Calling all HMS Repulse & Renown fans

[Dave Martin]

Hi Dan
I had wondered what had happened to your graphics on page 1.

Pavel at Admiralty modelworks has proposed a correction set for the 1/350 kit along the lines of the existing one he already does for Tamyia's 1/700 kit.

He has posted a request on steelnavy for ideas as to what else he should include.

Hi,

In order to provide a good upgrade set, I would like to ask all of you who have the 1/350 Repulse and plan on getting the upgrade set to look at the kit and make suggestions.

We will be providing the following for sure:
Shelter Deck
Flying Deck
All ships boats (lets face it, the kit ones are not up to snuff).
Ships Crest.

Now, the question is, as the 1/700 and 1/350 kits are different and I do not wish to just do a set, what else would you like to see?

Suggestions are:

15" Gun turrets
15" Brass Barrels
Carley Floats


Thank you for your help, we may be contacted at Admiraltymodels@aol.com

Pavel @ The Admiralty



Perhaps you might like to peruse his post in case there is anything else which may be uiseful.

Dave

[masch3]

I am thinking, what would be the possibilities to backdate the Trumpeter Repulse to her pre-war fit or even WWI fit??

[RNfanDan]

...what would be the possibilities to backdate the Trumpeter Repulse to her pre-war fit or even WWI fit??

Backdating the model to depict Repulse in her post-modernization appearance (1936) up to October 1938, requires leaving the existing gunhouses mainly as provided by Trumpeter. The supplied 4-inch AA singles located atop these gunhouses would need to be replaced by twin 4" BD mountings. The kit-supplied #3 pompom on the flying-deck should be replaced as well, with a 4-inch triple mounting for any period prior to early 1941.

Some minor alterations to the flying-deck and island shelter would also be needed, mainly to remove the ventilator extensions and (possibly) correct the detailing of the guncrew shelter and some of the fittings beneath the flying-deck with a bit of scratchbuilding work--nothing too difficult from what I have seen so far (although I do not actually own the kit yet).

No 20mm AA was carried until very late in 1941, so any existing splinter tubs, footings, etc. for these weapons would need to be blanked or left off--including the locations either side of the forward director/rangefinder and those on "Y" turret roof. The 284 radar should be omitted, the seaplanes replaced (if desired to be displayed) with earlier types (either Sharks or Swordfish, depending on the retro-date chosen) and, if the kit includes it, 286 search radar omitted.

A second starboard anchor and limited cabling were also present before 1939, which should be added for accuracy (there was no third capstan/windlass for this, however). For 1936 only, the gash chutes on the ship's sides (immediately abaft the upperdeck 4"single mountings) and their protective mantlets, which are supplied with the kit, must also be omitted and new, unprotected chutes fabricated (or purchased) and installed, several feet forward of the 4"AA positions. For 1937 onward, this modification is not applicable.

The workshop roof (between the funnels) was fitted with cradles and carried spare seaplane floats until 1941 when Walrus seaplanes were embarked; no Carleys were stowed there until this happened, so any prior configuration should include this modification to the kit. Between 1936 and 1939, minor changes to the number and location of Carley floats were made, as well as paravane/boat booms and their locations. Ship's boats varied slightly in number and location as well, during this period.

For the ship's 1938 Spanish Neutrality Patrol/Mediterranean commission "B" turret was painted, as per nominal RN practice, with red, white and blue aerial recognition stripes. From her 1933-36 reconstruction until 1939, Repulse was mainly painted in overall very light grey (close to 507c, if not that exact color).

For 1939 and 1940 builds, the kit's existing gunhouses and flying-deck/island shelter need to be altered, but the ventilator extensions remain as provided. The second starboard anchor was also gone by then; otherwise, many of the aforementioned details apply as above, i.e. workshop roof, radars, weapons, etc.

All in all, many year-by-year differences make for a fairly good range of possibilities; however, and to address the second part of your question, the work involved to backdate the kit to a WW1 configuration would be very extensive, requiring significant changes in the hull, as well as a complete overhaul of the superstructure.

[Simon_Hwood]

Please tell me that I am wrong, but looking at the review over on the Modelshipwrghts, the Hull moulding appears to have Renown style external bulges, and the shape of the external armour, especially towards the stern appears dubious.

http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/mo ... nt&id=4242

I hope it is my dodgy eyesight, but if my interpretation of the pics is right, I think could sort the external armoured belt out, but the bulge is going to be a real swine to remove, probably well beyond my meagre skills. I really hope I am wrong & making a fool of myself by asking, but at the moment it is putting me off buying the kit, as i don't think i could live with it I don't have the skills, or confidence to try & put it right.

many thanks

[RNfanDan]

Q1 did the Repulse have the same main guns as the Hood?

Yes, the guns themselves were the same, 15" 42 cal. Mk I.

i have a few extra turned brass ones from my hood kit and would like to use them

If accurate, and I presume they are, they should work---but you will want to pay attention to their internal attachment points within the turrets. This is because there may be a difference in both the depth and height of the attachment points between the Hood kit's turrets and those supplied with Repulse (the turrets, themselves were not the same on both ships).

In other words, you don't want the barrels to "stick out" too far from the turret, nor be attached so deeply within the turret that they don't extend far enough. As well, you should check that the mounting centers for the barrels are vertically correct. You may or may not have to install some kind of base piece within the turret to accomodate these aims (no pun intended). Other than these, there should be no reasons not to use the brass barrels you already have.

I cannot address your second question about the color, as I have not seen the Trumpeter document.

[MartinJQuinn]

Please tell me that I am wrong, but looking at the review over on the Modelshipwrghts, the Hull moulding appears to have Renown style external bulges, and the shape of the external armour, especially towards the stern appears dubious.

http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/mo ... nt&id=4242

I hope it is my dodgy eyesight, but if my interpretation of the pics is right, I think could sort the external armoured belt out, but the bulge is going to be a real swine to remove, probably well beyond my meagre skills. I really hope I am wrong & making a fool of myself by asking, but at the moment it is putting me off buying the kit, as i don't think i could live with it I don't have the skills, or confidence to try & put it right.

many thanks

Phil Reeder is building one here. The pictures he's posted of his in progress build might better answer your questions.

[Simon_Hwood]

Thanks for the link Martin, excellent build.

The Kit hull definitely does look like it has external bulges extending above the waterline, the thing is, are they correct?, because I cannot make them out on any photographs I have seen of the ship.

It looks a great kit, but I have always like contrast of the sleek unbulged / tripod fortop look of Repulse and the more sqaut, bulged purposeful look of the Renown, and if those bulges are wrong then I am afraid the kit does not do it for me.

I hate being negative, but if they Trumpy are going to produce a Renown in 1/350th will they use the same hull a la Richlieu / Jean Bart. cos the 1/700th hull looks good.

any comments would be veyr welcome.

Si

[Andrew F]

I am now of the opinion that the ship also never carried 20mm "waist" guns just abaft the catapult on its upperdeck. I realize my opinion goes against almost every known drawing and model produced to date; however, keep in mind that most of these have been based on erroneous information, right along.

Hi Dan,

Here is a photo that I took of the Starboard 20mm gun aft of the deck house on Repulse. The "tub / shield" was lying on the sand below it. I looked but could not find any evidence of the 20mm that is meant to be forward of this near the catapult. The area is a bit of a mess with the crane and the mast splayed out on the sand but as I said, I could not find any evidence of it and I looked quite hard!

Repulse Starboard rear Oerlikon 2.jpg (94.12 KiB) Viewed 1328 times

Andrew

[RNfanDan]

Great photograph, Andrew--thanks for posting it. What a thrill it must be, to dive her wreck!

---D---

[Andrew F]

Thanks Dan,
It's quite a privilege to visit her and POW and even after more than 60 years she is still quite beautiful! We conducted hull surveys for her and POW for John Roberts in 2007 so have quite a bit of external video of both ships. Interestingly, despite the Japanese claims there is only one hit on the Starboard side and that is almost amidships.
POW also has far fewer hits than described but the hull is "indented" on both the port and starboard sides over a considerable distance.

I've just bought the Trumpeter 1:350 Repulse so keen to build her as she was when she sank..... if my OCD for correctness will allow me!

Andrew

The photo is of divers inspecting the hit on the starboard bulge on Repulse. It does not penetrate the inner hull. The hole is about 7m X 4m

[Pavel@TheAdmiralty]

Hi gang,

I just got the first of the Rapid Prototype parts I need to get the 1/350 update set done to fix the 1/350 Trumperter HMS Repulse kit to the correct 1941 fit.

See you at the USA NATS!!

Pavel

[chuck]

Thanks Dan,
It's quite a privilege to visit her and POW and even after more than 60 years she is still quite beautiful! We conducted hull surveys for her and POW for John Roberts in 2007 so have quite a bit of external video of both ships. Interestingly, despite the Japanese claims there is only one hit on the Starboard side and that is almost amidships.
POW also has far fewer hits than described but the hull is "indented" on both the port and starboard sides over a considerable distance.

I've just bought the Trumpeter 1:350 Repulse so keen to build her as she was when she sank..... if my OCD for correctness will allow me!

Andrew

The photo is of divers inspecting the hit on the starboard bulge on Repulse. It does not penetrate the inner hull. The hole is about 7m X 4m

Any explanation of indentation?

[Andrew F]

PoW stbd indentation.jpg (39.37 KiB) Viewed 969 times

A few suggestions have been put forward:
implosion damage,
bomb near misses
sympathetic torpedo explosions (hits were "seen" near by but there are no holes in the hull)
damage when she hit HMS Express as she began to roll over.

The yellow is the area that is indented, the white the actual torpedo holes we found. There is a similar, though less extensive indentation on the port side

The photos show a diver swimming along the "shelf" created by the indentation, the armour can be seen to his right with the floor of the WTC just below the diver..... the ship is of course inverted.
The red line on the plan shows how the hull now is pushed in compared to the original state.

The killer hit is of course near the Port outer shaft flange. This is now so opened up that a fully kitted diver can swim down the shaft alley!

Andrew

[Andrew F]

Thanks for the link Martin, excellent build.

The Kit hull definitely does look like it has external bulges extending above the waterline, the thing is, are they correct?, because I cannot make them out on any photographs I have seen of the ship.

It looks a great kit, but I have always like contrast of the sleek unbulged / tripod fortop look of Repulse and the more sqaut, bulged purposeful look of the Renown, and if those bulges are wrong then I am afraid the kit does not do it for me.


Si

Hi Simon,

I think the problem is where Trumpeter have put the waterline. They have obviously used the "low water line" on the plans as the point they have "cut" the hull matches exactly with that point. Repulse grew quite a bit in weight during her time and got rather deeper in the water. If you look at Raven & Roberts book, pages 214 you will see a water line corresponding to the top of the bulge. On page 365 you can just see the top of the bulge at the water level and within the black boot strap paint as well. The the low water line point corresponds to 25' hull depth (32' from the LWL to the deck at the fore-peak and 19' at the stern). After the 1921 rebuild the deep extreme waterline was at 31' at 37500 tons. After the 1936 rebuild the normal displacement was 38300 tons so the routine water line must be about 31-32'. The boot strap must therefore be at least 7' deep ~6mm on the model to be correct and would line up roughly with the bottom of 6" armour. If it is this deep then the position of the rear anchor will match the photos pretty well. Therefore to model her accurately as a water line model you would have to remove a considerable amount of material from the hull. This has settled the matter for me and I will do her as a full hull.

Andrew

[Andrew F]

Does anyone have some photos of the degaussing cable on Repulse? Is it attached in a similar way to the one on the Hood? i.e. can I use the Hood PE cable?

Thanks

Andrew

[oierlings]

Hi,
may I kindly ask you experts if British 4"/45 QF HA Mk XVI Barrels are the right barrels for the smaller guns ?
Regards,
Eric

[Gilbert]

Hi,
may I kindly ask you experts if British 4"/45 QF HA Mk XVI Barrels are the right barrels for the smaller guns ?
Regards,
Eric

Eric,
For her 4" Mk I, II triple mountings, the guns designation is 4"/45 BL Mk IX*. For her single mountings Mk III, 4"/45 QF Mk V

Cheers

Gilbert

[EJFoeth]

Which means that the barrel (4"/45 BL) is the same as the Mk numbering indicates the mount only?

[RNfanDan]

may I kindly ask ... if British 4"/45 QF HA Mk XVI Barrels are the right barrels for the smaller guns ?

No. The older Mk V guns, in a variety of mounting and breech variants, were the ones aboard Repulse (except in the experimental twin turrets she carried from 1936-1938). A pair of single Mk V guns in Mk IV mountings replaced these in 1939 and were still aboard the ship when she was lost.

The Mk XVI barrel had a distinctive "step" in its external profile, whereas the Mk V had a more or less continuous taper. Might be hard to hide this difference in a turned barrel of aluminium or brass.

[Gilbert]

No. The older Mk V guns, in a variety of mounting and breech variants, were the ones aboard Repulse (except in the experimental twin turrets she carried from 1936-1938).

Well, this is not what Alan Raven says in his "British Battleships..." book. See my post above regarding the triple turrets guns, he says they were 4"/45 BL Mk IX*.

Cheers

Gilbert