ccoyle

Ah -- that's the part I missed. I went back and read it.

As far as I know it's the same stuff. Difference in carving results might be based on differences in grain structure between billets going into production. I'm not much of a carver myself, but based on what I've read, if you're interested in getting better results, you might be better off replacing your basswood with pear or boxwood.

Pardon me if this particular topic got discussed earlier, but it's kind of interesting to speculate about how effective GZ would have been in actual combat. The Americans and British had practiced carrier operations and tactics for many years before the start of the war, and even so they went through teething troubles after the shooting started. Even if the DKM had enough escort vessels to provide an effective screening force (they didn't), I doubt that GZ would have posed much of a threat, just as Bismarck and Tirpitz ultimately posed little strategic threat.

Nice models! There is no one way to do a build log -- think of it as show and tell at a club meeting. Show what your working on and talk about it -- easy peasy!

Splitting this off again. Please post replies here!

Some progress with itty-bitty metal bits. First, oarlocks and eyebolts. Then an anchor (one more of these to go). On the right is an unfinished anchor showing the PE flukes and the tiny prongs upon which they are supposed to be seated. I found this method hugely aggravating to accomplish, what with my tweezers tips slipping and flinging three of the 2 mm wide flukes off into uncharted regions. So instead I sanded off the little prongs with my Dremel tool and a sanding disk, then made replacement flukes from card stock. The resulting anchor is on the left. Since the tiny anchor is black, and the cap rail to which it will be lashed is also black, any irregularities among the flukes will be imperceptible on the finished model.

Hi, Cono. I split your first post off as a separate topic in the New Member Introductions area. It's still there.

RAIDERS FROM THE SEA John Lodwick Greenhill Books paperback, 240 pages 23.3 x 15.5 cm format 35 black & white illustrations Suggested retail: GBP 14.99 Verdict: A page-turner, but with a caveat. "Half a mile offshore the officer made a prearranged signal with a torch. He sighted the submarine on his starboard bow. The two men boarded her from the gun-platform. The canoe was passed inboard and dismantled. The submarine got underway. Some ham sandwiches remained in the ward-room. The canoeists had eaten five or six of these when the officer was called for from the bridge. He mounted the steel ladder in time to see a train entering the far end of the tunnel. Fifty seconds later a large flash was visible. This flash was followed by an explosion." So ended a successful mission carried out by men of the Special Boat Service on the night of 22 June 1941. I suspect that far more people are aware of the exploits of the SAS in North Africa than of those of their naval counterparts in the SBS. But the ranks of the SBS were filled with the same sort of daring individuals, willing to carry out feats of sabotage on the fringes of the Axis empire along the Mediterranean coastline. Raiders from the Sea chronicles their activities. Originally published in 1947, Raiders reads much like a spy novel, which is not surprising considering that its author, John Lodwick, was a successful novelist after the war. Lodwick served in the SBS and thus had first-hand knowledge of its operations and the often colorful characters that carried them out. In Raiders he has created a rather engrossing narrative, although here and there it is sometimes difficult to figure out what is meant exactly by the period language, sprinkled as it is with naval terms and British colloquialisms. Nevertheless, I think that fans of naval history, especially those that are interested in commando-style raids and littoral operations, will find this book quite interesting. There is one feature of this book that I find just a little disappointing, namely that there is no documentation at all -- not one citation or end note. The diligent work of historians has repeatedly shown us that first-hand accounts of wartime experiences often do not square exactly with the immense amount of military records that must be gathered, catalogued, organized, and at some point released to the public, often many years after the cessation of hostilities. Good end notes and a works cited section suggest to me a historian who has done his homework. In Lodwick's case we can only guess at home much of his material is derived from sources other than his own recollections. Thus there is a bit of a shadow that hangs over Lodwick's narrative. It's a great story, but the reader can never rest assured that his descriptions are correct in certain details, such as his assertions of the number of enemy combatants killed or the amount of materiel destroyed, such as the "... eight planes, six trucks, four bomb dumps, seven petrol and two oil dumps" supposedly bagged by a raid on the airfield at Kastelli on Crete. That's a pretty significant haul for a small-scale raid. Do any German sources verify the destruction? The reader isn't told. But Lodwick's account of this particular operation can be compared with one found at Wikipedia based on a Greek source, and the reader will note that their are discrepancies in both the descriptions of the personnel involved and of the damage inflicted. My suggestion is to take Lodwick's quantitative statements with a grain of salt and don't allow them to distract too much from the story. CDC

Hmmm. You could square up the painted portions, give them a shot of matte acrylic spray to knock off any sheen, and then consider them to be patches applied to battle damage. 😉

Yes, please start a new log for your model! Not only would our members like to see more of what you are building, but posting progress photos in someone else's log, sometimes referred to as "thread hijacking", is generally frowned upon. Thanks!

Hello! I noticed that you have been starting a new topic for each update. I have merged them together for you into this thread. Pleas add additional updates here by using the reply option at the bottom of the thread. Thanks!

Love the Shay! Much of Northern California where I did fisheries work had been railroad logged back in the day. There were still trestles and track beds in many places. Some of the logging roads followed the old rail lines, and, in a few instances, crossed streams on the original railway bridges.

Quarter booms made and installed. Ladder in back of gun pit is not glued in just yet. I made the iron straps for the booms from black cartridge paper -- leftover from a Caldercraft kit, actually. I find the paper easier to work with than the etched brass parts. I also did not care much for the etched eye bolts and have been replacing those with formed wire as I go.

Looks great so far! Alaska and Guam were built for a purpose that had ceased to exist by the time they were commissioned, a fact reflected in their very short service careers. However, there's no denying that they were sleek and deadly looking -- definitely worthy additions to a steel navy model collection.

Snake makes into a very attractive model, and based on your previous models, I'd say you could pull it off successfully.

Yes, it has been over two months since I made any progress on this model, but I did make a little in the last few days. It will be hard to tell, though, despite the fact that I have added over 50 parts, because most of those were tiny cleats, eye bolts, and simulated bolt heads. Many more fiddly PE brass parts left to add still. I decided to paint the seat covers flat brown. I'm not certain that such a scheme is historically correct or anything like it, but it looks good to me.

Keith, posts like what you describe are appropriate for this section. The flagging is only meant to indicate posts that are more "review-ish" in nature for anyone looking for that sort of info.

In this section of the forum, one finds all things book-and-magazine related: questions, discussions, and of course reviews. Many of the reviews have been tagged by a moderator with the label "book review". Some of the reviews have not been tagged in this manner because, well, they don't really give as much information as one would like to see when reading a review. A good review is more than just, "I read this book and I like it/don't like it." All of us like to find out as much as we can in advance when considering parting with our hard-earned cash, so how can a reviewer make a review more useful? You can get an idea by looking at a few of the tagged reviews. Here are some things you should include: 1. The title of the book. Put this in the title of your post as well. 2. The author's name. 3. The publishing data, i.e. name of publisher and date of publication. If the book you're reviewing is not a first edition, include the publication date for the first edition. Same goes if the book is a reprint. 4. Pertinent specs such as format, number of pages, whether the book has photos (color or B&W), suggested retail price, etc. 5. Modelers are especially keen to know if the book has plans, drawings, color plates, or any other such informative goodies. What kind and how many? Good quality or bad? Anything particularly noteworthy? 6. Summarize the contents of the book. What does it cover? What doesn't it cover? We want to know what's in it! 7. And finally, give your subjective opinion of the book. Did you enjoy it? Why or why not? Are there highlights or shortcomings that you think potential readers would appreciate knowing about? Let them know! We look forward to reading your submissions! P.S. Please don't apply a prefix tag to your post! MSW staff will take care of that. Thanks!

Here are some words of (hopefully) wisdom for fearful beginners. 1. As others have said, start small, as in small project -- not small scale. One of the greatest weapons in overcoming the fear of boogering larger projects is having success with smaller projects. 2. Beginners whose first projects are "works of art" are relatively uncommon. However, just about everyone who has ever completed a first wooden ship model is proud of their finished product, no matter what it looks like. 3. Your second project will look better than your first project. 4. I have said this elsewhere, but one of the nice things about wood is that it is a visually forgiving medium. Even a run-of-the-mill wooden ship model still looks pretty good and often sits in a place of honor somewhere in its maker's home. 5. Books are good and videos are better, but nothing tops having one-on-one face time with an experienced builder for overcoming first-timer heebie-jeebies. If you live anywhere within reasonable driving distance of a modeling club, get to their meetings! 6. Have fun! If it's not fun, why bother?? Cheers!

Very well done, Dave! She will certainly draw a lot of attention in her refurbished setting. Cheers!

Am I detecting a slight note of sarcasm? 🤔

From here it doesn't look too bad. Something to consider is whether painting the deck would still leave visible plank seams. My admittedly small knowledge of such vessels is that modern reproductions with painted decks tend to be made of marine plywood.

You could always convert it to a hull model.

Conquer that learning curve! 😊

My condolences as well, to you and your family.