|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 12, 2020 13:52:03 GMT
Must be this one then Chuck, link
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2020 15:16:19 GMT
No, not that one either. Meng puts out a series of cartoon ships. Mine is 1/700 scale and a very good, and quite accurate model of Lex.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 12, 2020 20:49:46 GMT
One last go and thats it, but watchout for this English fellas dialect as he is a brummie from Birmingham! link
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2020 21:41:17 GMT
That's the one. I am going to do it water line, as that goes with the rest of my collection in that scale.
You will note those 8" twin turrets I spoke of earlier. Lex carried those throughout her entire career up until the last three weeks of her life. The box art depicts Lex in the summer of 1941 and the gray over blue camouflage she carried then we called Measure 12. Later in the year up until the time of her loss, Lex was repainted with the hull and superstructure becoming all blue. After the earlier carrier raids Lex entered the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard and the 8" turrets were removed to be replaced, as an interim measure by several quad 1.1 inch anti-aircraft guns, the so called Chicago Piano. It was a horrible weapons, subject to overheating and misfires, and even killed a few gunners by accident, before the weapon itself was replaced by the more familiar quad 40mm.
Lexington sailed directly from Pearl to the Coral Sea, where she would join Yorktown.
There is an interesting story that comes from that time. It seems a fellow named Stanley Johnson was a war correspondent aboard Lexington at during those early months of the war. Somehow he stumbled upon the closely held secret that we had broken the Japanese codes. After Coral Sea this information was published in his newspaper and there was quite a flap about it. Roosevelt wanted to hang him for treason, but the decision was made to say nothing publicly about this breech of security, hoping the Japanese did not read the Chicago Tribune. Evidently they did not for there is no record of the Japanese ever uncovering the information in the newspaper. Johnson went on to write a very good (for wartime) book called "Queen of the Flattops". Not a bad read.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2020 0:20:07 GMT
Well the Sherman/Sherman Firefly arrived today Ian. I expected it Saturday, but I guess three day delivery means something other in Michigan than what it means in Colorado.
I am generally impressed. The Plastic is hard, which to me is a good thing. It requires a bit more sanding, which means filling and priming, but the robustness of the model is enhanced. Much better than that thin Chinese and Japanese crap, and light years ahead of the French if Heller is any example of their best product.
Anyway, I started on the Sherman version, leaving the Firefly for later on. I want to make sure my paint selection for it is correct, while I have a goodly supply of olive drab in house.
While I am at it, I believe it is correct that the Germans used a dark gray as the out of the factory color for their armored fighting vehicles up to the end of the war, and the various shades of paint (Afrika Korps Yellow and such) we applied in field workshops. Can you verify that for me from memory.
When you get a chance look at that Meng Lexington link you posed for me. One of the upcomers displayed on the right side of the screen is about a scratch built from wood Enterprise in 1/144 scale. That's what ship modeling used to be, and that finished model of the E is stunning.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 14, 2020 0:26:06 GMT
The Lexington was the lead ship in the serach for Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan in July of 1937. I remember reading about the search for the couple and how futile it was not finding them. The Portland and and 3 other Heavy Cruisers were escorting the Lexington to Midway Island on December 7, 1941 but they were ordered to return to Pearl Harbor before they delivered the planes. Many a good man served on these vessels. RegardsDavid
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2020 4:57:41 GMT
As to why pre-war the heavies normally accompanied the carriers and not the lights was due to the carriers belonging to the Scouting Force of the U S Fleet. The heavies were in fact the scouts of the fleet, and the thinking was they had enough firepower to get them out of trouble if need be, with the 8" gun. Lex and Sara carried 8" guns as well, with the idea being that if they ever got into a surface battle they could join the heavy cruisers in the scouting line of battle. It was a totally idiotic idea of course, thought up by numb-skull surface oriented admirals, who had not had an original idea since Nelson first got into Lady Hamilton's britches,
The light cruisers were there to support the battleships in the U S Fleet Battle Force. They were very useful in that the Brooklyn's had a relatively rapid fire 6" mount, that could put a lot of rounds down range in a big hurry. Boise's firepower at Cape Esperance is a good example of what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 14, 2020 11:48:05 GMT
I can’t see the point of putting such large guns on aircraft carriers, as they shouldn’t be put in a position where, they have to get involved in a fire fight against surface ships. Surly carriers should be well guarded against enemy shipping with the inclusion of larger ships preventing them getting in that situation in the first place. Carriers should be escorted and never left to defend themselves, as it is like sending a platoon of heavy tanks into a city without infantry support, as they would be knocked out one by one.
I would add that carriers would be the best scouts’ ships in anyone’s navy as they could send out recce planes to cover hundreds of miles of open sea, which is much better than any surface ship. They could do this well behind a covering screen of warships. To me their main armament are their aircraft and not 8in guns, they should have plenty of vessels with them as escorts mounting such armament.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2020 18:30:22 GMT
Well Ian, you express the modern view of how carriers operate, and your view is the correct one.
When Lexington and Saratoga, Kaga and Akagi joined their respective fleets, there was no carrier doctrine. Each was armed with heavy guns. Both were designed with the ideas I laid out above. All this how to properly use the carrier stuff was a work in progress.
I would argue that USS Ranger was the first modern carrier in the world. Ranger, was built a little later (1934), and you see a marked difference in her design, armed with only defensive weapons, not larger than the five inch duel purpose gun, meant primarily for anti-aircraft protection.
By the time Lexington and the heavy cruisers of the Scouting Force went looking for Earhart, it was just about the last hurrah for the old doctrine. After that, and particularly after Yorktown and Enterprise joined the fleet, the carrier become the central focus of the task force, not the cruisers. In other words the carrier replaced the heavy cruiser as a scouting (and attack) platform. Before the fleet reorganization of 1941 the carrier admirals were all experimenting the task force concept, which has been little changed today from then.
It's just like when someone invents a new tool Ian. You may buy it and put it in your tool box, but there will be some time that passes before you learn what this new tool is capable of, and how best to utilize it in your business.
I should add, when Lexington, Saratoga, and Akagi were laid down they were intended to be battle cruisers along the lines of Hood, Renown, and Repulse, fast, lightly armored, big gun scouts. Kaga, was supposed to be a battleship and as such scrapped by treaty limitations, but when Akagi's sister ship was destroyed by an earthquake the Japanese substituted her for the destroyed ship. She was not as fast, 5 or 6 knots slower than Akagi, but armed about the same way. So I suppose some of that earlier doctrine for carriers was carried over from the intended use of the battle cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2020 19:53:57 GMT
Another couple of questions for you Ian.
The Sherman kit comes with fender skirts similar to those found on the Grant. I have never seen a later model Sherman with these applied so I was wondering if the firefly had them? The instructions, which I think are quite poor do not say. The parts are just there with no explanation. It that answer is yes, were they kept on all of the Firefly's? If so I intend to make one Firefly with and one without. The paint applied to the Firefly in British service was a lighter shade of green than U S Army olive drab. Were the Firefly's delivered in olive drab and repainted or were they delived in the British shade of green?
Second. You mentioned reducing crew size in the Grant from five to four. Was this also done in the Firefly, by eliminating the bow machine gun? Afain the instructions are no help.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 14, 2020 20:31:13 GMT
Yes Chuck, the crew was reduced to four, the model I have has sand shields, but this could of choice, here is a site run by a few Romanian lads I know, this will give you a choice of colour scheme and show the tank without sand shields.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2020 21:56:25 GMT
Wow. just what I wanted. Don't show that site to Colt the Gunslinger, or he will will think he died and went to Patton Heaven.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jan 14, 2020 22:26:11 GMT
Too late, Chuck. I saw this link before Ian could block me from it. (ha ha). I would love to visit that museum in Bovington. If I ever get back to the UK, I will put that on the list of "must-see" locations.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2020 23:32:07 GMT
If you ever get here, the National Museum of World War II Aviation, a recent addition in our city, is a must see too. They have a pristine SBD-5 done as at Midway in the collection which numbers now at 24 flyable aircraft. The display gallery is quite extensive as well. A friend of mine, Walt, who works at my local Hobby Town, also works there. He is my airplane go to guy, for the same kind of questions I bug Ian and you about tanks.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 15, 2020 10:45:36 GMT
I thought you two would like that link!
I will tell you a story about that site; the link I gave you was for the Tank Encyclopaedia and they started up around the same time I started ‘Quartermaster’. They contacted me and wanted to merge my site with theirs, apparently my vehicles have much more data then theirs, and just looking I noticed that this has not really changed as there are a fewer details on their tanks for example armour and stuff, which for some reason they didn’t add.
I posted that link because they have a lot of colour schemes, which I don’t have, so they have me on that number. I can see that they have brought in outside sources to broaden their appeal and it looks like they have also formed a team of some sorts, which is why they wanted me, they would have fitted my stuff in with theirs. The two lads I spoke to years ago were very computer savvy, which I am not and only for the two sons, my site would not up and running. Both sites are ranked high and mine has a modest turn over of around £200 a year, mainly because of adds, but I am happy with that because it is a labour of love. I used to know all of the owners of all of the sites on the net, some are good chaps are a bid stand offish, but each to their own as we are all reaching for the same goals.
Ian
|
|