The Ship Model Forum

[quote="81542"]Kevin,
Did anyone observe torpedoes in the tubes of the mounting below which the head was photographed, or does the record show that HMS EXETER had already expended them from that side?
81542[/quote]Unfortunately, to the first part of your question, no. I have to be honest and say I didnt even see it back there when taking the photos, as it was pitch dark back there so I was just photographing the tubes so to speak. And after I discovered it in the photos and had someone take the measurements of the 'warhead' the person did not think / was not asked to look inside tube '3', as at the time I just wasn't thinking that it could be a warhead. It wasn't till he came back from his trip with measurements and they basically matched - allowing for u/w marine growth - an actual warhead that the idea grew that it may actually be a warhead! The wreck was never visited after that, or if so not by anyone interested in checking out the inner tube, and now, as we know, the wreck is gone. The first two outer tubes were empty though as can be seen in my photos.

As for you second question, yes she definitely fired them, but no mention of a misfire or anything else re a loose warhead. Below an excerpt from Capt. Gordon's AAR, written post war.

[i]"A torpedo target at long range was presented by the two enemy cruisers on the port quarter at about 1100. As the enemy were making no attempt to close the range and so provide a better target, the port tubes were fired. No hits were obtained, the target ships taking avoiding action by alteration of course."[/i]

That alteration of course at the time he stipulates is not shown though on any IJN battle maps, so if taken it must have been only slight.

Kevin,

Did anyone observe torpedoes in the tubes of the mounting below which the head was photographed, or does the record show that HMS EXETER had already expended them from that side?

81542

Thanks Brett, had seen those before but did not know if the were on all torps. Maybe the one in question had not yet been 'armed' or the impeller has 'fallen off' / corroded away u/w over the years?

It certainly looks like a warhead, although the pistol is missing the arming impeller. The external OA length of the type 3 pistol with impeller fitted was 5.25 inches.

[quote="Brett Morrow"]Kevin, If you backtrack the thread you should find a weapons listing. In 39 she was apparently carrying Mk VII, in Oct 41 the report lists she was carrying Mk IX although it shows both IX and IX*. The O/A length of the Mk IX was 24.25 ft, the length of the warhead (excluding 3F contact pistol) was 53.8 inches.[/quote]Thanks very much Brett!

As odd as it seems (at least to me, given its position (and no 'record' / mention of a torp losing a warhead just prior to sinking) this object certainly seems to be a warhead. A back and forth discussion with another knowledgeable person on another forum pretty much confirms it, allowing for very slight differences in actual measurement of the 'object' as compared too an actual warhead size. But these small discrepancies can be 'forgiven', in my experience, from both marine growth / silt build up, and the awkward position it is in to properly get an exact length measurement, but the diameter measurement is spot on for 21" (well to be exact lays somewhere between 21" and 22", but again allowance must be made for the silt / marine growth build up on said object).

Anyway below are some pics of it, and a b/w example of a torp (not a MkIX AFAIK though) but it clearly shows a warhead and the 'nipple' on the nose. No pics of the rear of the 'object', but it is concave, as it should be if a warhead,

Your own opinion would be valued of course.

Kevin, If you backtrack the thread you should find a weapons listing. In 39 she was apparently carrying Mk VII, in Oct 41 the report lists she was carrying Mk IX although it shows both IX and IX*. The O/A length of the Mk IX was 24.25 ft, the length of the warhead (excluding 3F contact pistol) was 53.8 inches.

Gents, do 'we' know exactly what mod torp Exeter carried at the time of her loss, i.e. MkVII, MkIX, or MkIX**? (As per page below, courtesy NavWeps :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: )

Also, is the length of just the [i]warhead itself[/i] known of a MkVII or a MkIX? Or does anyone have a side-on photo of, say, the MkIX torp where one could make a good guestimate of warhead length?

TIA for any help!

Gents,

The memorial web page is now up, thanks to Pierre Kosmidis of WW2wrecks.com.

It contains historical photos, more 3D wreck images and a survey description of the of the wreck itself.

Enjoy!

https://www.ww2wrecks.com/portfolio/a-dedication-to-hms-exeter-the-shipwreck-that-disappeared-featuring-3d-renditions-of-the-wreck-by-kevin-denlay/

I meant to add this to a previous post; an image of what the wreck site looks like 'today', courtesy of the illegal salvagers. :mad_1: :bash_2:

And getting back to the ensigns on Exeter 'at the end', below is how the British naval artist Eric Tufnell depicted her on 28th Feb at the B of J S, two days before her demise (and how I will have in my 'redo' of the 1945 monochrome painting from further above.)

[b]EDIT[/b] - The painting IS actually of 1 March 42, NOT 28 Feb as I mistakenly wrote above. :Oops_1: :huh: :doh_1:

Just so no confusion as to what the stern looks like. A diver could (has) swim under wreck where the 'V' like bend in starboard deck edge is (on the seabed), and come out at props, and inspected / surveyed the starboard hull under there, and no (torp) hole).

Gents,

Been working for some now time with Stefan Draminski on a 3D rendition of the wreck of HMS [i]Exeter[/i], depicted in the condition as we discovered her in 2007, using several expeditions worth of survey data, so now's as good a time as any for the very first public preview. :wave_1:

Just a little taste for the moment, I'll have a web page up with various angle views in the not too distant future, and a fly-around on YouTube also, or so I am told. :woo_hoo:

PLEASE NOTE: The 'gash' across the aft deck is [b]not[/b], repeat not the result of a torpedo hit, although the one across the bow certainly [i]is[/i]. The other torp hit, right between the funnels, can only be seen on the 3D 'bottom' views, as although it hit the starboard side, it blew out part of the bottom of the ship. The gash across stern deck (and partway down port hull side there) was simply caused by 'gravity', i.e. the weight of the two inner-most props, and rudder, 'pulling down' / collapsing the very stern over a certain amount of time underwater, as the stern was, obviously, never built to support aforesaid weight while laying on her side.

So, even though the salvagers might have taken her body and soul, we will still have something that many can see, that was made in her and her sailors honour to remember them both / all by.

[i]Enjoy,[/i] (I hope).

EDIT: Corrected above '[i]........weight of the two outer most props.......[/i]' to "[b]inner[/b]-most". Beg pardon. :doh_1:

1. This cropped portion of the photo shows the foremast, not the mainmast.
2. The ship is at anchor, with no indication that she is in action, and therefore would be unlikely to be flying battle ensign(s).
3. This portion of the photo is indistinct, but it's not clear that either of the flags is an ensign. The lower flag may be the national flag of the Netherlands.

[quote="KevinD"][quote="DavidP"]I don't see any flags in this link. https://www.world-war.co.uk/York/exeter.php[/quote]

Thanks, but.......................................................... that photo you link to wasn't when she was fighting the enemy, so one wouldn't expect to have all ensigns flying then.

So the question remains, IF she was flying her ensigns in battle would / could she have had two on the mainmast?

PLEASE NOTE: I am not asking DID she have two flying there in her final engagement, [i]but would it be "appropriate" - as in could / would it have been done in 'real-life' - to show [u]two[/u] flying off the mainmast in a painting as above[/i]?

TIA.[/quote]

This photo did show she had two ensigns on the mainmast, but can't tell what they are.

[attachment=0]Exeter flag.JPG[/attachment]

[quote="tjstoneman"]hj1985 - no evidence that the pompom directors were ever fitted - see posts dated 16 March 2022 in this thread.[/quote]

Thank you Pal!

hj1985 - no evidence that the pompom directors were ever fitted - see posts dated 16 March 2022 in this thread.

Hi gus, a quick question

Did Exeter have Pom Pom director installed in 1942? if yes, did it come with type 282 radar?

[quote="Brett Morrow"]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185265[/quote]
Thanks [i]again[/i] Brett. :thumbs_up_1:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185265

Gents, the below image, from Tonk's HMS Exeter booklet, carries the source as IWM. However, I cant find it on the IWM web site. I was wondering if someone might know / have a link to where it is (or maybe it is just in IWM collection, not on-line?), or a high res version they would care to share. :smallsmile: