The Ship Model Forum

I found this documentory on the KGV Class yesterday. It says it was puplished in november 2016. Sorry if it is old news but its the first time i have seen it so i thought i would post!

https://youtu.be/cvBfTEPUu24

Thanks. I looked at some of the other Royal Navy at War videos and found them to be very good. I liked the commentary and identification of the ships pictured. The series tries to use footage that is accurate for the time frame and events depicted, which is very rare. Also, much of the footage I have never seen.

I have recently got a copy of John Roberts republished British Warships of the second world war which has a lot of original plans of RN ships. KGV is featured with some from her original configuration and also 1944.

As one of the many building a Tamiya 1/350th PoW as for May 41, I have been struck by the lack of info on the UP AA system that was such a feature of both ships at the time and I had assumed there was only the one UP sight high above the bridge between the forward pair of HACS directors. One thing I have noticed in looking at the Roberts book is that there is another circular tub structure (over the top of the “FC2 DF office”) situated between the two after HACS directors and this is labelled on the plan as “UP sights” while the equivalent forward above the bridge is labelled “UP sight”. You can see that there are 2 objects side by side in the after position in one of the pictures of KGV in drydock some time before the Bismarck action but they are covered over. For PoW this would suggest one sight per UP mounting but quite how that works for KGV with the extra mounting on the quarterdeck is less clear.

Tamiya do feature the tub on part F6 with a single blob of plastic in the centre presumably representing a replacement sight after the UP system was removed in summer 41. Those who want complete accuracy when building as in May 41 would need to clear out the tub and add 2 smaller blobs instead – if only we knew what the sight actually looked like!

By any chance do any of the more recent upgrade sets address the UP sight(s) at all?

On the original plans of HMS PoW I hav, a pompom director director is placed between both the fwd and aft HACS positions while the turrets are drawn with the UP mounts.

I've seen references to UP sights on HMS Hood as well, but I have no idea what they look like! For HMS Hood, pompom directors are far too large for the positions where UP sights should be located...

Don't think I've ever seen a photo or drawing of the UP sights. It must be the least-well documented external feature of the class.

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D

Mention of Hood got me thinking more about UP sights as there might be a useful photo of a UP sight on a different warship to KGV and PoW. Apart from KGV, PoW and Hood, I believe Nelson and Norfolk had UPs so I will have a look at what is available for them.

What other units had UP fitted?

Hi All

Hi Francis there is an Admiralty Training and Staff Duties document that lists the 7 inch UP mountings to be removed from ships after the loss of Hood.

It mentions KG V, PoW, Nelson, Barham, Norfolk, Birmingham, Newcastle, Curacoa, Aurora, Arethusa, Erebus, Alynbank, Ulster Queen.

As to sights it states that Air look out sights Patt 12951 should be requisitioned for each UP sight surrendered when these sights have been used in lieu of the air look out sights.

There were also UP's at certain dockyards 5 lost in Hood and two in Suda Bay.

Hope this helps
Cag.

EJ - googling this stuff takes us to your blog http://ontheslipway.com/?cat=11&paged=2 I appreciate you posted that some time ago, so maybe your interpretation has changed since...

'Air Look out sights pattern 12951 should be demanded from the nearest Naval Store Depot for each U.P. sight surrendered when these sights have been used in lieu of Air Look out Sights'

So, I read that as saying: If an UP sight was used in place of an ALO, once the UP sight has been surrendered, a pattern 12951 ALO should be requisitioned to be installed in its place (ie, fit what was meant to have been fitted in the first place - a 12951, before someone decided to install the UP system and deleted an ALO in favour of an UP sight.

Which leads us full circle back to having no clue what an UP sight looks like

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D

In addition to the ships in Cag's list (from file ADM 1-11585), the photo at http://ww2today.com/18th-september-1940 ... he-clyde-2 shows SUSSEX after being bombed, with a UP mounting on "Y" turret. Alan Raven & John Roberts British Cruisers of World War Two (Arms & Armour Press, 1980) credits her with two mountings, and also credits GLASGOW with two.

Thanks for the list of ships fitted and that should keep me busy looking for possible pictures!

I had a look at the Trumpeter Hood kit and I see there is nothing offered there. I then looked at the instructions for the Hachette partworks 1/200th version which is also as for May 41.

This shows a possible sight with 2 at the front of the ADP and one at the aft facing side of the bridge but whether this is a UP sight or an air lookout one is not clear - EJ any thoughts?

[img][/img]

The Hachette kit is a "nice" attempt but...

#29 shows a searchlight director, 4 fitted.
#30 shows 1) a binnacle at the center 2) two captains sights flanking it and 3) two searchlight directors behind 2). The plans shows a compass at 1), air-lookout sights on the position of 2), the air-defense officer's sight at 3) and an additional pair of air-lookout sights behind them. The bridge wings show another type of captain's sight. There should be some type of bearing indicator and gyro compass on each bridge wing. I do not know what type of indicator was placed there so here their item might as well be correct.
#31 Plans show a flag locker there. A weird location I admit, but no search light director...
#32 Pompom director Mk II. Only one was fitted on the aft searchlight control platform
#33Pompom director Mk I. nearly correct. They have some crossed beam at the rear, perhaps their interpretation of a coincidence rangefinder? Not correct, the MkI did not have one as far as I know and certainly not at the rear.
#34 Location of the pompom director MkI, they have a Mk II.

So, they got nearly everything wrong.

@ Martocticvs: I also found my own site using google... no luck there!

Hello mates!
First, sorry if question is out of place or whatever or maybe I might have found the answer by searching the forum. I tried, but to no avail.

I have the chance of purchasing two 1/350 kits. Both are of those "phantom" manufacturers, Tamiya ripoffs. Please does anyone have experience with them? for what I've seen online they look good, but some of these recasts are known to be MUCH worse than the originals.
The other one is a Musashi...
Thanks 10.000 in advance!!

I had a tamiya rip-off 1/350 King George V kit under the brand Mini Hobby Models when I was kid. The cast is very bad. The parts have thick and 'softened' details and the fit is not good. However it still matches Tamiya in terms of scale and proportions. I would recommend it only for those building it for fun or converting into other ships...or even as spare parts!

Aop

_________________
On the way:
--1/350 Tamiya DKM Tirpitz Nov 1944

--1/350 scratch-build HMS Lion never built battleship (1938)

And our artworks!

Thanks a lot!!!

Ouch!!! I already paid and ordered!!!
Anyway, since I am someone used to the old Airfix kits (just see my username) and just decided to go into better quality 1/700, and thus I am no expert, I supose it'll be enough for me. I paid 31 euro for each, so it's not that bad, right? I hope so, at least!!! I've seen a reasonable build of one of them.
Thanks a lot, I promise to report about quality

cheers
J

OK, I finally got my two ships.
Yes, the info supplied by Aop was quite accurate and precise! Ouch, es it's not good..
Flash and casting unconsistencies where they should not be, soft detail, etc. Besides, that bad plastic that gets "hairy" when you cut or sand.
Not that easy to me to compare with Tamiya (the obvious yardstick) as I don't owe a Tamiya sample. But some close views as for instance the ones that show Eduard PE stuff nstalled, show me that almost all posible edges are softened and rounded.
Surfaces are rough, etc. For instance, seccondary turrets suffer particularly from this. I'd say that 1/600 Airfix units are better.

Good point, yes, that it can be easily made waterline which is my intention.

Now I am fiddling with the idea of incorporating PE stuff. You might think the kit is not worth it, I see a different way: the money I saved in plastic, I can now invest in brass..

Nevertheless, and since the idea is to make it as a May 1941 KGV, I'd like to know an easy wa to have an scheme of KGV specs in that moment. Yes I've surfed the site and see tat there is some difficulty to sum up all tha5t, but I'd like to have some easy recipe. I am not an expert, honestly.
THatnks in advance, guys!
Cheers to all
JJ

600th-diehard, you want the specs as in armament & radar of KGV for May 1941, correct?

Yeeeeep! Thanks!!
As for color it seems overall grey, and darker grey for decks, though there seems to be debate around if that would include wooden decks. Or even horizontal surfaces... including turret tops?
thanks!

look in the "modifications" paragraph http://www.world-war.co.uk/bb/kgv_class.php3

Colour scheme for 1941 as far as I am aware would be all-over AP507B, with most horizontal surfaces in AP507A (turret tops certainly appear to be the darker shade). Whether the decks were stained/painted is still unclear to me.

If we're talking very early 1941, the above is still true, but this application of 507B suffered pretty extreme weathering and was peeling off in large patches, revealing remnants of the original AP507A/AP507C camo scheme, and that scheme itself had worn through in large areas revealing white primer underneath. This damaged paintwork seems to have been painted over pretty much the instant KGV returned from North America in early '41. If you're thinking specifically of May and the Bismarck incident, the condition of the paintwork then, as far as I've been able to tell, was pretty good - just some very minor wear around the waterline.

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D