The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:07 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 ... 57  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:48 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 1176
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
pascalemod wrote:
SovereignHobbies wrote:
I think he's saying you may be seeing a reflection forward of the first breakwater.

What doesn't make any sense is having the area ahead of the breakwater deliberately a lighter colour. There is no concealment or confusion advantage at all to be gained from from doing that, and no credible means for water action to have so neatly paint stripped it.

The only plausible explanation I can think of would be if the crew had started stripping back the darkened decks to bare wood again but had to put to sea shortly after they started and that would limit it to a fairly narrow time window before the Captain wanted it sorted out one way or another at the next opportunity.

The second photo above shows an apparent lighter appearance back to the fwd breakwater. The first photo shows a lighter appearance back to P1 5.25" mount.

You may be seeing an ongoing stripping work in progress.


The explanation I have seen that I also found believable is that because the ship was constantly wet forward of the first breakwater , they basically gave up on painting it. Simply put, it was just a pointless thing to paint there as paint only held few days anyway. Now, is that more plausible then your explanation for witnessing a paint being stripped - photo nr 2 above is dated from 44, and one before that (two lighter sections) is 43. So none of it really makes sense, but I certainly wouldnt go and claim that unpainted forward section is ahistorical. It was like that for some point in time. Why would they all strip the paint from the bow? Why not all at once? why start at the bow? Too many unknowns ... It seems you guys havent seen these photos and still trying to explain away what you see using your own theory on it being a fantasy of modelers in the past. I think the whole thing is at least an open question, not a case shut.


I disagree entirely there. Giving up on painting could only be suggested by someone who comprehensively misunderstands the Royal Navy's whole culture.

The KGV class was no wetter than any other ship. All fast ships were wet forwards including all the American capital ships. There are other examples from the KGV class with darkened decks which did not exhibit this as a problem.

If it was a real problem and not fantasy, there would have been many examples of it on British capital ships and cruisers but there aren't. Furthermore, if it were a real problem it would have been complained about in letters to shore, and to my knowledge there aren't.

There is no British senior captain at a point in his career to be given one of our newest and most capable battleships who would simply give up on maintaining his ship's appearance. They had pride, with or without a war on. Giving over your KGV class battleship's appearance - particularly when the feature being surrendered is a concealment measure - due to some water washing over the bow would imply things about a man's character which would ensure he never stood on the bridge of a destroyer, never mind a battleship.

Sorry, but I do not find "giving up" even remotely credible. If it was a real effect seen in the photos, it was deliberate. The decks took a day or two to darken but much more effort to strip back to bare wood. Not being able to put men over the side to paint the hull is one thing, but to give up on maintaining the main deck is unthinkable. This was the Royal Navy - who considered themselves the finest Navy in the world and certainly the most oldest and most experienced. The pride in that service amongst the Officers particularly cannot be overstated.

_________________
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 Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Similar effect caused by wetting on other KGV Class battleships Anson, Howe, KGV an PoW in relatively calm seas. Light spray from bow wave blown up onto deck forward of breakwaters

Anson:
Attachment:
zAnson 1942 6 21 wet forward - Copy.jpg
zAnson 1942 6 21 wet forward - Copy.jpg [ 280.15 KiB | Viewed 5744 times ]


Howe:
Attachment:
zHowe m May1944 c - Copy - Copy.jpg
zHowe m May1944 c - Copy - Copy.jpg [ 145.23 KiB | Viewed 5744 times ]


KGV:
Attachment:
zKGV i - Copy.jpg
zKGV i - Copy.jpg [ 114.34 KiB | Viewed 5744 times ]


PoW:
Attachment:
zPrince of Wales b 22 May 1941 - Copy.jpg
zPrince of Wales b 22 May 1941 - Copy.jpg [ 107.86 KiB | Viewed 5744 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:33 pm
Posts: 1772
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
SovereignHobbies wrote:
.... This was the Royal Navy - who considered themselves the finest Navy in the world and certainly the most oldest and most experienced. The pride in that service amongst the Officers particularly cannot be overstated.


THanks James for taking the time to look into it. So basically youre saying Royal Navy arent sloppy enough to allow sailing with a half concealment measure in place, and if paint peels - they just paint the bloody thing every day till the supplies run out. To that point I would say too many british warships were looking a bit scruffy at the end of their deployment (hulls in particular) so their care to concealment took back seat sometimes, your point here about their discipline is a bit off at least on these occasions. The famous KGV pic in color shows here in a very worn state for example.

And to the point of the picture that clearly shows the bow unpainted (i disagree it is reflection) - you say this is paint being stripped from the deck rather, not the ship just sailing about like that just on its own. Did I read that correct?

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Palm Beach, Fla
A photograph is an instant in time. Our impression of how something looks is simple projection.
Just because the dark decks "look" lighter in a picture means nothing.
I thought the KGV's were designed to fire across the bow at low elevation (never required?) less shear, wetter decks.
Wet decks can look lighter due to the location of the sun & the angle of the exposure.
Rounded turrets photograph "lighter" in many pictures, they are not!
Thanks! John


Last edited by JCRAY on Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
The well known photo of KGV with heavily worn paint was due to some problem with that particular mix. Perhaps it was applied in sub-optimal conditions? Who knows? Being the hull, it would have been impractical to do anything about it until return to port, which they indeed did pretty much immediately. The new coat appears to have worn much better and you don't see a repeat of that condition in future.

With my original comment, I merely wished to point out that the light/dark deck problem has occurred with other ships, including of this class, and often the reality has proven to be a damp deck producing a visual effect contrary to the reality. Damp wood can appear much darker or much lighter, depending on viewing angles, sun position, atmospheric conditions etc.

Without additional photos from slightly different angles, it's not possible to make a positive determination of what we're seeing here. However, given the evidence of the other photos posted, my 'gut' reaction is that the deck area in question is no different than the rest, just that the relative angles are giving a strong reflection. I would want more photos before being happy with either option, however.

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:33 pm
Posts: 1772
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Martocticvs wrote:
I would want more photos before being happy with either option, however.


Luxury we dont have, sadly.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
What seems more likely: water gushing up through the hawse pipes and wetting the deck forward of the breakwater (the whole point of which is to break water and prevent it from flowing to the rest of the deck) combined with general bow spray to create a frequently wet and reflective surface, or a captain who decides on his own to implement a new camouflage measure that's not supported by any precedence or documents?

Lacking additional evidence, it seems to me the simplest explanation is the most likely.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:33 pm
Posts: 1772
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Timmy C wrote:
What seems more likely: water gushing up through the hawse pipes and wetting the deck forward of the breakwater (the whole point of which is to break water and prevent it from flowing to the rest of the deck) combined with general bow spray to create a frequently wet and reflective surface, or a captain who decides on his own to implement a new camouflage measure that's not supported by any precedence or documents?

Lacking additional evidence, it seems to me the simplest explanation is the most likely.


Yeah, man, gonna have to go with grey decks all around the ship then!

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
Good day, gentlemen ... I apologize, but I again had several questions for the community: .. 1) what kind of box does Pontos give ... I cannot find it on photographs .... 2) anyone can share information on installing nasal gun nests on King George for 1943 ... I want to check out the drawings for Kagero ... for example, a famous photograph of Duka..I thank you in advance ... with respect Ivan


Attachments:
duke2.jpg
duke2.jpg [ 85.51 KiB | Viewed 5509 times ]
kgv-121.jpg
kgv-121.jpg [ 112.56 KiB | Viewed 5508 times ]

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
What you indicated is the night life buoy; as far as I can tell not installed on DoY (visible on KGV (early war) and POW though).

(not sure if you asked other questions and what they may be about, so pictures with arrows certainly help :thumbs_up_1: )


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
EJFoeth wrote:
What you indicated is the night life buoy; as far as I can tell not installed on DoY (visible on KGV (early war) and POW though).

