General Ship Modeling
Discuss modeling techniques, experiences, and ship modeling in general.
Warship's for 'Dummies'
Halfyank
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 01:31 PM UTC
For a grunt you do pretty well ARMDCAV. I agree with everything you say, with one small nitpick. The collision you mention was the Wisconsin, not the Missouri, and the ship that was used to donate her bow was the Kentucky, which was a fifth Iowa class ship. Not Montana. http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb66.htm and http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb64.htm


As Gunnie says "Whoo Ahhh."
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 02:55 PM UTC



Oooooohhhhhhhh!........(said in my best SNL voice) HalfYank!...sharpenin' the pencilllll, ......fillin' in the blanksss.........correcting the errorssss.......

Tread.

Is this where I'm supposed to say 'touche'?

Just kidding ya guys.............I'm lovin' it!
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 02:57 PM UTC



O.K........since "Warships" includes Subs.......is there anyone out there who can answer some Sub questions pray tell??

Tread.
garrybeebe
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: November 24, 2003
KitMaker: 1,969 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 03:03 PM UTC
Thanks for the input Terry, thats good stuff ! Tread, what I read about the bombardment from the Battleships is that they were very succesful. Taking out bunkers and other targets. even inland targets, including tanks! In a situation like D-day, The Alies had the worlds best artillery.

Cheers,
Garry
Quoted Text

Whew I can't believe I really just read every single post in this thread. Ok a few observation from another tanker (me). The info was dead on target and the post about the oil in the bulges is absolutly correct. This was pointed out to me when I visited the USS Alabama in Mobile. There were open hatches on top of the bulges so I asked. About the Iowa class or "the greyhounds of the sea". They were specific built to keep up with the carrier task groups. I believe the Yamoto could do 28 knots? The Iowa's with 250,000 horses could and did keep station with the carriers and the carriers ran what about 32 to 36 knots when launching and retreiving planes? All American Battleships I believe after BB 53 were constructed with an internal armored box which ran from in front of the first babbit back beyond the last babbit. The top of this box was an anti-bomb shield comprised of armor plate 16" thick. All important functions were incased in this box including CIC, como, the gun control center, ammo storage and propulsion. Crew spaces were along both sides of this box and the deck just above the armor plate deck. The Marines of course were in the bows. Where they should be. These factor added to the superior fire control systems and manuverability of the Iowas, gave them a vast edge over the competition. Think about it, America only lost 2 battleships in WW2 both by sneak attack. The Utah dosen't count. she was classed as an auxilery because her main function was to train dive bombers. Yep, she was bombed more times by us then anyone else. Range. What I've read is that the Iowas could fire a 3200 lb shell more than 23 miles. Kill marks. On tanks we call them kill rings. Don't know what the sailors called them I think the Air Corps called them flags? Clean sweep. Hey I have seen every damn war movie made and if "The Duke" was in it then way more than one time. Anyway they were always saying that clean sweep ment that they had fired all they're torpedos and some of them had actually hit something Obsolete. Funny calling a class of ships with such awsome abilities obsolete. When you think of the ships that have been sunk by missles and sabatoge in the last 15 20 years, and then take in to account the capabilities of the Iowas you wonder whos running the store. Or who was, they're gone now. In they're day they didn't just intimidate, they scared the hell out of em. They didn't just ingage an enemy, they assulted them. The Montanas. They were infact streched Iowas. When the Missouri collided with another ship her bows were severly damaged. What they did instead of rebuilding her bows, they cut the front off the Kentuckey I think, and welded it on the Mo. The Montana had already been launched before the class was declared obsolete and the Kenucky was still on the ways.

ARMDCAV
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: July 29, 2002
KitMaker: 115 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 02:44 AM UTC
Hmm, err, uh, yea thats right. The Wisconsin. I knew that. And further research (which I should have done before opening my big mouth) shows that the 2 ships I mentioned (remembered?) WERN'T Montanas they were the last 2 ships of the Iowa class the Illinois and the Kentucky. The 5 Montana class BB's, were Montana - Ohio - Maine - New Hampshire - and Louisiana. Added all that just to show you how informed I am. Funny though that some of the names ended up on submarines. There Treadhead ya happy?something about subs. #:-) So how come the navy refers to ships as surface ships and subs as boats? In all the movies you hear the chief or who ever say "pressure in the boat". Now I can just imagine what happens next. In real life someone probably farts.
Halfyank
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 03:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text

So how come the navy refers to ships as surface ships and subs as boats?



I don't know much about subs but I know this one. In the navy a boat is anything that can be carried on a ship. PT Boats, Lifeboats, things like that can all be carried on the deck of a larger ship. The earliest subs were small enough to be carried on ships and were called boats and the tradition stuck.
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 03:56 AM UTC



Man Rodger! Sometimes you scare me with how you come up with this stuff! I think you should change your moniker from ' HalfYank' to ' Funk & Wagnall's'

Hey, I got one for ya! What's the atomic weight of an African Swallow?

Tread. #:-)
Halfyank
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 04:13 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hey, I got one for ya! What's the atomic weight of an African Swallow?



Drat, somebody found me out. I don't know that one. Now if you were to ask me for the airspeed of a laden sparrow I'd have to ask "African or European."

As to me being Funk and Wagnalls it's just that I have the kind of mind that remembers useless stuff. Like a online friend of mine, whom I've never met, puts it., "My mind is like a compost heap, both fertile and rotten." I like that one.
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:01 AM UTC
LOL......thx for the chuckle walkin' in the door!

Actually 'F&W', aka, HalfYank. You remembered it correctly (must be either the "fertile" or "rotten" part...you decide ). It is airspeed, and not atomic weight....I'll have to chalk that up to 'rotten' synapse's again,mine I mean.....

Tread.

Nice to know your a 'Pythonite', or a 'Pythonette', or a 'Pythonean', or a citizen of 'Python', or maybe just a 'Pyth'.......
foxroe
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: December 04, 2003
KitMaker: 50 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, January 30, 2004 - 05:10 AM UTC
I'm an ex-submariner so I may be able to provide a few "sub"-par answers (chuckle) to your undersea questions. As far as the "boat" thing goes, Halfyank (I think it was) was correct about the carry-on-board thing. Also, apparently, when submarines were first experimented with back in the late sixteenth to early seventeenth centuries, they were refered to initially as "diving boats". I came across this article on the web (God bless Google!), which treats it in much more detail:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/2000/07_24_00/story25.htm

Todd
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:51 PM UTC



Ooooooooohhh, good foxroe! Then I've got some Q;s for you!

But first!....I have to share this little 'ditty' with everybody here on the "Dummies" thread so you can all have a big Chuckle!

I've already told you guys (on another thread) that I picked up a 1/350th scale Bismark model I plan to 'convert' to a Tirpitz. Here's what I didn't share with you yet.

As soon as I got home I opened the box to check out the contents and to familiarize myself with the kit in general. Everything was nicely packed in little plastic bags, and the main hull, which was one piece, was nicely tucked in between two outer small cardboard box-shaped forms to (assumably) protect the front and rear of the hull itself. The kit is apparently a 'Waterline' kit, that allows you to build the ship in either configuration.
So, I look in the box and see the upper hull section, and I also see the lower hull section. Everything's fine....make's sense right? Then I also see this large, flat piece of plastic that is, almost, the exact shape of the entire hull length. So, I figure, this has got to be the deck piece right?....right?.........I said, .....right?
So, I'm trying this way, ......and that way, .......and finally I think "this deck plate fit really sucks!"
Jeeeeeeeez.......
Then, from a far way off............a lightbulb fortunately goes off. The piece finally 'fits'..................
Do I have to say it?


