Bob Cleek

A small correction: in those pre-grey naval days certain navies had a white stripe about half a metre above the CWL. 

From my boatyard days, I've always been a big fan of Interlux surfacing putty. It is thinned with acetone and you can vary the consistency of the putty from thick cream you can brush on like gesso to stiff "cake icing" consistency. It's applied with a putty knife. Store it capped tightly with a tablespoon of acetone added and the can left upside down overnight and in the morning, the putty will be ready for use without any dried clumps in it. the bad news is that the acetone solvent evaporates very quickly and if the lid is left off the can, there can be annoying "skinning" of the exposed putty. (You have to develop the ability to hold the can and lid in one hand and the putty knife in the other, closing the lid immediately after accessing the putty in the can.) The good news is that the acetone solvent evaporates very quickly, which makes it easy to use because there's a very short drying time wait and successive layers can be built up if need be. It sands "like butter" and is compatible with all paints. It's the perfect thing for filling small dings, scratches, and other surface imperfections. Rather than sanding forever to remove a small imperfection, which only tends to create an unfair surface overall, it is far better to add a swipe of surfacing putty and then just sand that fair without having to remove a lot of material surrounding the imperfection. It's also a lot faster than sanding out similar imperfections without putty.  See: Surfacing Putty Boat Filler | Interlux Sold online and in marine chandleries.
 

From my boatyard days, I've always been a big fan of Interlux surfacing putty. It is thinned with acetone and you can vary the consistency of the putty from thick cream you can brush on like gesso to stiff "cake icing" consistency. It's applied with a putty knife. Store it capped tightly with a tablespoon of acetone added and the can left upside down overnight and in the morning, the putty will be ready for use without any dried clumps in it. the bad news is that the acetone solvent evaporates very quickly and if the lid is left off the can, there can be annoying "skinning" of the exposed putty. (You have to develop the ability to hold the can and lid in one hand and the putty knife in the other, closing the lid immediately after accessing the putty in the can.) The good news is that the acetone solvent evaporates very quickly, which makes it easy to use because there's a very short drying time wait and successive layers can be built up if need be. It sands "like butter" and is compatible with all paints. It's the perfect thing for filling small dings, scratches, and other surface imperfections. Rather than sanding forever to remove a small imperfection, which only tends to create an unfair surface overall, it is far better to add a swipe of surfacing putty and then just sand that fair without having to remove a lot of material surrounding the imperfection. It's also a lot faster than sanding out similar imperfections without putty.  See: Surfacing Putty Boat Filler | Interlux Sold online and in marine chandleries.
 

Eberhard's answer is the best of the bunch offered above. 
 
There are waterlines and there are boot stripes. Naval and commercial ships generally only have a waterline, the theoretical line of demarcation between the water and air which is generally struck a bit above the actual line of demarcation when the vessel is fully loaded to provide antifouling protection in the "splash zone" above the actual waterline. These waterlines are generally flat.
 
The boot stripe is a stripe of a contrasting dark color painted between the bottom paint and the topsides paint on yachts and highly-finished commercial vessels. The purpose of a boot stripe (sometimes called a "boot top,") is to disguise the waterborne dirt and oil that would otherwise stain a vessel's white (or other colored) topsides when it splashed and collected at the waterline. In part for reasons Eberhard explained, and also 1) because the sides of most vessels curve inwards towards the centerline at their ends, which place the ends line farther away from the viewer viewing from the beam, which causes the line to appear narrower, from the viewer, and 2) because the sides of a vessel above the waterline may not be perpendicular to the waterline, but rather curve inward, as is common at the stern, thereby "twisiting" a boot stripe, making it appear thinner that it was to a viewer viewing from the side, a boot stripe that was equally wide over its entire length would appear to "droop" and would not be pleasing to the eye, particularly in a vessel with a contrasting sweeping sheer. Also as mentioned, a slight graceful curve upward in the upper edge of the boot stripe provides and illusion of grace and speed, as well. Therefore, boot stripes generally were horizontal at their bottom edges and gradually curved at their top edges, more so at the bow and less so, if at all, at the stern. It takes a considerable "eye" for a fair curve to lay out a proper boot stripe using a suitable batten and a poorly done job can cause considerable deteriment to the appearance of an otherwise good looking yacht.
 
