The Ship Model Forum

Hi Dick,

I'm simply going off the WEM colourcoats I have, comparing them side by side. Their MS4a has distinctly more light green than MS3 does. Their MS4 is a light grey, a not quite as light as 507C.

For B6 I can add what I've seen myself on HMS Belfast:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... elfast.jpg

and there's WEM's description of B6 as light blue:



I would think one needs to be careful interpreting artists' renditions. Their paints may not necessarily be exact colour matches (hence the too blue B5 blue!).

Paul

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

I would not place too much trust in the renditions of MS4, MS4a and B6 from the color charts / WEM paints. Paint samples in the archives (various samples) do not match well. (The other MSs and AP507A/C do match well). The paintings of Rodney on the BBC pages look like MS1/B5/3/4/4a? The superstructure looks a bit overly blue; perhaps he ran out of gray...

I've been reminded about the Shipcraft book on the QE's, so I've dug out my copy (which I had forgotten about!

It has a colour diagram for all the QE's in their various camouflages, including Malaya. It suggests the 4 vertical colours are APC507A and C, with B5 and MS3.

What do we all think about that?

thanks
Mike

Mike,

As I said: "....If so, the next darkest shade could well be MS4 (reflection factor 32%) ...... The only other candidate would be B6 (reflection factor 30%)...what you see in the paintings is a very good match to MS4 in contemporary paint chips".

It could not be "G45" because a: that would introduce into the line-up a paint (name) introduced in May 1943 which did not exist when Malaya was repainted into this scheme in late 1942 and b: G45 was simply AP507C in any case and so too light to be a candidate for the third darkest/second lightest paint in this scheme.

I fear that you may have to get away from relying on the paints you have as being an accurate guide to the true historic colours.

Best wishes.

Dear Paul,

Some years ago now I joined in a discussion on this board with Evert-Jan Foeth re the colours in HMS Prince of Wales's camouflage scheme. At first, like you, I based my thinking on the colours and tones of my WEM paints. Although we narrowed down the options considerably for PoW we could never quite resolve the issue and I was never entirely satisfied that the tone "scale" that I got using those paints matched what you saw in the very many b&w photos and films that we referenced. I then started visiting the UK archives and found things did not tally. I shared what I found with E-J then (hence his comment) and have gone on to find more since.

So I am basing my assessments on a range of mutually supporting factors:

1. The colours and tones of the various contemporary paint chips/samples I have found in the UK archives.
2. The results of following the contemporary mixing instructions when available.
3. The description of the paints given in the various official documents.
4. The colours you see in the work of contemporary official war artists. The artists are in fact generally very good at rendering what you find in the archives. (Don't rule out the possibility that Norman was right and Malaya was in another blue when he painted her.)

As for HMS Belfast, you cannot use her as a reference for WW2 as those are modern colours not authentic WW2 colours. When she was painted into the disruptive scheme you see on her today a decision was taken not to try to mix authentic colours, which would be expensive and difficult repeat over the years ahead, but to buy off-the-shelf British Standard maritime paints that would then be easy to reorder. This is the best they could do with what was available. The colours she is painted in are (dark to light):

Dark Admiralty Grey BS 381C 632
PR Blue BS 381C 636
Light Admiralty grey BS 381C 697
Light Aircraft Grey BS 381C 627

I have confirmed this during a visit to the ship in conversation with her conservation manager who kindly showed me their paperwork and took me to the paint locker to see the tins themselves.

You can look them up on any modern BS381C paint chart (Google).

Best wishes.

Not a lot (unless they can provide some evidence to support their suggestion).

Well I'm completely stumped then.

What we do know is that there was 4 colours, Dark Grey, Light Grey, Blue and another shade of Medium-ish Grey. The Shipcraft suggestion to me fits but if it's not right, are there any better suggestions for each colour?

The question is about what the actual colours were not how accurate the various paint ranges interpretations of the colours are. I think it's down to the individual about what paint ranges to use, so yes talk of model paints is a little bit of a Red Herring.

thanks
Mike

Wow....very interesting! Thanks for the detailed explanation Dick. I understand, but still... that puts us squarely in Mike's "stumped" boat! Without definitive info I guess we'll all have to "go with our gut" when it comes to Malaya!

Paul

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

Hi everyone,

I'm currently considering backdating my kit of the Malaya to her late '41/ early '42 configuration. Apart from reinstating the catapult and removing the aft octuple Pom-Poms and the aft pair of 4" AA, I have a query regarding her 20mm outfit for the period.

According to both the QE Shipcraft book and the Naval History TROM for her, she had 11 Oerlikon's added during her August refit on returning to the UK, then a further 4 were added in September, presumably during her working up period. This makes a total of 15 guns by the end of 1941.

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-Malaya.htm

Using the images available on the IWM site I think I've managed to discern their placement, which appear to be thus:

2 just aft of "B" turret on the bridge deckhouse, 4 either side of the bridge itself at conning tower level, 2 either side of the bridge at forecastle deck level, 2 on the rear superstructure where the aft Pom-Poms are on the kit, 2 just forward of "X" turret either side of the rear superstructure, 2 on "X" turret and the one on the quarterdeck:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141568

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141569

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205140101

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205016040

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205016039

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141463

Would I be correct in my interpretation of the photo's, or have I missed something?

Lastly, she appears to be overall AP507B, but is there any evidence as to what colour her wooden decks would have been at that time? Painted or not?

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185467

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205139902

On the last image I think I can see some sort of overspray effect on the lower edge of the gun tub which might indicate overpainting with AP507A or something similar, but I could be wrong!

Any help, thoughts or hypothesis welcome!

Mike.

According to Alan Raven & John Roberts British Battleships of World War Two (Arms & Armour Press, 1976), locations for MALAYA's initial 11 single 20mm were: four either side of the bridge itself at conning tower level, two either side of the bridge at forecastle deck level, two on the rear superstructure where the aft Pom-Poms are on the kit, two on "X" turret and one on the quarterdeck. Four more were fitted by September 1941 (two each side abreast the after superstructure). By December 1942, the two from atop the after superstructure had been moved to "B" turret, and two more fitted just abaft "B" turret on the bridge deckhouse.

My copy of R&R reads differently. Mine says, on page 222 (top left) in the key to the plans:

"B Eleven single 20mm mounts fitted. September 1941:" and "C Four single 20mm mounts added. December 1942" my underlining. OK, so their odd punctuation implies the date given is a date by which the weapons are fitted in the locations shown on the plans, but Dec 1942 is a whole twelve months difference. So I think for the period Michael is trying to model (late 41/early 42) 11 would be the number according to R&R.

This interpretation is confirmed by reference to CB 0185 B (the official armament returns) which lists 11 Oerlikon in the Oct 41 and April 42 half-yearly returns but 15 in the Oct 42 one.

A moot point - I don't have the CB, and without that, my interpretation of the R&R caption was that the dates refer to all items listed below them until another date is mentioned - ie the quad 0.5" were removed and 11 x 20mm fitted in July 41, 4 x 20mm added in September 41, 2 x 20mm moved and 2 x 20mm, 2 octuple 2pdr and 2 twin 4" fitted in December 42 - then other 20mm in December 43 and March 44. However, the CB seems to tell a different story!

Apologies for the late reply, gents! I was working and didn't have time to reply to your posts. Sorry!

Thanks for the information as it clarifies some of what I've noticed in the images on the IWM site. I do have another query however. In this image I linked to earlier:

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/439/media-439943/large.jpg?action=d&cat=photographs

...I can see a 20mm nestled just forward of "X" turret. The image is dated as being taken between the 15th to 17th October 1941. If the date for the image is correct, then the guns were there by the end of that year. Unfortunately the image isn't quite clear enough to determine if the guns fitted just aft of "B" turret on the bridge deckhouse are actually there. There does appear to be rise in the bulwark which might be evidence of guntub, but I don't see a gun. It's possible that the photo captures a time between the the 'tub being fitted and the gun mounted? She also has at least one (of two) Swordfish which was changed for two Walrus' in October '42:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234967914-swordfish-and-walrus-on-rn-battleships-and-battlecruisers/?hl=walrus

Information on the aircraft was kindly supplied by Graham Boak from Air Britain's "The Squadrons of the FAA".

So it seems that the photo's and the documents might contradict each other?

Mike.

A5920 shows that exact location and there is no 20mm hiding behind the bulwark there at that time.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205140115

R&R site the 4 Oerlikons additional to the first 11 Oerlikons in their plan on page 222-223, 2 either side of the aft deckhouse. Of these the one(s) you are talking about are more back against the after deckhouse so further forward than the location I think you are seeing "something" in A5900.

The only way to be certain would be to buy decent copies of A7491, A5462 or A5900 from the IWM. A7491 in particular should nail it.

Hello all,

I went through the whole thread and could only find these past replies as the only info that could help me so far.

Would anyone familiar with this class please explain what is wrong with Trumpeter's 1915 Warspite kit that would preclude me from building her or her other sisters in 1915-16 configuration? Aside from what was mentioned in the replies below.





If that request is too big a task, would someone then please point to me in the direction of what source is best to use for modelling the 4 Queen Elizabeth class battleships that were present with the 5th Battle Squadron at Jutland?

Ady wrote above that there were many individual differences between Warspite, Valiant, Malaya and Barham at Jutland but still hasn't replied to my PM to him about specifying these differences.

Would Shipcraft's book on the Queen Elizabeth class be of any help?

Thanks in advance to anyone who could help.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

It may just be me but looking at the photo of Malaya on page 141 of British Battleships 1919-1945 it seems Trumpeter missed off some of the 20mm tubs. There looks to be a row of three tubs beside the aft superstructure instead of the two depicted by Trumpeter and also a tub next to X barbette and a group of three at the stern instead of the one in the kit. Can anyone else see these or are my eyes just playing tricks on me?

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM

The differences are mainly in the searchlight positions as atma has said and in the bridge levels. The only reference I have is Burts british battleships 1919-1945 which has many line drawings of all ships in the class at different points in their career's and of the modifications to the bridge structures but doesn't show the differences in 1916. All the ships had different mods and at different points so it hard to work out the individual appearances at Jutland. The main differnce between the kit and 1916 isnthe addition of the large "coffee pot" searchlight towers on the aft funnel.

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM

The following quote is from Burts BB of world war one.

"As built they were very much alike and were quite difficult to tell apart. Individual differences are as follows:

Queen Elizabeth: only unit completed withna sternwalk. 6in guns in casemates on main deck aft as completed. Lowest yard on foremast at starfish level below control top.

Warspite: Lowest yard on foremast at starfish level.

Valiant: Small control position on upper bridge. Lowest yard on foremast either at starfish or below heel of topmast.

Malaya: Small platform without searchlight, fitted very low on mainmast. Lowest yard on foremast very close below starfish.

Barham: Searchlight on upper bridge at foot of mast and on small platform low on mainmast. Flagpole fitted to top mast (fore). Lowest yard on fore mast as in QE.

1916-1917 Secondary control position added low on mainmast. Various alterations and distribution methods applied to searchlight systems. Barham: 36in lamp added on platform low on foremasr. Sl removed from sides of aft supertructure. One remounted on platfrom in centre, the other on platform low on tbe mainmast. 24in removed from upper bridgework, remounted port and starboard on forward superstructure. Malaya: Sl removed from middle bridge. After superstructure Sl redistributed as in Barham. QE: Sl ex middle bridge remounted port and starboard on superstructure abaft second funnel. Sl on aft superstructure raised on platform, one 36in lamp added on platform low on mainmast. Two 24in signaling lamps added on middle bridge. Valiant: Sl removed from lower bridge. Single 36in Sl mounted on B turret for use in conjunction with turret and night fighting experiments. Barham and Warspite fitted for towing kites. Sternwalk removed from QE. Maintopmast removed in all except QE. Very long forward struts in Valiant. Rangefinder baffles fitted to one or both topmasts."

Hope that helps.

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM

Wow. A great big THANK YOU to Ady for taking the time to be very specific in noting the individual differences between members of this class during World War One.

I had better find this Burts BB book since it seems like a great reference.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

As far as I know R A Burts British battleships of wwI and 1919-1945 are the best references for British BB's and I was about to say they are not exactly cheap but on checking amazon you can get them now for around £30 each instead of the £45 I paid. Well worth getting though!

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM