The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 882 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 ... 45  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:32 am 
Chuck,

I think that you'd better start doing some more serious photographic research than you seem to have done to date as a number of the answers that you are looking for are already "out" there.

This may help you: a very good series of photograph of the ship were taken by what I take to be the official photographer to John Brown as the ship was being completed. I believe that these are now in one of the Glasgow city archives, however, Maurice Northcott made good use of them when he wrote "HOOD, Design and Construction." This was an Ensign Special and published by Bivouac Books in 1975.

Using what references I have (Northcott), the following is taken from those photographs of the ship as completed.

a. The deck of the Boat or Shelter Deck did not extend to the ship's side, it did however, over hang the superstructure below it slightly and photographs show that some stanchions were fitted below it between P4 and P5 mountings on the port side. The same appears to apply to the starboard side but it is difficult to be sure as there is a large timber rack fitted inboard abaft S4 mounting.

b. It is clear from Northcott, that on completion, the screens of the superstructure inboard of the 5.5 mountings on both sides were painted the grey of the remainder of the hull. As these areas were "open," there would have been no need to attempt to lighten the paint scheme of the over-hang of the Shelter Deck.

c. One cannot see any of the doors that you are asking about in Northcott, however, because these were fitted to screens of the weather deck superstructures, I can't imagine that they would not have been W/T doors with clips.

d. Concerning what might be properly called the gun "galleries" for P/S 1 and 2 (ignoring the 5.5s fitted forward on the Shelter Deck). Northcott does not give any clear indication as to what tone the screens and deck-heads inside the galleries were painted though the images in his book seem to indicate that they were painted grey on completion. Painting the deck-head white later might make sense in order to lighten the gloom but when it would have been done, I cannot say. I would advise you to aim a question at the HOOD Website; which might be able to help. Note: there is evidence in Roberts and Raven's "British Battleships of World War 2" that some of the "Revenge" class battleships did paint the underside of their Shelter Decks white during the 20's and 30's but not all of them.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3238
Location: equidistant to everywhere
every photo I’ve seen showing the stanchions under the boat deck shows they were painted partially white, from maybe a foot above deck level upwards. this suggest to me the underside of the deck above might also have been painted white.

the reason why i though the doors on the midship deck houses between 5.5” might not be the heavy variety with dogs is much of the deck house abaft the funnels is devoted to the supernumerary functions such as ward room, officer accommodation. also they are considerably sheltered from the weather by the superstructure widening shelter deck on either end, and the solid bulwark outboard, and they are near midship so their watertight integrity is unlikely to matter in an damaged condition.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:08 am 
Chuck,

Re: First paragraph. If the stanchions during the period that you wish to model the ship were painted white with a grey "kicking strip," then paint them white/grey. The underside of the Shelter Deck may therefore have been painted white also, in which case you need to prove it by further research. I cannot help you with that but I warn you that if you take it to that extent, you are taking your research into area of "the last 2 and a half per cent." That is my expression for when the effort for finding the answer is more than the result is worth; which may not be available anyway!

I note what you say about the doors, however, it is obvious from photographs of other British warship of the period, that all doors fitted in the weather deck superstructures, whether apparently important to water-tight integrity or not, were water-tight "mit klips" (apologies for my cod German). These would also have had an additional important function post World War 1 in that they would also have been gas-tight.

Best wishes with your continued quest.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2642
Recently I’ve been discussing with Frank Allen of the official Hood website weather or not HMS Hood had corticine (or not) on her forward shelterdeck, i.e., the main deck where the bridge and funnels are situated. Here’s a small summary of our discussions and also; can anyone offer some additional insights of opinion? We more or less ended up with: no, we observe some pattern in a steel deck. Note: both corticene and corticine found but as I found references to “The Corticine Floor Covering Company” we’ll go with that spelling.

Attachment:
corticine_01.jpg
corticine_01.jpg [ 129.2 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

From McDermaid, Shipyard Pracice as applied to warship construction (1911)

McDermaid, “Shipyard Practice as applied to warship construction”, 1911, “The back of the corticine is covered with knotting, and along the edges galvanized strips 1 inch wide are worked, which are secured to the plating by metal screws (see figure), the plating under the corticine being first thoroughly cleaned and coated with an adhesive mixture of resin and tallow.”
“Butt straps are sometimes fitted to both thicknesses of the deck, those for the upper thickness being on top of the deck, and for the lower thickness on the under side, as in Fig. p. 50, but no butt straps are fitted on top of a deck on which corticine has to be laid.”

“Upper Deck. The portion of this deck outside the forecastle is planked, and where the plating is of a single thickness the edge strips can be worked continuously on top of the deck. When the deck is doubled the butt straps can be placed either on top or underneath the deck, or both, if special strength is required. Under the forecastle corticine is laid, and the plating must be flush, edge strips and butt straps being placed on the underside. As in the case in the case of main deck, special stringers are fitted in wake of barbettes.”

Manual of Seamanship, vol II, 1932, pp292 “On weather decks and magazine flats, the steel plating is sheathed with wood; in living spaces it is covered with corticene; in bathrooms it is tiled; elsewhere it is general left bare”

Attachment:
corticine_02.jpg
corticine_02.jpg [ 325.6 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

From Johnston, Clydebank Battlecruisers, HMAS Australia. A good example of corticene including the brass covering strips around not only the edges but basically all deck protrusions.



Attachment:
corticine_03.jpg
corticine_03.jpg [ 243.65 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

Hood's strip pattern is slighly similar and present all over the shelderdeck, also after modifications. From Anatomy of the ship: “The superstructure platforms, living spaces, lobbies, passages and store rooms were covered with corticene (a type of linoleum) glued to the deck and held down by brass strips. Other areas including the forward end of the shelter deck were plain steel although the flats below the upper deck were usually of chequered plating.”

Attachment:
corticine_04.jpg
corticine_04.jpg [ 323.26 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

HMS Hood, upper platform. Here a very smooth deck plus brass strips with an evenly spaced bolt pattern is observed.
Attachment:
corticine_05.jpg
corticine_05.jpg [ 310.49 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

Under construction. Decks partially wetting resulting in strong contrast differences. Superstructure decks show (faintly) brass strips. A strip pattern are clearly visible on the fwd shelter deck as well. (The larger strip in the bottom right corner is an expansion slot cover plate.

Attachment:
corticine_06.jpg
corticine_06.jpg [ 294.35 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

Here we see HMS Hood under construction showing the shelterdeck being laid; at right the first layer with a very regular holt pattern, at left the second deck layer is well underway.What is this white we observe? Some paint or?

Attachment:
corticine_07.jpg
corticine_07.jpg [ 344.25 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

Slightly later, the entire deck has been covered by a second layer of plating. The regular pattern both forward and aft well visible, matching the pattern in earlier pics (and pics below).

Attachment:
corticine_08.jpg
corticine_08.jpg [ 371 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

This closeup of the shelterdeck does not show a brass strip around the edges and the pattern in the deck as observed during construction is clearly visible. No riveting is visible in the deck plates either.

Attachment:
corticine_09.jpg
corticine_09.jpg [ 227.45 KiB | Viewed 1411 times ]

Again from McDermaid, many types or rivets can be used, several of them flush. McDermaid does comment that below wood decks the deck must first be faired. But what’s the purpose of these strips on Hood’s deck?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 9:53 am 
Re: EJ Foeth's Post of 6.38am 01 Nov.

Further reference should be made to the later publication by RN Newton RCNC: "Practical Construction of Warships published by Longmans in 1941. It later went in several subsequent editions.

Page 99 states that the edges of "corticene" (I will not argue the toss over the spelling but it is known to have been made in Kirkcaldy, Fife in Scotland) were protected by either galvanized iron or naval brass strips. A table of illustrations on Page 9 describes the galvanized edge strips for "linoleum" to be typically 1½ inch wide by ½ inch thick and of rounded section when applied to a rivetted structure: the brass strip may have been of a slightly different scantling. Newton also gives details of a slightly different adhesive mix to that of the quoted NJ McDermaid RCNC; which Newton was published as an up-date of, however, that is of no consequence here.

What one is looking at in the attachments to EJF's post are probably one of several finishes a. Painted galvanized strip (03, 05 and 08 jpg) b. Polished or buffed galvanized strip (04 jpg) and c Polished brass strip (02 jpg). It is of note that the finishes in b and c. are on the Flag Deck, where a measure of "bull and flannel" would have been required, with the men to effect it. Finish a appears to have been that used in the remainder where polishing was not felt necessary by the powers that be. I therefore assess that HMS HOOD did have corticene applied to the forward part of the Shelter Deck.

As a digression 03 jpg is of some interest in that it shows a wood spurn-water intended to keep unnecessary over spill of water off the corticene: the wood cladding of the deck intended as a measure of thermal insulation to the compartments below.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 289
chuck wrote:
every photo I’ve seen showing the stanchions under the boat deck shows they were painted partially white, from maybe a foot above deck level upwards. this suggest to me the underside of the deck above might also have been painted white.


Hi Chuck,

The support pillars did indeed have centre sections which were painted white, with the bottom and top segments being hull coloured. Here’s a shot from @1933-1935:
Image.
From what I’ve seen in various photos, the vertical bulkheads in the area would’ve been hull coloured with a darker strip along the bottom. I believe this would also include the “enclosed” forward gun positions before they were removed, but it’s honestly difficult to tell for certain because in most photos the area is in shadow. In the few that we do have that are onboard close-ups, it was from during her time with the Mediterranean fleet...and it’s difficult to discern 507C from white in some of these old b&w photos. That or the angle is such that the bulkheads cannot be seen.

As for the deck head in this area, it’s very difficult to tell from the photos that we have…again, the clearest of these are from her Mediterranean service…it’s the old 507C vs white problem again. Fortun, I did find a shot from 1933-35 which MAY show a lighter deck head:
Image
It’s hard to say with 100% certainty though (glare, etc).

I also have an April 1941 shot of the port side area. Of course, the exposure is such that everything looks a bit light at a time when the ship was dark. Even so, to me the deck head looks much like the vertical surfaces:
Image

Of course, it’s difficult to tell if this was a wartime measure or standard practice. The paint experts here on the form may be able to comment on this better than I.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 289
Whilst going through Hood’s books (ADM 136/13), I came across numerous sheets concerning the condition of her bottom when drydocked. There are many interesting descriptions of grass along the sides, coralline, missing coatings etc. There are also details regarding what coating was applied to the bottom and the boot stripe. Looks to me like they put an undercoat with an overcoat… But I’m no paint expert so I could be wrong.

What do the paint experts make of this? See anything unexpected here or is it all pretty standard for the time period? What’s this “slate” colour they refer to? AI Grey? Why no mention of the standard red?

First, 1937:
Attachment:
31AC6797-933B-40A8-9932-95F092650D95.jpeg
31AC6797-933B-40A8-9932-95F092650D95.jpeg [ 123.66 KiB | Viewed 1318 times ]


Next, 1938:
Attachment:
97EF42ED-0340-41E3-9B28-5EB4CD403B8C.jpeg
97EF42ED-0340-41E3-9B28-5EB4CD403B8C.jpeg [ 115.32 KiB | Viewed 1318 times ]


Next, that’s right, you guessed it, 1939 and 1940:
Attachment:
94637A69-F80A-4014-8ACC-057D7CF9ACFD.jpeg
94637A69-F80A-4014-8ACC-057D7CF9ACFD.jpeg [ 143.74 KiB | Viewed 1318 times ]


There was one from earlier in her career where the colour was cited as “lilac” (hopefully the undercoating).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 289
I’ll post some close-ups that I’ve come across as well… It may take me a couple days to get to it though.

In the meantime however, here’s an interesting shot from 1940. It was taken on the port side from roughly abreast the midships searchlight platform/disinfector house/motorboat workshop (looking aft). “A” shows a dark section of deck. “B” shows teak planks. “C” shows what I believe to be Semtex or non-slip. I could of course be wrong or have it reversed (I’ve had to give up caffeine recently and I may be hallucinating LOL).
Attachment:
A900FAFE-26C1-4903-BEE4-31CFAFDE8DE0.jpeg
A900FAFE-26C1-4903-BEE4-31CFAFDE8DE0.jpeg [ 24.16 KiB | Viewed 1318 times ]


The only reason I’m thinking the light area is semtex is because of a reference in the ship’s books:
Attachment:
2E2A308A-8FFF-4FB4-B3F5-B0901E811339.jpeg
2E2A308A-8FFF-4FB4-B3F5-B0901E811339.jpeg [ 15.37 KiB | Viewed 1318 times ]

