The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: HMS Royal Sovereign
PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2728
Location: UK
It would be nice to have the R class ships in plastic!

I feel I should point out that it is only in the last few years that non-Japanese ships have regularly begun to be produced in 1/350 and 1/700 scales.

Trumpeter is the company that has led the way in this area and they deserve much credit for truly carving out a market for something nobody else bothered with.

Even the Queen Elizabeth's and the US battleships built in the 1920s are quite recent kits. So hopefully they will continue to add more and more over the next year or so.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Royal Sovereign
PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: England
Well, the R class didn't change appearance much during the war so the HP kits are good starting points. You can ignore what year is printed on the box, do a little bit of research, maybe buy some AA guns or small fittings that were different, and you can have anything you want.

Or you could really go nuts with the Trumpeter QE kits:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

That's WWI, but I see no reason that kind of conversion wouldn't work for a WWII fit R class using possibly the Barham kit as a starting point.

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Royal Sovereign
PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:21 pm
Posts: 9
Thanks guys, all great comments. Just to point out I have done alot if research, and still come up blank regarding the aa positioning, which is the only change really during the war (apart from removal if her forward 6 inch casemate guns).

Now there are some great photographs of her leaving the Delaware which show her layout really well. But only a few (not great quality) of her before.

Here is how she was changed.

December 1939: Funnel cap added
May-June 1941: Quad machine guns removed. 10 single 20mm added.
August -October 1941: 2 quadruple 2 pounder pom poms added
January-October 1943: Deck armour increases, 14 single and 6 twin 20mm guns added. Radars added.

So here is my problem. Anything before 1943 you have to have 14 less single 20mm guns. But which ones to not add? Which ones were added in 1941? Where were they?

I suppose I could just do her even earlier and just have the quad machine guns, that would be easier!! Haha.

_________________
Current Builds:

1 350 HMS Duke of York 1943
1 700 HMS Malaya 1941
1 350 Belfast 1943
1 700 Warspite 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Royal Sovereign
PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2296
except for the 25.25" scale feet difference between the 2 classes as the qe class is longer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Royal Sovereign
PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:15 am
Posts: 564
Location: England
Dave29 wrote:
Thanks guys, all great comments. Just to point out I have done alot if research, and still come up blank regarding the aa positioning, which is the only change really during the war (apart from removal if her forward 6 inch casemate guns).

Now there are some great photographs of her leaving the Delaware which show her layout really well. But only a few (not great quality) of her before.

Here is how she was changed.

December 1939: Funnel cap added
May-June 1941: Quad machine guns removed. 10 single 20mm added.
August -October 1941: 2 quadruple 2 pounder pom poms added
January-October 1943: Deck armour increases, 14 single and 6 twin 20mm guns added. Radars added.

So here is my problem. Anything before 1943 you have to have 14 less single 20mm guns. But which ones to not add? Which ones were added in 1941? Where were they?

I suppose I could just do her even earlier and just have the quad machine guns, that would be easier!! Haha.


The HP kit depicts the Royal Sovereign with a total of 8 single six inch guns, 4 twin four inch guns, 2 eight barrel and 2 quad pompoms, 14 twin 20mm and 14 single 20mm guns. The superstructure is awkward to fit together and the instructions don't help much. I have the twin 20mm guns on order from 3d model parts and will possibly use some etch single 20mm guns, the four inch and pompoms were WEM resin ones that I had stockpiled and the barrels for the 15 and 6 inch guns were from Master. I'll be using some spare etch bits off other kits. If you want to backdate the Royal Sovereign the easiest way would be to use the HP Royal Sovereign as a start, as the superstructure and hull details had many differences between the 5 ships.

thanks
Mike


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
Camouflage pattern/colors of Soviet BB "Arkhangelsk" (ex- HMS Royal Sovereign)


Am trying to paint a faithful representation of Arkhangelsk as she was in early 1945, less than a year in Soviet service from her handover the previous year. Bit of an oddball here. It's best explained in the photos I've uploaded.


There was a source in Russian saying that her new Russian crew repainted the ship while still in Great Britain before departing to Murmansk. However, photos show that the camouflage Arkhangelsk has after reaching Murmansk, is the same as HMS Royal Sovereign's camouflage scheme from 1942. The only difference seems to be that they gave the gun barrels a dark halve and a light halve.

I can find references to a "three tone" light grey/medium/dark grey color scheme painted by the Soviets in 1944, and another which referred to a "bone yellow" color. There is an old model on Model Ships Gallery showing the ship in (image below) 1942/1943 camouflage with an eclectic palette of tan and olive. However the modeller doesn't remember a source, and believes it could be that they just hypothesised the colors or painted as they fancied.

I've trawled Russian forums as well and nobody really knows. I want to be absolutely sure of what colors and scheme Arkhangelsk had, for a model diorama I'm working on. Does anyone have any books on the matter and can shed light on this mystery?


Also, fun fact: Arkhangelsk isn't a very well known ship. Most sources that you read about it (think like the short blurbs of a ships history that accompany model kit instructions) will gloss over the finer points and retell an epic tale of Arkhangelsk being crucial to the Soviet navy and escorting and overseeing the safe passage of many Murmansk convoys. But that's where the fairytale ends. Apparently, the only convoy she ever accompanied was when just after she left service as Royal Sovereign and made her maiden voyage up North. From thereon in Arkhangelsk was a port queen, a fleet in being. There was never another escort duty. Not even fire support/shore bombardment against the Germans. In 1945 she took to the ocean for some sea trials but that's about it. She was returned to Great Britain in poor condition - main turrets were jammed on their barbettes, indicating Arkhangelsk hadn't had her guns exercised in years.


Attachments:
File comment: HMS Royal Sovereign in her first wartime camouflage, 1940
gettyimages-488249191-1024x1024.jpg
gettyimages-488249191-1024x1024.jpg [ 259.92 KiB | Viewed 2299 times ]
File comment: HMS Royal Sovereign in her new camouflage, 1942/43
sov.png
sov.png [ 128.04 KiB | Viewed 2299 times ]
File comment: This is the same ship, wearing the same camouflage but flying the Soviet flag, 1944. Notice the camouflage looks quite weathered. We assume this is still the 1942 paintjob.
ARK1.jpg
ARK1.jpg [ 271.49 KiB | Viewed 2299 times ]
File comment: This photo is purportedly of Russian sailors repainting the Arkhangelsk during handover, still in Great Britain before departing to Barents Sea.
ARK2.jpg
ARK2.jpg [ 50.36 KiB | Viewed 2299 times ]
File comment: Arkhangelsk, date unknown, presumably 1944 shortly after handover (looks like Kola scenery in the background). Notice the two tone color scheme on the forward gun barrels, which the sailors were painting in the previous photo. Her paint looks fresh.
ARK10.jpg
ARK10.jpg [ 47.39 KiB | Viewed 2299 times ]
File comment: This photo shows no Soviet or British ensign, but shows the exact same camouflage in previous photo when she was officially Arkhangelsk and stationed in Kola. Note, the forward gun barrels do not have that two tone color scheme anymore. We assume this photo therefore is of Royal Sovereign, perhaps around handover, doing sea trials off Great Britain with its new Soviet crew
ARK4.jpg
ARK4.jpg [ 65.36 KiB | Viewed 2299 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 293
A minor point: the barrels of ROYAL SOVEREIGN's main armament were painted with dark upper halves and light lower halves much earlier than the handover to the Soviet Navy. Photos such as one on the Imperial War Museum website (Ref FL18403), taken as she left the USA after her 1942-43 refit, show her thus.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
tjstoneman wrote:
A minor point: the barrels of ROYAL SOVEREIGN's main armament were painted with dark upper halves and light lower halves much earlier than the handover to the Soviet Navy. Photos such as one on the Imperial War Museum website (Ref FL18403), taken as she left the USA after her 1942-43 refit, show her thus.


Yes, good catch. But in the "sailors painting" photo, they are working on Turret A. The IWM photo shows only Turret B with the two-tone scheme at that point. We must also note in the Philadelphia photo the trunked funnel cap wasn't painted black yet.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
About to begin my Arkhangelsk. I am still investigating the colours on Royal Sovereign's camouflage from 1943 refit. Interestingly, the HP Models 1/700 Royal Sovereign (1943) includes the sand/tan colour. Attached is the only photo I could find of their scheme, it is very low resolution and hard to make out. I wonder if HP Models have a source for that. It looks much better than the Adams Family black/white/grey dazzle that I originally thought was sported by Royal Sovereign.

I got the book on Royal Sovereign by Peter C. Smith. It's lacking in technical data but seems like a nice read so far, learning about life on board. Her story after transfer to USSR is sparse but that is to be expected.

I picked up another Arkhangelsk kit, which I want to build as Ramillies. For both ships I'm making use of the photoetch designed for these 1/500 kits. I would like my Ramillies to have its X turret catapult complete with a plane, just to make her and Arkhangelsk differ more. But according to photos of her later in the war the plane and catapult were removed from Ramillies. Does anyone know what year that was in?