Hope you enjoyed it........I'm still feeling the "whoooooosh!" as the point flew by! #:-)

Tread.
garrybeebe
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: November 24, 2003
KitMaker: 1,969 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, January 30, 2004 - 01:28 PM UTC
Oh gads Tread! You meen to tell me that was your tie that flopped it the box, and you were trying to fit it to the hull ? Now I've heard it all, for petes sakes!



Ok ok, I know it was the waterline bottom. but I had to give ta a ribbing dont ya know!

Cheers,
Garry
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Friday, January 30, 2004 - 03:44 PM UTC



Yeah!....yeah, the 'waterline bottom', yeah, that's right! I knew that all the time, I was just kidding you guy's is all........................(said in a whisper) "I think they fell for it!"

O.K., enough at my expense.

Got a ship building question:

I don't know how you guys usually handle these things, but I'm a little dissapointed with the 'texture' of the Mini Hobby Bismark. No worries though. Got it handled (don't want HalfYank to start ranting at me again ). Anyway, I was planning on drilling out the ends of the main gun barrels for accuracy, but I'm not totally secure with the idea of drilling through the rather soft plastic. So my question is this; Is it a good idea to cut off the front 3rd of the gun barrel itself, and instead replace it with a properly sized piece of copper tubing?
I mean, is that something you 'boat-builders' do on a regular basis? Or am I just trying to hard?
Also (for foxroe?). A 'Sub' question.
I know what Sub commander's did to address this situation around the time of WW II. But, If a Sub Commander found himself in a position where a torpedo, while it was sitting in the torpedo room, began to (I think it's called) 'hot-run'...what's the first thing a Sub Commnader would do. Or, more accurately. What would be his very first Command?

Tread.
garrybeebe
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: November 24, 2003
KitMaker: 1,969 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, January 30, 2004 - 04:09 PM UTC
Hello Tread,
I dont see why the copper tubing would not work. As long as you can cover up where the plastic and metal meet. But first if you are going to do that, you might as well try drilling the plastic barrels out first. Are you going to use a pin vise to drill with? A dandy little devise!

Cheers,
Garry
warlock0322
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 13, 2003
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:01 AM UTC
Gary hit the nail on the head. I would try drilling out the barrel first using a pin vise. Going from the smallest bit and graduating up to the size you need. You don't really need to go that deep either. Just enough to suggest that the plastic is hollow. Maybe 1/32 or 1/16 of the drill bit itself. Once you get the hole drilled you can just take some black paint and dot the inside of the barrel with it. This will give it the hollow look you want.
If you mess the drilling up (like I have before) you can always cut the barrel back and use the tubing then. The trick would be to get the graduated effect that the barrels have.
That one is hard to explain but if it peaks your interest give a shout and I'll do my best and Hopefully the rest can help out as well..

Paul
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:44 AM UTC
Howdy guys,

Yes. I'm familiar with the pin vise. My question was motivated by the 'soft' plastic of the kit itself. Since you guys are experineced with the pin vise, you know what I'm talking about when I say it's quite difficult to drill with slow hand pressure alone into soft plastic. But, never mind. I'll deal with it.
Another 'barrel' question.
Since the barrel of the main guns is segmented into three seperate sections, obviously to depict the 'recoil' system. Would I be incorrect, when I come to the painting stage to try to paint (I'm not quite sure how to discribe it).......'recoil marks'. You know, kinda like marks left on pneumatic cylinders when they have actuated a few times....rub/wear/slide marks/lines/scuffs......is that clear/muddy enough for ya?

Tread.

...I'm still considering that 'Pibber'......I swear.
garrybeebe
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: November 24, 2003
KitMaker: 1,969 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 01:56 PM UTC
Hello Tread,
You got mail ! I just e-mailed you two pic's of Bismarcks guns, I hope this answers your question. Personaly I dont know the function of there recoil systom. I always thought that the steps on there barrels were stages of taper. Like the barrels on the Iowa's , only there a smooth taper. But then again I'm not sure! I have never seen any detraction marks from wear on any barrels.
Anywho, I hope these pic's help.

Cheers,
Garry

P.S. Hey bud, dont let this get you down. Just enjoy building your ship.


TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 02:05 PM UTC



That's alright Garry....I'm going back to my Abrams for awhile.....

Tread.

Oh...thx for the pics
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 10:17 AM UTC

O.K......question time.
I've got a WW II Battleship question first, because most of the fellas here are 'Sub question challenged' #:-) . And then a 'Sub' question, if for no other reason than to 'pile'em on'!

During the Kamikaze attacks in the Pacific, when the AAA guns were really whining. Some of these guns were of pretty big caliber (or mm's). Most large caliber weapons, especially MG's, had some kind of spent shell recovery, or 'gathering' system to not only recycle the spent shells, but to get them out of the area directly around/below the weapon itself.
Here's the 'Q': What sort of system did they have for this in regards to the veritable volcano of spent shell casings being fired when under Kamikaze attacks for instance?

Sub question: The U.S. Submarine, the S.S.N. 'Halibut', is a very special 'boat' in the annals of the Cold War. Structurally, what made her unique? And, as a Bonus Question. Name just one of her accomplishments?

Tread.
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Model Shipwrights: 3,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 10:31 AM UTC
Here's one for you Tread...subs were called "pig-boats" of course destroyers were "tin-cans" not sure if it was destroyers or Cruisers were called "greyhounds of the sea"
ARMDCAV
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: July 29, 2002
KitMaker: 115 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 02, 2004 - 12:48 AM UTC
The term "greyhounds of the sea" was coined to described the Iowa's. Pig boats were shallow water subs. Tin cans were the mass produced WW2 destroyers (thin armor) the WW1 destroyers were nicknamed four stackers or "flat decks, four pipes." The 5 inchers (inclosed turrets) expelled spent rounds out a chute at the back of the turret, where by the way they received a resupply of ammo brought up from the lower decks by elevators. The duplex and quad 40's expelled them into a pouch or net if you will, slung under the guns. .50 cals, 20 mm, and smaller caliber's were cleaned up with shovels when the pile got to big. Those big tubs you see around the gun platforms, along side the decks around the ship, were not waste containers for spent casings as some think. They contained netting and cork floats. The idea was that if the the ship sank the netting supported by the corks would act like rafts for the sailors, floating out of these tubs as the ship sank. American warships do not carry life boats. Like the British navy, they never did.
The steps or wraps around the gun barrels. Think linear. The expanding gases created by the detonated propellant will, like water, seek the easiest path. The breech, where the initial explosion occurs must be strong enough to contain and direct the energy needed to accelerate the projectile down the tube. What you are referring to is the technology in use then. Strong at the base of the tube. Build a tube and reinforce it as needed. There are records of Chinese guns, of wood, reinforced with brass bands. K , so the point is these bands have nothing to do with recoil of the gun. Also know that everything out side the turret stays outside the turret. There are no recoil "shiny gun parts" on naval guns. The cloth or canvas wrapping around large caliber naval guns are not there to protect the gun. The bag or canvas/linen cover you see is called a blast bag. It's there to protect the turret crew from the flash/blast of the gun. A lot of propellant is still igniting when the projectile leaves the muzzle. And that's what? Just as you think if you stop to do so. An explosion. Outside the tube. A continuing explosion an still a potent one. the blast, the muzzle blast of these guns can be deadly within a 20 meter peripheral radius of the muzzle. That is to the side, not directly in front of one. The Over pressure in front of one of these large caliber guns can bend steel plating. We model these guns. We marvel at the ability of some to reproduce these bemoth in great detail. We've seen , and some of you have set them in realistic settings we call dioramas. BUT, the awesome power unleashed by one of them can never be replicated, can never be reduced and contained accurately in any reasonable modelers scale.
BlueBear
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Joined: August 26, 2002
KitMaker: 414 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 02, 2004 - 08:58 PM UTC
A partial explanation for the segmented appearance of naval rifles is the need to disassemble them to replace the barrel liners when the rifleings wear out. The only way that we could have reactivated the 4 Iowas was the fact that we had liners still in storage to refit the guns with. I remember reading that once they're gone, the standard 16" guns have had it since industry no longer has the capability of manufacturing new rifled liners. I suppose they could come up with rocket assisted smooth bore AP and HE shells with GPS guidance to give the old girls another lease on life.
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,290 posts
Model Shipwrights: 58 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 07:18 AM UTC
TH - You have been busy again!!!

On the battleship question, I believe the 5" DP guns ejected their spent casings onto the deck - that is at least what I have seen in photos. The big main battery guns used caseless ammo, so no problem there. As for the AAA guns, I don't know what the 40mm did.

Concerning the USS Halibut: it was the first submatine designed and built from the keel up to fire a guided missle - the Regulus system. It was also the only nuclear sub to carry the Regulus and the first nuc boat to successfully fire a guided missle. Later the Halibut was converted to be an attack boat then it was modified for "special oceanographic missions". Its claim to fame during the "Cold War" was the tapping of Soviet underwater telephone lines near Valdivostok (there was a show on the History Channel that discussed this feat). It also assisted with the successful US recovery of a sunken Soviet sub.

Google is a good thing

Jeff
foxroe
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: December 04, 2003
KitMaker: 50 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 04:39 AM UTC
Sorry, been away from the board for a while, I'll need t play catch-up.

Looks like most of the questions were answered. Just a little extra... the blast bags also served to keep seawater spray out of the barbette internals.

In reference to the "hot run" question, the goal is to eject the torpedo out of the ship. Modern torpedos can be set to detonate on a timer... if you don't eject it, you're doomed (USS Scorpion). I believe that WII torpedos detonated on impact, so I'm not sure that "hot-runs" were as serious, although they would still jetison them since they would probably be giving off all sorts of toxic exhaust fumes (I don't claim to be a torpedo expert, I was an engineer so I just pushed most of the time...). As far as orders go, I'm not entirely sure. My guess is that it would be something like "Get that freakin' thing outa here!". Kidding. Probably more like "Load and shoot tube #".

Todd

TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Model Shipwrights: 453 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 12:59 PM UTC
Howdy fellas,

Many thx for your replies! (I think I might have worn out HalfYank & Garry ).

to blaster: The phrase "pig-boat" rings a bell. Don't know if any 'swabbies' ever called 'em that tho'

to ARMDCAV: As usual, for someone with a moniker like "ARMDCAV", you're pretty well read on the subject of 'floaty' things! Also, your "cork float net" things. Is there any record of them actually ever working? In all of the stories I've read, and the TV shows I've watched, I've never heard of these "nets", curious.
Your description of the "linear" gun barrel design makes sense (plus it saves me added painting & weathering chores). As does your descriptive of the "20 meter" blast radius. I sure as poop wouldn't want to be on deck when one of those monster's was ignited!!
I can also tell from your dialouge that you have a honourable respect and admiration for the 'Big Beauties'! I can appreciate that.

to BlueBear: Your info was interesting as well. Hearing that we don't have the "capability" to manufacture the liners was a bit shocking. Probably just a 'cost-effectiveness' thing.

to Ranger: Well of course! I've got to keep you guys on your toes! But, apparently, I've worn the 'swabbies' out. The 'armour' guys are jumping in to assist. (you 'floaty' guys listening? ).
You say you used 'Google'? Sorry, never use it. I read too much. Maybe I better rethink that though.
As to your 'Google' intel...You're pretty much correct...just a few additions. Your dead right about the Regulus missles (little bird-like missles). AND, you're correct about the Soviet undersea phone-line tapping, except, the more accurate location was 'Okhotsk', not Vladivostok. And, they assisted in locating a sunken Russian 'Golf' class submarine. Not recovering it. The super secret (at the time) 'Glomar Explorer' did ther recovery efforts, and she only recovered approx. 10% of the forward section of the sub after it disintegrated after a failed attempt at recovery.
Superb effort though Ranger! . :-) :-) :-)

Tread.