Subject: SMML VOL 2959 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:48:06 +1000 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 Submarine slightly off topic 2 HMS Victory and Royal Sovereign 3 WW2 escorts 4 Re K-129 book 5 Corvettes 6 Baltimore/Gearing 7 Ebay Items 8 Radar Picket Destroyers (the reason why) And Other Flights of Fancy 9 Re And now for something completely different 10 Spitfire V Wildcat et al 11 Ships decals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Rick Nelson" Subject Re Submarine slightly off topic >> This is for "bubbleheads" and wanna be bubbleheads. Has anyone read the book "Red Star Rogue" by Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond. It is about the Echo II K-129 and the Glomar Explorer. Basically the writers are refuting the CIA's story concerning the sinking and recovery. I was just wondering what other you all thought. << I, being a "bubblehead" in the '60s and having many friends who operated in WestPac find the explanation the authors put forth very plausible and, in fact, they do a much better job of explaining the rational behind the actions of the government and the CIA/Glomar Explorer efforts. Having also read John Craven's book "The Silent War" the whole episode as outlined in "Red Star Rogue" I take as what most likely happened. It is not inconceivable that such an event took place considering the state of the Cold War and other events that took place. Rick Nelson "Damn the Pressure, Six-Zero feet!" "Boomers Hide With Pride" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Matt Subject HMS Victory and Royal Sovereign Good day, As we're getting closer to Trafalgar Day and its 200th anniversary I was wondering what models of the Victory and Royal Sovereign were available? Which ones at different scales are the best? Just trying to get a list, any scale will do...I know there is an Airfix 1100 giftset and also one in 1180, how are these kits and the other Victory's out there? Not found any Royal Sovereign's though, anyone know of any? Finally, a little off topic, how many people saw the Son et Lumiere? Managed to see it on broadband via the BBC, and also have seen it on the DVD (which is unfortunately a little too short on the reenactment in my opinion). I'd like to know what people thought about it...Hopefully this will help the Navy's recruitment as the RAF have stolen all the show for the past 60 years. Many thanks, Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From potter4@att.net Subject WW2 escorts To reply to two posts >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that the original purpose of the Flowers was essentially coastal patrol, they were not intended for the Atlantic ... << (Bill Shuey). That is my undestanding, too. The RN could not foresee (or maybe could not believe) that France would capitulate and provide U-boat bases on the Atlantic. >> Actually the USN hadn't and still had lessons to learn even in 1945. Remember the USN developed radar pickets because they couldn't vector fighters onto attackers effectively enough. << (Christopher Amano-Langtree). Not so. The USN assigned destroyers to radar picket stations to detect low-flying aircraft distant from the TF main body because surface-based radar could not peer much past the horizon. That was (and is) a fundamental physical limitation of radar, not of a particular navy's limition in its training or doctrine. The WW2 USN task forces as a local initiative stationed fighter direction officers aboard destroyers on radar picket duty precisely because the USN FDOs COULD perform the FD function there. Destroyers with FDOs often (notably at Okinawa) had dedicated CAP sections assigned directly to them for air defense at their radar picket stations. Published accounts about the British Pacific Fleet don't indicate that the RN operated differently than the USN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Ives100@aol.com Subject Re K-129 book I've already posted a rather lengthy review of the book "Red Star Rogue" on Amazon.com, which I will not inflict on this newsletter. Additional discussion is in a current SteelNavy thread. I did speak for about an hour with the book's author a few weeks back, and he did a very thorough research job, including hiring researchers in Russia. He also had guidance on potential interviewees from Dr. John Craven. The author, Ken Sewell served on board the USS Parche, the Spec Ops boat which took on the role of the USS Halibut. Both of some of the Spec Ops of these two boats are featured in the book "Blind Man's Bluff". Additional background information on K-129 is at http//mikekemble.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/k129.html About a third of the way down on the above website is an article I wrote a few years back on the subject, printed in the SubCommittee Report. The points raised in the book are certainly very disturbing. Was the K-129 attempting a launch on Pearl Harbor at the behest of a small inner circle of Kremlin leaders? Was her behaviour designed to emulate a Chinese SSB attack by their Golf I submarine on Hawaii? Why did the US expend so much effort and money to photograph and attempt recovery of an obsolete Russian missile submarine? Tom ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "Jim McNeil" Subject Corvettes Just two cents worth. My Grandfather , aged 52, as Chief ERA, commissioned HMCS Bittersweet in Jan '41 and I have a Commissioning photo of the crew on my wall. He died when I was about 23, long before I had Any interest in ships. The only comment I recall about the Corvettes was that they seemed to operate on half crew most of the time because half the crew was too seasick to be effective. A lot of the crew were replaced after each trip or two to provide crews with some experience for the new corvettes commissioning.New crew were often fresh off the farms on the prairies and had never seen the ocean before. The chief engineer if I remember right, was either a new lieutenant with steam plant training or a qualified ex civilian chief engineer drafted into the navy with the rank of Chief Engine room Artificer (chief ERA) like my grandfather Another two cents.........the Corvette was designed as a coastal patrol/escort vessel intended for use escorting coastal convoys around the coast of England. It was never intended for escorting convoys across the atlantic. This is why it had such short legs in the early stages of the war. It had one quality that made it better than all the frigates sloops and destroyer escorts........it was available early in the war !!!!!!! horray for the RCNVR(Royal Canadian Navy Voluntary Reserve) Jim McNeil at Slackers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From ZMzimmerman@cs.com Subject Baltimore/Gearing Trumpeter has just released a 1/700th scale USS Baltimore as well as a USS Lexington. There is now available in plastic almost all of the late 1930s USN destroyers. Skywave has done several. Michael Zimmerman Dallas, Texas, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From paulship57@hotmail.com Subject Ebay Items Battle Cruiser SMS Gneisenau --- 1st World War (#7353885295) I saw this on eBay and thought, yikes!! Battle Cruiser SMS Schwaben --- 1st World War (#7353895504) Ditto... HELLER 1/400TH HMS COLOSSUS/ARROMANCHES 50'S CARRIER (#6004685259) The text mentions that it is a current reissue. Anyone know if this is true? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Ned Barnett Subject Radar Picket Destroyers (the reason why) And Other Flights of Fancy >> Actually the USN hadn't and still had lessons to learn even in 1945. Remember the USN developed radar pickets because they couldn't vector fighters onto attackers effectively enough. << Clearly, Christopher, and with no offense intended, you don't seem to know much about what you're commenting on here. We (i.e., the USN) developed radar pickets in '45 for one very good reason - we wanted to be able to orbit CAP flights and intercept attacking kamikazes anywhere from 60 to 100 miles out from our carriers (as if the RAF had placed standing patrols over Calais in 1940, with radar stations right below, to intercept German attacks well away from the white cliffs of Dover). Our radar intercept efforts often worked damned well, even earlier in the war. Take Butch O'Hare's Medal-of-Honor winning intercept of 7 Betty bombers well away from his home carrier (and this was in '42) - that was radar-directed, and our FDO were often effective. Not always in '42 (hence my mention of Santa Cruz); but by '44, they were extremely effective (hence such lopsided victories as the First Battle of the Philippine Sea, aka The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot). However, because of the nature of Kamikaze missions (where the pilots eschewed even the possibility of survival - making them harder to stop), it was both natural and prudent to put radar pickets out well away from the major task forces to intercept these death-seeking kamikazes well before they could inflict damage on capital ships or on troop carriers and cargo ships. >> The Hellcat was not a partcularly effective dogfighter at all (the Corsair was better). << Oh - and that would explain the Hellcat's 19-1 kill ratio - the best by any aircraft, on any side, in any war, in history. The Hellcat was called the "ace-maker" and something like 300 Hellcat pilots became aces. But of course, that was all just dumb luck, having nothing to do with the remarkable maneuverability (in turns), the remarkable zoom-climb capability, or even with the docile landing characteristics (which saved the ass of many a 250-hour Ensign). C'mon, Christopher, "national pride" is admirable, but it shouldn't be blinding. Nobody I know questions the notion that the Spit was a great dogfighter - but nobody who knows much questions the fact that the FW-190A was a better dogfighter than the Spit V (it took the Spit IX to reverse that trend, then the two planes kept see-sawing until the Dora-9 pretty much proved itself to be the best piston fighter of the European war (though I imagine that postwar Spits could have sharpened their claws on the Dora-9). But as the Spit V wasn't a better turning-circle dogfighter than the Anton, it also wasn't a better turning-circle fighter than the Zero 21 (or 32). And the USAAF proved that it wasn't a better turning fighter than the Hellcat 3 or 5 (again, if you don't believe me - and obviously you don't - check out published reports on the Joint Services Fighter Conference of '44 (see http//www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=BSFG or see http//www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764304046 - which says in part "The Joint Fighter Conference was held at the U.S. Navy's Patuxent River test center for eight days in October 1944, and includes frank discussion on the operational and technical capabilities of the P-39, P-47, P-51, P-38, Corsair, Hellcat, P-61, YP-59, Mosquito, Spitfire, and other Allied aircraft, as well as the Japanese Zero. Participants include Charles Lindbergh, Lloyd Child, Allen Chilton, Lt. Peter Twiss, Maj. Thomas Lanphier (credited with downing Yamamoto's Betty), Jack Woolams, Boone Guyton and scores of others (including the FAA's Winkle Brown). This conference is believed to be the last of several conducted in wartime in an effort to promote cross-talk between manufacturers, military service arms, and Allies, in order to obtain the best possible fighter aircraft"). This Joint Services Fighter Conference also included a fly-off (described by Brown and Meyer separately) that pitted all Allied fighters one against the other - the pilots were all skilled (and often celebrated) test pilots, flying their own and each other's planes in rigorous, head-to-head competition). The Zero fighter also flew in that competition, and the results there are also illuminating - and nothing the Allies ever fielded could turn with a Zero 21 in the hands of a pilot who knew what he was doing with the Zero. Don't take my word for it - as noted above, your own Winkle Brown and American test pilot Corky Meyers have both fairly recently published a number of magazine articles in popular aviation periodicals (on both sides of the Atlantic) on this particular fighter competition (and both test pilots flew in that competition - again, flying not only their own home-team fighters but almost all of the others, too). Facts speak louder than unsupported assertions, Christopher, and based on that test, the Corsair was NOT a better dogfighter than the Hellcat. It was faster, and it could carry more bombs/rockets, but in a head-to-head dogfight, it couldn't hold a candle to the Hellcat. It lasted longer because, after the advent of the jets and before the AD-1 proved so damned effective, both the Navy and the Marines still needed a high-performance fighter-bomber to support the mud Marines. >> However with regard to the Spitfire - it was better in three dimensions than the Zero. << It was better in the vertical than the Zero (if it had a height advantage - the carburettor did not give it an initial dive advantage against the Zero or anything the Germans made) - and it was faster, better armed (and IMO better armed). But the Zero not only had four times the range over the Spit, it had a far tighter turning circle. When the Spit tried to turn with the Zero in a European-style dogfight (as it did at Darwin) it lost it's ass. But the surviving British and Australian fighter pilots, prideful though they were, quickly learned a lesson from their American brethren who were then flying P-40s (planes with lesser performance, but better tactics-driven success rates, against Zeros) and began to fight in the vertical. Then, their other advantages (speed, firepower, protection) came into the fore. >> Turning circle is not the be all and end all. << Nor did I say (or try to imply) that it was. But in WW-II (and today), it is still an important measure of a fighter aircraft. A plane with a less effective turning circle CAN win a dogfight - but only if it avoids turning and capitalizes on it's other advantages. Both the early P-40 (with the AVG in China) and the F4F-3/4 Wildcat (in the hands of Marine and Navy pilots off Guadalcanal) proved that by defeating the Zero - but seldom on the Zero's terms. They did it by climbing higher, zooming faster, and diving away from Zeros that got on their tails (strategies later adopted by Corsairs and Spitfires, neither of which could turn with the Zero). Christopher, I see assertions from you, but no facts or examples to back them up. You say the Hellcat was (relatively) a dog - unable to hold a candle to the Corsair, the Spit (or apparently much of anything else), and that the Spit was (relatively) invincible, yet the facts (and published reports I have repeatedly cited) say otherwise. The Spit was one hell of a plane, and it soldiered (and remained in production) on long after the Zero, the Fw, and even the Hellcat, were retired. But that longevity - along with it's many sterling virtues - didn't mean that it was better in all dimensions than every other fighter. It wasn't. Damned good, but not better. Sorry, but those are the facts as reported by the best Allied test pilots of the day ('44) in a direct head-to-head competition. Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Iscandar66@aol.com Subject Re And now for something completely different Hi Ned, I read your message about the US Cruisers in comparison with the Japanese Cruisers. I also have a strong attraction to the Brooklyns and Clevelands, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in on this one. I recommend reading Norman Friedman's 'US Cruisers; An Illustrated Design History'. I believe it will answer a lot of the issues you brought up. I may be mistaken on some of my points here because it's been a few years since I read the book. So anyone please feel free to jump in here and tell me I've got it all wrong. ^_^ IIRC, the US design philosophy for cruisers focused on gun armament. This was influenced by the events at Jutland, where long range gunfire had more success than close in torpedo attacks. Likewise, littoral ops were not seen as likely as blue water ops in as far as the design of the ships were concerned. See Plan Orange, nuff said. The US Congress demanded that the USN hold strict adherence to the Washington/London Treaty limits in regard to weight. As such, something had to go. Per the lessons of WWI, torpedoes were not seen to be as effective as guns for the tasks they believed US cruisers would be called to perform. Also, since destroyers would be present to accompany cruisers, it was felt it would be preferable to concentrate torpedo armament on destroyers and heavy gun armament on cruisers. IIRC, torpedo tubes (and their magazines) not only required additional weight (that might better be allocated to guns and armor), but came to be seen as a potential vulnerability during long range gun duels. A similar logic lead to the decision to relocate aviation facilities from amidships to the stern of US cruisers (a concept that proved to be all too true given what happened to our earlier CAs during the Battle of Savo Island). This realization in part is what led to the demise of the US CLV or Flight Deck Cruiser concept (half cruiser, half light carrier). Kewl looking design, lousy night combatant. Therefore, as Friedman illustrates, these factors led long range gunnery to become the focal point of US cruiser design in the interwar period. As so often happened, the ships were forced to fight in places, conditions, etc., their designers could not foresee. Perhaps had they been aware of the development of the Long Lance torpedoes...nuff said. The Brooklyn class ships were developed because US tonnage for heavy cruisers had largely been expended by the mid 30s. To continue cruiser construction, they had to switch their focus from heavy to light types. BuShips worked up a number of smaller light cruiser designs. The decision to increase their size though was clearly motivated by the Japanese Mogami class ships. Accordingly, they were intended to serve as 'heavy cruiser supplements' fighting at shorter ranges, but serving in similar roles. Not adding torpedoes goes back to the existing philosophy in place during the time of their construction. The Atlanta's were intended to counter this trend and provide a modern class of scout cruisers akin to the earlier Omahas. Your comment about them being oversized destroyer leaders is exactly the role they were designed to perform. Accordingly, they were the only class of US interwar cruisers to retain torpedo armament. By 1943-44 though, the retention of the TTs were commonly criticized as taking up valuable space that might better be used for additional AA guns. The Cleveland's started out as improved Brooklyns. They continued to adhere to the same interwar philosophy of 'guns first'. The factoids of their development is a fascinating read of an engineering disaster waiting to happen. Simply put, the interwar designers could not have foreseen how many AA guns and electronic arrays would be demanded to keep the ships combat capable as the war progressed. Accordingly, all of the Clevelands became both dangerously and obscenely overweight by war's end. Derek "Deke" Wakefield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From "Mark Green" Subject Spitfire V Wildcat et al Hi guys, Just been reading the recent posts on comparative performances with great interest. Yes a Zero could out turn a Spitfire, but then again, so could a Hurricane. What has not been covered is the human element, a war-machine of any type is only as good as the operator. I don't want to open the best ace debate, as all air-forces have their stand outs, but most comparitive tests are performed by very skilled test pilots and leave something out. That thing being the scenario of the combatants. Lets take for instance the claim that the Zero could out turn the Spitfire, maybe it could, but what if the Zero pilot had just got his wings in the training frenzy of the latter war years when pilots were getting scarce and the training was hurried. This pilot then comes up against a Spitfire pilot with a mass of combat experience in Europe and 10+ kills in the pacific theatre. Will the superior turning of his aircraft make up for lack of experience? Maybe, Maybe not. And with requards equipment used by the allies being suitable or not remember, the allies did not have the luxury of choosing when the war would start or where it would happen. I think you could apply the following two thoughts here- If you are attacked, a pistol in your hand is far superior to a machine gun on the drawing board. If your friend is attacked on the street you jump in and help with whatever you have (walking stick, umbrella, belt etc) you don't run off to try to find a gun. Just my two cents worth Mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Ships decals For those who are always needing to have those specific decals to finish off your ship model's needs, you might want to consider the French company of L'Arsenal at http//www.larsenal.com/GB/indexgb.php .Though I will bediscussing my personal favorites later; their WW-II French navy destroyer pennant numbers, there are some rather interesting items to consider. A specific scale list is below 1/350 DEC 350 01 U.S. Navy codes Has post-WW-II shadowed and wartime 24", 36" and 72" white codes . 1/400 DEC 400 01 Marques de coque Marine Nationale varying size black codes for modern French navy ships. DEC 400 02 Marques de coque Marine Nationale a continuation of DEC 400 01, but with more variations. DEC 400 03 Codes Aéronautique Navale white and twice as many black aircraft and "Marine" codes. DEC 400 04 Marques de coque Marine Nationale WWII white and red shadowed pre-war and WW-II destroyer codes. DEC 700 01 U.S. Navy codes same as DEC 350 01 above. DEC 700 02 Marques de coque Marine Nationale WWII same as DEC 400 04 above. DEC 1250 01 Marques de coque Marine Nationale WWII same as DEC 400 04 and DEC 700 02 above. What makes L'Arsenal's 1/700 scale DEC 700 02 Marques de coque Marine Nationale WWII my personal favorite is the fact that these allow one to finish off all of the following French destroyers classes Fleet Torpedo Boat (Class Fier), FRA 600 Tonne Class (Class Melpomene), FRA 1010 Tonnes Class (Aigle Class), FRA 1500 Tonnes Class 1st Series (Bourrasque Class), FRA 1500 Tonnes 2nd Series (L'Adroit Class), FRA 2100 Tonnes Class (Chacal), FRA 2400 Tonnes 1st Series (Guépard Class), FRA 2400 Tonnes Class 2nd Series (Aigle Class), FRA 2400 Tonnes Class 3rd Series (Vauquelin Class), Ship Class FRA 2610 Tonnes Class (La Fantasque Class), FRA 2930 Tonnes Class (Mogador Class). With Niko Model's release of their latest #7014 - Le Terrible (1/700) French Destroyer (Fantasque class), 1944, and their earlier Burza and Wicher kits, choose the earlier versions of these two kits, to build the French navy destroyers of the FRA 1500 Tonnes Class 1st Series (Bourrasque Class), FRA 1500 Tonnes 2nd Series (L'Adroit Class), from the latter two Niko kits and the FRA 2400 Tonnes Class 3rd Series (Vauquelin Class) and the FRA 2610 Tonnes Class (La Fantasque Class) from the Niko Le Terrible kit, though their will be some work needed for the earlier FRA 2400 Tonnes Class 3rd Series (Vauquelin Class) to be built. And especially the "Jaguar, Jackal and Leopard" and their death as part of the 2nd Division of destroyers at Dunkirk. In all, a fairly large representation of the pre and wartime series of French destroyers can be built and decaled using the Niko kits and the L'Arsenal decal sheets. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume