The Ship Model Forum

by **81542** » Mon Dec 29, 2025 8:57 am

A difficult, if not impossible question to answer but someone might have something more definite. However, I would make a guess at: the CinC's flag
(that of a full admiral) and one, possibly more battle ensigns.

From what I have read in various books, any orders that the CinC was giving by the time IRON DUKE opened fire were probably being given by wireless. As an alternative, you might like to model the ship flying the "deployment" signal; which was Equal Speed Pendant, Flag Charlie, Flag London on the starboard outboard signal halyard but that had been "executed" long before she opened fire.

Best of Luck with this one!

by **Bassinger** » Sun Dec 28, 2025 3:45 pm

New to forum not sure I am posting in the right place.
Just started Iron Duke "Airfix" using Atlantic Models Detailing Kit. Have used Ajax as a test piece.
My Grandfather was on Iron Duke at Jutland as a Royal Marine Bandsman so want to produce a family heirloom including his Teak Barrel from the deck.
What battle flags would she be flying at the point of contact?

by **JC_4130** » Mon Sep 29, 2025 11:37 am

81452, Thank you for this information. There are photos of this ship on IWM's website and while they aren't amazing, a glimpse of the boat deck seems to show gray that is different from the wood and Corticene areas

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30018145

by **81542** » Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:04 am

JC_4130,

Further to my last: the IWM does indeed hold a model of HMS IRON DUKE in its collection made by Norman Ough circa 1928. The Catalogue Number is MOD 127. There are two photographs of the model in "The Life and Ship Models of Norman Ough." Unfortunately neither are clear enough or show the part of the Shelter Deck that you are interested in so a request for a better picture would be appropriate.

You may already be aware but the work of Norman Ough was generally very accurate for its day though it is nowadays "holes" can be picked in his models by people who saw service in the Royal Navy. Never mind, they are still very fine models.

by **81542** » Sat Sep 27, 2025 8:34 am

JC_4130,

Further to the matter concerning the actually appearance of the boom boat stowage area of HMS IRON DUKE: I suggest that you try contacting the Imperial War Museum, which might have a contemporary model of the ship (possibly one made by Norman Ough) and can give you the information that you require.

Concerning RA Burt's "British Battleships of World War One:" I heard a rumour recently but can't remember the source, that it is under revision for publication in a new edition. I have the foregoing book and his later book on the period 1919 - 1939 (?). My thoughts are that both are useful but that the drawings in them lack attention to detail and show signs of some of the details in them being "skimped" when executed. Nevertheless, the author deserves our respect for having researched and written them.

Hope this helps.

by **JC_4130** » Tue Sep 23, 2025 10:23 am

I am a little embarassed I didn't notice that earlier. I was clearly naiive to the extent of photo enhancement that was being done in the early 20th century.

Going back to errors in RA Burt's drawings, I found another one in the 1914 profile of Iron Duke - it has the last 6" gun mount in both the original(main deck aft) position and post 1915 (forward, a deck above the rest of the battery positions) Not sure how the drawing was made but it looks like a digital error. There is an anchor overlapping the incorrect position.

In addition, I noticed the 1918-1919 profile of HMS Lion mysteriously lost one 4" gun placement (foremost position in the aft group) despite it being present in a photo directly above from the same period. Seems like another mistake?

by **Dick J** » Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:51 pm

If you compare the original photo linked by Martin to the newspaper photo, more than just the planking has been retouched. In the original, there is, by Jellicoe's right hip, another sailor partially visible behind him, who is totally gone in the newspaper image. Also, some nearby deck fittings have been removed. In the newspaper image, the added planking show vertical bands of lighter and darker areas that carry across plank lines. As was previously mentioned, the area where the planking touches the cylinders is more blurry than the adjacent planking and cylinders. The amount of retouching is so extensive that I wouldn't trust that copy for any level of detail interpretation.

by **JC_4130** » Fri Sep 19, 2025 11:03 am

El Santo wrote: I'm inclined to say that the Daily Sketch version is the one that's been retouched. In that one, the shadows cast by that pile of cylinders on the deck seem unnaturally sharp in comparison to the other version, while the edge of the handrail stanchion in the foreground seems unnaturally blurry. Also, the perspective of the seams in the planking feels off to me in a way that I can't easily describe, except to say that looking at it too closely for too long makes me faintly dizzy. Maybe the photo already had the quadruple blob of dark discoloration that you can see on the other version when the Daily Sketch got their hands on it, and somebody in the photography department went overboard with the airbrush while trying to fix it?

I had wondered about that, there is something about the shading and perspective that looks off. It just seemed like a strange and excessive detail to go out of your way to 'photoshop' IF the no-plank picture was the original. This looks like a PR photo released by the Navy. I wonder if there was something in that spot that was edited out by the Navy with planking added first, and later someone decided that the fake planking looked crappy and edited it again.

Edited to add: the more I think about it, the more your explanation seems the simplest and most likely. I think I am over-thinking it.

by **El Santo** » Fri Sep 19, 2025 9:08 am

JC_4130 wrote:Here is an interesting development... I happened to find a scan of a newspaper front page featuring the famous Jellicoe picture. Low and behold, planking seems to have appeared! Unless I am misinterpreting? Is it possible the other version of the photo lost that detail in the process of retouching? One seam seems to have survived. The 1939 photo still shows no planking here, but perhaps it was removed at some point.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1914- ... 81509.html

I'm inclined to say that the Daily Sketch version is the one that's been retouched. In that one, the shadows cast by that pile of cylinders on the deck seem unnaturally sharp in comparison to the other version, while the edge of the handrail stanchion in the foreground seems unnaturally blurry. Also, the perspective of the seams in the planking feels off to me in a way that I can't easily describe, except to say that looking at it too closely for too long makes me faintly dizzy. Maybe the photo already had the quadruple blob of dark discoloration that you can see on the other version when the Daily Sketch got their hands on it, and somebody in the photography department went overboard with the airbrush while trying to fix it?

by **JC_4130** » Fri Sep 19, 2025 7:54 am

Here is an interesting development... I happened to find a scan of a newspaper front page featuring the famous Jellicoe picture. Low and behold, planking seems to have appeared! Unless I am misinterpreting? Is it possible the other version of the photo lost that detail in the process of retouching? One seam seems to have survived. The 1939 photo still shows no planking here, but perhaps it was removed at some point.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1914- ... 81509.html

by **JC_4130** » Mon Sep 08, 2025 12:04 pm

81542 wrote:.
Do we also now need to check our secondary References for correctness?

I can't rememer specifics, but I believe the drawings in Burt's books are not immune from errors. The ladder placement is bizarre.

I had resorted to trying to find pictures of this area on other, similar ships (Orion, KGV, Lion) but so far no luck. There is an overhead pic of KGV in DK Brown's book The Grand Fleet with boats absent, but the picture is too small to be of use. If I could find a bigger version...

I have seen the Jellicoe pic. There is some sort of seam in the deck on the right side but I couldn't say what that means.
I was hoping to solve this mystery as I was writing an in the box review for the kit, but I might have to punt. I feel pretty confident in saying the planking detail in the kit is incorrect. But in any event, the area in question is mostly obscured by boats anyway.

by **81542** » Mon Sep 08, 2025 8:22 am

Thanks, Martin. I remembered that image from some years ago but discounted it when writing my last post as being of little value from memory: apologies.

I agree with you: it does seem to show that the deck in question is not planked. In view of that and seeing that there is a lack of evidence of any hold-down strips for Corticene I would think that the area in question was painted. What colour? Pass!

It does reveal another interesting point though: the ladder up which Sir John Jellicoe is climbing is not in the correct place on the drawing in Burt's "British Battleships of World War One!" Had he been trying to climb it in the position it is in "Burt," he would have shortly fallen about 7 feet onto the Forecastle deck.

Do we also now need to check our secondary References for correctness?

by **MartinJQuinn** » Sat Sep 06, 2025 5:36 pm

There is this photo of Jellicoe on Iron Duke, allegedly at Jutland. Would seem to show the deck is not planked.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205086940

by **81542** » Fri Sep 05, 2025 6:16 am

JC_4130,

The drawing showing the plan of the area of the ship in RA Burt's "British Battleships of World War One" would seem to indicate that neither are correct but gives no further indication. The drawing seems to indicate that the forward part was covered in Corticene as the painting instructions show: with the after part definitely not being planked. It is possible that the "As Fitted" drawings of the ship might reveal what the area was covered with but you would need to ask the National Maritime Museum; which might hold them. I consider that to be your best bet.

I know of no photographs showing the subject area of the ship and consider it extremely unlikely that any exist.

by **JC_4130** » Wed Sep 03, 2025 12:16 pm

The Flyhawk kit has a contradiction between the painting instructions and the actual molding of the forecastle deck. The portion of the forecastle deck behind of the bridge and forward superstructure, where the funnels and boats are situated, has planking molded on the deck as with the rest of the forecastle and quarterdeck. However the instructions show this area as dark brown linoleum(?), the same as the decks of the upper superstructure levels, which are not planked. In the attached shot of the instructions, it's the area in the blue box.

I am trying to determine which is correct - the instructions or the part. The only enlightening picture I have found is of Iron Duke in 1939. It seems to show the area in question as darker than the rest of the wood planked decking, suggesting the instructions are correct (no wood). But it's not the best quality, not to mention that area could have been altered later in the ship's career (the kit depicts the ship in 1914). Has anyone found any pictures that would shed light on this? Does it seem like my interpretation that that area is NOT wood planking is correct?

by **FFG-7** » Thu Jul 17, 2025 12:39 pm

email sent with files.

by **JC_4130** » Thu Jul 17, 2025 11:45 am

FFG-7 wrote:email sent.

FFG, I didn't see any email (I checked my spam folder, etc). I will send you a PM - thanks for your help!

by **FFG-7** » Wed Jul 16, 2025 12:46 pm

email sent.

by **JC_4130** » Wed Jul 16, 2025 12:08 pm

81542 wrote:DavidP,

Thanks for posting the images in your post of 8:58pm 11 April. They prove that the draughtsman did not erroneously; or otherwise, insert the standing and running rigging on the davits of the smaller boom boats as I surmised he might have done. What works of art too!

81542

Unfortunately it looks like DavidP's posts have dissapeared. I'm curious about the plans that this comment is referring to?

by **JC_4130** » Tue Apr 01, 2025 8:19 am

I am wondering about the timing of when the protective shutters for the 6" guns were removed. Do we know if it was at the same time as when the aft pair of guns were relocated to the forward superstructure? R.A. Burt says they were removed following trials, which to me implies this was done before the aft guns were moved (he says the guns were moved 1915~1916). However I cannot find any photographs of the ships with the shutters removed AND the aft guns in their original positions. But early war photos seem hard to come by. There are a number of photos of the ships that are labelled 'as commissioned' which still show the shutters in place.

Basically, for the Flyhawk kit, which has the original 6" gun placement, I am wondering if it is appropriate to show the ship without shutters. I think they are rather ugly and look like a hassle to mount

I actually would prefer to show the ship with the 6" guns relocated forward (the original placement looks so silly!), but that is more surgery than I am willing to do.

The Ship Model Forum

Calling all Iron Duke-class (1914-1946) fans

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Calling all Iron Duke-class (1914-1946) fans

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Iron Duke Question

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.

Re: Calling all HMS Iron Duke (WW1 Battleship) class fans.