Micronaut Only Thread

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:44 am

How was the US Asiatic fleet painted during the Dutch East Indies campaign?

battlewagon · Post by **battlewagon** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:06 pm

dragon6 wrote:How was the US Asiatic fleet painted during the Dutch East Indies campaign?

I'm going to have to do a little digging on this one, but the two most likely schemes would be either pre war light gray (which would make sense due to the heat around those areas) or Measure 1, dark gray below the funnels, light gray above. In both cases, I suspect the wooden decks were unpainted.

I will look into this when I have a little more time....anyone else have information on this?

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:29 am

battlewagon wrote:
dragon6 wrote:How was the US Asiatic fleet painted during the Dutch East Indies campaign?
I'm going to have to do a little digging on this one, but the two most likely schemes would be either pre war light gray (which would make sense due to the heat around those areas) or Measure 1, dark gray below the funnels, light gray above. In both cases, I suspect the wooden decks were unpainted.

I will look into this when I have a little more time....anyone else have information on this?

I'm slow and stupid, I had forgotten that the http://www.shipcamouflage.com/camouflage_database.htm has a list of schemes with time frames.

I think Houston was in Measure 1 but with Cavite Blue in place of the gray and possible the rest of the fleet too. There is evidence that the wooden decks were painted blue but there is no absolute proof of any of it. The early war confusion and defeats really ruined the paper records

Brigade Commander · Post by **Brigade Commander** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:33 am

From everything I found so far the decks would not have been painted blue yet. MS-12 and MS-12mod on seem to be where the emphasis was on making sure the decks were painted.

Anyone else with more definitive answers?

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:05 pm

Brigade Commander wrote:From everything I found so far the decks would not have been painted blue yet. MS-12 and MS-12mod on seem to be where the emphasis was on making sure the decks were painted.

Anyone else with more definitive answers?

An interesting article on Houston
http://www.perthone.com/phou.html

dougeagle · Post by **dougeagle** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:19 pm

Concerning with GHQ's WWII micronaut's...has anyone ever made up their own ship status logs for the game?
Only asking as I'm trying to make some myself using excel rather than having to print off 4 or 5 pages for one type of ship status log.

ftm2kleszics · Post by **ftm2kleszics** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:27 pm

Dougeagle, I have not done this with World War Two. However I have done this with World War One ships. If you would like to see any part of my Ship Status Logs for this to give you an idea let me know. Pete.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:47 pm

Why do you need to print 4 or 5 pages for one type of ship?

You may orint the needed logs only. I copy the logs I want in Word than print the page(s) with all the ships of my fleet.

In any case you need a log for each ship even if they are all of the same type.

dougeagle · Post by **dougeagle** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:32 am

ftm2kleszics wrote:Dougeagle, I have not done this with World War Two. However I have done this with World War One ships. If you would like to see any part of my Ship Status Logs for this to give you an idea let me know. Pete.

Cool...thanks. That would great

TAMMY wrote:]Why do you need to print 4 or 5 pages for one type of ship?

You may orint the needed logs only. I copy the logs I want in Word than print the page(s) with all the ships of my fleet.

In any case you need a log for each ship even if they are all of the same type

What I meant too say what I would need to print off 4 or 5 pages just to get enough ship logs for one type of ship. For example, Battle of Cape Spada...there are 6 H class DD's for the British fleet. That means in order to have a ship log for each ship, I would have to print off 6 pages of status logs. This is why I'm trying to create my own. Plus I don't own a scanner to scan the pages to word to do any copying or pasting to get what I want either.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:45 pm

I do not use a scanner. I have a program from Nuance that allows me to work on pdf files.
Starting from the download supplement I do the following steps:
1) separate the pages
2) cut the log I want from one page
3( save the cutting.
At the end I have a file pdf for each log and it's easy to fill a page in Word with as many logs as possible. Being pdf files yop may also adjust the size of any single log to better fill the page.

It is a bit boring but it is faster than it seems.

JMBaker · Post by **JMBaker** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:09 am

Well, i've pretty much finished my goals for my micro armor battlegroups, but you seafaring guys make it look like so much fun that I may dabble and crossover a bit as well. The problem, as always, is cash. What i'm asking for is a "shopping list" of what a newbie should buy for a balanced yet diverse combat experiance. My budget is about $170 ($200 if you include the rule book). Think of this as the "DELUXE BEGINNERS INTRODUCTORY SET". I'm planning on the ww2 era between IJN and the US.

ftm2kleszics · Post by **ftm2kleszics** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:00 pm

JMBaker, my suggestion would be to order one or two cruisers for each side. Add one to two packs of destroyers and you will be ready to roll out the TNT. With this modest selection you could game the battles around ** CENSORED ** in the Slot. As you gain experience and you feel that naval gaming is for you, that is when you can expand your fleets. Pete.

Sea room and a willing foe. (Friday toast on Navy ships wardrooms).

JMBaker · Post by **JMBaker** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:49 pm

Thanks, thats great advice, and quite a bit cheaper than my own idea.

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:25 am

Way way back on
http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... 20eb6b239e

E.springer wrote:While I have not worked on an early Saratoga, I completed a late-April conversion of the Lexington (as she appeared for Coral Sea). I used the 1.1" quad mounts from the Pennsylvania/Arizona. If you do early Yorktown you'll probably need them. For an early Saratoga, I guess that depends on what part of 1942 you wish to model. Stern's book on the Lexington/Saratoga hints at the constant up-gunning that went on. Depending on when you model Sara, the superstructure/stack were modified. Even the flight deck was different in '42 than the GHQ '44 model.

I want to do Lexington at Coral Sea so I need some 1.1 quad mounts. Which kit has them?

Also how many? I've seen some stuff that suggests 7 mounts, 3 before the bridge on the 8 inch barbettes, 3 abaft the stack on the eight inch barbettes, and one between the bridge and stack.

Unfathomable · Post by **Unfathomable** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:04 am

Hi one and all.

I'm having a problem and I wonder if anyone else has experienced it and perhaps has a solution.

I am building the WWI Royal Oak and have found that the second, higher mounted super-firing turret will not fit. It's the rearmost forward turret and there is not enough room for the afterworks to clear the start of the superstructure. And when I say "not enough room" I mean it's not even close.

To make the turret fit I could put it on sideways and pretend that I meant those guns to be pointing off the side, but that doesn't really work as the fit is so far off that the eye can detect at a glance that the turret could not possibly turn to the forwards position.

I have checked the instructions for an error on my part - then checked again, and again - and looked at pictures of the actual vessel. So far as I can tell the remainder of my build it correct - there's just no way that the turret will fit. The rear bulge is simply in the way of the superstructure's peak, the turret cuff being set too far back. It's too far out to sand down or cut as this would severely shorten the upper turret body.

When I encountered a similar build problem on the Imperial Russian Gangut I was in the position to trim some barrels, the non-fitting guns being the central ones, mounted facing inwards. The trim was possible because the barrels are small and the amount removed was too small to be easily noticed, which is not the case with the Royal Oak.

Help! Am I missing something obvious here? I'm not exactly a master builder. But this gun is almost two mill out at the rear. It can't face forwards. It can't face to the side. I don't quite know what to do. A lot of time has gone into the model so far and I'm very happy with it.

The other thing I could do is cut off the stub on the turret's underside that fits into the mounting niche. This would let me position the turret as needed - except it would be so far forward the resulting unnatural overhang would look silly.

Please tell me I'm doing something simple wrong and that there is an easy fix!

Cheers one and all ...

Micronaut Only Thread

cavite blue

Re: cavite blue

Re: cavite blue

Mirconaut newbie

Re: early Saratoga

Royal Oak turret problem