lmagna

I hope someone chimes in to correct me if I am wrong Mark as I know almost nothing about tanks of any period or nation. But I think if you are referring about the drum shaped tanks on the aft end of the tank these were kind of the tank equivalent of drop tanks on an aircraft. Hoist them into the holders and strap them down and instant extra 400 liters of fuel for transporting the tank under it's own power. Most tanks are not noted for their mileage, especially cross country. When the tank was entering into a combat environment or deployment the drums could be dropped in seconds whether or not they still had fuel in them or not. Again hopefully the tank experts can either confirm this or straighten me out. I would appreciate either. My question would be all the Jerry cans scattered all over the fenders in special holders. ?????????? They don't look like they are intended to be dropped in a hurry. Water?

While it is true that a number of ships from this time period were built for circumstances different than what they found themselves in or were even possible misused to some extent, that does not make them a disaster. Like some say "Hindsight is always 20/20." The Germans original intent was to build ships that would rival any ships they might encounter and form a homogenous state of the art fleet much as they had in WWI. The end end of the Washington and London treaties as well as the un-enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles produced a reduced naval arms race somewhat similar to the turn of the century with the introduction of the Dreadnaught. The ship building plans of Germany and Japan both clearly reflected this even though it could be argued that Japan was further along with building a world fleet and using it than Germany by the beginning of the war. One does not just stick a ship like the Bismarck or Yamato back into the box just because the use they were designed for or the fleet they were intended to work in conjunction with does not materialize. The Japanese always had a plan where the Carriers would draw out and and damage the AZmerican fleet and the surface fleet would close in and finish them off. If there were ships that matched the description applied to the Bismarck above then it would have to be the French and Italian ships of the mid and late 30s that would have never been able to operate in a fleet environment that would have made them effective against even one of the allied fleets. Again, the Japanese came closer to recognizing the need with the conversion of the third Yamato class ship, the Shinano into a carrier. While speed, tonnage, firepower, armor and technology all play a role in the effectiveness of a ship, a much bigger factor is the use and spirit involved in how the ship is used and is far more of a factor in winning than who brings the big guy to the fight. After it's original victory. (That could have been much greater if Captain Lindemann had his way and had been allowed to pursue the POW and return to Germany as all attempts at breaking into the Atlantic were in his opinion at that point were fruitless. It could be said that the entire raid was doomed from the beginning as it was originally intended to be comprised of battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and the heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper and Admiral Scheer along with the Prinz Eugene. The operation was intended to complement the U-boat attacks on British supply lines occurring at the same time. This would have comprised a force that with the exception of carriers would have been impossible or very difficult for the British to counter. Instead the sinking of the Hood set off a frenzy that diverted virtually every British ship in the Atlantic to find and sink the Bismarck that was virtually alone and damaged. I do not believe this would have changed even if she had reached Brest. Ships like the USS Houston and HMAS Perth, HMS Gloworm, Taffy 3, the ships in the first and second Naval Battles of Guadalcanal, or the River Plate and many more prevailed or altered the expected results where on paper it should have been otherwise. But it was how the vessels were fought that determined the eventual outcome not their statics or even intended function.

Hello Krisan You have left a few things unexplained in your request like the type of ship/period that interests you and what your intended use for the model will eventually be. RC Vs. static display, displacement hull Vs. plaining, and even military Vs. civilian in some cases. Roger, Cathead, and Jim, (As well as others) have already given you almost the same answers I would have given and I don't think I can improve on them. My experience ranges from cutting a pointy end onto a 2" X 4" board and dragging it through mud puddles to scale tugs and military vessels used in competition, (as well as for pleasure). I have also ran the gambit from using strictly photos to having pages of builders plans, (Or both) to build the ship. Like the others have said use what you are familiar with. Parts of one of my better builds years ago started life as a plywood doghouse! Some of my first plans were obtained free in the British ""Model Boats" magazine. I still consider it a viable source for plans for both the beginner and advanced modeler. If the design interests you then there is a better chance you will carry it to completion. My sole contribution to your question is the use of Sintra and Styrene as the building materials. I fell in love with Sintra years ago and can affirm that depending on the thickness you use, it can almost be used in the same manner as wood and certainly Styrene. But you do need to remember that Sintra is PVC and you will want to use glues or solvents more suited to PVC if you want maximum strength. It is also somewhat more flexible in the thinner sheets and you may find the need to include more internal bracing than you would for an equal thickness of wood or even styrene. Within those constraints it is a fantastic material both to work with and to finish. It was originally intended for artistic uses so this would stand to reason. It is generally more flexible than wood or equal thicknesses of styrene. Can be heat formed like styrene if needed but is much lighter in general. Good luck with your build and I for one would enjoy seeing your choice and progress.

I have no idea how practical they were but they were certainly pragmatic in some matters much of the time. The use of Arabic numbers probably stems from the idea adopted by the Japanese in the Modernization period When you do pencil-on-paper calculations, and similar activities with precision is the main goal, kanji is simply cumbersome; Arabic numbers are precise and elegant. Japan's Great Lesson to the world: when something is more useful than something else, don't worry about where it came from, or about how you "got by" with less effective tools (numbers) in the past. Arabic numerals started to become widespread in Japan with the Meiji government's Education Order of 1872, which mandated that only Western mathematics should be taught in the newly compulsory school system. The use of Arabic letters is a little more complex and I am not certain Arabic lettering was even used as early as WWII on IJN ships. It was certainly not used in forms of communication. This has caused some issues in research as allied and Japanese sources used entirely different alphabets and translations for the same ship causing in many cases considerable confusion in understanding what ship was involved. There is at least one case where the bombing of a carrier by a pilot, (As he claimed) was credited as a cruiser and he was told he miss identified his target! It will be interesting what others are able to bring to the table on this one.

Sometimes it is hard to detract or praise a design without raising the ire of the people who stand on the other side of the issue. But judging a design based on a single design fault or the ship's mystique, or factors that could not have been anticipated twenty or more years earlier or not using the same criteria across the board is also faulty reasoning and a disservice to the reader, especially the novice. Based on the reviews of this book it looks that possibly Anthony Preston may not have done his homework as meticulously as he could and should have. I could be wrong but in this case I will be skipping it so I will probably never know.

I didn't realize you were detailing out parts of the interior as well Brad. Looking nice.

I should probably do the same. In some cases it has been over 50 years since I read them. I didn't like his Blackwood Saga that much so only read the first one of that series.

Rather than raising the turret I think I would be more inclined to shorten the front face of the main cabin just behind. Should be able to do that without being able to see it after it's done. Even your close up shots are looking quite nice.

Reeman wrote about six books that center around MTBs. It is probably only natural as he served on them during the war. He saw action in destroyers and motor torpedo boats in the North Sea, the Arctic and the Mediterranean, and was twice sunk, twice blown up, and twice mentioned in dispatches. He ended the war being stationed in Kiel. Both his first and last novels as Douglas Reeman were MTB based. He also wrote the Richard Bolitho and Adam Bolitho series under the name of Alexander Kent writing 68 novels!

If you really want to make a twist of things and want to do a 77' PT you could do PT59 John F. Kennedy's SECOND PT command.

Is this close enough for your 1.4mm? https://www.amazon.com/Linwood-Multi-Purpose-Decorative-Accessories-0-04x0-4inch/dp/B08C2326TS/ref=sr_1_16?crid=24UM7NVXULNAN&keywords=1.2+X+10mm+round+head+Nails&qid=1656710718&s=industrial&sprefix=1.2+x+10mm+round+head+nails%2Cindustrial%2C107&sr=1-16 If my math is correct then the head is only off by .01 inch. It could be possible that these could also fit the bill for the 1.8mm. https://www.amazon.com/Linwood-Multi-Purpose-Decorative-Accessories-0-04x0-4inch/dp/B07KW62LRX/ref=sr_1_16?crid=24UM7NVXULNAN&keywords=1.2%2BX%2B10mm%2Bround%2Bhead%2BNails&qid=1656710718&s=industrial&sprefix=1.2%2Bx%2B10mm%2Bround%2Bhead%2Bnails%2Cindustrial%2C107&sr=1-16&th=1 They also sell 2mm.

While I normally dislike relying on a single author for research and opinion, sometimes there is little or no other opportunity to do otherwise. This may be one of those cases. While everyone touches on the Washington and later London Naval treaties this is the first that I have seen of that focuses on them. I will be adding them to my reading schedule for certain. I hope they are as good as you say. Thanks

With rifle butts attached to the sticks and bumper balls on the tips?

Can't say much in regards to the two seat version but the A10 is possibly my favoritist modern jet! Looking forward to your rendition.