(not sure if you asked other questions and what they may be about, so pictures with arrows certainly help :thumbs_up_1: )

:sorry: ....=) Thank you so much ...... easier .. =) ... how it stood on the KGV in 1943 ...Can you believe in the drawings of Kagero? I just don’t have any photos of this section


Attachments:
duke2.jpg
duke2.jpg [ 54.16 KiB | Viewed 5501 times ]

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Attachment:
IWM_A 16476.jpg


IWM image 16476 gives a pretty good impression :wave_1:

(8th of May 1943)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
IWM image 16476 gives a pretty good impression :wave_1:

(8th of May 1943)[/quote]
...... :doh_1: ... :censored_2: I am an old stupid monkey .. !!!!!! ..... I have this photo but for some reason marked as DoY....thank you so much

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
DavidP wrote:
then not your fault being marked wrong unless you did it yourself.

I do not like in this photo: .. 1) .. painted deck 2) lack of camouflage, the towers must be of different colors. 3) on the drawings of the kagero .. three first machine-gun nests are strictly abreast..4) .... on KGV in 1943 did not stand this charging box :Oops_1: ... were four smaller before installation
  Maybe that's why I took her to DoY
P.S. so that I am not such an old monkey as I first thought about myself :thinking:


Attachments:
IWM_A 16476.jpg
IWM_A 16476.jpg [ 369.3 KiB | Viewed 11517 times ]

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
in the photo from Oran ... it can be seen (albeit very badly) .. that the extreme cannon is not at all behind the fence .. and much to the side of the center line
need to seek the truth .... help !!!


Attachments:
kgv oran foto.jpg
kgv oran foto.jpg [ 314.39 KiB | Viewed 11514 times ]

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Your observation of the ammo locker is quite right, so I looked at differences between KGV and DOY

Attachment:
KGV_1.jpg


Attachment:
KGV_2.jpg


Note the small vent at an angle at the break water of KGV . Now DoY:

Attachment:
DOY_1.jpg


Attachment:
DOY_2.jpg


Small vent is not there, so image 16746 does show HMS DoY and the info at the IWM is not correct. Note how this shot (that does show HMS KGV) is very very similar!

Attachment:
IWM_A 15299.jpg


Also shows 20mm gun emplacements without tubs, as in DOY_2


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
Good day and thank you very much .... I found another photo listed as December 9, 1943 (of very poor quality), which in addition shows anti-aircraft guns near the second tower, which I could not find in the photos before .... and it’s clear that the fences nasal anti-aircraft guns are missing ..... you can also see the location of paravanas "just some modellers scatter them in different places :whistle: "
well, the second rather well-known photograph shows .. perfectly naked anti-aircraft guns (legs in the water and shoot above the head :flamed: ) ..... Pontos .. and Kagero .. I think that they are wrong !!!


Attachments:
111.jpg
111.jpg [ 165.36 KiB | Viewed 11457 times ]
0_a3148_9b8e52c1_orig.jpg
0_a3148_9b8e52c1_orig.jpg [ 250.7 KiB | Viewed 11455 times ]

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
The only thing you can do is spot ammo lockers, so that would be three 20mm guns.

Image

And a very good shot from the other side.

Image

And at 31 mins:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C341112

Edit: and now that I know what to look for (and Visual Studio takes ages to compile so "I have time")

Attachment:
IWM_A 15422.jpg


Attachment:
IWM_A 15423.jpg


That should be enough info for now :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
That should be enough info for now :thumbs_up_1:[/quote]




thank you so much :lol_3: ... just super ... :worship_1:

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:13 am
Posts: 71
Good day and this is me again .... I need to make a part but I absolutely do not understand what is it? and where is she going?
everyone forgot about her (..but I have to make it.. :scratch:


Attachments:
444.jpg
444.jpg [ 230.78 KiB | Viewed 11372 times ]
аапв.jpg
аапв.jpg [ 170.51 KiB | Viewed 11372 times ]

_________________
In Work:
HMS "King George V"-1942 1/350 Tamiya-Pontos-Eduard as well as
hands and head:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 ... 57  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group