The Ship Model Forum

[quote="EJFoeth"]Some very, very early shots of HMS Prince of Wales :woo_hoo:

[url]http://ontheslipway.com/?p=3963[/url][/quote]

Real cool, THANKS!

Some very, very early shots of HMS Prince of Wales :woo_hoo:

[url]http://ontheslipway.com/?p=3963[/url]

Hi Darren,

I'm afraid not. We did look for a while for an authoritative definition of the word but its use seems slightly inconsistent. Not withstanding, it does seem that 507B was well on its way out from a wartime practicality perspective by December 1939 as this extract describes matt finish paint. 507B is known to have been glossy - that was afterall the peacetime purpose of the enamel added a decade earlier...

[quote]Memo extract from CB.3016

"Sir, With reference to your letter No.N.C.388/6801 of 8th November, 1939, I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that H.M. Ships on foreign stations are painted as follows (vide C.B.3016 (37), paragraph 261, and C.B.3016 (34), paragraph 179):-

Cruisers and larger vessels - light grey all over.

Destroyers - dark grey hulls and light grey upper works.

Submarines - royal blue on Mediterranean Station, and dark olive colour on China Station.

2. All ships of the Home Fleet, including submarines, are painted Home Fleet grey, and a matt surface paint is employed both at home and on foreign stations.

3. Armed Merchant Cruisers are painted in their normal peacetime colours."[/quote]

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/CB3106_Extract_Memo_dec39.pdf?4195512853471384647[/url]

James, could you provide a definition of "for other than weather work"? I thought weatherworks was any surface exposed to the elements (weather), but now I'm doubting myself and can't find it anywhere.

[quote="Richard Durham"]The original Snyder and Short paint chips have 507A and 507B as distinctly different colors with 507B much lighter than 507A and 507B was supposedly was as a mix of 507A and 507C. Regardless of what I have read recently, I subscribe to the mix theory and that 507B was Home Fleet Grey.
With scale effects and flat coating thrown in, 507B is close enough to FS36320, Dark Ghost Gray, or TAMIYA XF66. I used Model Master Acryl Dark Ghost Gray to paint my 1/350 HOOD build in 2007. Dark Ghost Gray looks even darker against the wood decks and is quite convincing.

Rich[/quote]

Each to his own but with the very document available introducing 507A alongside a pre-existing 507B, explicitly giving them the same name and explicitly stating they were made using exactly the same formulae except 507A didn't get the 10 pints of enamel, I fail to see how anyone could still think 507B was a mix of a cheaper, less glossy version of itself plus a lighter grey. It defies all logic.

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/AFO_211-39.pdf?4195512853471384647[/url]

In order for Alan Raven's 50/50 mix theory to sound credible, one must not be aware that Pattern 507, 507A, 507B and 507C had all existed before in WW1 and only 507B and 507C had been retained and had evolved interwar.

Having the relevant documents now makes it plain as day. The 50/50 mix did NOT equal 507B. It was an emergency mix paint without a name for use in situations where camouflage was needed quickly but there was no time to obtain the correct MS & B (and later the B & G series) paints and apply a proper disruptive pattern scheme.

One such document describing that paint (and which incidently name-drops 507A as "Home Fleet Grey") is CAFO 1112/42. If equal parts 507A and 507C made 507B then one would assume this would say so.

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/CAFO1112_Camouflage_of_Sea_Going_Ships_Policy_June_1942.pdf?11210309288652758831[/url]

If 507B was made from 507A and 507C mixed in equal parts, nobody in the Admiralty was aware otf that.

The original Snyder and Short paint chips have 507A and 507B as distinctly different colors with 507B much lighter than 507A and 507B was supposedly was as a mix of 507A and 507C. Regardless of what I have read recently, I subscribe to the mix theory and that 507B was Home Fleet Grey.
With scale effects and flat coating thrown in, 507B is close enough to FS36320, Dark Ghost Gray, or TAMIYA XF66. I used Model Master Acryl Dark Ghost Gray to paint my 1/350 HOOD build in 2007. Dark Ghost Gray looks even darker against the wood decks and is quite convincing.

Rich

[quote="Guest"]Hi

I recently purchased the Tamiya Prince Of Wales 1/350
And im wondering, is there any tamiya TS spray paints that look good for the hull and superstructure? Im not sure i want that overkill camo pattern
I like the color when she was commisioned,(gray, medium gray and maybe light gray?) and in the instructions there is not listed side hull color, only different camo paints

Regards Daniel[/quote]

Prince of Wales was commissioned in Home Fleet Grey, a dark bluish grey. I know of no suitable Tamiya paints.

Hi

I recently purchased the Tamiya Prince Of Wales 1/350
And im wondering, is there any tamiya TS spray paints that look good for the hull and superstructure? Im not sure i want that overkill camo pattern
I like the color when she was commisioned,(gray, medium gray and maybe light gray?) and in the instructions there is not listed side hull color, only different camo paints

Regards Daniel

I’m thinking this is the case as there are images of a destroyer being fueled from her in her 1943 livery and the cables are running along the top of the side armour belt. Other shots of her in the same 1943 colour show no cables forward of the belt.

A series of shots from October 1942 show the rear cable (the bow shots are not really clear), late 1944 shows no rear cable. According to Dumas the cable was removed in the early 1944 refit at Liverpool. The front cable may have removed after the Punjabi incident (but I have no clear bow shots from late 42 to 44).

I want to do a KGV in later 1943, it appears the degaussig cable is gone from the front of the ship but the rear is still attached. Roger Chesneau's book on the KGV class says they were removed mid '42, but was it just the rear bit?

Question on Carley Floats on Duke of York:

How many it had?
What size were they? - 14ft X 9ft or 12ft X 7ft ?

Anyone know this? :wave_1:

[b]EDIT: I guess noone knows. Well, 29. And they are 10x5 as per my findings, so if someone looks in future... here you go.[/b]

If you meand the catheads, then no; thesecare used for anchor handling. (as seen here
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=162889&start=60#p697647)

Talking of paravanes - the small-ish projections overboard near the anchors, with what appears to be a sheave - were they used when handling the paravanes? I've never been able to find a clear photo of them and don't think I've ever seen one where they are being used for anything.

In response to the forefoot for paravene chains, a gentleman named Rod Macdonald wrote a book called “Force Z Shipwrecks of the South China Sea”, that has pictures and drawings of the upturned hull of POW. None are definitive but the author made dives on both ships and could possible help. Try http://www.rod-mcdonald.co.uk.

[quote="PaulC"]
She [u]seems[/u] (to me) in pretty clean condition - you can just make out the bow area.

Of the photos you posted - one bow shot is apparently from the same time as the two previous one's - from the weathering, the position of the guns and the light craft next to her (you can see its mast in the other two photos).

In any case, I was just making a suggestion - the IWM captions could very well be correct! :big_grin:[/quote]

So basically, during Bismarck or as it headed into it, it was pretty ok and clean, repainted after the April appearance where that paint was pealing properly (just like on KGV) and as it returned to por it probably also had been worse for the wear after Bismarck chase (but if one models here post Bismarck fight one has to simulate damage in battle, above my paygrade). I think I will either build my Flyhawk PoW in April guise or in clean May 22 look. Thanks to all for this great help guys, seems I stumbled on one CASF thread that is regularly updated, haha which is refreshing. :)

[quote="Martocticvs"]Which photo is that?[/quote]

[attachment=1]PoW 22-5-41.jpg[/attachment]

Taken presumably by the same aircraft that photographed Hood on that date.

[attachment=0]Hood & Prince Of Wales 22 May 1941.JPG[/attachment]

She [u]seems[/u] (to me) in pretty clean condition - you can just make out the bow area.

Of the photos you posted - one bow shot is apparently from the same time as the two previous one's - from the weathering, the position of the guns and the light craft next to her (you can see its mast in the other two photos).

In any case, I was just making a suggestion - the IWM captions could very well be correct! :big_grin:

That's a fair point, I am just relaying what IWM has to say.

Also from IWM, we have Prince of Wales in April 1941, but looking a lot fresher...
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205138246
... at first glance, that is. Look closer, and the same weathering is present around the bow waterline.

All the photos with this weathering carry April dates there (bar one that is undated).
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205138223
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205138248
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205119371
(https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205138252)

I've not yet seen any other date proposed, of course that does not mean that the April date is correct. It may be that PoW's first coat of HFG was as bad wearing as KGV's, of course... She appears to have been in a camo scheme by August, so there is quite a limited window for it.

All of that said... radar. In various photos, both types 282 (aerials on the pom-pom directors) and 285 (aerials on the HACS directors) radar appear to be present, which I think must place it after her May refit. UPs are still fitted though, so before the June-July refit.

[quote="PaulC"]But for sure, she was not so weathered on May 22, 1941, from the photo of her taken then when south of the Faeroes on the way to the DS.[/quote]
Which photo is that?

[EDIT] Found a better history for the ship. Looks like the 282s and 285s were fitted during her fitting out. Log excerpts suggest she remained in Rosyth for all of June and much of July. During this time, she received a type 273 radar, which is definitely not present in those photos. That broadens rather than narrows the window, based on radar. I agree it seems more likely to be after the battle, though.

[quote="Martocticvs"]PoW, April 1941.[/quote]

Hmmmm....do you really think that's accurate?

Think about it.... PoW steamed from Rosyth to Scapa on March 24-25. During April she was carrying out various working up exercises in and around Scapa. She had a full power trial on May 8. Would that have caused such marked weathering?

I could be wrong, but that degree of weathering looks more to be from days of high speed steaming which she did during the Bismarck operation. After refueling at Hvalfiord, she left for Rosyth on the May 28, arriving on the 30th.

The coastline in the background could be the Scottish coast (though admittedly it could also be from Scapa).

Here's another photo obviously taken at the same time (from the Maritimequest website):

[img]https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/prince_of_wales/hms_prince_of_wales_07.JPG[/img]

But for sure, she was not so weathered on May 22, 1941, from the photo of her taken then when south of the Faeroes on the way to the DS.

Paul

Hi All,

Hi Pascalemod, EJ and yourself are correct as far as the paravane foot is concerned. From the image of PoW you can see there are a few bits missing from her, B turret UP for one. I can tell you from her log that in April after her arrival at Scapa the crew exercised paravanes and degaussing, so something was fitted.


Her crew exercised all the usual things during April, astern steaming, emergency steam steering engines, main engines, trailing shafts, rdf trials were also carried out as she had 285 and 282 and 281 fitted as well as 284 where as King Geoege V had 279 and 284 as far as I know.

As far as I know 507a and 507b were the same shade the only difference being 507a had no enamel added.

Hope this helps a little bit!

Best wishes
Cag.