The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1031 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 188
Hi All,

Hi 81542, yes you're correct a knuckle is actually more like the hull structure seen on the Town class cruisers at the bow (except Birmingham!), I'm afraid I didn't know how else to describe it!

I put PoW as in my research that is how she's referred to in official documents at the time, but PWLS is a good way to refer to her, it's difficult now as there are 3 large ships of that name, a pre dreadnought, a KGV, and a QE class Aircraft carrier (I'm still searching to see if the story that her original name was changed.)!

I'll keep on researching but from what I've found (posted above Nov 19th) the framing spaces appear to match what we see in the image, and the plans do show internal intercostal welding, so your Naval Architect friend is most probably spot on.

Hi Mr Church, you're correct we do learn something new every day, it is the great thing about these ships, sometimes tiny sometimes large changes characterise each individual ship of a so called identical class.

I will continue the research as I'm working on the Denmark Strait gunnery battle (trigonometry is fun?!) so require further trips to the archives. Will update if I find anything, unfortunately PoW (PWLS) ships book is lost so that's a dead end but as 81542 says the ships covers may reveal something.

Hi Martocticvs, could it be the 4 x1.5 inch beams welded to the upper deck I spotted on the plating drawing? More research, maybe the Cammell Laird Archive has something more to see.

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 336
81542 wrote:
...............photographs of PWLS during launch (Sorry, folks, using "PoW" now appears to be "incorrect")


OK, I'll bite. :smallsmile:

Why is PoW incorect at that time? I can only 'assume' because she has not been officialy named / 'christnend' (upon launch?) so to speak?

And what is PWLS?

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 599
Location: England
Hi Kevin,

I think "PWLS" is a very modern abbreviation created for this ship (and possibly for Twitter purposes):

https://twitter.com/HMSPWLS

Just as this is "QNLZ":

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz

I do not intend to retrospectively apply PWLS to the WW2 battleship as I cannot imagine that anybody ever used that abbreviation to refer to her, and applying that to her now risks confusion with today's carrier.

Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 50
PoW/PWLS, is a good point. The use of whichever one chooses for the specific ship is now logical. I can't somehow see PoW being used by the Royal Navy for the 'carrier with its also being an abbreviation for something rather sadder. One does now wonder where it came from. Is it like "KM:" short for Kriegsmarine as in KM BISMARCK, which was never used by the German Navy for its ships (that I can see) probably a model-makers construct that has now become a convenience?

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2724
IIRC, PWLS is a Nato abbreviation, and PoW is simply convenient, as are KGV and DoY. Simple TLAs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 336
Thanks for the input / explanation gents. I like Dick would not even dream of referring to the WWII ship as PWLS.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 188
Hi All,

In all RN reports etc all ships names are usually given in full, most times in capital letters, so for example Sheffield would be SHEFFIELD.

However in correspondence regarding Prince of Wales, I've only ever seen her referred to as PoW or P of W, from such people as S.V. Goodall and Winston Churchill.

Personally I don't mind if PoW, P of W or PWLS is used, having had a family member who served on PoW, I'm just glad that people are interested and still remember the ship.

No doubt the crew of the London Class pre dreadnought Prince of Wales wanted to distinguish their ship from the KGV class ship and the same applies today to the carrier of that name.

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 402
Cag wrote:
I'm just glad that people are interested and still remember the ship.


Now you're talking.

Hopefully all of our models of her and discussion about her will go a small way towards keeping alive the memories of all her poor Officers and Men who went off to war and never came home. R.I.P.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2724
Interesting discussion/monologue by Matt Warwick and a few interesting counters to internet wisdom



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 188
Hi All,

Yes very interesting thanks EJ (by the way I've seen your PM but can't reply to it?), like the expert in the video I've been very lucky to see the 14 inch gun manual and the Gunnery aspects of both PoW and KGV, I agree the crew of PoW did well in the fight with Bismarck, despite their inexperience.

However when you look at the Admiralty and Vickers Armstrong reports you see how much went wrong in the action in which Hood was sunk, two guns were kept in action by manual means, ie one by the use of a crowbar the other by use of a hammer! One gun was lost in A turret after firing one salvo and two guns were lost from Y turret (which seemed to be the most troublesome turret) mid way through the action, B turret lost hydraulic power too at some point (engineers in damage control switched off the hydraulic ring main).

Y turret jammed on turning away (the shell arrestor failed and it buckled the connecting trays to the shell ring) and despite repairs it jammed again on the ship's voyage home, again due to shell ring jamming.

I've read letters from the Gentleman who ran the fire control table on PoW, with typical understatement he mentions that the battle was fought with "difficulty" due to the continuous dwindling number of gun ready lamps.

I'm looking at the battle at present using the range tables (kindly given me by a very generous gentleman) for the gun to calculate out the ballistic errors to work out the salvo battle, but as with all these things there is some info out there, but there's always large gaps (powder temps, gun erosion figures, Air density calculations).

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:44 pm
Posts: 57
Guest wrote:

Re: The painting of spars and booms. I cannot argue with what has gone before on this subject. However and as most will know, the problem with painting any surface is that one may not achieve full coverage of the previous finish until two or more coats of paint have been applied. It is therefore possible that the effect we are seeing is the nature of the wood "grinning" through the grey paint that has been applied. This is likely to be even more obvious if the paint applied is no more than a cosmetic "wash" in order to cover the varnished surface and comply with a general order to tone down "bright-work."


So for painting spars and booms, I am a little late to this discussion. But hypothetically if one had already painted them wood and glue them on the model, maybe a light coat of gray would be realistic? Basically I am looking for an easy way to fix it. Or I could just leave it...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1031 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Antoniohtq, Bing [Bot] and 20 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group