The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun May 20, 2018 12:35 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 430 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 422
Location: England
Since Dan seems to be dormant, let me chip in. The only serious debate in the past has been whether Repulse had 6 or 8 Oerlikons. Having reviewed all the available photos in various books, online and at the IWM I came to the conclusion she carried only 6 despite the official return CB 01815B saying she carried 8.

The platform high on the aft superstructure/low on the aft mast just above the searchlights was the location of two quad 0.5 MGs. I would be very interested to see the photo Christian refers to showing anything different in this area.

This account by one of her professional Gunners confirms the number of Oerlikons as 6 and 0.5" as 4:

http://www.warship.org/no11986.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 967
Location: Cologne / Germany, sometimes Poznan/ Poland and Chessington/ UK
Hi all ... sorry for the huge delay, but I was more as busy and sent to France because a tax Audit in our plant.

However, I tried to found this damned picture showing the 7. Oerlikon on the mast platform, but I failed. :heh:

Sure and more as confirmed by a bunch of photos are 6 x 20mm Oerlikons as told and written before. Trumpeter wants to set too much of them on Repulse ... aside the other errors as at rear deck house for example.

_________________
The advantage of wisdom is that you can play dumb; conversely, it is more difficult.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:26 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Ady wrote:
Chatfield wrote:
Project HMS Repulse at the time of her sinking in Dec 1941 in 1/700.

Which is my best starting point as the Tamiya kit has issues which although fixed by the Admiralty Modelworks kit make it a very expensive kit at £30 for the model and £54 for the upgrade plus PE, etc, etc, etc.

Is the Trumpeter version more accurate or the same?



Less so. I would give it a miss and stick with the Tamiya kit.


Hello Ady,

Would you please be more specific about the issues with 1/700 Trumpeter Repulse kit? Aside from the turrets issue which can be rectified by an Admiralty modelworks set.

Most of the previous posts on the Repulse at this thread are about the 1/350 version, and there isn't a review of the Trumpeter 1/700 Repulse yet in our reviews section.

Unless Trumpeter merely copied this kit from Tamiya?

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

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:21 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Puck, Poland
Haijun watcher wrote:

Hello Ady,

Would you please be more specific about the issues with 1/700 Trumpeter Repulse kit? Aside from the turrets issue which can be rectified by an Admiralty modelworks set.

Most of the previous posts on the Repulse at this thread are about the 1/350 version, and there isn't a review of the Trumpeter 1/700 Repulse yet in our reviews section.

Unless Trumpeter merely copied this kit from Tamiya?


Hi,
let me answer this question at least partially.
Trumpeter lacks external degaussing cable and has messed up weapon range; lacks one pair of quadruple 0,50" Maxim MG's (the one that should be around main mast) and has too much of Oerlikons on board. It is also equipped with Hotchkiss salute guns that were removed from the ship in 1939. Those are issues that I've spotted, having Trumpeter kit and comparing it with Stefan Dramiński's research on HMS Repulse.
Plus, Tamiya's detail seems far more delicate than that of Trumpeter,it has an overall better appearance. On the other hand, Trumpeter kit comes with many weapons not used in 1941 versions, such as already mentioned salute guns or additional, fourth triple mount of 4" guns, that was on board until November 1940, so in my opinion it is easier to backdate than Tamiya.

I plan to build my Trumpeter Repulse in either 1939 or 1936 version and there goes my question: are there any pictures or plans of 4" QF Mk XV guns in BD (between decks) version available? This experimental variant was on Repulse from 1924 to 1938/39.

Cheers,
Filip

_________________
To all kits manufacturers reading this:
kindly requested are plastic HMS Lion in any scale, and Kinugasa in 1:350.

Thanks in advance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 849
Location: EN83
Fivi_1241 wrote:

Trumpeter lacks external degaussing cable and has messed up weapon range; lacks one pair of quadruple 0,50" Maxim MG's (the one that should be around main mast) and has too much of Oerlikons on board. It is also equipped with Hotchkiss salute guns that were removed from the ship in 1939.

Fourth triple mount of 4" guns, that was on board until November 1940, so in my opinion it is easier to backdate than Tamiya.


Backdating the Tamiya kit is also made easier due to its retention of the 4-in. BD gun houses, where Trumpeter's kit does not.

Also: The original 4" triple mounting at #3 position (on the aft island structure) was landed by February 1941, when an octuple pompom replaced it during a brief winter refit.


Quote:
I plan to build my Trumpeter Repulse in either 1939 or 1936 version and there goes my question: are there any pictures or plans of 4" QF Mk XV guns in BD (between decks) version available? This experimental variant was on Repulse from 1924 to 1938/39.


Just to clarify, these 4" BD weapons and gun houses were added during the ship's 1933-1936 modernization, and removed during Repulse's 1938-39 Portsmouth refit. This refit also saw the ship equipped for service as Royal Yacht, for 1939's planned Royal Tour to Canada and the US.

Filip, please contact me via PM if you'd like more on 4" BD mountings...

--Dan


Last edited by RNfanDan on Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10376
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Photo from EBay of HMS Repulse receiving modifications in preparation for the Royal Tour of Canada shortly before the war. Originally posted by Admiral John Byng in the main forum:


Attachments:
repulse.jpg
repulse.jpg [ 139.43 KiB | Viewed 1829 times ]

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 511
Thank you Timmy C. The beauty of this photo shows that The new gun-houses were constructed prior to Repulse receiving her wood decks. It is very unlikely that the gun houses would have painted steel decks above, obviously they would have wood on top. Since the primary reason for wood decks is insulation.
It's a mistake many of the after-market products got wrong.
John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 849
Location: EN83
JCRAY wrote:
The beauty of this photo shows that The new gun-houses were constructed prior to Repulse receiving her wood decks.


Hmmm....I don't know how the new shelter's construction, in and of itself, relates to wood-planked decks. There is photographic evidence to establish the presence of wood covering Repulse's upperdeck, with the exception of areas immediately abaft the aircraft hangar structure and the bow (from the capstans forward), from at least 1936.

Am I misunderstanding your statement, John?

--Dan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 511
I was speaking about the deck above the royal apartments. Many models are done with painted steel decks there. Very few photos are in circulation showing the reconstruction and the proper outline of one of the reconstructed deck house.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 849
Location: EN83
JCRAY wrote:
I was speaking about the deck above the royal apartments. Many models are done with painted steel decks there.


Thank you John, for clarifying that! :thumbs_up_1:

The question of whether or not the starboard deck house roof was planked has been a nagging grey area (no pun intended) for years. I can state --with a great deal of confidence-- that it was NOT planked externally, at least as of the ship's emergence from its long Portsmouth refit and royal yacht modifications (autumn 1938 to early 1939). That doesn't necessarily mean that the structure lacked thermal insulation, which may have been added internally.

From what few reasonably clear photographs and film clips I have studied seem to reveal, I'd postulate that if the starboard deck house may have been overlaid with teak or other wood planking, but only later; likely after WWII began.

I base this on the fact that, as of February 1941, Repulse was ordered to paint into what became her first Admiralty Disruptive scheme. That order apparently called for the painting of horizontal surfaces as well as vertical ones, within the designated "dark" patterned areas. If the new starboard deck house structure was overlaid with wood, it seems probable that it would have been painted or stained in compliance with that CAFO, long before the ship proceeded to Singapore. This is further supported by aerial photographs--though they seem scarce--and the few I have found on the internet and in published books, are rather poor in quality.

<><><>
The time frame within which a modeler chooses to depict Repulse impacts the subject of planked areas. I'd caution modelers too, that there are many erroneous and/or incomplete painting references to be found in both print and electronic media, and care should be taken to study-up before choosing any of the ship's post-1935 paint schemes. This applies to both wartime and pre-WW2 periods.

I welcome PMs from any modeler seriously considering a Repulse project, irrespective of format or scale.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 511
I found my copy of ENSIGN 8 by Maurice P. Northcott printed in Great Britain in 1978 by:
Battle of Britan Prints International Ltd.
3 New Plaistow Road.,
London E15 3JA England.

I wish I could have found my book earlier.
There are also several rarely seen views, (like the one posted) of the reconstructed starboard deckhouse under construction. Obviously, they would have decked the rear gun houses at the same time , unless you can think of some reason for them not to?

Thanks, John


Last edited by JCRAY on Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10376
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Posting these photos mentioned in the previous post on behalf of JCRAY:


Attachments:
IMG_3845.JPG
IMG_3845.JPG [ 1.17 MiB | Viewed 1180 times ]
IMG_3846.JPG
IMG_3846.JPG [ 1002.33 KiB | Viewed 1180 times ]

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 849
Location: EN83
JCRAY wrote:
Obviously, they would have decked the rear gun houses at the same time , unless you can think of some reason for them not to?

Thanks, John


Hi again, John!

When the ship left the yards after its winter 1938/39 refit and modifications, its planned duty to serve as royal yacht to Their Majesties had already been called off. As a result, several Several alterations (I believe these are described in the Raven & Roberts British Battleships of World War Two book) that were to have been done --in plainly visible areas-- were not undertaken. One of these included wood planking to be laid down over the steel deck in an area of the upper aft superstructure. Another was to temporarily land one of Repulse's triple 4-inch mountings.

Daylight aerial photographs of the ship were taken as she left the yards upon completion of the long refit and dry-docking, probably to undergo post-refit "contractors trials". In at least two of those aerial photographs, the ship is seen with a lashed-down boat stowed rather awkwardly abaft her starboard hangar, and a Swordfish floatplane parked a bit further to port in that area. Her decks appear to be somewhat cluttered, and there seems fewer visible crew out on deck than usual.

In addition, there appear to be no Red or White Ensigns visible at their respective staffs and yet, the triple 4-inch mounting that was to have been landed to permit a "sun deck" for the Royals is plainly in place, where it had been for more than 20 years. This mounting may never have been landed. All these clues suggest that Repulse was not yet fully "RN" at the time she was photographed, firmly establishing the images as dating to a after her refit.

Most telling however, can be very clearly seen wood-covered decks most everywhere they should be, EXCEPT on both the aforementioned upper-aft superstructure and the new starboard deckhouse/gun deck. These areas stand in contrast (much darker) to the "brighter" wooden decking, especially in the immediate vicinity surrounding the new deck house on three sides.

Wherever horizontal surfaces should appear dark grey, aft of the ship's catapult break, they do--and where known to be planked in natural wood decking, those areas are consistently brighter. I do not have anything more definite, unfortunately, but what I have seen in these images does not support the presence of wood covering the starboard gun deck/royal apartments roof.

I am more than happy to be proven wrong, of course! :smallsmile:

--Dan

_________________
:no_2: Danny DON'T "waterline"...!


Last edited by RNfanDan on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 511
Can you provide a link or tell me where these images may be viewed? Mr Northcott also states :"Most of these modifications had already been carried out when it was apparent that the Royal Tour would be shelved. As a result, the triple 4-inch mount was refitted but the 4-inch twin BD positions were replaced by single 4-inch H/A weapons. I realise it says nothing about wood decks except that these weapons were removed to provide sun-decks for the royals. "Steel sundecks?"
I look forward to seeing these images.
Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 849
Location: EN83
MOST of the work was indeed, completed--except, apparently, for the royals' sun deck modifications. The deck where this was to be built was mostly wood-covered already, but if and when the triple gun was removed, so was its steel support column. The hole left from its removal was to be plated over and presumably wood decking added over the filler plate, according to my old (1982) notes made from the R&R book. The shelter deck planking in my photo matches the other wood-planked areas.

The sun-deck was also to have had light structures added, similar to that done to HMS Renown during one of that ship's Empire Tours. Photos can be found on the www. showing Renown's "sun deck" equivalent. This work was apparently not done or, if it was, it had to be "un-done" before the 4-inch triple mounting could be refitted.

As for the old gun houses, the experimental twin 4-inch weapons installed during Repulse's 1933-1936 modernization proved not entirely successful, so it was apparently decided they would not be refitted (again, in my notes for making a historically-accurate model, at that time). There were 4-inch single guns available, suggested even before the royal yacht refit entered the equation.
Whatever the case, I cannot prove that both existing BD gun houses would have remained as they were, but it seems VERY unlikely the starboard one would have been demolished, had the need for constructing the starboard staff apartments not arisen. There seems little room elsewhere in the aft area of the ship to install medium-calibre H/A gun replacements and may have been the only reasonable alternative at the time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 511
I think you can see what is most likely the circular mounting ring on the uncovered steel deck in front of the doorway to the starboard deck-house. They will box out the roof joists and weld it in it's desired location.
It is a simple matter to cover it with the wood deck till you want to mount the 4".
Once again I would like to see those photos you mentioned, so could you post a link or tell me where we could view them?
Thanks! John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10376
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Posted on behalf of JCRAY, to whom Andrew F had sent these:


Attachments:
repulse drawing 1.jpg
repulse drawing 1.jpg [ 194.77 KiB | Viewed 906 times ]
repulse drawing 2.jpg
repulse drawing 2.jpg [ 213.01 KiB | Viewed 906 times ]

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 511
Andrew F sent me these drawings that were given to him by John Roberts a Noted naval authority who was part of the team that examined the POW & REPULSE wrecks. Their report can be found by Google.
Andrew's model is spectacular and is in our Gallery here.

p.s. I should point out that sketch is inaccurate slightly because there is an offset between the rear of the deckhouse and the rear of the starboard gun-house. That offset is visible in the rebuild photos.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6270
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Gallery entries added to the first (and second) posts in this topic.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 849
Location: EN83
JCRAY wrote:
p.s. I should point out that sketch is inaccurate slightly because there is an offset between the rear of the deckhouse and the rear of the starboard gun-house. That offset is visible in the rebuild photos.


You are correct, sir! :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 430 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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

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