It served several functions. First off it normally had an eyelet welded to it and most often had a line attached to be used to tie up to buoys/other boats etc. where you would not normally need an anchor In addition I think it was a reinforcement/attachment point that was used when the boats were placed into cradles for transport. Much the same thing can be found on almost any modern yacht. They are normally made quite robust so they can handle considerable strain.

Many of the Japanese ship losses, especially aircraft carrier losses, were at least exasperated by poor damage control and fuel handling practices. Not certain if those people on the picture are naval or army but it does look like they are practicing Bayonet drills. Their Marine and Army troops were known to use them in Kamikaze charges.

Impressive as always Craig, and as always makes me wish I had even a fraction of your skills.

I think I would go with "shape" as well. Seems to fit better, (Pun intended).

At the size you are working is there a chance that there is a finishing brad or nail that would fit the need?

Thank you Roger. I read it somewhere in some obscure article or book. The reference mentioned both the desperate the need the Japanese were for fuel by using it in the first place due to as you say unstable properties, and that the Dutch oil from Indonesia is so pure right out of the ground it could be used in this manner. Now with your confirmation, I can feel more confident in making reference to this with more certainty of it being fact not just conjecture. Thanks

Looks like it is going to make a very nice superstructure.

On this thread we have been talking (mostly) about battleships and the change, (Or not) in their value. The results of especially the US submarine effort in the Pacific was so effective that it caused much of the inability for the Japanese to risk or use ships like the Yamato and Musashi. I have even read that by the end of the war the Japanese were reduced to using unprocessed oil from the Dutch East Indies in their ships, increasing the potential of fire and other issues due to it's unstable properties. Not certain if it was true as I think I only read it once somewhere. The cost in lives in the submarine service was high but so were the returns.

1/96 would make a monster! Not just in size but in weight as well! I think that if I was to build a BB of that time period it would have to be the USS Washington, but my real love would still have to be many of the pre-dreadnaught and early dreadnaught ships. Somehow they just seem more stately even though they were far inferior in every way.

Your storage arrangements are way too organized Brad!

Not certain if you are referring to the Iowa's or Yamato's in this sentence but if you are referring to how much damage the Musashi absorbed before being sunk one has to look at the fact that she took torpedo hits on both port and starboard sides causing her to automatically counterflood and pretty much maintain an even platform that provided a more stable gun base. This was taken into account after the battle and the same mistake was not made on the Yamato. It took much less ordinance to sink the Yamato as the vast majority of hits were on the port side. It is my understanding that the Iowa's had a slightly better armor for facing heavy and light cruisers but that the Yamato's armor was based on the armor used by the British and was more effective against Battleship sized guns. The US Navy was never really happy with the armor or the guns on the Iowa's and the next generation of US Battleships were intended to address many of these shortcomings. With the extra thickness at almost every level of the armor on the Yamato it is claimed that it is the only battleship armor that was impervious to penetration by any battleship gun in the world. I am still curious if this would have held true in a battle like the First Navel Battle of Guadalcanal where the opening ranges were less than two miles and decreased from that when the battle turned into a melee almost immediately and some ranges came down to a matter of yards before opening up again as the ships passed. What would have happened if the ships we are discussing, (Or much more possible, the USS Washington and South Dakota) had been involved with Adm Lee in charge instead of Scott. Like is said above the US had a much better fire control system than the Japanese but in the case of Adm. Scott he didn't use what he had to much advantage at all at Guadalcanal. The Iowa's were slightly faster but I do not believe this was ever much of a factor in any of the major fleet engagements of the WWII Pacific theater. The US had a much better damage control system in place and sometimes this resulted in US ships remaining fighting or surviving when some Japanese ships were destroyed. One must also remember that the Yamato was destroyed by one of the main magazines blowing up. One of what should have been the best protected locations on the ship. In the battle off Samar The Yamato fired a number of times at the Gambier Bay, hitting her at least once I believe, (I would have to dig out a couple of my books to get the exact details). I am also not completely certain but I think she fired on the USS. Johnson before she turned and ran from Torpedoes for such a distance that she was unable to re-engage for the rest of the battle. Again it turned out that the use of the weapon outweighed the weapon's potential. I think that Roger summed it up for both the use of the carrier and the battleship. WWII proved almost beyond doubt that neither ship could operate safely without the homogenous cooperation of the other, but used together in ways not fully contemplated prior to the war they were still a devastating weapon.