plymouth, Surcouf's crew unsuccessfully resists seizure by the British with resultant losses on both sides. 24 Dec, 1942- Vice-Admiral Muselier, with the Free French corvettes Mimose, Alysse, and Aconit and the Surcouf, occupies the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon off New Foundland which have been loyal to Vichy France. 18 Feb, 1942- US freighter Thompson Lykes accidently rams and sinks the Free French submarine Surcouf. Position of sinking reported as 1) near the Antilles 2) approximately 75 miles northeast of Cristobal, C.Z. John Wressell- Thanks for the suggestion of the Douglas Reeman book, "Surface With Daring". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: stillmo@mb.sympatico.ca Subject: Re: CV Battle Group futures... Any beligerent nation, or wannabe dictator nation rattling its swords would probably start regretting their intentions with knowledge that, just over the horizon is 4.5 acres of US Sovereignity, in international waters with a strike force capable of launching and sustaining continuous strikes night or day in any weather. A CV Battle Group is Diplomatic Certainty as a deterrent to harm of US citizens and soldiers on foreign or domestic shores. It can unleash a world of hurt while remaining relatively protected and safe from blue water. Missiles cannot be recalled. A thundering overflight of naval aircraft can rock a dictators tent or castle without dropping a bomb. It is power projection from the sea that no missile or light armoured frigate can ever hope to deliver. I will not pontificate any further on this, as this can open up a whole new thread, and we must remember this is a ship modelling forum and not a political forum. Just read the history books from WWII to present day and you should come up with all the right answers. And this posting is written by a proud Canadian, proud to have you folks as our neighbors and protectors......... RD Bean -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: DarekL Subject: ICM Essex in 1:350? Is it true that the ICM announced at this year Nuremberg Toy Show they will be producing CV-9 Essex ? Darek -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: Cataldo Torelli Subject: U-boat type IXc colors Hi SMMLiers, How were painted those U-boats? I'm planning to do the U-505 in her initial period Feb'42-Jul'42. Can anybody point matches for the major paint brands (Tamiya, Gunze, Humbrol, etc.)? And other thing: In Oct'42 U-505 received a Metox radar detector. Any info on this device? Thanks in advance, Cataldo Torelli. Madrid, Spain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: Re: Baby oil and such-OT >> Hmmmm I don't know. In a local mall, there are two stores one "Toy's R Us" which of course sells toys. Next door is a place called "Kid's R Us" I was going to report them for illegal baby-brokering!! >> Hi; What about those nice cans in the baby food aisle at the market?? You know, the ones with the cute babies on the label............ Chuck Duggie WoodenWalls Listmeister Naval wargamer, amateur naval historian, and ship modeler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Mike Dunn - SMML Webmaster" Subject: Site update Hi all, Put up the latest set of Archives........have a few more things in the pipeline, but that's all for the nonce. Hope to get the FAA show pics up mid next week, depending on how many photos I take! Look forward to meeting a bunch of you there. I'll be the guy wandering around in an SMML t-shirt taking pictures of all the ship models ;-) Until later, Mike SMML Webmaster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Felix Bustelo Subject: International Maritime Modeling February 2001 Update Hello Everyone, I am pleased to announce that the February 2001 update of International Maritime Modeling has been posted. http://members.tripod.com/~Febus65/imm.htm The February 2001 update to the site includes: Photos of Sami Armin's 1/500 scale SS Batory, Bob Santos' 1/32 scale USS Plunger and 26' Whaleboat diorama, Steve Urdelac's 1/400 Aurora and Tom Varney's 1/350 RMS Titanic in the Gallery. Review of Ocean Liner Models 1/600 scale kit of the French liner Normandie in Quick Kit Reviews. Reviews of the White Ensign Models 1/600 scale Moskva Detail and Royal Navy Boat's Detail sets and Gold Medal Models 1/300 scale USCGC Campbell/Eastwind Detail set and 1/350-1/400 Naval Figures in Photoetch Reviews. Review of Indianapolis and Portland (Warship Pictorial #10) in Book Reviews. Updated the Heller and Frog Models pages with new/corrected information in the Kit List Page. Updated the Model Ship Journal page to include the Winter 2000-2001 issue. Related updates to the Links page. Please stop by for a look. Thanks, Felix Bustelo International Maritime Modeling URL: http://members.tripod.com/~Febus65/imm.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://www.smml.org.uk Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://www.tac.com.au/~sljenkins/apma.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume