The Ship Model Forum

I used the old Snyder & Short colours initially including 507A for the steel decks.

A letter exists from Capt Tennant describing the camouflage on Repulse in which he described the tones as a very dark grey and a grey between Light Grey and Dark Grey which he then likens to some paint mentioned in another document dating back to the late 1930s. I've had a complete hard drive failure on Christmas Eve and lost a large amount of stuff so I can't verify his exact wording right now but I am sure dick can verify for me.

I interpreted that to mean that the lightest tone wasn't 507C but an unofficial shade with characteristics as described - between Light Grey (507C, 45% LRV) and Dark Grey (aka Home Fleet Grey, 10% LRV).

This model thus sat on the shelf of doom for some time but a few weeks ago I decided to just wing it but with the benefit of some numerical data.



The lightest tone on the model is the old, incorrect 507C which is too light at 52% LRV - this is the same shade all other brands copied - FWIW. The tins below are from left to right the corrected 507C at 45% LRV, BS381C-637 Medium Sea Grey at 28% LRV, old Snyder & Short "AP507B Medium Grey" (which you'd think Capt. Tennant would have made reference to instead of describing something as between 507C and HFG if that combination of shade and nomenclature did infact exist) and the corrected (lightened) 507A at 10% LRV. The Snyder & Short 507A measures out at 8% LRV by the way.

I chose Medium Sea Grey for my model. The darker tone is/always was painted in RAF Night (bomber black) as I felt matt black was inappropriate on a model.

Here is how it is currently looking. I think this will be an impossible subject to ever resolve categorically, but I am pleased with my choices here and they do resemble the photographic records nicely whilst not contradicting Capt Tennant's narraritive on his own ship.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

James thats a beautiful looking Repulse! Hurry up now and finish it so you can have a nice reference for us mere mortals trying to make sense of colors.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Dear moy350:
The workmanship on Mr. Duff's model is very apparent and I'm sure it will be a beauty. I like his colors, too. But if you do want to use acrylics--like your post stated--you could do what I did: A mixture of Tamiya XF-80 Royal Navy Grey and Flat White for the light grey, XF-63 German Grey for the dark grey on the hull. However, I was unable to find a suitable acrylic for the decks and used a combination of enamels that I thought looked satisfactory.
By the way, there are several corrections you may want to make to the Trumpeter kit if you really want an "as sunk" model. If so, I would recommend looking closely at some of the nice 1941 Repulses in the gallery.
Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/

thanks guys,i may go with the WEM tins of 507c that i have for the decks.and yes i have looked at the models in the gallery and have already completed some of the mods needed.will post photos soon.
john.

_________________
"That's the third pocket battleship you've seen this week"

completed 1/350
USS NORTH CAROLINA
USS FRANKLIN
HMS REPULSE
IJN AKAGI
IJN YAMATO
IJN KONGO
FN RICHELIEU

nearing completion
1/200 HMS NELSON

started
1/200 USS MISSOURI

I assume that was a typo and you meant 507A

I'd like to point out a couple of other corrections to the Trumpeter kit, that James' otherwise excellent build omits:

1) the sloped edge under the bridge, where it's built up and enclosed, should not be curved, it's straight on the real thing. This can be fixed with a bit of careful filling and sanding.

2) Trumpeter places the waterline in the wrong place (too low), giving the ship the appearance of far too much freeboard, and the boot stripe according to instructions is far too thin. In reality, most of the torpedo bulge and 9" main armoured belt (invisible behind it) is submerged at full load. The black boot stripe should be wide, and it comes up pretty much to the top of the "step" created by the torpedo bulge.

That's a good shout Vlad. Nothing that can't be put right on mine at this stage. There's no fiddly bits added yet so moving lines is entirely doable

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

I'd just like to add from the former Repulse discussion there was talk of the rear turret and back of hangar being painted in a more blue colour toward the end.

Vlad thank you for mentioning the waterline, that's one bit I have done correctly on my model, had to look at a lot of photos to get the right level and right thickness of bootstrip. Now have to lighten the red to match the colourcoats colour from the standard Tamiya Hull Red...

James thank you for all your information on paints. I ordered some of the colourcoats sent to Australia via Creative models and have *almost* got the correct colour matches with the local Tamiya acrylics, which can be bought in my town. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding some of the new information that has come to light in this and the Ark Royal thread: can you confirm that the AP507A, AP507B and AP507C in that shipment to Oz are the correct colours to match?

And: did AP507A change after 1940? - I remember you mentioning something about the paint shifting from oil based to acrylic and so there was an earlier 'darker' 507A and a later, 'lighter' 507A which I think you are using here.
Lastly thank you for the information about Captain Tennant's description of the light grey being darker than 507C on Repulse's camo - I will adjust that on my model.

W/R/T the Trumpeter hull, it has been moulded with a 90º "ledge" which stands out from the armor belt. The armor belt's upper edge, beautifully beveled in the moulding, is reasonably correct. However, the aforementioned "ledge" occupies what should in fact be a flush, smooth vertical continuance of that belt all the way down to the waterline. In other words, the top edge of the bulge did not rise above the 6" armor belt's lower terminus, nor did its upper edge form a right angle. To help visualize this, one may compare this feature with some USN battlewagons (ex: the New Mexico class), which featured upper "blisters" of that appearance. Those battleships' ledge-topped blisters may have "inspired" the Trumpeter error, but it is one of the more egregious issues a modeler with an eye toward configurational authenticity must deal with--especially if intending to build the kit as a full-hull replica. In most other respects, the hull is very respectable in contour and form. The error may be more easily addressed by choosing a "waterline" display format (with a robust, "busy" seascape) to mitigate it.
--DJB

Guy's I'm looking to your knowledge here, I've just ordered the Trumpeter 1/350 Repulse but would like to build her in her 1940 Home fleet appearance. I've read through this long thread but noticed most questions / answers were related to time of sinking or pre war.
So what changes need to be made for 1940 and what reference would you recommend (already looking for a copy of Ensign 8 ), also has the Lion Roar upgrade set been corrected as mentioned earlier in this thread and how do I tell an old set from a corrected set if they exist?

Would I be correct with the following?
No saluting guns
No 20mm Oerlikons
No Radar
But what else?

Oh I'm reading the book HMS Renown so looking forward to the 1/350 Renown kit that was announced, Renown has always been my favorite capital ship.

_________________
On the slip - all 1/350
USS Fletcher - Tamiya w/GMM PE and L'Arsenal resin
USS Mackinac AVP-13 - ISW w/ AM parts from several sources
In the design office -
HMS Ariadne Conversion of WEM kit

Littorio, please check your e-mail. Thanks!

Requested author's reply via e-mail, still have not received. For anyone interested in a 1940 HMS Repulse, "Littorio" 's post is generally correct as to the details listed (i.e., no Hotchkiss saluting guns, no radar complement no Oerlikon (20mm) AA, etc.), but there are a few others (referring to the actual ship, NOT the Trumpeter model).

Right off the bat, in no particular order :

*Seaplane = Fairey Swordfish

*4-inch triple mounting still fitted at #3 position (no octuple pompom fitted yet)

*Mainmast ensign gaff re-positioned to top of starfish platform

*Spare seaplane floats stowed in chocks on roof of boat workshop

*Foremast upperworks still painted in light grey for a brief period after yard refit

There are significant errors in the Trumpeter 1/350 Repulse that require attention, unrelated to the historical period 1936-1941.

--Dan

_________________
Danny DON'T "waterline"...!

Would anyone be able and willing to share good close photos and/or drawings of the shelter deck area of HMS Renown in 1934-35? I'm after as much detail as possible of the catapult and hangar arrangement, and basically everything else in the space around and between. Specifically, I can't work out where the port 4" AA gun is, if it's even still there.

Thanks!

Hi Jack / All

We are planning on our next Sovereign shipment with ALL new and out of stock paints being included. This will be a June shipment, and taking pre orders now.

Hi all,

New to this forum as I just started building a Tamiya 1/700 Repulse
I wanted to ask if anyone built this particular model with the Flyhawk upgrade set (FH700122), as I am just starting out to do that - I fear that I'm may be missing a page of instructions for the PE upgrade set (have 4 pages), and upon studying the instructions and the PE, there seems to be several parts without any instructions on where they go (mostly the deck railings). Not a big deal as I could figure this out without the instructions, but wanted to know just in case there I was missing a page and I could find a PDF or similar online...
Thank you!

If nobody answers,because is not a common set then why You don't try to contact them at flyhawkmodelxc@vip.163.com

Two times I got some problem they have answered me within 5 working days,their customer service is still quite good and English is not an issue anymore.

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

Will try that, thank you Miguel.

Also, I've been scanning through all the comments on this forum here (all 23 pages, comments from 10 years ago ) but I was wondering if there are any glaring mistakes in the Tamiya kit as depicting Repulse on the day she sunk? It seems most of the discussion here has to do with the Trumpeter kit or for those who were interested in her appearance before Dec. 1941.
Thanks again!

The after deck house is the wrong shape. It was changed when they modified the Repulse for the royal family in late 1938/early 1939. This removed the 4" BD mounts that were added in the earlier 1936 refit. The BD mounts were replaced with old Mk V 4" mounts but the shape of the deckhouse was changed to an asymmetrical shape with one side of the structure being bigger than the other. She did not actually end up carrying the Royal family and instead was just an escort for them. I've always been amazed that they never bothered to upgrade her to Mk XVI twin mounts, but I due understand there was probably shortages of mounts AND the time necessary for the change over.

_________________
Our CO prior to flying to the boomer: “Our goals on this patrol is to shoot missiles and torpedoes.”
Junior Nuke Officer (me) : “Captain, don’t we really want to be like Monty Python and ‘Not be seen’?”
CO “You seem to be missing the big picture”
“Oh”

Yes, as far as I can see, the Flyhawk pe corrects the aft deck house issues.

I have another question that I hope someone could shed some light on - I'm not certain of Tamiya's representation of the walls on top of the aft superstructure. I'm not certain what this part is called, perhaps the flying deck? But I've circled in red on my images what I mean. It seems that in the Trumpeter version, there are no gaps in the walls, at least on the port side.
Could anyone clarify this for me?
Thanks in advance!
https://imgur.com/qVyoczc https://imgur.com/P61H7GU

That area was not initially enclosed. It was open at the sides except for the braces holding up the deck above. This seems to remain the case after her 1936 refit. However, some pictures and other sources I have indicate that after the 1939 refit this area was enclosed on both sides, with square windows on at least part of the starboard side.

Greetings All,

Your friendly neighbourhood Hood guy here...but with some questions that do not concern our beloved "7Bs!" I can never seem to finish my models of Hood. The problem is that I know WHAT to do, but lack the necessary skills to do notable pieces of it. Then there are the periodic changes which arise (right EJ?!). As a result, things are "OBE" and I never get far. My skills, already spotty, have become even more lacking. So, I thought I should get some practice in whilst trying my hand at a different ship. I wanted to “keep it in family” though, so I thought I’d try one of her less-pretty step-sisters . Being a fan of Clyde-built ships, the choice was obvious...Repulse. So, I’m trying my hand at the Tamiya 1/700 kit of her as sunk.

Although I don't plan on going into insane levels of detail, I do want to take it to a reasonable level (at least a little more detailed than a standard out-of-the-box build). Unfortunately, there are some things that I'm still unclear about. I did check the forum but there are still some things that were either conflicting or confusing (to me). So, I do apologise if some of this has been asked before. Hopefully some of you will be able to help.

1. Deck Composition-Planked vs Painted Metal Areas
I know that most of the large deck spaces on Repulse were planked in 1941. I also know that areas such as the focsle, bridge decks, platforms around the funnel, mast platforms, etc. were likely painted with non-slip paints. I plan on using an Artwox deck veneer for this model (I've always painted them before, but I figured I'd try an actual wood deck this time). They provide wood for most of the decks...including some areas that I find questionable. So, I'm looking for proof (or at least the latest consensus) regarding these areas:



A. Raised deck aft of B turret and forward of the bridge- the Tamiya kit (part A6) shows this as planked, but I’ve seen at least one 1941 photo of her at sea which shows a very dark deck which looks different in shade than the confirmed planked area ahead. It suggestive of painted steel. I also could’ve sworn I’ve seen earlier photos showing no planking in this area just behind "B" (but to be honest, I can't recall "when" the photos were from and they could've been from before the planking was originally added). What’s the consensus?

B. Shelter Deck- the Tamiya kit (part B29) does not depict the correct shape of this structure (I know to create the expanded Royal Compartment to starboard). Tamiya also shows this entire area as planked. I am unclear on whether this was actually fully planked. I know that the original area was planked, but am not sure if it was expanded to the two side wings (or if it was all removed or painted later). Has anyone ever been able to verify this? This is one of those areas for which I've seen conflicting info.

C. Aircraft Catapult Area- I believe this was planked. Can anyone verify this?

2. Missing Details
A. Rear Superstructure- this is the Shelter Deck and upper structure just forward of “Y” turret (formed by parts B29 and B44). The Tamiya kit is very bare/plain in this area (just like their Hood) and in need of even the most cursory detail. Can anyone share an accurate plan scan showing the location of portholes, windows, bulkhead vents and doors in Dec ‘41? The only thing I ask is that you please not use Kagero or the Morskie stuff...after their flawed Hood products (sigh), I’m afraid I don’t have much confidence in them.



B. Various- I know I need to add vents around "B" barbette. I also understand that there should be no AAA gun tubs forward or atop "Y" turrets (but assume the ones abreast the aft superstructure and mainmast were indeed present). I also need to enclose the port side of part B45 (but am unclear about starboard).

3. Paint Scheme-
I believe the current understanding is that the ship was painted in medium and very dark grey shades (not AP507C and black). Presumably, wood decks would be dulled down and metal decks would be non-slip dark grey. Do we know if the upper portion of the mainmast (above the starfish) was painted in the standard white? Anyway, it seems like we may never get this one 100% nailed down, so I guess it calls for some artistic license (no problem there). There is one thing that seems odd to me though: I’ve noticed that many folks model the ship’s forward turrets as all one shade of light grey (including the tops). I’ve seen at least one clear photo from ‘41 that clearly shows dark turret tops for “A” and “B” turrets (or at least darker than the main shade used on that area of the ship). The big question is, was it still this way when she departed for her final mission?

My apologies for asking so many questions. I can tell you exactly what to replace/detail on the Tamiya Hood (we got the same questions sooooo many times that we ultimately put together an article for our website). This, however, is NOT Hood, so I need help! I really want to finish something for once and I think this would be a great kit for the endeavor. Many thanks in advance.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk