The Ship Model Forum

Hi All

Hi Mr Hewitt, the only reference I have is the board of inquiry drawing showing the locker positions. That appears very much like the Trumpeter kit placings.

According to the inquiry drawing there are two lockers against the starboard side of the after control position, which begin past the door you mention (rather like the port side arrangement on the pontos instructions and as per the original Trumpeter positions).

Two are placed in a tight L shape surrounding the hatch parts 443/444, and one is under the 0.5 inch gun mounting platform, but unlike the port side which has it placed forward of the mount the starboard locker is placed abaft the platform.

Hope that helps,
Best wishes
Cag.

I concur with what Cag posted. Here is an admittedly poor photo of the graphic to which he referred, but hopefully it helps:


On a related note, speaking of shelter/boat deck lockers, there are a few you should NOT install! You may or may not have seen the post concerning this, but we've determined that there were no small lockers/boxes located just ahead of the two forward UP mounts. These are not in official plans nor are they present in any decent photos we've seen from 1940/41. I'm not sure how they ever appeared on old drawings to begin with. Presumably someone might have thought they were extra lockers for the UPs, but in reality, the extra lockers were one deck below in the side batteries.


Speaking of Pontos (an EXCELLENT detail set I might add!!!), as you may or may not already know, we've uncovered some previously overlooked details in recent months. So, these are things that are not addressed in their set. If you are already familiar with these, please disregard:

1. The centre/rear segment of the Admiral's Bridge was railed (the rest had a metal bulwark around it).
2. You can remove many panel lines on the forward outer edges of the shelter/boat deck. The panels represent corticene...but the outer areas of the deck were no longer corticene covered by 1941. They were likely semtex (and if the 1939 film is any indication, the colour was not dark grey). The image above shows the areas in question.

Speaking of the Trumpeter 1/200 kit and the Pontos set, there is a truly EXCELLENT build underway on YouTube. I highly recommend this to everyone: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWLcXWGXVcO3LZEJiwETkJ9eY_GZJBfI2 . Between this build and the excellent programming released by Drachinifel in recent weeks, there is some excellent Hood content out there on Youtube now!

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Hi Frank. Thanks for the confirmation about the 4" lockers and the Fwd UP lockers. The You Tube build you refer to is actually mine and I'm grateful to the help I've had in getting the model to the stage it is from this site (and this thread in particular) and the work of the Association.

Best regards

Steve

AKA the Model Shed.

Updated blog with some pics of the launch of HMS Hood: https://ontheslipway.com/

A few question regarding Hood’s boat storage, circa 1924:

1. For open topped boats that are stowed in nested stacks, such as the 32 foot cutter, 30 foot gig and 27 foot whaler, is each boat separately covered by its own tarp, only the top boat is covered, or is the entire stack covered by a single tarp?

2. For open topped boats with rudders mounted on pintles, are the rudders unshipped when the boat is stowed and covered? Or are the rudders left in place?

3. Are the sea boats hanging under davits for quick deployment also covered by canvas while the ship is at sea? How about their rudder? Are they stowed in a manner that allow them to be instantly swung out under the davit and dropped in water for use? Or are they also covered and secured like the boats in the middle of the boat deck? If for example they are needed to retrieve man overboard, it seems problematic if they must first be uncovered and shipped with their rudder.

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

Chuck,

The practice as observed in photographs and in use as late as the 1960's/80's appears to have been, or was, as follows:

1. Boom boats intended to be nested would generally have all shared one cover, however, as I believe that I uttered elsewhere on this site, individual boats may well have had their own covers for use should it have been necessary to re-locate them.

2. If it was possible to un-ship the rudder in a relatively small boat like a cutter or a whaler, then it was considered seaman-like to
un-ship the rudder. The rudders of larger open boats would probably have remained shipped but centred in the "midships" position with the tiller un-shipped if not "fixed."