Of course, I could be reading this wrong (lack of coffee, well proper coffee anyway).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 2:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2642
Attachment:
Whitewood1.jpg
Whitewood1.jpg [ 48.67 KiB | Viewed 1279 times ]

(Image HMS Hood website)

No, not mixed up, B is definitely wood :wave_1: . Anyway, the deck area around the 4"guns, also below the aft mounts in the planked area is very light in appearance. If the strip pattern continuous into the HA emplacements is very difficult to make out on most images, but it appears not in the ABC image. Semtex was troweled on, so possible over existing corticine (if present)?

Attachment:
HartleyPhoto3.jpg
HartleyPhoto3.jpg [ 51.46 KiB | Viewed 1279 times ]

(Image HMS Hood website)

Most fwd HA gun, no strips observed (also not in front of the splinter shield).

Attachment:
Hoodsheltdeck41_1.jpg
Hoodsheltdeck41_1.jpg [ 80.18 KiB | Viewed 1278 times ]


Deck near UP mount appears to have a strip pattern (1941)

Attachment:
Hoodsheltdeck41_2.jpg
Hoodsheltdeck41_2.jpg [ 77.84 KiB | Viewed 1278 times ]


Strip pattern visible near the deck hatch, top right in the image (faintly)? Very light deck colour. Also note deck colour at the bottom of the image, just visible above the searchlight walkway.

Attachment:
Hoodsheltdeck41_3.jpg
Hoodsheltdeck41_3.jpg [ 202.35 KiB | Viewed 1277 times ]


In the sunlit area a strip is clearly observed, but I'm not sure it's a shadow from the derrick post... but strips perpendicular to it are running in front of the ammo locker...

The shelterdeck spurnwater that was mentioned earlier would make a wonderful detail, but is not present in her 1940-41 configuration. I've started adding strips on the shelterdeck of my model, but I'll have to stay clear of the HA gun emplacements. I also have a copy of Newton in the mail. I recall not borrowing this volume permanently from our faculty's library (for obvious reasons)...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 547
Location: England
FW_Allen wrote:
Whilst going through Hood’s books (ADM 136/13), I came across numerous sheets concerning the condition of her bottom when drydocked. There are many interesting descriptions of grass along the sides, coralline, missing coatings etc. There are also details regarding what coating was applied to the bottom and the boot stripe. Looks to me like they put an undercoat with an overcoat… But I’m no paint expert so I could be wrong.

What do the paint experts make of this? See anything unexpected here or is it all pretty standard for the time period? What’s this “slate” colour they refer to? AI Grey? Why no mention of the standard red?


Frank,

This is not something I have looked at before as my interest has been the paints from the waterline upwards. However I have had a quick look at what I have from the 1937-1941 timeframe.

At that time RN ships’ bottoms were painted first with anti-corrosion or “protective” coats (abbreviated to “Pro” or “Prot” in those Hood documents I think). Over these was then applied an outer anti-fouling coat. So the apparent colour of an RN ships’ bottom below the boot topping would have depended on the colour of the anti-fouling paint.

At that time the Admiralty used proprietary suppliers for its ships’ bottoms compositions. Peacock and Buchan’s were one of these. Their Admiralty quality anti-corrosion paint No. 1 came in black and their No. 2 in slate. Their Admiralty quality anti-fouling paint came in either black or grey. "AI" was I think a use of the Roman numeral instead of "A1" which was the brand name for P&B paint. This is how it was listed in the Admiralty Rate Book:
Attachment:
Peacock and Buchan's.JPG
Peacock and Buchan's.JPG [ 87.3 KiB | Viewed 1263 times ]

This raises the question as to what extent red anti-fouling paint actually was “standard” at that time. There were then 17 authorised suppliers of Admiralty quality ships’ bottoms compositions. The colours of their anti-fouling coats were as follows: six supplied in grey only; seven supplied in either grey or black; one supplied in grey or green; one supplied in red or black; and two supplied in red, grey or black.

This may help explain what we see on a number of (often builders’) contemporary models in British museum collections for example:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67452.html

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 66003.html (read the description)

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 65979.html

https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/201 ... aldo-8.jpg

So to find out the colour of a particular ship’s bottom I guess you would have to go to the ship’s book and hunt out the D.495 forms to see what was actually used - but of course few of these ships’ books survive.

Doubtless due to wartime pressures, in the autumn of 1940 the use of merchantile quality anti-fouling paint from two suppliers was authorised on lesser warships (sloops, corvettes, trawlers, AMCs, RFAs, minesweepers, tugs etc). There were seven Admiralty-authorised suppliers of these merchantile quality anti-fouling paints, all seven suppling in red but two of them in brown also. So from late 1940 onwards red may have become very much more common - but Hood was not a lesser warship. (There was also some indication that merchantile quality anti-fouling paint might in time be rolled out more widely if its use proved satisfactory.)

Best wishes,

Richard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 547
Location: England
EJFoeth wrote:
.... Semtex was troweled on, so possible over existing corticine (if present)?...

...


EJ,

A contemporary AFO instructs Corticene to be "replaced" with Semtex.

Contemporary letters from the Semtex company, an Admiralty document and a paper from the RNSS indicate that it was a covering for steel decks. Two of these make it very clear that it had to be laid on clean bare steel or it would fail.

I am confident that laying Semtex over Corticene was not the way it was supposed to be done.

Best wishes,

Richard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2642
Thank you for the addition; it indeed does not make much sense to do so but wasn't sure. Most of the probables Semtex location are devoid of deck strips (assuming corticine was indeed present but I think I've been convinced).


Last edited by EJFoeth on Thu Nov 05, 2020 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3238
Location: equidistant to everywhere
FW_Allen wrote:
Attachment:
A900FAFE-26C1-4903-BEE4-31CFAFDE8DE0.jpeg




Hmmm, interesting how abrupt the transition to wooden deck is. There is not slope or Any other measure to mitigate tripping on the edges.

I am curious why the rear of the shelter deck is planked in wood but forward part is not. Considering the Hood became stern heavy During construction as a result of many modifications, to the degree that the 4 rear facing 5.5 inch guns were installed, and then removed to save weight before the ship was completed, I might expect the wooden deck planking on the rear part of the shelter deck could also be deleted to save weight. I wonder if the wooden deck there is primarily retained as sound and temperature insulation for the wardroom and officers’ quarters underneath.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Last edited by chuck on Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2642
chuck wrote:
Hmmm, interesting how abrupt the transition to wooden deck is. There is not slope or Any other measure to mitigate tripping on the edges.


Indeed, it's quite a step.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 289
dick wrote:
FW_Allen wrote:
Whilst going through Hood’s books (ADM 136/13), I came across numerous sheets concerning the condition of her bottom when drydocked. There are many interesting descriptions of grass along the sides, coralline, missing coatings etc. There are also details regarding what coating was applied to the bottom and the boot stripe. Looks to me like they put an undercoat with an overcoat… But I’m no paint expert so I could be wrong.

What do the paint experts make of this? See anything unexpected here or is it all pretty standard for the time period? What’s this “slate” colour they refer to? AI Grey? Why no mention of the standard red?


Frank,

This is not something I have looked at before as my interest has been the paints from the waterline upwards. However I have had a quick look at what I have from the 1937-1941 timeframe.

At that time RN ships’ bottoms were painted first with anti-corrosion or “protective” coats (abbreviated to “Pro” or “Prot” in those Hood documents I think). Over these was then applied an outer anti-fouling coat. So the apparent colour of an RN ships’ bottom below the boot topping would have depended on the colour of the anti-fouling paint.

At that time the Admiralty used proprietary suppliers for its ships’ bottoms compositions. Peacock and Buchan’s were one of these. Their Admiralty quality anti-corrosion paint No. 1 came in black and their No. 2 in slate. Their Admiralty quality anti-fouling paint came in either black or grey. "AI" was I think a use of the Roman numeral instead of "A1" which was the brand name for P&B paint. This is how it was listed in the Admiralty Rate Book:
Attachment:
Peacock and Buchan's.JPG

This raises the question as to what extent red anti-fouling paint actually was “standard” at that time. There were then 17 authorised suppliers of Admiralty quality ships’ bottoms compositions. The colours of their anti-fouling coats were as follows: six supplied in grey only; seven supplied in either grey or black; one supplied in grey or green; one supplied in red or black; and two supplied in red, grey or black.

This may help explain what we see on a number of (often builders’) contemporary models in British museum collections for example:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67452.html

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 66003.html (read the description)

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 65979.html

https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/201 ... aldo-8.jpg

So to find out the colour of a particular ship’s bottom I guess you would have to go to the ship’s book and hunt out the D.495 forms to see what was actually used - but of course few of these ships’ books survive.

Doubtless due to wartime pressures, in the autumn of 1940 the use of merchantile quality anti-fouling paint from two suppliers was authorised on lesser warships (sloops, corvettes, trawlers, AMCs, RFAs, minesweepers, tugs etc). There were seven Admiralty-authorised suppliers of these merchantile quality anti-fouling paints, all seven suppling in red but two of them in brown also. So from late 1940 onwards red may have become very much more common - but Hood was not a lesser warship. (There was also some indication that merchantile quality anti-fouling paint might in time be rolled out more widely if its use proved satisfactory.)

Best wishes,

Richard


Thanks Richard,

So, it appears that the Hood website needs to change its painting instructions again! Based on the D495s it would appear she had a grey bottom for at least a few years of her career. Unfortunately they didn’t specify colour for 39 and 40 (and there’s no record for 41...assuming of course the bottom was painted during her 41 work)..but we can likely work back for most of her career. This, combined with the possibility of corticine being present in large amounts means some major changes...

Now to get to the bottom of the “lilac” business....time to dig out the shop’s books again.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:59 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 1085
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
I sense a tonne of work coming up, followed by more dismissive rants from the wider modelling community about how nobody could possibly know etc. Oh, and the pitchforks and chants of "rivet counter!" cannot be forgotten about either...

_________________
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: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 289
SovereignHobbies wrote:
I sense a tonne of work coming up, followed by more dismissive rants from the wider modelling community about how nobody could possibly know etc. Oh, and the pitchforks and chants of "rivet counter!" cannot be forgotten about either...

Yes indeed Jamie. No way to make everyone happy. We keep finding “new” things concerning Hood (or rather, “rediscovering forgotten details”). I think that’s the nature of historical model building anyways: There’s always the chance that the source material is lacking or wrong and that improved information may come to light. I think reasonable folks will understand.

For the Hood model and parts producers, however, this is great… People may want to build new models of the old girl! That, or repaint their existing models. As for me, I’m waiting for the new Flyhawk 1/700! It’s looking EXCELLENT. Wonderful people to work with too. Now I just need to worry about the painting instructions for it…

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 289
As stated in a previous post, I’ve been going through Hood’s ships books (ADM 136/13). I’ve only been able to go through (in detail) about three volumes out of the dozen that are there but I’ve come across several docking reports which describe the hull condition and the boot topping and anti fouling measures. So far, I see more or less annual reports (with supplemental checks once or twice) ranging from July 1928 up to 1940. I have yet to come across any earlier forms nor the final form (she was dry docked in 1941 and it’s highly likely repainted yet again).

The boot topping is always listed as black (glossy black I believe). Although the manufacturer and type of coating is always listed (and it’s always Peacocks, either improved or standard), the bottom color is not always specified. In June 1933 they specify a color called “lilac.” From 1936 to 1938, the colour was grey. There is no colour specified for 1939 or 1940. We have no info for 1941 except the wreck...and the area under the stern is darkish...no red seen in any of the photos/footage I have. Since it was recently applied, I suspect it would be noticeable...the above water paint is still very much present. So, I suspect she maintained the grey colour or possibly black. This is just a guess though.

I still have tons of papers to go through, so, who knows, there may be additional information (I doubt it though).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2642
See, this is why I do not finish my model. This way I can at least incorporate all the latest findings....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:53 am
Posts: 627
Location: Tokyo, Japan
That is all darned interesting stuff! Quite amazing what exposure to a variety of information does to brain cells :D I found myself quite unmoved by plenty of details, but the underwater hull colour complexities are fascinating to me. I think back to painting all those Airfix kit underwater hull areas in brick red... oh how ignorance was bliss!

_________________
Gernot Hassenpflug
Find out how it works, then functionality and limits


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 882 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 ... 45  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DMC and 28 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