The Ship Model Forum

I wondered about that one as well. They are not on the builders plans and I have not found pics that show where they exactly go. They do disappear once the hangars no longer carried aircraft (or about then), so perhaps exhausts or air intakes to run the aircraft's engine for testing?

Good day and this is me again .... I need to make a part but I absolutely do not understand what is it? and where is she going?
everyone forgot about her (..but I have to make it..

That should be enough info for now [/quote]




thank you so much ... just super ...

The only thing you can do is spot ammo lockers, so that would be three 20mm guns.



And a very good shot from the other side.



And at 31 mins:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C341112

Edit: and now that I know what to look for (and Visual Studio takes ages to compile so "I have time")





That should be enough info for now

Good day and thank you very much .... I found another photo listed as December 9, 1943 (of very poor quality), which in addition shows anti-aircraft guns near the second tower, which I could not find in the photos before .... and it’s clear that the fences nasal anti-aircraft guns are missing ..... you can also see the location of paravanas "just some modellers scatter them in different places "
well, the second rather well-known photograph shows .. perfectly naked anti-aircraft guns (legs in the water and shoot above the head ) ..... Pontos .. and Kagero .. I think that they are wrong !!!

Your observation of the ammo locker is quite right, so I looked at differences between KGV and DOY





Note the small vent at an angle at the break water of KGV . Now DoY:





Small vent is not there, so image 16746 does show HMS DoY and the info at the IWM is not correct. Note how this shot (that does show HMS KGV) is very very similar!



Also shows 20mm gun emplacements without tubs, as in DOY_2

in the photo from Oran ... it can be seen (albeit very badly) .. that the extreme cannon is not at all behind the fence .. and much to the side of the center line
need to seek the truth .... help !!!

I do not like in this photo: .. 1) .. painted deck 2) lack of camouflage, the towers must be of different colors. 3) on the drawings of the kagero .. three first machine-gun nests are strictly abreast..4) .... on KGV in 1943 did not stand this charging box ... were four smaller before installation
  Maybe that's why I took her to DoY
P.S. so that I am not such an old monkey as I first thought about myself

then not your fault being marked wrong unless you did it yourself.

IWM image 16476 gives a pretty good impression

(8th of May 1943)[/quote]
...... ... I am an old stupid monkey .. !!!!!! ..... I have this photo but for some reason marked as DoY....thank you so much

IWM image 16476 gives a pretty good impression

(8th of May 1943)

....=) Thank you so much ...... easier .. =) ... how it stood on the KGV in 1943 ...Can you believe in the drawings of Kagero? I just don’t have any photos of this section

What you indicated is the night life buoy; as far as I can tell not installed on DoY (visible on KGV (early war) and POW though).

(not sure if you asked other questions and what they may be about, so pictures with arrows certainly help )

Good day, gentlemen ... I apologize, but I again had several questions for the community: .. 1) what kind of box does Pontos give ... I cannot find it on photographs .... 2) anyone can share information on installing nasal gun nests on King George for 1943 ... I want to check out the drawings for Kagero ... for example, a famous photograph of Duka..I thank you in advance ... with respect Ivan

Yeah, man, gonna have to go with grey decks all around the ship then!

What seems more likely: water gushing up through the hawse pipes and wetting the deck forward of the breakwater (the whole point of which is to break water and prevent it from flowing to the rest of the deck) combined with general bow spray to create a frequently wet and reflective surface, or a captain who decides on his own to implement a new camouflage measure that's not supported by any precedence or documents?

Lacking additional evidence, it seems to me the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Luxury we dont have, sadly.

The well known photo of KGV with heavily worn paint was due to some problem with that particular mix. Perhaps it was applied in sub-optimal conditions? Who knows? Being the hull, it would have been impractical to do anything about it until return to port, which they indeed did pretty much immediately. The new coat appears to have worn much better and you don't see a repeat of that condition in future.

With my original comment, I merely wished to point out that the light/dark deck problem has occurred with other ships, including of this class, and often the reality has proven to be a damp deck producing a visual effect contrary to the reality. Damp wood can appear much darker or much lighter, depending on viewing angles, sun position, atmospheric conditions etc.

Without additional photos from slightly different angles, it's not possible to make a positive determination of what we're seeing here. However, given the evidence of the other photos posted, my 'gut' reaction is that the deck area in question is no different than the rest, just that the relative angles are giving a strong reflection. I would want more photos before being happy with either option, however.

A photograph is an instant in time. Our impression of how something looks is simple projection.
Just because the dark decks "look" lighter in a picture means nothing.
I thought the KGV's were designed to fire across the bow at low elevation (never required?) less shear, wetter decks.
Wet decks can look lighter due to the location of the sun & the angle of the exposure.
Rounded turrets photograph "lighter" in many pictures, they are not!
Thanks! John

THanks James for taking the time to look into it. So basically youre saying Royal Navy arent sloppy enough to allow sailing with a half concealment measure in place, and if paint peels - they just paint the bloody thing every day till the supplies run out. To that point I would say too many british warships were looking a bit scruffy at the end of their deployment (hulls in particular) so their care to concealment took back seat sometimes, your point here about their discipline is a bit off at least on these occasions. The famous KGV pic in color shows here in a very worn state for example.

And to the point of the picture that clearly shows the bow unpainted (i disagree it is reflection) - you say this is paint being stripped from the deck rather, not the ship just sailing about like that just on its own. Did I read that correct?