Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
81542 wrote: ... he is being published and thus filling a niche....
81542 Sorry 81542 but I see no "niche" for this sort of thing: Attachment:
London basic b.jpg [ 169.21 KiB | Viewed 731 times ]
It saddens me deeply to see otherwise beautifully built models which must have taken their builders many, many hours of patient labour to construct beginning to appear in hopelessly inaccurate colours as a result: Attachment:
Nubian model - Copy.jpg [ 111.82 KiB | Viewed 731 times ]
[quote="81542"]... he is being published and thus filling a niche....
81542[/quote]
Sorry 81542 but I see no "niche" for this sort of thing:
[attachment=1]London basic b.jpg[/attachment]
It saddens me deeply to see otherwise beautifully built models which must have taken their builders many, many hours of patient labour to construct beginning to appear in hopelessly inaccurate colours as a result:
[attachment=0]Nubian model - Copy.jpg[/attachment]
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2024 1:31 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
81542 wrote: If we think that we can do better then we should take a leaf out of the Duke of Wellington's book and publish (if you can find a publisher) and be damned: one can always issue a revision in the form of a second edition later.
Hi, Whilst it's relatively straight forward to draft (and indeed we have) something about what the paints were, when they were in use and what they really looked like which does move things on a bit from Raven's era, it's a whole other kettle of fish to produce a book full of camouflage schemes which are underpinned by anything which can be evidenced. That's the Brandolini's Law aspect. Mal produced a series of profiles for light fleet carriers. Richard and I have spent 4 months developing a single properly researched profile for one of those ships. We knew immediately that Mal got the scheme wrong, the colours wrong and the names of the colours portrayed wrong, but over the 4 months of close examination of extant evidence though we also discovered he got the deck markings wrong as well as the both the AA weapons and the radar fit wrong too - both things illustrated and explicitly described in his text. He's even got profiles of two aircraft types which never embarked upon this particular ship in colour schemes that are spurious in their own right. That's 4 months to properly research and portray a single ship at a single point in time though - and one which we already knew the colours of! One thing is very clear though; if you don't first have a clear understanding of the paints, what they really looked like and when they were in use, you cannot even begin to produce sensible camouflage profiles for the ships which used them. It's an absolute prerequisite.
[quote="81542"] If we think that we can do better then we should take a leaf out of the Duke of Wellington's book and publish (if you can find a publisher) and be damned: one can always issue a revision in the form of a second edition later. [/quote]
Hi,
Whilst it's relatively straight forward to draft (and indeed we have) something about what the paints were, when they were in use and what they really looked like which does move things on a bit from Raven's era, it's a whole other kettle of fish to produce a book full of camouflage schemes which are underpinned by anything which can be evidenced.
That's the Brandolini's Law aspect. Mal produced a series of profiles for light fleet carriers. Richard and I have spent 4 months developing a single properly researched profile for one of those ships. We knew immediately that Mal got the scheme wrong, the colours wrong and the names of the colours portrayed wrong, but over the 4 months of close examination of extant evidence though we also discovered he got the deck markings wrong as well as the both the AA weapons and the radar fit wrong too - both things illustrated and explicitly described in his text. He's even got profiles of two aircraft types which never embarked upon this particular ship in colour schemes that are spurious in their own right. That's 4 months to properly research and portray a single ship at a single point in time though - and one which we already knew the colours of!
One thing is very clear though; if you don't first have a clear understanding of the paints, what they really looked like and when they were in use, you cannot even begin to produce sensible camouflage profiles for the ships which used them. It's an absolute prerequisite.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:53 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
81542 wrote: ... Alan Raven wrote over a considerable period of time during which more information on the matter came to light. He will have made mistakes but I am aware that he did make some corrections to previous errors in the final "volume" in his "Warships Perspective" series... 81542 As I also found out when doing the patterns for my May 1941 Suffolk or my December 1943 Belfast, one cannot fully rely on any published pattern alone, but one is at best guided into the right direction. One has to research closely all the photos referring to the period and study these closely to come to a 'hypothesis' on the correct pattern for that specific date. Take also the Norfolk for that matter: the scheme between June or December 1943 is largely identical, but the shades used are reversed and the bow area reverted to the original light grey in the latter. So a 1970s b&w scheme pattern ala Raven may look right, but could easily be misinterpreted when the colours are taken wrong.
[quote="81542"]... Alan Raven wrote over a considerable period of time during which more information on the matter came to light. He will have made mistakes but I am aware that he did make some corrections to previous errors in the final "volume" in his "Warships Perspective" series... 81542[/quote] As I also found out when doing the patterns for my May 1941 Suffolk or my December 1943 Belfast, one cannot fully rely on any published pattern alone, but one is at best guided into the right direction. One has to research closely all the photos referring to the period and study these closely to come to a 'hypothesis' on the correct pattern for that specific date. Take also the Norfolk for that matter: the scheme between June or December 1943 is largely identical, but the shades used are reversed and the bow area reverted to the original light grey in the latter. So a 1970s b&w scheme pattern ala Raven may look right, but could easily be misinterpreted when the colours are taken wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:24 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
It is a shame that these criticisms of Alan Raven's works: no doubt well-intentioned, are made now that he is no longer here to defend himself.
He was, with two exceptions, for the last 40+ years the only authority on British warship camouflage. Peter Hodges made one good attempt; albeit in a small way, at the matter during the 1970's with David Williams writing what I would classify as the most "scholarly" book to date though that was now some years ago and it did cover (or attempt to) all of the 20th Century's combatant navies. Someone will tell me that there have been others; which I must accept.
Alan Raven wrote over a considerable period of time during which more information on the matter came to light. He will have made mistakes but I am aware that he did make some corrections to previous errors in the final "volume" in his "Warships Perspective" series.
From what Sovereign Hobbies and "Dick" have written and continue to write though: I enjoy the fruits of their labours very much, by the way, it is clear that the matter remains a "work in progress." I have seen some of Mal Wright's books. They may not be everyone's "cup of tea" but he is being published and thus filling a niche. If we think that we can do better then we should take a leaf out of the Duke of Wellington's book and publish (if you can find a publisher) and be damned: one can always issue a revision in the form of a second edition later.
Meanwhile, thanks to Sovereign Hobbies for leading me to Gandolfini's Law via Google. It is a crude way of defining the problem but a very real one for all matters in history, not just naval camouflage.
Thanks for reading.
81542
It is a shame that these criticisms of Alan Raven's works: no doubt well-intentioned, are made now that he is no longer here to defend himself.
He was, with two exceptions, for the last 40+ years the only authority on British warship camouflage. Peter Hodges made one good attempt; albeit in a small way, at the matter during the 1970's with David Williams writing what I would classify as the most "scholarly" book to date though that was now some years ago and it did cover (or attempt to) all of the 20th Century's combatant navies. Someone will tell me that there have been others; which I must accept.
Alan Raven wrote over a considerable period of time during which more information on the matter came to light. He will have made mistakes but I am aware that he did make some corrections to previous errors in the final "volume" in his "Warships Perspective" series.
From what Sovereign Hobbies and "Dick" have written and continue to write though: I enjoy the fruits of their labours very much, by the way, it is clear that the matter remains a "work in progress." I have seen some of Mal Wright's books. They may not be everyone's "cup of tea" but he is being published and thus filling a niche. If we think that we can do better then we should take a leaf out of the Duke of Wellington's book and publish (if you can find a publisher) and be damned: one can always issue a revision in the form of a second edition later.
Meanwhile, thanks to Sovereign Hobbies for leading me to Gandolfini's Law via Google. It is a crude way of defining the problem but a very real one for all matters in history, not just naval camouflage.
Thanks for reading.
81542
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:55 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
I had all of Ravens books, he was often in error.
I had all of Ravens books, he was often in error.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Thank you very much, James!
My confusion is not the result of Wright's books, but the massive conflicts to the older books, e.g. by Raven. Wright mostly copied Raven - and I found very often that the patterns in Raven's and Wright's books do not match photos of the real ships.
Thank you very much, James!
My confusion is not the result of Wright's books, but the massive conflicts to the older books, e.g. by Raven. Wright mostly copied Raven - and I found very often that the patterns in Raven's and Wright's books do not match photos of the real ships.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Thank you again James! Wrights " books " should be burned. I threw my copies away. Rubbish
Thank you again James! Wrights " books " should be burned. I threw my copies away. Rubbish
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:07 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
maxim wrote: Wright shows two different patters for June and December 1943 - differing regarding the two darker colours (MS 3 and B30 on B 55 on the first, 507A and B15 on B 55 on the second). That would fit to the lower contrast on some photos. I know that there are many who criticize Wright and I do not agree with regarding the December 1943 pattern - again, as in Raven, the pattern on the port side is very different from the photos which I have found. Caused by the new findings by Sovereign Hobbies, I am anyway completely confused regarding British colours Hi, Whilst colour placement is not always easy, it is much more simple than e.g. Mal Wright's books suggest. He is singularly clueless about Royal Navy paints and each profile is a fruit-salad of official paint names from different time periods corresponding to random colours on his drawings. Use his books to light your next barbecue as the weather improves and things will appear simpler. MS3 would not be used with B30 and B55. B30 and B55 were part of the G&B (or B&G!) paint series which superseded the MS&B series which included MS3. The contemporary slightly greenish-grey of 20% Light Reflectance Value to B30 and B55 was G20. MS3 was replaced by G20. Likewise 507A would not be used with B15 and B55 for the same reason. By the time B15 and B55 existed, the dark grey paint of 10% Light Reflectance Value which looked like 507A was G10. Unfortunately Mal can generate this stuff a great deal faster than a more knowledgeable person can explain why it's all nonsense - a sort of Warship Camouflage manifestation of Brandolini's Law, if you will. This diagram hopefully illustrates the rationalisation and re-classification of RN camouflage paints which happened in May 1943. - You would continue to see the old paints after this date until they were repainted. - You are highly unlikely to see any new schemes composed of a hybrid of new and old paints. Any drawing or profile claiming such should be disregarded unless overwhelming evidence of a hybrid scheme can be demonstrated. - You will not see the new paints applied to a ship before this date. Any drawing or profile claiming such should be disregarded. A more contextual narrative with more such diagrams is available here if it helps: https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-brief-history-paints
[quote="maxim"]
Wright shows two different patters for June and December 1943 - differing regarding the two darker colours (MS 3 and B30 on B 55 on the first, 507A and B15 on B 55 on the second). That would fit to the lower contrast on some photos. I know that there are many who criticize Wright and I do not agree with regarding the December 1943 pattern - again, as in Raven, the pattern on the port side is very different from the photos which I have found.
Caused by the new findings by Sovereign Hobbies, I am anyway completely confused regarding British colours ;)[/quote]
Hi,
Whilst colour placement is not always easy, it is much more simple than e.g. Mal Wright's books suggest. He is singularly clueless about Royal Navy paints and each profile is a fruit-salad of official paint names from different time periods corresponding to random colours on his drawings. Use his books to light your next barbecue as the weather improves and things will appear simpler. MS3 would not be used with B30 and B55. B30 and B55 were part of the G&B (or B&G!) paint series which superseded the MS&B series which included MS3. The contemporary slightly greenish-grey of 20% Light Reflectance Value to B30 and B55 was G20. MS3 was replaced by G20. Likewise 507A would not be used with B15 and B55 for the same reason. By the time B15 and B55 existed, the dark grey paint of 10% Light Reflectance Value which looked like 507A was G10. Unfortunately Mal can generate this stuff a great deal faster than a more knowledgeable person can explain why it's all nonsense - a sort of Warship Camouflage manifestation of Brandolini's Law, if you will.
This diagram hopefully illustrates the rationalisation and re-classification of RN camouflage paints which happened in May 1943. - You would continue to see the old paints after this date until they were repainted. - You are highly unlikely to see any new schemes composed of a hybrid of new and old paints. Any drawing or profile claiming such should be disregarded unless overwhelming evidence of a hybrid scheme can be demonstrated. - You will not see the new paints applied to a ship before this date. Any drawing or profile claiming such should be disregarded. [img]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/RN_Colours_for_Facebook5_1024x1024.png?v=1609585177[/img]
A more contextual narrative with more such diagrams is available here if it helps: [url]https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-brief-history-paints[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2024 11:06 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Quote: ... And there are these photos dated December 1943 (in the first one, the rear panel is darker, the second photo is very dark): https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153331https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153330... YES! I agree the first of these excellent photo's is VERY convincing for your theory, the other has too much backlight that we can make out the colour shades. (note to everyone else: when you open the links to these photos, you'll come into the photo viewer of the Imperial War Museum. Use the zoom button + to focus in to the Norfolk (the smaller of the two ships) Attachment:
large_000000(14) zoomed.jpg [ 17.24 KiB | Viewed 1378 times ]
And this leaves us know with the tantalizing question: what did the PORT side really look like BEFORE October 1943? Would that drawing of Alan Raven still have ground and were the colours changed in October, but before December? A least it suggests the bow is painted in a mid-tone, like the photos of the SB side seem to suggest. I personally think the 'knuckle shadow' isn't really explaining what we see on those pictures: the bow is almost exactly the colour of the rear patch (you can check that with cutting away the center part of the photo) Attachment:
Norfolk PRE October 1943 (Raven).jpg [ 15.8 KiB | Viewed 1382 times ]
Attachment:
Norfolk PRE October 1943 .jpg [ 55.24 KiB | Viewed 1382 times ]
Attachment:
Norfolk PRE October 1943 cut.jpg [ 36.26 KiB | Viewed 1382 times ]
When you cut the mid part of the photo away, the bow is even darker that the rear patch... But then again: who really wants to build a pre-October 1943 model of HMS Norfolk, as one is intending to build her in the colours of North Cape?
[quote]... And there are these photos dated December 1943 (in the first one, the rear panel is darker, the second photo is very dark): [url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153331[/url] [url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153330[/url]...[/quote]
YES! I agree the first of these excellent photo's is VERY convincing for your theory, the other has too much backlight that we can make out the colour shades. (note to everyone else: when you open the links to these photos, you'll come into the photo viewer of the Imperial War Museum. Use the zoom button + to focus in to the Norfolk (the smaller of the two ships)[attachment=0]large_000000(14) zoomed.jpg[/attachment] And this leaves us know with the tantalizing question: what did the PORT side really look like BEFORE October 1943? Would that drawing of Alan Raven still have ground and were the colours changed in October, but before December? A least it suggests the bow is painted in a mid-tone, like the photos of the SB side seem to suggest. I personally think the 'knuckle shadow' isn't really explaining what we see on those pictures: the bow is almost exactly the colour of the rear patch (you can check that with cutting away the center part of the photo) [attachment=3]Norfolk PRE October 1943 (Raven).jpg[/attachment][attachment=2]Norfolk PRE October 1943 .jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]Norfolk PRE October 1943 cut.jpg[/attachment] When you cut the mid part of the photo away, the bow is even darker that the rear patch...
But then again: who really wants to build a pre-October 1943 model of HMS Norfolk, as one is intending to build her in the colours of North Cape?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:17 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
The photo made from USS [i]Ranger[/i] in Iceland is dated 17th of October 1943, i.e. that is the pattern she had also in December 1943. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/dbrfvd/british_heavy_cruiser_hms_norfolk_in_iceland_seen/?rdt=49408[/url] [url]https://www.world-war.co.uk/Dorset/norfolk.php[/url] [url]https://www.facebook.com/144541438966797/photos/a.145186852235589/4384934631594102/[/url]
And there are these photos dated December 1943 (in the first one, the rear panel is darker, the second is very dark): [url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153331[/url] [url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153330[/url]
From the portside, I found this photo dated December 1943: [url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153329[/url]
It matches the pattern of the photos linked here: [url]https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235134898-hms-norfolk-camouflage-colours-battle-of-north-cape/[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:30 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Hi Maxim,
Thank you for your explanation. We then should conclude that the starboard scheme was changed in October 1943, only the colours were changed but the pattern stayed effectively the same. Now only remains: which one was before October, and which one after? As the latter then was the scheme worn at North Cape in December.
Wheter the port side was changed as well is still to be determined I'm afraid.
Hi Maxim,
Thank you for your explanation. We then should conclude that the starboard scheme was changed in October 1943, only the colours were changed but the pattern stayed effectively the same. Now only remains: which one was before October, and which one after? As the latter then was the scheme worn at North Cape in December.
Wheter the port side was changed as well is still to be determined I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Hi Maarten - good question. I think I have chosen the photo made from the carrier as an argument. I think that the darker appearance of the lighter colour at the bow - which is not visible on all photos - is an artifact caused by the angle of the hull sides (or there was a change made). Raven in Warship Perspectives has a different opinion - he drawn the lighter colour at the bow in the same colour as the colour near the main mast and the forward field darker. But Raven's port side pattern looks very different compared to the photos I have found (no similarities at all). Therefore, I have decided to ignore Raven and do my own interpretation based on the photos. Raven wrote that the design was modified in October 1943 - which could be an explanation for the differences, but it could be also a different interpretation. Wright shows two different patters for June and December 1943 - differing regarding the two darker colours (MS 3 and B30 on B 55 on the first, 507A and B15 on B 55 on the second). That would fit to the lower contrast on some photos. I know that there are many who criticize Wright and I do not agree with regarding the December 1943 pattern - again, as in Raven, the pattern on the port side is very different from the photos which I have found. There is also part of the port side pattern, which was unclear to me. There could be an additional darker field midships near the waterline extending from the darker field behind, but on the photos this part was obscured by waves. Caused by the new findings by Sovereign Hobbies, I am anyway completely confused regarding British colours
Hi Maarten - good question. I think I have chosen the photo made from the carrier as an argument.
I think that the darker appearance of the lighter colour at the bow - which is not visible on all photos - is an artifact caused by the angle of the hull sides (or there was a change made).
Raven in Warship Perspectives has a different opinion - he drawn the lighter colour at the bow in the same colour as the colour near the main mast and the forward field darker. But Raven's port side pattern looks very different compared to the photos I have found (no similarities at all). Therefore, I have decided to ignore Raven and do my own interpretation based on the photos.
Raven wrote that the design was modified in October 1943 - which could be an explanation for the differences, but it could be also a different interpretation.
Wright shows two different patters for June and December 1943 - differing regarding the two darker colours (MS 3 and B30 on B 55 on the first, 507A and B15 on B 55 on the second). That would fit to the lower contrast on some photos. I know that there are many who criticize Wright and I do not agree with regarding the December 1943 pattern - again, as in Raven, the pattern on the port side is very different from the photos which I have found.
There is also part of the port side pattern, which was unclear to me. There could be an additional darker field midships near the waterline extending from the darker field behind, but on the photos this part was obscured by waves.
Caused by the new findings by Sovereign Hobbies, I am anyway completely confused regarding British colours ;)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:38 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
KevinD wrote: Photo at top too dark to make much of in way of comparison.
But there does appear to be an 'angled' line / change of colour shade forward above false bow wave in the lower photo (red arrows), which does not appear to be there in middle photo. However, although shaded area hides the top part of it in middle photo, a 'vertical' line / colour shade change towards rear of false bow wave seems to be there in both middle and lower photos (blue arrows). Intentional? Tricks of light? Hi Kevin, With patience and looking very closely I can see the shifts in intensity you're referring to, but these are minor when compared to the differences I was pointing at, where the differences are from light/medium grey to almost black. And I definitely don't think these are intentional paint borders, but either the result of wear, or photographic inaccuracies or errors made in the reproduction. Or a combination of these.
[quote="KevinD"]Photo at top too dark to make much of in way of comparison.
But there does appear to be an 'angled' line / change of colour shade forward above false bow wave in the lower photo (red arrows), which does not appear to be there in middle photo. However, although shaded area hides the top part of it in middle photo, a 'vertical' line / colour shade change towards rear of false bow wave seems to be there in both middle and lower photos (blue arrows). Intentional? Tricks of light?[/quote] Hi Kevin,
With patience and looking very closely I can see the shifts in intensity you're referring to, but these are minor when compared to the differences I was pointing at, where the differences are from light/medium grey to almost black. And I definitely don't think these are intentional paint borders, but either the result of wear, or photographic inaccuracies or errors made in the reproduction. Or a combination of these.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:14 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Photo at top too dark to make much of in way of comparison.
But there does appear to be an 'angled' line / change of colour shade forward above false bow wave in the lower photo (red arrows), which does not appear to be there in middle photo. However, although shaded area hides the top part of it in middle photo, a 'vertical' line / colour shade change towards rear of false bow wave seems to be there in both middle and lower photos (blue arrows). Intentional? Tricks of light?
Attachments: |
Camo.jpg [ 183.92 KiB | Viewed 1472 times ]
|
Photo at top too dark to make much of in way of comparison.
But there does appear to be an 'angled' line / change of colour shade forward above false bow wave in the lower photo (red arrows), which does not appear to be there in middle photo. However, although shaded area hides the top part of it in middle photo, a 'vertical' line / colour shade change towards rear of false bow wave seems to be there in both middle and lower photos (blue arrows). Intentional? Tricks of light?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:10 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
maxim wrote: Hi Maxim, Regarding the starboard side of the pattern, I was quite confused by the three pictures below, which patch would be the darkest colour of the two. You chose for the rearmost, but what's your reasoning behind that choice? I noted someone on Britmodeller having made the opposite choice instead. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235134898-hms-norfolk-camouflage-colours-battle-of-north-cape/Attachment:
Photo06caNorfolk2NP.jpg [ 92.39 KiB | Viewed 1466 times ]
Forward patch darkest, lighter patch to the rear Attachment:
ibTMKX2.jpg [ 77.83 KiB | Viewed 1491 times ]
Forward patch darkest, but possibly area on the bow same colour as the rearmost patch Attachment:
qb9Z2aV.jpg [ 123.09 KiB | Viewed 1491 times ]
Undecided, forward patch slightly darker, but also the area on the bow possibly same colour as rear patch Attachment:
jJTvryx.jpg [ 252.94 KiB | Viewed 1491 times ]
Rear patch darkest, almost black. Bow clearly the base light grey. Seems to be most in accordance with your model. Or are we looking at two distinctly diffferent, i.e. reversed schemes? And then, when was this change applied?
[quote="maxim"][img]https://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/norfolk1943/norfolk01.jpg[/img][/quote] Hi Maxim,
Regarding the starboard side of the pattern, I was quite confused by the three pictures below, which patch would be the darkest colour of the two. You chose for the rearmost, but what's your reasoning behind that choice? I noted someone on Britmodeller having made the opposite choice instead. [url]https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235134898-hms-norfolk-camouflage-colours-battle-of-north-cape/[/url][attachment=0]Photo06caNorfolk2NP.jpg[/attachment]Forward patch darkest, lighter patch to the rear[attachment=3]ibTMKX2.jpg[/attachment]Forward patch darkest, but possibly area on the bow same colour as the rearmost patch[attachment=2]qb9Z2aV.jpg[/attachment] Undecided, forward patch slightly darker, but also the area on the bow possibly same colour as rear patch [attachment=1]jJTvryx.jpg[/attachment]Rear patch darkest, almost black. Bow clearly the base light grey. Seems to be most in accordance with your model. Or are we looking at two distinctly diffferent, i.e. reversed schemes? And then, when was this change applied?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:07 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
maxim wrote: Here my 1/700 model of the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk built from the 1943 version of the Aoshima kit. The model depicts the ship during the Battle of the North Cape, i.e. the sinking of the Scharnhorst. In addition to the kit parts, I used brass barrels from NNT and Master, PomPoms from FineMolds, Oerlikons from Starling Models and photo-etched parts for the County class from Tom's Modelworks. I replaced the masts with new ones made from metal rods. For the camouflage scheme I orientated myself on photos, as the depiction of the port side scheme in the instructions and books on British camouflage schemes is incorrect. However, there is an area amidships where I am not sure about the colour scheme. More about the model: heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk (1/700)Hi Maxim, I'm delighted to see your completed HMS Norfolk. Thank you very much for posting it! It may trigger me to pick up my (planned) conversion of the Trumpeter Kent into the vastly different Norfolk -- but then on 1/350 scale of course. When I start I will of course post my progress here: first how to change the hull. I have an idea - we will see if it works.
[quote="maxim"][img]https://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/norfolk1943/norfolk03.jpg[/img] Here my 1/700 model of the heavy cruiser HMS [i]Norfolk[/i] built from the 1943 version of the Aoshima kit. The model depicts the ship during the Battle of the North Cape, i.e. the sinking of the [i]Scharnhorst[/i]. In addition to the kit parts, I used brass barrels from NNT and Master, PomPoms from FineMolds, Oerlikons from Starling Models and photo-etched parts for the County class from Tom's Modelworks. I replaced the masts with new ones made from metal rods. For the camouflage scheme I orientated myself on photos, as the depiction of the port side scheme in the instructions and books on British camouflage schemes is incorrect. However, there is an area amidships where I am not sure about the colour scheme.
More about the model: [url=https://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/modelle/112-lars/7129-schwerer-kreuzer-hms-norfolk-1-700-aoshima-von-lars-scharff]heavy cruiser HMS [i]Norfolk[/i] (1/700)[/url][/quote] Hi Maxim, I'm delighted to see your completed HMS [i]Norfolk[/i]. Thank you very much for posting it! It may trigger me to pick up my (planned) conversion of the Trumpeter [i]Kent[/i] into the vastly different [i]Norfolk[/i] -- but then on 1/350 scale of course. When I start I will of course post my progress here: first how to change the hull. I have an idea - we will see if it works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:25 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Do you compared how much freeboard HMS London had on the different photos? How much it was loaded? That would be a much more realistic explanation than a different armoured belt.
Do you compared how much freeboard HMS [i]London[/i] had on the different photos? How much it was loaded? That would be a much more realistic explanation than a different armoured belt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:11 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Dear all, I would like to make an enquiry about the height of the armour belt above water level of HMS London post modification. It puzzles me as inconsistency was observed in different period but not be able to explain in chronological order. As shown by the photos in this website ( https://www.world-war.co.uk/London/london.php), the height of the armour belt was quite close to the water line/level in the two photos of September 1941 and mid 1942. However, in the photo taken in May 1943 after her third refit, the height of the armour belt was obviously much higher than the water level. Curiously, the armour belt was switched back to low level in 1949. Besides, some plans of the ship shows the higher armour belt level such as this one ( https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprin ... ndon_1941/). Why did the change happen? Obviously, the armour belt was not something that could be easily modified from time to time. One thing I observe is that the water level of the 1943 photo seems to be quite low. Would it possible to be an illusion caused by that and the omission of the black waterline by some RN camouflage schemes?
Dear all,
I would like to make an enquiry about the height of the armour belt above water level of HMS London post modification. It puzzles me as inconsistency was observed in different period but not be able to explain in chronological order. As shown by the photos in this website ([url]https://www.world-war.co.uk/London/london.php[/url]), the height of the armour belt was quite close to the water line/level in the two photos of September 1941 and mid 1942. However, in the photo taken in May 1943 after her third refit, the height of the armour belt was obviously much higher than the water level. Curiously, the armour belt was switched back to low level in 1949. Besides, some plans of the ship shows the higher armour belt level such as this one (https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ships/cruisers-uk/14948/view/hms_london_1941/). Why did the change happen? Obviously, the armour belt was not something that could be easily modified from time to time. One thing I observe is that the water level of the 1943 photo seems to be quite low. Would it possible to be an illusion caused by that and the omission of the black waterline by some RN camouflage schemes?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
Here my 1/700 model of the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk built from the 1943 version of the Aoshima kit. The model depicts the ship during the Battle of the North Cape, i.e. the sinking of the Scharnhorst. In addition to the kit parts, I used brass barrels from NNT and Master, PomPoms from FineMolds, Oerlikons from Starling Models and photo-etched parts for the County class from Tom's Modelworks. I replaced the masts with new ones made from metal rods. For the camouflage scheme I orientated myself on photos, as the depiction of the port side scheme in the instructions and books on British camouflage schemes is incorrect. However, there is an area amidships where I am not sure about the colour scheme. More about the model: heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk (1/700)
[img]https://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/norfolk1943/norfolk03.jpg[/img]
Here my 1/700 model of the heavy cruiser HMS [i]Norfolk[/i] built from the 1943 version of the Aoshima kit. The model depicts the ship during the Battle of the North Cape, i.e. the sinking of the [i]Scharnhorst[/i]. In addition to the kit parts, I used brass barrels from NNT and Master, PomPoms from FineMolds, Oerlikons from Starling Models and photo-etched parts for the County class from Tom's Modelworks. I replaced the masts with new ones made from metal rods. For the camouflage scheme I orientated myself on photos, as the depiction of the port side scheme in the instructions and books on British camouflage schemes is incorrect. However, there is an area amidships where I am not sure about the colour scheme.
More about the model: [url=https://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/modelle/112-lars/7129-schwerer-kreuzer-hms-norfolk-1-700-aoshima-von-lars-scharff]heavy cruiser HMS [i]Norfolk[/i] (1/700)[/url]
[img]https://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/norfolk1943/norfolk01.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/norfolk1943/norfolk04.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.modellmarine.de/images/builders/lscharff/norfolk1943/norfolk06.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:58 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all RN County class fans |
|
|
PaulC wrote: Quote: So essentially, Aoshima's Cornwall kit, represents the ship at any point in WW2 until she was sunk? That seems to be correct. The only structural difference as sunk was a cut down mainmast. See drawings here: https://www.world-war.co.uk/Kent/cornwall.php(Note that those drawings were done long before it was discovered that in WW2, 507A and B were basically the same shade - all 507A but either 10% or 13% reflectivity.) thanks - I know Jamie at Sovereign Hobbies and have been informed of the 507A/B situation thanks Mike
[quote="PaulC"][quote]So essentially, Aoshima's Cornwall kit, represents the ship at any point in WW2 until she was sunk?[/quote]
That seems to be correct. The only structural difference as sunk was a cut down mainmast. See drawings here:
https://www.world-war.co.uk/Kent/cornwall.php
(Note that those drawings were done long before it was discovered that in WW2, 507A and B were basically the same shade - all 507A but either 10% or 13% reflectivity.)[/quote]
thanks - I know Jamie at Sovereign Hobbies and have been informed of the 507A/B situation
thanks Mike
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:25 am |
|
|
|
|