3. You raise a good point! Seaboats; which were intended to save life and were only then referred to a "lifeboats," were never covered at sea (other model-makers of British and Commonwealth navies, please NOTE)! The rudders of these boats were always shipped with their tillers attached to them. The practice was that the tiller was lightly "stopped" in the boat towards the side of the parent ship, thus when the boat was dropped and with way on the ship, the boat was momentarily sheered away from the ship by being towed by the boat rope thus allowing the coxswain a brief moment to ensure his personal safety by dodging the falls and crew life-lines that were hanging down. Thereafter, the coxswain broke the stopping with a sharp tug and took over steering the boat. If there was some way on the ship and there might be if there was some way to go to the point of rescue, you could get something similar to what the American whalers called a "Nantucket Sleigh-ride:" it was quite exhilarating!

Thank you.

Another question, Some drawings show anchor chain chaff plates were painted hull color. That seems somewhat odd since one might think it would be painted the same darker gray used in other horizontal surfaces that are frequently trod upon. Photographic evidence seems ambiguous.

What is the consensus?

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

Chuck,

I am not a HOOD "fan," however, what were the ship's "scotchmen" (the correct term for a cable chaffing plate, by the way): it has nothing to do with the Scots, made of: metal or wood? If of metal they would have been painted either black or dark grey (the shade might differ from that of the hull or elsewhere. This could have changed with each Commission, depending on the whim of the commanding officer or Commander (Executive Officer in American parlance); who was the second in command and largely responsible to the captain, for the ship's appearance.

The ship was well photographed, I would go with those but Frank Allen might have more accurate information on the HOOD website.

What are the 35 box structures on the deck.
They seem to have a screen on one side.
Maybe a cooler for guns?
Thanks.

I haven't posted in a while (I've been busy Channel Dashing), so I will try to respond to a couple of past posts in one go:

Scotchmen- As Guest suggested, the colour appears to have varied. We can only assume they were in the grey to black range as we have no detailed documentation nor colour footage. We have only the scantest anecdotal evidence (recollections from veterans decades after the fact), combined with contemporary examples (things seen on other ships of the time) and of course, oodles of old B&W photos of Hood herself (which are problematic due to film/camera settings). So, in some photos, the shade/tone (whatever the correct term is) seems very similar to some of the deck fiitings and the hawsepipes. In other shots, the scotchmen seem darker (sometimes MUCH darker/black). Ah, then there are the anchor cables themselves: sometimes clearly white, sometimes various darker shades/tones, etc. I suppose we could simply say this is one of the many "grey areas" on Hood, if you'll pardon the pun. Of course, she had a lot more brown on her decks in actuality, but I couldn't think of a brown joke/pun. (Yes, I know: )

35 Box structures- Can you please elaborate? Hood had many box-like structures ranging from lockers to hoists to hatches to skylights to vents, etc. Well, they would appear box-like in some views of the ship anyway. Perhaps if you could post a photo or drawing, we could determine which features you are referring to.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Does anyone have any reference for the type of search lights the Hood carried in 1921? Were these the same models she carried in 1941? It seems in many photos of the hood early in her life, the search light lenses were clear and silvered reflectors behind them seen clearly. In later photos the face of search lights seems mostly to be black, as if shutters were closed over the lenses. Were earlier searchlights not equipped with shutters or were shutters normally opened?

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

Chuck,

For what this is worth. The types of searchlight (light projector) carried by HMS HOOD in the early '20's and at the time of her loss were clearly different. The later type may have operated differently from the type fitted as built though even they may have been modified later to eliminate an earlier deficiency.

I have read somewhere: the Reference has been forgotten, that information obtained from interrogation of German prisoners during WW1 stated that the location of British ships could be determined for a short while after British projectors were switched "off" by the glow from the carbon elements as they cooled. Hence the British projectors could not have had "shutters" at the time. The Germans did. These were of an "iris" type and evidence of this can be seen on wreckage of the items still on the bottom of Scapa Flow. It is also possible to see evidence of a partially open "iris" on a German projector (they are usually covered) in one of Steve Wiper's "Warship Pictorials" that deal with German capital ships of the early 20th Century.

I cannot say just how the later British projectors differed from the earlier ones though they were of larger diameter. Perhaps they had added some form of shutter "iris;" or of the "Venetian" horizontal type: I don't know. Be that as it may, some, if not all British battleships of the REVENGE class were apparently still fitted with an earlier type of light projector during WW2.

I do not know who manufactured the light projectors fitted in British ships but no doubt someone will.

Thanks. Indeed I suspect she carried 36” search lights when new, and had 44” lights in 1941. Measuring the diameter of the search light positions in 1921 shows the later 44” lights would have had difficulties fitting the earlier positions on the search light tower between the funnels and on top of the aft superstructure behind the tripod mainmast. Perhaps this is 5he reason why the search light tower was removed all together and new positions built for them.

The comments regarding the lack of iris is interesting. Photos of the hood in the 1920s clearly show there is no iris, nor slat shutters, nor other apparent means of blocking the glow. Yet British 36” search lights from WWI often are show having vertical slat shutters.

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

Chuck,

Fine. There is only one question that I ask subsequent to your post: "What was the date of the pictures that show 36" light projectors fitted with vertical slats." If post Jutland, it would back up my point concerning the German comment. The reason for HOOD and other ships not having slats fitted post WW1, may have been that they were seen only as a "war fitting."

regarding the antifouling colour used on HMS HOOD.. have followed this discussion with great interest (more on that later). thanks for bringing it to my attention. has anybody else ever noticed the late great maritime artist John Hamilton also painted HMS HOOD this way in his circa 1970's piece? It seems quite a few of those who followed our fascination before us were aware of this information in the decades after the war.. I guess more people who knew were still alive back then. But as for the Battle Ensign at POW's foretruck..... I will assume license.. Or does somebody know something more about this?

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com

so all evidence points to the anti fouling paint was much darker in tone then the Atlantic fleet gray.

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

No, the evidence currently available to me suggests that the tones that the various manufacturers supplied grey anti fouling in varied from being the same or very slightly lighter than HFG to distinctly lighter than HFG.

Genuine question; why would you think a battle ensign flying off the foremast would be artistic license? Didn't the RN ever fly them there (as I know other navies did)?

Or do you mean PoW wasn't flying one there during that engagement?

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Further to Joseph R and Chuck's posts above, perhaps Dick will allow me to add to his replying post: "and this is likely to remain so until the lifting of COVID restrictions permits the examination of what is in the archives for "Peacock and Buchan," when the answer might be found." However, I will not be holding my breath.

Be that as it may, I seem to recall another rendering of HMS HOOD's loss which depicts red anti-fouling: not that I now believe it.

From what I gather there is some reference to the practice in certain circumstances - notably during the Third Battle of Narvik whereby it was intended to assist identification / IFF within the squadron given the lack of visibility and close range of the engagement. And at Jutland, if memory serves - for similar reasons given the blackened skies of coal smoke (actually I think Admiral Jellicoe ordered every Ensign possible to be broken out from every available yardarm - but will infer foretrucks as well). But for lack of a specific reason for it - I had always assumed that perhaps it was not standard practice, per say. The Royal Navy has, for three hundred of years, normally flown Battle Ensigns from the mizzen peak - and for lack of an extra mast on steel ships - the main peak.. Okay so there were some interesting combinations flown during the years of fighting sail.. Union jacks lashed to various pieces of rigging etc.

But can anybody advise to the contrary? And specifically is there any surviving reference to the flags POW had aloft during this action?



By the way and for what it's worth: I rather like the look of dark grey antifoul on HOOD.. I painted over the SovereignCC Red Antifoul on mine last night. Looks steeley.

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com