Attachments:
images1LWEIT04.jpg
images1LWEIT04.jpg [ 5.76 KiB | Viewed 2168 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2296
was supposedly removed 1938, check last paragraph in link. https://www.world-war.co.uk/bb/rs_class.php3


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:50 am
Posts: 344
Location: roma, italia
some foto and drawing of rs/arch
some page from a russian booklet on camouflage
ciao peppe


Attachments:
File comment: foto colorized, middle gray alternative to sand
archangelsk 6.jpeg
archangelsk 6.jpeg [ 69.64 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
Archangelsk 5.jpg
Archangelsk 5.jpg [ 158.8 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
Archangelsk 4.jpg
Archangelsk 4.jpg [ 175.45 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
Archangelsk 3.jpg
Archangelsk 3.jpg [ 201.39 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
File comment: from a polish revue with a sand colour
Archangelsk 2.jpg
Archangelsk 2.jpg [ 190.48 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
File comment: under english flag but guns pictrd
Archangelsk 1.jpeg
Archangelsk 1.jpeg [ 359.42 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
к-003r.jpg
к-003r.jpg [ 99.21 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
к-001r.jpg
к-001r.jpg [ 105.46 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
к-004r.jpg
к-004r.jpg [ 145.54 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
Wow. Cool, peppe. Thank you for sharing! But I don't understand. Was it only tan on starboard side? What is this "polish revue"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:50 am
Posts: 344
Location: roma, italia
the tan is also on the funnel and on the bridge
they are 4 polish review on naval argument using this kind of profile, i don't rimember where i find it. they are okrety wojenne, morza staty i okrety, okrety and morze
ciao peppe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:18 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 903
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
I'd be surprised to learn that Royal Sovereign was painted i anything remotely like a "sand" or "tan" colour in 1943 under the Royal Navy.

Given the appalling state of neglect we received her back from Russia in, I'd be equally surprised to learn they'd bothered to paint her at all.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2296
don't think she was repainted when the RN got the ship back in Feb 1949 was sent to be scrapped in May that year. https://www.world-war.co.uk/bb/royal_sovereign.php3


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
SovereignHobbies wrote:
I'd be surprised to learn that Royal Sovereign was painted i anything remotely like a "sand" or "tan" colour in 1943 under the Royal Navy.

Given the appalling state of neglect we received her back from Russia in, I'd be equally surprised to learn they'd bothered to paint her at all.


They at least repainted her before return to Britain. On her return to Britain in 1949, compare to the destroyer escort, Arkhangelsk was painted an all over dark grey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1yfDyo5L7U

I know the Soviets painted one or two of their ships (a Kirov class cruiser and a destroyer I believe) using the tan colour in WW2, in combination with olive/khaki. These camouflages formed the basis for the Russian video game World of Warships in which this olive/tan scheme is utilised on some in-game ships. See attached picture. That ship in question is unrelated to what I'm talking about, but the camouflage theme is historically based.

So the case for the Soviets giving Arkhangelsk a tan accent, is not entirely unfeasible. Also refer to my previous post with pictures. The last picture shows HMS Royal Sovereign after her 1943 refit/painting. Note her gun barrels are all grey. Then refer to the 1944 photo flying the Soviet flag - her gun barrels are two tone dark and light, a result of the paintwork by the sailors in preceding picture. So perhaps at the handover in 1944, while still in Britain, the new Soviet crew instead of completely repainting a new camouflage scheme, they merely spruced her up by doing the gun barrels and painting some elements of the hull and superstructure with the tan colour.


Attachments:
LP8vlxk.jpg
LP8vlxk.jpg [ 14.77 KiB | Viewed 2041 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:30 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 903
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
I don't think the gun barrels prove anything. It was standard practise in the Royal Navy to counter-shade barrels by painting the lower portion in a very light tone to avoid excess shadow. Most mid-late war photographs of ships in RN service show this feature too. It can't be considered as evidence of a soviet repaint.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
SovereignHobbies wrote:
I don't think the gun barrels prove anything. It was standard practise in the Royal Navy to counter-shade barrels by painting the lower portion in a very light tone to avoid excess shadow. Most mid-late war photographs of ships in RN service show this feature too. It can't be considered as evidence of a soviet repaint.


I've ordered the RN battleship camouflage book by Malcolm George Wright. According to an Amazon review even the Arkhangelsk is covered in his book. I'd rather support the author and have the book on my shelf than ask for scans, and it will help me with possible future projects, including HMS Ramillies. This book should be definitive enough to settle on whatever he nominates as the Arkhangelsk camouflage, though I predict it's still the same 1943 3-tone grey dazzle that Royal Sovereign had.

A pity that Ramillies had her aircraft handling equipment removed in 1938 before the war. I would have liked to make use of the catapult and crane parts in Peter Hall's photoetch set for this class.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2485
All the patterns I know well are wrong in that book as well as most of the colours, so good luck with that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
EJFoeth wrote:
All the patterns I know well are wrong in that book as well as most of the colours, so good luck with that.


Oh really, that's nice, thanks I guess?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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