Subject: SMML VOL 3001 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:07:10 +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 Happy Number 3,000 2 Pristine models 3 Re Zeros and Buffalos and Wildcats, Oh My ... 4 Trumpeter Slava (Pieter Cornelissen's report) 5 Re SMML 3000 6 Question 7 Re Alternate Pearl Harbor 8 USS Albacore 9 Re Battle Damage 10 Re Pearl Harbor 11 HMS BADSWORTH 12 Re SMML VOL 3000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 You heard it hear first (Yet again) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From fbustelo@aol.com Subject Happy Number 3,000 Hi Shane & Lorna, SMML is 3,000 issues strong! Congratulations on reaching this milestone. Here's wishing for at least another 3,000 and thanks for all the work you put into getting this valuable tool out day in and day out. Felix Bustelo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Jill Ferreira" Subject Pristine models Personally, I feel a wash and dry brushing brings out the detail in the moldings. A lot of ship models you see are flat or monotone. The reason, I believe you do not see more weathering on ship models is that ship modelers have not really tried their hand at weathering. Read a few articles on weathering a tank model and you will find the same things will work to add life to your ship model. Just go slow and do not over do it. My two cents, Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "John Snyder" Subject Re Zeros and Buffalos and Wildcats, Oh My ... >> You might want to check your sources - two battleships (Arizona and Oklahoma) were never put back into service (nor was Utah, Oglala and probably several more that escape me) << Actually, OGLALA was refloated and put back into service in a comparitively short time. She survived the war, and sat for years in the "Mothball Fleet" at Benicia, California. I recall seeing her there (but didn't know at the time what she was). She should have been a candidate for preservation, IMHO. Best regards, John Snyder White Ensign Models http//WhiteEnsignModels.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "F. Pletscher" Subject Trumpeter Slava (Pieter Cornelissen's report) I was happy to have an easy-to-build kit of a Slava class cruiser before I read Pieter Cornelissen's posting in SMML Vol. 2998. After that, I had to check my own references. And after this, I would like to add the following comments In a book by Apal'kov Udarnye Korabli from 2003 the dimensions of Project 1164 (Slava class) are given as follows Loa - 186,0m, Lwl - 170,0m, Boa - 20,8m, Bwl - 19,2m. According to these figures, the Trumpeter kit measures out quite correctly, while the Kombrig kit is about 1mm to long on the waterline and 2 - 2.5mm too large in beam. There are also some drawings in 1/700 scale, and the Trumpeter kit is matching them pretty well. According to this source, Project 11641 (Varyag) was 6m longer than Project 1164, and none of the kits is correct in this aspect. In my opinon, Pieter's comments on the shape of the fore part of the hull are arguable. My impression is, that the Trumpeter kit is almost correct. But there might be differences between the ships of this class. I am not quite sure if the shape of the after part of the hull (quarter deck) is not given more correctly with the Kombrig kit. Compared with photos, the Trumpeter kit may be a little too narrow. The Kombrig kit has straight vertical funnel sides. With the Trumpeter kit, the outer funnel sides are leaning a bit outboard. Compared with photos, this seems to be correct. After all, the Trumpeter kit appears to be a bit better. But you will need at least the Kombrig PE fret and their decals to build a propper kit. So don't throw away your Kombrig kits. Falk Pletscher ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Keith Butterley Subject Re SMML 3000 Shouldn't we have a cake or something? What a milestone! Keith Butterley ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Keith Butterley Subject Question How many Allied warships and auxiliary vessels were sunk by U-boats in WWII? Keith Butterley ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From Ned Barnett Subject Re Alternate Pearl Harbor >> Several posts have mentioned the things the Japanese should have done to increase their success at Pearl Harbor. Have any of our experts read "Days of Infamy" by Harry Turtledove? It is an alternative history in which the Japanese follow up the air attack with an army invasion to occupy the Hawaiian islands. I found it an entertaining read but do not know enough to comments on the details of the scenario. Since Turtledove is a Byzantine historian by training has he got his 1941 facts right? << Peter - I'm working on my own alternate history of Pearl Harbor (but with a different pretense) - but I've not read Turtledove's work. He does a lot of alternate history (Civil War stuff comes to mind), but he does his in pure novelistic