The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:11 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Post icon:
None
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
Options:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
type everything in between the quote marks: "N0$pam" Note the Zero:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Just like to put it out there too, that if you don't have access to much beyond Tamiya for acrylic paints, maybe a XF66 upper (lightened or darkened to scale and %) might easily combine with XF75 Kure Arsenal Grey on the lower, given the speculative nature of this lower paint in the interim. It *kind of* looks similar to the coloured plans...
Post Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:19 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Phenomenal turn in the thread. Congratulations to those of you uncovering primary evidence and changing not only the colours of our Hoods, but also the entire way RN warships have been viewed as models, online, and in print. I did go aboard Ark Royal in Fremantle in the mid '80's as a kid when she had that very light-blue underside iirc

Lilac...

Eagerly awaiting the article at Sovereign Hobbies.

FWIW, for my Hood I'd just got satisfied with the correct grey and red, and painted the hull and sealed it after '50 shades of Grey' over a few years. Changing paint chips, new research, the scale effect, and what I could reasonably lay my hands on here in regional Australia; it came a full circle and I ended very close to where I started, I believe John Donne wrote a poem about something similar...

Now the grey lower hull on Hood - was it grey or black? My own graduate level History qualification and experience screams to me 'listen to the bloke who said he painted the thing and the POW witnesses' - but we will see, as the lower hull distinctly seems lighter to the bootstrip in her final photograph. And all those builders' models with the alternate grey lowers that we've seen images of for years and years, hmmm.

Last questions: grey underneath Repulse and POW??? (either of them with lilac, as sunk, what a ship model that would make!) A County on China station with the grey lower hull (like the builders' model of Cumberland) would be quite distinct too.
Post Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:50 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
I thank Richard for his comprehensive, all-embracing, all-inclusive, blanket, broad, catholic, complete, encyclopædic, exhaustive, extensive, full, inclusive, sweeping, thorough, umbrella and wide reply to the musings in my post of 1.48pm 23 Nov. I look forward to reading his completed "paper" when it is promulgated.

There will no doubt be a few kit manufacturers sticking pins into his wax effigy when it is though, not to mention a few proud but sensitive builders who have already completed models. Meanwhile, I am glad that the three models that I have built over many years are beyond discussion regarding their anti-fouling colour: they are all water-line!
Post Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:29 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
EJFoeth wrote:
chuck wrote:
Would anyone be able to help with a previous question I posed - were the voice pipes that run down the back legs of the front tripod exposed on the outside of the legs on the way down, or routed down the hollow interior of the tripod legs?


Attachment:
SLWA_003.jpg


There's some sleeve on the outside of the tripod, so I'd say neither

WRT to the canvas sleeves; well, whitish? I painted them white already. Can always modulate the colour a bit. No turk's head though...



Thank you. Judging from the presence of the upper plotting room, this was taken sometime after 1931. Which raise the question of was the cladding that covers the voice pipes always there, or was it added after 1924?
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:23 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
FW_Allen wrote:
Mr. Church wrote:
Queen Mary 2 is interesting in this regard as she does her Atlantic crossings as well as cruises in warmer waters so should pick up all kinds of marine life and weathering on her hull. I imagine the British Home Fleet doing their Spring Cruises to the Mediterranean back in the era of Hood would have weathered similarly?


I’m no paint expert, but would assume that her condition would have depended on her location(s), activities and amount of time between drydockings. I’ll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to comment more fully/accurately.

However, I can say with certainty that the condition of the ship’s bottom was documented each time she drydocked and was cleaned/repainted. Quite a number of those survive in her ships books. Here is a random one that I’ve transcribed. It is for Hood’s May-June 1938 docking in Malta and it describes the bottom about 6-7 months after the previous docking:

Bottom Composition Area
(a) Anti-fouling Composition: “chafed and abraded as under-coatings, worn off and some patches distributed, worn thin, we are previously scaled also flaked off with scale on lower areas aft.”
(b) Protective Composition: “Chafed at bow, abraded in places, worn thin on areas were previously scaled, flaked off in patches with scale on lower areas after, but much adhering.”
(c) Outer Bottom Plating, &c., as to:
(i) Grass, weed, &c. : “Grass:- Fine growth principally on flaked patches and extending down to bilge keels. Weed:- sparse deposit.”
(ii) Shell, &c.: “ spires just posit of coralline and barnacles generally with several patches of close growth on lower areas and between bilge keels.”
(iii) Slime: “ moderate covering.“
(iv) Oxidation of Plating: “Slight oxidation at waterline area.”
It also discusses pitting of plating, rivet points and zinc protectors. They didn’t see any pitting, the rivet points were good and 20% of her zinc protectors were wasted and renewed. I’ve seen other forms where there was pitting and more extensive grass, etc.

As for her boot topping, the descriptions were as follows (the letters apply to the same fields as listed above):

(a): “Bare generally along the float line, much worn below, also abraded amidships.”
(b): “Bare generally along the float line and much abraded amidships.”
(c): “Fairly close covering of moderate growth below the float line.”
(i): “Nil.”
(ii): “Moderate deposit of small coralline and barnacles.”
(iii): “Moderate Covering.”

Not sure this helps, but hopefully it does.


Thanks Frank, I imagine the degradation depends heavily on the type and characteristics of the individual paint. No doubt some paint products were better than others as is likely still the case today. Plus of course time between dry dockings as you mention.

It is worth watching the video of Queen Mary 2 I linked earlier as well as the two still photos. The video shows a few more angles and clearly demonstrates the varying degrees of degradation to the different areas of the underwater hull along with some more closeup views. I'm sure if cross referenced carefully with the descriptions of Hood you posted the different types of deterioration and growth could be identified?

Great that such comprehensive and detailed records relating to Hood survive and can be published. Thanks again for sharing.
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:53 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:

Intriguing point is: was grey and red anti-fouling specific to the manufacturing company


I posted the answer to this as at 1937/38 a few days ago: There were then 17 authorised suppliers of Admiralty quality ships’ bottoms compositions. The colours of their anti-fouling coats were as follows: six supplied in grey only; seven supplied in either grey or black; one supplied in grey or green; one supplied in red or black; and two supplied in red, grey or black.

In the article I am putting together, the manufacturers' colour changes before and after this that I am aware of from the Fleet Orders and subsequent Rate Books will be noted. However it is clear from one particular WW1 AFO that some manufacturers at that time did supply in more than one colour so the overall situation then was probably fairly similar to 1937/38.

Guest wrote:

or was the use of a colour specific to a dockyard


I think not exactly in the way you may be thinking which I infer to be one colour per dockyard. The IWM Pears paintings from Rosyth to my eye show at least 4 different colours in use at Rosyth in 1918. Proximity of a particular manufacturer to a particular dockyard may have played a part in which supplier's product might be used originally on a ship, but there are clear indications from Hoods' D.495s that after that if possible they used the same manufacturer's product on a ship at her subsequent dry dockings at whichever dockyard they took place. This makes sense as some of the different manufacturers' products would not have been compatible chemically. During WW2 it appears that the Admiralty sometimes centrally allocated particular manufacturers' products to specific classes of ship and, although of course I haven't checked the location of every one of each ship's dry dockings, if it was a large class it is impossible for all of the class to only ever to have been drydocked for bottom treatment in one particular dockyard.

Guest wrote:

or was grey anti-fouling common through out the Royal Navy until replaced (for an as yet unknown reason) by red and if so, why and when?


Depends what exactly you mean by "common". If you mean universal then no, but if you mean quite often used then yes. You will have to wait until I have finished writing up everything I have for more on this and the why and when. I am thinking of taking the story up to about 1947/8 and by then grey (and other colours) had still not been 'replaced' by red although the writing was on the wall.
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:07 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Mr. Church wrote:
Queen Mary 2 is interesting in this regard as she does her Atlantic crossings as well as cruises in warmer waters so should pick up all kinds of marine life and weathering on her hull. I imagine the British Home Fleet doing their Spring Cruises to the Mediterranean back in the era of Hood would have weathered similarly?


I’m no paint expert, but would assume that her condition would have depended on her location(s), activities and amount of time between drydockings. I’ll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to comment more fully/accurately.

However, I can say with certainty that the condition of the ship’s bottom was documented each time she drydocked and was cleaned/repainted. Quite a number of those documents survive in her ships books. Here is a random one that I’ve transcribed. It is for Hood’s May-June 1938 docking in Malta and it describes the bottom about 6-7 months after the previous docking:

Bottom Composition Area
(a) Anti-fouling Composition: “chafed and abraded as under-coatings, worn off and some patches distributed, worn thin, where previously scaled also flaked off with scale on lower areas aft.”
(b) Protective Composition: “Chafed at bow, abraded in places, worn thin on areas where previously scaled, flaked off in patches with scale on lower areas after, but much adhering.”
(c) Outer Bottom Plating, &c., as to:
(i) Grass, weed, &c. : “Grass:- Fine growth principally on flaked patches and extending down to bilge keels. Weed:- sparse deposit.”
(ii) Shell, &c.: “Sparse deposit of coralline and barnacles generally with several patches of close growth on lower areas and between bilge keels.”
(iii) Slime: “moderate covering.“
(iv) Oxidation of Plating: “Slight oxidation at waterline area.”
It also discusses pitting of plating, rivet points and zinc protectors. They didn’t see any pitting, the rivet points were good and 20% of her zinc protectors were wasted and renewed. I’ve seen other forms where there was pitting and more extensive grass, etc.

As for her boot topping, the descriptions were as follows (the letters apply to the same fields as listed above):

(a): “Bare generally along the float line, much worn below, also abraded amidships.”
(b): “Bare generally along the float line and much abraded amidships.”
(c): “Fairly close covering of moderate growth below the float line.”
(i): “Nil.”
(ii): “Moderate deposit of small coralline and barnacles.”
(iii): “Moderate Covering.”

Not sure this helps, but hopefully it does.

NOTE: I speech to text to write this and there were some minor errors. I went back in after posting to correct the mistakes.
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:22 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
I’ve just repainted my 1/200 Hood bottom today in grey and it looks distinctly odd. I’d rather have lived in ignorance of the dockyard records but they seem fairly compelling to me. She looks like an old dreadnought now.....

Steve
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:26 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Chuck,

Point taken! I like your droll sense of humour. I did wonder if someone would take that up. I have to "pass" on that and leave it to those having to solve the problem.

EJ Foeth,

Thank you. Taking the matter on and to deal with it at further length. Sewing a canvas gaiter onto a stanchion, adding a Turk's Head top and bottom and then painting the whole will not be found in the Manual of Seamanship. Such measures would come under the heading of "tiddly work" or "fancy waist-coats" in the Royal Navy. In other words, though it was probably done for a reason in HMS HOOD i.e. to prevent sailors unfamiliar with the "area" at night bumping into them, the measure was more "decorative" than anything else. One good reason for not doing such a thing is that the covering would hide any corrosion that might be going on, under it. However, it would be accepted on, say the Quarter Deck (the area of authority and execution of ceremonial), where the awning stanchions might be decorated for the purposes of impressing visitors. There may be photographs of such decoration on the HOOD Web-site.

Frank,

Re: Post of 23 Nov 11.25am Thanks again. Respectfully suggest that it is drifting off the beam a little though. Ships of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries did go through some changes in styles of painting regarding the boot-topping and under-water part of the hull; these are outside my area of knowledge though.

Intriguing point is: was grey and red anti-fouling specific to the manufacturing company or was the use of a colour specific to a dockyard or was grey anti-fouling common through out the Royal Navy until replaced (for an as yet unknown reason) by red and if so, why and when?
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:48 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
chuck wrote:
Would anyone be able to help with a previous question I posed - were the voice pipes that run down the back legs of the front tripod exposed on the outside of the legs on the way down, or routed down the hollow interior of the tripod legs?


Attachment:
SLWA_003.jpg
SLWA_003.jpg [ 223.24 KiB | Viewed 364 times ]


There's some sleeve on the outside of the tripod, so I'd say neither

WRT to the canvas sleeves; well, whitish? I painted them white already. Can always modulate the colour a bit. No turk's head though...
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:20 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
If it is white canvass, how would you represent it differently on a 1/350 model than if it were white paint? :wave_1: Make it a little more off-white?

Oh, I forgot. EJ will crack 1/350 scale scale whip over his 1/350 minions so they will grow 1/350 scale flax and weave 1/350 scale canvas. :big_grin:

However, given water surface tension, such miniature canvas might be difficult to wet properly for shrink fitting however. :heh:
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:25 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
you are in danger of ignoring the advice of someone who has ...



:smallsmile: Actually, I find the explanation quite compelling and tried finding more information; such as in ye olde manual of seamanship (no luck so far)... just wondering what the appearance would be on other ships...
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:00 pm
  Post subject:  Another Grey-Bottomed Model (RE: Hood’s grey antifouling)  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
Frank:

Re: Post of 22 Nov 6.46pm. Many thanks!


Here’s another one. This is admittedly not a “builder’s model,” plus it’s from a bit earlier than Hood. It’s but famous artist AB Cull’s interpretation of battle cruiser Queen Mary. I didn’t realise he built models in addition to creating paintings.

It’s probably not as reliable as the more contemporary examples Dick cited, but I thought I’d point it out it anyway:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/67366.html
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:25 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Frank:

Re: Post of 22 Nov 6.46pm. Many thanks!

EJFoeth:

Re: Post of 23 Nov 3.01am. How thick do you think that a single thickness of canvas will look when sewn onto a stanchion, shrunk on with water then allowed to dry before being painted? In your admirable passion for accuracy, you are in danger of ignoring the advice of someone who has actually seen such an effect on fittings of British warships ..... me (and no doubt others amused by the way that this matter seems to be flying around in ever decreasing circles)! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck! Lights out!
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:10 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
I don't bet. I'd say that you are right. There is only one thing that they are likely to be: "Turk's Heads." The white painted parts in between are likely to be canvas gaiters, which were sewn on. Case closed!


Attachment:
HMS Hood - starboard battery (web)2.jpg
HMS Hood - starboard battery (web)2.jpg [ 94.08 KiB | Viewed 452 times ]

Perhaps, but the pillars seem to have the exact same outer diameter over their entire length, including in the 'white' region (A canvas gaiter would be a fun explanation).
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:01 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Mike E. wrote:
All:

Alan Raven asked me to post this on the board in response to Jamie's artwork re: HMS Hood.

During Hood's 1940 refit, the corticene covering her shelter/boat deck was removed and replaced by a layer of semtex (with the exception perhaps of some of the bridge decks which retained their corticene covering). He doesn't have info regarding the precise pattern of the semtex runs on the deck, however.

Best,

Mike E.


There were a refits in Q2 1940 and Q1 1941.

Attachment:
1941deck.jpg
1941deck.jpg [ 39.95 KiB | Viewed 456 times ]


Picture of the deck in 1941. Note from the small light mushroom vents in the bottom of the image that to the right a change in contrast runs where we now had the Semtex/Corticine edge. That is, from pictures we have the pattern of the corticine that was estimated at 12x6ft patches; part of these were removed and replaced by Semtex earlier. This image suggest that part of the deck is still corticine. Let's refer to this line as our reference line.

Image ON BOARD A WARSHIP. 1940, ON BOARD THE BRITISH BATTLECRUISER HMS HOOD.. © IWM (A 171) IWM Non Commercial License

Strips clearly running inward of our reference line (this strip is 6ft inboard wrt the reference line, no appreciable contrast change visible). However, not her final configuration.

Image

Image of JE Moon, who joined HMS Hood in 1940 (exact date of the image not known). Again, note the contrast change and Corticine cover strip patterns not continuing more outboard. This is at the reference line.

Image

Late 1940, early 1941. The counter-evidence confusor; note there is no contrast line visible here, however, the Corticine strip pattern is still present more inboard at our reference line. The pattern is not visible outboard of this line anywhere (I have the pic at a better resolution, and really tried finding more lines but cannot). What is also confusing is that the HA emplacement shows a different surface texture, as if it has been painting (sloppily) or simply just wet.

So, photographic evidence shows that outboard of our reference line the Corticine covering strips have all been removed, at the locations where the logs clearly mention Semtex. Inboard of our reference line the Corticine pattern is always visible, but the contrast change between Corticine and Semtex is not. So far I inclined to conclude that corticine was still partly present on the boat deck. Supporting or contradicting images or documents welcome, of course.

(I just added that pattern to my model so will now passionately defend it with cognitive dissonance set to stun).
Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:50 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Would anyone be able to help with a previous question I posed - were the voice pipes that run down the back legs of the front tripod exposed on the outside of the legs on the way down, or routed down the hollow interior of the tripod legs?
Post Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:58 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
I don't think that there is now much doubt as to what colour the anti-fouling composition probably was on the under-water body of HMS HOOD, when she was last coated: grey. The question in some minds though is likely to be "What shade?" The records for Peacock and Buchan Ltd in the Southampton Archive may provide the answer but I for one will not be holding my breath.

It is a pity but someone posted some images on the site recently, one of which showed a model of a Southampton class cruiser. The under-water body of that model was grey. That may be as good as it gets but I can't now find the image. Can the Moderator move it over here or tell us where it is, please?

Mr Church: thanks for posting the pics of QUEEN MARY 2. I for one will not argue with you that her anti-fouling would appear to be of a red shade but that it has "weathered:" sorry folks, I'm not trying to start an argument over paint semantics! The grey in the pics does seem odd but it might need either a chemist or a biologist (not my "discipline") to suggest a reason for it, providing that the grey is not an additional coat applied over a red one.

Chuck: re your post of 11.47am 21 Nov. I am having great difficulty accepting your points. The image is not large enough to be able to make a valid judgement. The boot topping clearly has some fouling just above the water-line: probably from a light green "grassy" growth: see Mr Church's pics. I cannot make out any part of the "blister:" HOOD did not have a blister as such. The bulged lower part of the hull was an integral part of the side protection system. Newton's "Practical Construction of Warships" and DK Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard" contain images (the same one) of a half section; which also illustrates the scheme of her deck protection.


It was Dick who posted the following links:
“This may help explain what we see on a number of (often builders’) contemporary models in British museum collections for example:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67452.html

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 66003.html (read the description)

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 65979.html

https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/201 ... aldo-8.jpg
Post Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:46 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
Mike E. wrote:
All:

Alan Raven asked me to post this on the board in response to Jamie's artwork re: HMS Hood.

During Hood's 1940 refit, the corticene covering her shelter/boat deck was removed and replaced by a layer of semtex (with the exception perhaps of some of the bridge decks which retained their corticene covering). He doesn't have info regarding the precise pattern of the semtex runs on the deck, however.

Best,

Mike E.


With all due respect to Mr R (and we do indeed respect his knowledge), we ourselves have so far seen no reference to that in the Hood’s cover or her ships books, plus we have photos from 1940 and 1941 which still show panels and strips where corticene was known to be before. If he can please cite a contemporary official source that verifies such work was actually carried out, it would be very helpful (i.e., which part/section of the ship’s books, etc.). It’s possible we could’ve overlooked or otherwise not gotten to something. Otherwise, we have to go by what photos show.

As for Semtex, the only verifiable record we’ve come across so far is a Dec 1937 mention of it being applied under the new 4” guns. There is a later mention of renewal of corticene on the boat deck (38). Again, it would be very helpful if he could provide a verifiable contemporary source for us to consult so that we may be as precise as possible.
Post Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:44 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans  Reply with quote
All:

Alan Raven asked me to post this on the board in response to Jamie's artwork re: HMS Hood.

During Hood's 1940 refit, the corticene covering her shelter/boat deck was removed and replaced by a layer of semtex (with the exception perhaps of some of the bridge decks which retained their corticene covering). He doesn't have info regarding the precise pattern of the semtex runs on the deck, however.

Best,

Mike E.
Post Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group