[NimitzFan]

I was also slightly bothered by the comment regarding the accuracy of waterline models. I prefer that my ship's actually "live" and hence that they have crews aboard, and details designed to show the ship in use. You almost never see the underwater hull of a completed ship. In fact, other than in a disaster, it would only be visible in normal service when the ship is drydocked - and boy is that ugly (and it smells!) I can testify from personal experience with that.

True, there is one minor detail that affects many of us that choose to build full-hull models as waterline models. I accept it, but it is a trivial point of accuracy.

That is that military ships will always appear to be floating high in the water, as if they have no fuel nor stores aboard. This is caused by the "boot-topping." This (normally black) line is just above the red bottom section of the hull and is where the paper model designer generally splits the design between the above water and below water sections. I don't blame them - it's a very logical place... but it is not accurate.

In practice, the ship's normal waterline is about half-way up the "boot-topping." The clinical definition for "boot-topping" is "the painted area between the water lines of a ship when fully loaded and when fully unloaded." However, that only applies in peacetime. In wartime the boot-topping serves to keep the brightly colored underwater body paint, underwater. Hence it can be up from three to six feet wide on some warships (especially US WW2 ones).

Someday if I ever develop the skills to model ocean water, those models I've done will sink down a few feet to reflect their actual loads.

I think that ship models built with a full hull can be fantastic works of art. My admiration for those who can build such models well is boundless. But as for me, I'm not building art - I'm building models that interest me - and I prefer that they live. Hence the underwater hull is unimportant to me.