approach (vs. what others do as what seems like history, but with a twist). I'm trying to combine a bit of both - don't know if it will work - but my thesis is "what if the commanders and junior officers at Pearl Harbor had just done what they'd been trained to do?" The answer - we would have had 88 minutes to prepare for the aerial assault. Some ships would have had steam up, all AAA guns would have been manned (with ammo broken out of ready lockers), and at least some of the fighters would have been airborne (as an anti-sabotage move, they were all unfueled and unarmed - it would have taken 4 hours to fuel and arm them all) - but at least they could have been dispersed instead of lined up in target rows (and protected by fully-manned AAA guns and crews). The upshot - America would have lost the Battle of Pearl Harbor (the correlation of forces was just too great), but with tactical surprise lost, the damage would have been less - to ships, and especially to aircraft - and the negative impact on Japanese attackers would have been much more significant - instead of 29 planes lost, I estimate at least 75-100 planes (out of 350) would have been lost to an alert, aroused defending force. These were the cream of Japanese naval aviation, and their loss would have had impact at Coral Sea and Midway (assuming those battles still happened) and perhaps even at Wake (where Soryu supported the second assault). Wake would have been different, too - in reality, Kimmel's temp-replacement (Pye) chickened out - afraid of losing the carriers and being career-castrated the way Kimmel was getting it, Pye recalled Frank Jack Fletcher (who as usual spent a full day on fueling while Marines were facing their "finest hour") and his carrier-based relief force just in time to miss out on defending Wake. As an aside, the notion of sending just one carrier, while two others stooged around off-stage, made no sense (it violates "concentration of forces") - but it was standard carrier doctrine in the early in the war (pre-Doolittle Raid). Still, Sara should have been able to fight Soryu to a standstill (at least) and successfully defended Wake a second time. We could NOT have held Wake - not long-term - it was just too far into Japanese Mandate territory - but we could have pulled out our guys on our timetable, instead of sacrificing them to the Japanese invaders. Not sure if politically we could have withdrawn them (we were in a fight-and-die-where-we-stand mode at that time), but if we hadn't lost so heavily on 12/7, and if we stopped Japan twice at Wake, it might have been possible to save those 300 or so gallant Marines. Along with this whole thesis, MacArthur had 8 hours to prepare for the aerial assault - he had no reason to lose ANY flyable aircraft on the ground (and those could have been dispersed), but instead he sat on his thumbs and lost 2/3rds of his air force in one assault - ensuring that the P.I. would fall fast and hard. A stronger defense in the P.I. might have also made it possible to evacuate Wake (after a second defense), but if not, it would have given more time to ship supplies to Bataan (they should have been there, but Mac changed his defense strategy BEFORE he had the forces to carry it out - another issue for another time. Just food for thought - don't know about Turtledove, but I will check this one out. Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Raven0222@aol.com Subject USS Albacore Am modeling the USS Albacore from scratch. Says it had dive brakes around her middle section. O. K. What did these look like? Anybody have a photo of these dive brakes? Or a description of their appearance. Thanks for the help Christian A. Raven Raven Arts RavenArts.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From Ned Barnett Subject Re Battle Damage >> To all the naval warfare historical experts I love your discussions and debates, and find them very informative and illuminating. Please keep them coming. I've also wondered, along with Dean Markley, why ship models showing battle damage are so seldom seen. My guess is that they would be challenging to portray accurately and convincingly. But is there a bias in shows to award prizes to only "pristine" models? << Norman My guess is that any decent (average) ship model takes more time and effort than your average airplane or tank - the risk of "junking" it up has a higher perceived cost. Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From Ned Barnett Subject Re Pearl Harbor From "rwsmithjr@rcn.com" >> You might want to check your sources as well....Maryland came out of Bremerton with Colorado and went back into the line in Feb., 1942, Tennessee was not too far benhind. So the two BB's Maryland and Tennessee were in fact back in service rather quickly (Colorado was at Bremerton during the PH attack undergoing refit) << Thanks for this advice. You're right. Here's what an official USN website says "The Japanese had thus put out of action all seven battleships present on "Battleship Row". Two, Maryland and Tennessee, were repaired in a matter of weeks, as was the Pennsylvania. However, three were under repair for a year or more. Oklahoma and Arizona would never return to service. Even with the addition of three more battleships brought around from the Atlantic, the Japanese battleline was assured of absolute superiority in the critical months to come." It should be noted that those which were repaired "in a matter of weeks" were later sent back to the yards for a major rebuild which took a year or more to complete (that's what I was remembering, incompletely). Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From Sell4853@aol.com Subject HMS BADSWORTH HMS BADSWORTH a Hunt class destroyer took part in the following Arctic Convoys PQ15 Oban (Scotland) 21/5/1942 to Murmansk arriving 5/5/1942. then QP 12 from Kola Inlet leaving 21/5/42 arriving Iceland 29/5/1942 This ship was in fact transferred to The NORWEGIAN Navy in 1946 (NOT Indian Navy) and renamed as a frigate KNM ARENDEL see following site for photo http//home.online.no/~old.navy/Navy_bilder/knm_arendal.htm Extract from crewman Ronald Bannisters account re ship being mined is as follows- I was now back at Devonport Dockyard where I received my draft to a Hunt Class destroyer, H.M.S. BADSWORTH. She had already been damaged by a mine and had just completed her repairs in North Shields, where I was for three weeks before we were sent on convoy duties to the Mediterranean. Having taken a convoy down to Alexandria, we were on our way back to Gibraltar when we hit a mine which bent the shaft and almost severed the quarterdeck. The Captain had no alternative but to beach the ship or we would have sunk. There were a few casualties. We had beached at a little place called Bone in North Africa. After a couple of days it was decided to have just a skeleton crew aboard. This was done and the rest of the crew were distributed around the Mediterranean Fleet. I was one of those kept aboard because we kept one boiler going for electric's, guns and cooking. After three weeks the ship was patched up enough to be towed to Algiers where they cleverly put a shell around the whole of the quarterdeck. We were now ready to be towed back to ENGLAND in convoy. There were lots of U boats in the Atlantic and it took us 17 days dodging these U boat packs, and with the order that if we were attacked we were to 'save the tug," before we arrived home to Liverpool safe and sound. Also there was confusion over the pennant number of HMS BADSWORTH as mentioned below............................... What had caused confusion to many was the 'L03' on the ship's side? HMS Cossack had the pennant no. L03 but this was changed to F03 in December 1938 and then later G03, HMS Badsworth taking over the L03 no. on 17/3/40. The thing I find confusing is not the changes to the prefixes, L to F, to G, but that both Cossack and Badsworth could have had the suffix '03' at the same time. Pennant numbers were painted on the ships' sides to aid recognition. In the case of the very knowledgeable matelots it only served to confuse. Badsworth, one of the Hunt class, was launched in 1941 and was transferred to Norway in 1946 where she was renamed Arendal Hope that this is of some help Norman SELLS Tenterden Kent. UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From RDemeyere@aol.com Subject Re SMML VOL 3000 SMML, Congratulations! Posting 3000 volumes of anything is quite an accomplishment. Best wishes to you and may many more volumes come in the future! Russ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "John Lambert" Subject You heard it hear first (Yet again) Hi All Another goody from my shelf. Available for the highest bidder after 7 days. B.R. 282 (Book of Reference) D.E.M.S. Pocket Book 1942. Showing its age a little. (Like the rest of us) but all there. (superseding B.R. 219/40 - Notes on Gunnery for Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships). 227 pages. Dated 26th September 1942. 19 chapters. Covering the General Instructions.(I). Gunnery (II). Smoke Floats, paravanes and Depth Charges (III). Balloons and Kites (IV). Appendicices. Personnel and Organisation (I) Gun Drill (II) Sighting (III) Low angle fire control (IV) Anti-aircraft contol and drill for long range guns (V) Care and Maintenance (VI) Guns and Mountings 3 -Pdr and above (VII) Gun ammunition (VIII) The 20mm Oerlikon Gun (IX). The 20mm Hispano Gun (X) The Lewis and Savage Lewis Gun (XI) The Hotchkiss Gun (XII) The Marlin Gun (XIII) The Holman Projector (XIV) Rocket Projectors and Ammunition (XV) Depth Charges (XVI) Paravanes (XVII) Kites and Balloons (XVIII) Smoke Floats (XIX Each chaper is illustrated and explains the theory and the training of the period. Back to my drawing board! Yours "Aye" John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume