The Ship Model Forum

A question re the loss of HMS Encounter that a friend has asked me to post.

The following from Capt. Morgan's AAR.
"..........[i].report was received from the engine room that the main engines were out of action. I therefore turned to the northward to cover myself with my own smoke. As the sprayers were shut down the smoke screen stopped...I received the report that both [b]suction pipes to the Forced Lubrication pumps had fractured[/b], due, it was at first reported, to shell splinters, and that this damage had not been discovered until all the bearings had gone. [b]I learnt, further, that it would take at least 20 minutes before the bearings would have cooled sufficiently for anything to be done to them[/b]. I ordered my Engineer Officer to do what he could, deciding to continue as long as the guns were in action[/i]." He then decided to scuttle his ship. "[i]The main engines were out of action and it was unlikely that anything could be done in the short time available. There was real perceived danger of boarding by the Japanese[/i]."

And from Sir Sam Falle's (an officer aboard HMS Encounter at the time) book, My Lucky Life, he says of the same moment: "[i]Chief Engineer Ted Tyrell came up to the bridge and reported that a [b]lubricating oil pump had been damaged and would take two hours to repair[/b][/i]."

[u]My question then[/u], can anyone with engineering knowledge say: [i]Is an overheated turbine actually repairable once it has ground itself to a halt[/i]? (It sounds like they didn't discover the break till the engines locked up.)

[u]And[/u]: [i]How fast till the engines lock up if the pump connection is broken?[/i]

TIA

'Tis a life buoy, known to some as a life ring: one can take one's pick. It can have no other function other than a decorative one in that position especially if she did not have a ship's badge at that stage of her career. The white ones on what I take to be wings of the flag/signal deck may well have been more functional as an aid to life saving.

81542

[quote="Graham Boak"]Looks like a Carley float in the enclosure underneath, with a rather heavy fitting. The box above will include the chart table, if that's what it is (seems likely).[/quote]I agree, certainly looks like a 'float' IMO, but more like a circular 'life ring' than a 'Carley' no? Although what an odd place if so. Below shows her with life ring on Bridge wing.

Looks like a Carley float in the enclosure underneath, with a rather heavy fitting. The box above will include the chart table, if that's what it is (seems likely).

Chart table?

81542

Gents,

I wonder if someone could tell me what is either under or inside this 'enclosure' (black arrow) in front of Encounter's open bridge?

TIA!

Having served in ships of the RCN, RN and USN I noted it was common practice when going to Action Stations, and if time permitted, the guard rails along all topside decks were removed to prevent these items becoming flying projectiles due to enemy action.

Paul

[quote="tjstoneman"]A higher-resolution version of the online IWM photo shows guardrails in all the places one would expect - note that, if she went into action, some of those would be struck to avoid fouling the armament's training arcs. No HF/DF was fitted until some time later than you are discussing - there appears to be a mainmast in IWM's photo A9686 (I believe EXPRESS is the destroyer in the background, visible between ISIS and the two merchant ships), although other photos at a similar period don't show it - - possibly the work of a censor?[/quote]

Thanks. I'm well on the way to completing it already, ETA next weekend. Dispensing with a lot of the photoetch details as the 1/700 size is too small the fiddly for me; already broken/bent some parts beyond repair. And the provided gun shields do not fit the kit gun barrels. Actually it's my first time using photoetch...I will be sure to watch A LOT of how-to videos on 1/700 railing, as that is some detail I definitely don't want to compromise on.

A higher-resolution version of the online IWM photo shows guardrails in all the places one would expect - note that, if she went into action, some of those would be struck to avoid fouling the armament's training arcs. No HF/DF was fitted until some time later than you are discussing - there appears to be a mainmast in IWM's photo A9686 (I believe EXPRESS is the destroyer in the background, visible between ISIS and the two merchant ships), although other photos at a similar period don't show it - - possibly the work of a censor?

Cheers tj and Graham. I found the IWM photo you described here [url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205150691[/url] It even shows carley floats were installed on the rear instead of the front.

Is it just overexposure from the sky or is there no deck railing to be seen on the length of the ship?

I see the 3inch gun is mounted on its own platform - this would require scratchbuilding which I've never attempted before... The funnel can be cut down with the tools I have at my disposal but this platform will be a challenge. I suppose I'll find a similar looking one from another 1/700 kit.

Yes I meant the HF/DF mainmast array, not radar my mistake.

[i]Express [/i]looks lighter grey in the IWM photo, rather than medium-dark as I thought.

There is a photo of EXPRESS held by the Imperial War Museum (reference A17867) which can be viewed online, which was taken after her repairs (ending Autumn 1941) and (probably) before the end of the year. It shows the following:
Platform abreast fore part of bridge (possibly holds a single 20mm Oerlikon, but not clear from the photo).
Whalers at foc's'le deck level abreast after part of bridge (to keep clear of minerails when fitted); foc's'le deck extended aft to accommodate after davits for whalers.
Motor cutter abreast forefunnel on starboard side.
RDF Type 286 at foremasthead
After funnel shortened.
For'd set of torpedo tubes mounted (these would have been landed when fitted for minelaying).
Lengthened torpedo davit to allow mines to be hoisted aboard.
After set of tubes replaced by single 3" HA Mk V mounting.
Mainmast removed.
Depthcharge throwers at for'd end of "X" gundeck, not at maindeck level (to clear minerails).
Sponsons for minelaying rails and laying gear on quarters.
TSDS davits on quarterdeck.
Paravanes on quarterdeck.

She was fitted for minelaying from completion, but when employed as a destroyer, the rails were not fitted. To allow for the extra topweight when mines were carried, the torpedo tubes would be landed, as would "A" and "Y" guns and (probably) the depth charges (although the throwers and associated davits would be retained).

As far as I know, none of the "A"-"I" class ships carried RDF (radar) aft, so I'm not sure what is mean by a "rear radar array".

I can't answer all your questions, but the 3in gun was a single. I don't think the RN had a twin 3in mount - if so I don't think common. It was not used on destroyers as AA defence.

The minelayers were rigged as such when built - the external difference in normal use would be the sponsons built out at the rear. I suspect the mine rails were taken up when not in use: the aftmost gun, depth charge equipment and other fittings were removed for minelaying work.

Hi all

I'm starting my build of the Tamiya E Class destroyer this weekend, to be completed as [i]HMS Express[/i] H61 as she appeared in December 1941. Most of the reference photographs of [i]Express [/i]supplied earlier in this thread have been deleted. This is what I have found so far from this thread:

[b][u]Rear funnel was shortened, by at least a 1/4
[/u][/b]
[b][u]Rear torpedo tube replaced by 3 inch gun
[/u][/b]Do we know if this gun was single or double barrel? I have a spare 1/700 3 inch double barrelled gun lying around, but not a single

[b][u]Medium grey overall with dark grey deck[/u][/b]
Roughly goes with Tamiya's painting instructions and what I've read around here. I'm not certain on the deck color scheme though. [i]Express [/i]did not have her camo at this time, she did by Feb 1942

[b][u]Fitted as a minelayer[/u][/b]
Really not sure how I would implement this into the model. Was this before or after December 1941?

[b][u]Aftermarket detailing[/u][/b]
I have the White Ensign photoetch for this model, which calls for a few additions to the model but does make it clear that [b]not all vessels[/b] were fitted with, for example, depth charge racking and rear radar array. I would appreciate advice for [i]Express [/i]with this. The trouble with looking at photographs online is that most of them don't declare what year they were taken in.

Thanks,
Paul

I'm interested in modeling HMS Fury in 1942. I have a lot of pics courtesy of the IWM but not a lot of other information. I'd welcome pointers to good sources, but for now I have three concrete questions:

- the 3" HA. I think this was an unshielded mount on a rectangular raised platform with low side walls. I base this on a few photos, but these two kind of seal it for me. Am I interpreting it correctly?
[url]http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141926[/url]
[url]http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141930[/url]

- the wikipedia article (like I said I'd welcome pointers to good sources :big_grin: ) says she was fitted with a single depth charge rack and two throwers but I haven't found any photos that show this clearly. Anyone have one? Or know how this was typically configured?

- not sure how to paint her. I'm assuming this is a western approaches scheme with 3 colors, but the photos leave me a little confused. Here are three:
[url]http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205143852[/url]
[url]http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205144030[/url]
[url]http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205195251[/url]
I know interpreting black and white photos comes with lots of caveats. Looking at the second pic in particular it looks like the bottom of the hull is the darkest shade, and there is a similar band across the lower part of the superstructure, then the very light stuff at the top. I would guess these are green, blue, and white respectively. I would sort of expect the hull to have white on it but I don't really know. So any insight on this would be great.

thanks
- mic

Dan,

Upon looking at various online articles about the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_and_D-class_destroyer]C and D class destroyers[/url], while comparing them to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_and_F_class_destroyer]E and F class[/url], it seems the former was not that different from the latter.

Both had the same length at 329 feet. In spite of the collage you posted, [b]I would insist that the main difference I observed among both groups of classes, other than the differences in AA suite, was the C & D classes had two portholes on their bridge/wheelhouse, while the E and F classes had 3 portholes[/b].

The bridges of the D, E and F are pretty much identical save for the differences in portholes. [b]The C class is slightly different because of the small overhang above the portholes, but one can simply modify the corresponding part on the Tamiya E class kit to rectify that small difference.
[/b]
Other than that, the bridge superstructures of all 4 classes were pretty much identical from what I can see.

This is after searching through pics of many class members in all 4 classes that had been transferred to the RCN.

Just thinking that I really can use Tamiya's E class kit not only to model the identical F class DDs, but C and D class destroyers as well.

To model the C class and D using the Tamiya's E class kit, one would have to replace part G23 from the kit's instructions. That part has the bridge wheelhouse front with the 3 portholes. If one can scratchbuild their own part which has 2 portholes, then you're home free to make any of the C and D class destroyers.

*On a sidenote, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_and_H_class_destroyer]G and H class destroyers[/url]' bridge/wheelhouse were identical to the preceding E and F class since they also had 3 portholes, but they were smaller at 323 feet. If you wanted to make any G and H class destroyer from the Tamiya E class kit, you'd have to shorten the hull somehow.


[quote="RNfanDan"]The C and D classes each had different bridge configurations than the E&Fs, as well as distinct from all others. This was especially true for the Cs, which featured separate director and bridge structures, with a gap between. The Ds also had a distinctive wheelhouse window arrangement. Other differences can be found in each class' "wing platforms" and deck extensions, support frames, and locations.

While it is best to research each of the earlier classes for details, I did put together a collage of the various groups' bridges, a few years ago. I have included it with this post. I hope it proves useful, but please bear in mind that my intent was to highlight the different features for the purpose of helping to identify "mystery ships" and/ or uncaptioned photographs---not modeling requirements.

Still, it should give you an idea how they differed from the E&Fs. Also noteworthy is that the "leaders" of some RN destroyer classes were noticeably different from their flotilla "regulars", so modeling those specific ships may require further and more significant modifications (fifth 4.7" gun mountings between the funnels, for example).

Regards,

Dan[/quote]

^^ Thanks, guys. ^^ Two packs of twenty four (24) for a total of fourty eight (48) arrived last week in the mail. My present skill set is not up to PE install of rails yet. Time for a practice rail may avail itself as there is a while until the build campaign begins.

Tamiya 1/700 E-class came in today's mail, so am set except for detailed research. Need to find specifics of the deck layout for the mines. Cheers.

[Edit 1/16/2014 - this mornings on-line research yielded an image of [i]Esk[/i] as a minelayer. Of all places - ebay (Br, as the photo prices were in pound sterling). But research is where you find it! Image is off the starboard bow and water level - as most images seem to be. More of a periscope view, as it were - wartime censors doing their thing. She sure looks naked with most of her armament landed.]

if you are not aware, mines are available from Admiralty. You might consider 2-rail etches for the mine rails.

A is the #1 gun at the bow, Y is the last main gun at the stern. hth

Hi all. Planning my first 1/700 waterline build. [i]HMS Esk (H15)[/i] - minelayer conversion. I need your help in getting it right.

Ref: Laurence Batchelor's excellent post of H15 specs, this thread, 27Jun07 (~p.6 today) provides, "[i]HMS Esk[/i] as fitted out as a minelayer in the 1930s. Modifications would seem to be both torpedo tubes as well as A&Y mountings [landed]". Unfortunately, the images he posted are now gone.

Which turrets are the A&Y? Removal of the torpedo launchers are a given. Additional on-line reference also seems to indicate the 13mm AAMG and 20-rd depth charge racks, stern davits and rear whaler were removed as well. I'm also looking for images of the 60xmine racks. Will need to fabricate those.

I'm new to this. Detail like I see on this site will probably be lacking; but I'd like to get the big stuff correct. Thanks.

-arnie-

Have you considered going for Resin Shipyard's HMCS Kootenay, ISW's Hesperus, or for one of WEM's G or H classes to do one of the River's. Depending on how detailed you want to be you can get a reasonably accurate model with little effort. Ryan Cameron has a nice HMCS CHAUDIERE on Darren`s page, and he is close to you.

I have a FRASER in progress (stalled) myself.

Tim