 Below is an apparently colorized photograph of Titanic immediately prior to launch. One can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not her waterline was "curved upward" or not. If a good job was done striking curves which compensated for the optical illusions, you shouldn't be able to tell from looking.  I expect if the surface of the hull were projected to a flat plane, a slight upward curve towards the bow would be apparent. Note that the waterline is not parallel to the plating schedule. 
 

Eberhard's answer is the best of the bunch offered above. 
 
There are waterlines and there are boot stripes. Naval and commercial ships generally only have a waterline, the theoretical line of demarcation between the water and air which is generally struck a bit above the actual line of demarcation when the vessel is fully loaded to provide antifouling protection in the "splash zone" above the actual waterline. These waterlines are generally flat.
 
The boot stripe is a stripe of a contrasting dark color painted between the bottom paint and the topsides paint on yachts and highly-finished commercial vessels. The purpose of a boot stripe (sometimes called a "boot top,") is to disguise the waterborne dirt and oil that would otherwise stain a vessel's white (or other colored) topsides when it splashed and collected at the waterline. In part for reasons Eberhard explained, and also 1) because the sides of most vessels curve inwards towards the centerline at their ends, which place the ends line farther away from the viewer viewing from the beam, which causes the line to appear narrower, from the viewer, and 2) because the sides of a vessel above the waterline may not be perpendicular to the waterline, but rather curve inward, as is common at the stern, thereby "twisiting" a boot stripe, making it appear thinner that it was to a viewer viewing from the side, a boot stripe that was equally wide over its entire length would appear to "droop" and would not be pleasing to the eye, particularly in a vessel with a contrasting sweeping sheer. Also as mentioned, a slight graceful curve upward in the upper edge of the boot stripe provides and illusion of grace and speed, as well. Therefore, boot stripes generally were horizontal at their bottom edges and gradually curved at their top edges, more so at the bow and less so, if at all, at the stern. It takes a considerable "eye" for a fair curve to lay out a proper boot stripe using a suitable batten and a poorly done job can cause considerable deteriment to the appearance of an otherwise good looking yacht.
 
 Below is an apparently colorized photograph of Titanic immediately prior to launch. One can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not her waterline was "curved upward" or not. If a good job was done striking curves which compensated for the optical illusions, you shouldn't be able to tell from looking.  I expect if the surface of the hull were projected to a flat plane, a slight upward curve towards the bow would be apparent. Note that the waterline is not parallel to the plating schedule. 
 

There were two (traditional) and one psychological reasons, why the separation between the top- and the bottom-colour or the bootstrapping where made to curve slightly upward.
 
- the viewing psychology reason is that when you have a curved line (the sheer-line) and a straight line have above each other the straight line appears to be curving slightly downwards (hogging). So to counteract this the separation line was given a slight curve upward towards the ends.
 
- a curved line looks more dynamic than a straight line and gives the impression of speed
 
- older (wooden) ships tended to 'hog', i.e. because the ship ends have less buoyancy then the middle, prolonged exposure to heavy seas leads to a slight sagging of the ends. So painting the 'water-line' curved upwards will mask this effect visually.

It looks to me like it all would be a good candidate for display in a "box" coffee table with a clear glass top. 

It looks to me like it all would be a good candidate for display in a "box" coffee table with a clear glass top. 

It looks to me like it all would be a good candidate for display in a "box" coffee table with a clear glass top. 

It looks to me like it all would be a good candidate for display in a "box" coffee table with a clear glass top. 

What are you using to drill with? With small bits, a Dremel or other powered drill may be overkill. 
 
Try using a pin vise to hold the small bit. Create a "starting hole" by gently pushing a pin into the wood slightly to create a center punch hole for your drill bit. Use a new bit that you know is sharp. Twist gently and let the drill do the work of removing the wood from the hole. Don't press down with any more force than is necessary to get the bit to eat into the wood. That should do the trick for you.
 
If you don't have a pin vise, read up on them here: 
 

What are you using to drill with? With small bits, a Dremel or other powered drill may be overkill. 
 
Try using a pin vise to hold the small bit. Create a "starting hole" by gently pushing a pin into the wood slightly to create a center punch hole for your drill bit. Use a new bit that you know is sharp. Twist gently and let the drill do the work of removing the wood from the hole. Don't press down with any more force than is necessary to get the bit to eat into the wood. That should do the trick for you.
 
If you don't have a pin vise, read up on them here: 
 

I have a box ready to store it in. I just won’t fit anywhere 

What are you using to drill with? With small bits, a Dremel or other powered drill may be overkill. 
 
Try using a pin vise to hold the small bit. Create a "starting hole" by gently pushing a pin into the wood slightly to create a center punch hole for your drill bit. Use a new bit that you know is sharp. Twist gently and let the drill do the work of removing the wood from the hole. Don't press down with any more force than is necessary to get the bit to eat into the wood. That should do the trick for you.
 
If you don't have a pin vise, read up on them here: 
 

Is it possible your drill bit is dull or damaged at the tip?

Good question. I don't know. That said, there were and are many degaussing cable arrangements and many more of the related "deperming" system which serves the same purpose. It is quite likely that a variety of cable arrangements would vary from ship to ship and from location to location. (Of course, the "pole" of a ship's induced magnetic field has to be reversed as the ship travels from one hemisphere to the other in order to achieve the magnetic neutrality necessary to defeat detection by magnetic mines and so the configuration of the degaussing cables may have changed from hemisphere to hemisphere, as well. See: Degaussing — National Museum of the Royal New Zealand Navy (navymuseum.co.nz)
 
I'm going to guess and say that the cable was probably fairly substantial, but it's size and physical positioning would vary from vessel to vessel. 

I can see how it could be difficult to keep small parts in place when pressing them with a soldering iron. I have been using a Tiny Torch for all my soldering for some time and the torch doesn't have to touch the pieces, which is why I didn't have any of the complaints in that regard. 

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. 
 
All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject:
 
Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books
Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books
Donald McNarry  Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books
 
Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube
 
 
 

I can see how it could be difficult to keep small parts in place when pressing them with a soldering iron. I have been using a Tiny Torch for all my soldering for some time and the torch doesn't have to touch the pieces, which is why I didn't have any of the complaints in that regard. 

Here is an example of a setup for soldering using thin craft plywood to hold parts in place.
 
The problem: When soldering the reinforcing bar spanning the two bollard posts, the soldering iron pushes the bar out of alignment.
 
Solution:  The two longitudinal strips secure the base while the “tongue” backs up the reinforcing bar.  This is a very simple fixture.  Much more elaborate ones can be created.  This is the cheap craft plywood, not the more expensive aircraft quality.  I also have a large supply of 1/2in and 3/8in nails that I inherited from my father who built a fabric covered wooden wing for an EAA group project.  While I don’t use these on my models, I use them all the time for making soldering fixtures.
 
Roger
 

 
 

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. 
 
All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject:
 
Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books
Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books
Donald McNarry  Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books
 
Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube
 
 
 

I can see how it could be difficult to keep small parts in place when pressing them with a soldering iron. I have been using a Tiny Torch for all my soldering for some time and the torch doesn't have to touch the pieces, which is why I didn't have any of the complaints in that regard. 

Ditto here. I love mine. Sorry to hear you tossed the arms to yours. I'd have gladly taken them off of your hands. I don't know what would cause these adjustable arms to spring-back. That's definitely not a good thing for such a device. 

I can see how it could be difficult to keep small parts in place when pressing them with a soldering iron. I have been using a Tiny Torch for all my soldering for some time and the torch doesn't have to touch the pieces, which is why I didn't have any of the complaints in that regard. 

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. 
 
All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject:
 
Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books
Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books
Donald McNarry  Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books
 
Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube