The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 ... 57  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
Hello All,

Before beginning, I need to apologise for what for me was my less than acceptable post of 17 Nov. Upon reflection, it is in need of some editing, however, owing to finger trouble on my part, it got sent as a Guest and I was unable to revise it later.

Anyway, thanks to E J Foeth for his post of 18 Nov. It was informative. I also later read Cag's first post of 18 Nov but not until I had had recourse to discuss this matter again with my naval architect friend on 19 Nov. This gentleman has also given first class and friendly help; which is an understatement, to one of the moderators of this site. The gist of the conversation follows: any errors in my understanding of the conversation are entirely my fault.

Strictly speaking, what we are seeing in the photographs of PWLS during launch (Sorry, folks, using "PoW" now appears to be "incorrect") is not a "knuckle." A "knuckle" is a feature of the forward hull of a ship to reduce the chances of solid water coming onboard in a seaway. As an aside, debate continues as to whether or not a "knuckle" is necessary but I will leave it there.

My friend suggested that the feature as seen was intended to improve the accessibility of the forward structure to the welders/riveters who had to make the connections between the shell plating and the deck beams and deck plating. If this had not been done, then there would have been a fairly acute (?) angle between the top of the flared bow plating and the deck structures thus making welding/riveting difficult. To my untutored mind, this makes sense.

Now the apparent distortion in the shell plating. If what is seen is distortion, it could have come about in one of two ways. A. The distortion of the plates where they may have been: if indeed they were, welded internally to the frames. B. If the bevel that had to be applied individually to each bow frame was a little awry, then the act of welding/riveting the shell plating to the frame in each case could have caused the distortion observed.

However, whether or not the apparent distortion was unacceptable, is debatable. A later photograph taken as the hull slid down the slipway shows no sign of distortion. Thus the phenomenon can only be seen to be caused by the angle of the light.

I will leave it there but not before re-iterating that I think that the reason for the structure as seen in PWLS is most likely to be found in the Ship's Cover, unless Cag finds it amongst his notes. This includes any remarks on the apparent distortion of the sheer strake plating. If it was noteworthy, Cammel Laird no doubt would have received a "blast" from the DNC; which might have elicited a robust reply. It will require further research.

I hope this helps.

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
I was not expecting my observation on Prince of Wales to kick off such a detailed discussion. It has been very interesting, many thanks to all who have made outside enquiries and researched it further.

The slight difference in hull form on Prince of Wales is noteworthy. It is difficult to find photos clearly showing it for comparative purposes. These are the best I could find, taken from relatively similar angles. They are Shutterstock and Getty Images stock photo previews pulled from online and posted for discussion purposes only, copyright rests with original owners.

H.M.S. King George V aground enroute back to Gareloch for mothballing:

Attachment:
HMS King George V aground enroute to Gareloch 2.jpg
HMS King George V aground enroute to Gareloch 2.jpg [ 282.87 KiB | Viewed 2813 times ]


H.M.S. Prince of Wales again on the slipway at Cammell Laird Shipyard in Birkenhead:

Attachment:
HMS Prince of Wales Cammell Laird Birkenhead.jpg
HMS Prince of Wales Cammell Laird Birkenhead.jpg [ 338.41 KiB | Viewed 2813 times ]


Red circles added highlighting the subtle difference. The short section of near-vertical hull side plating below the main deck on the flared section of the bow on H.M.S. Prince of Wales is not there on H.M.S. King George V, nor Duke of York, Anson or Howe. I had never noticed that before. But it is very obvious when pointed out and when you see it. One learns something every day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
It is quite possible that PWLS had a greater degree of bow flare than her sisters; which may have led to the resulting structure. It is difficult to make an assessment from the photographs. However, on reflection, DNC may have considered the "knuckle" unnecessary and made adjustments.

Whatever, if the answer still exists, it is only now likely to be found in the Ship's Cover though Cag might be lucky in his researches.

I rest my interest.

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
I noticed that feature when I was exmining photos a few years ago whilst reworking my 3D KGV model (which I need to re-rework now..). I incorporated it into my confusing combination of features trying to represent 3 of the ships at various points in time. I did notice also that KGV and DoY are fairly similar in top of hull arrangement, but Anson was subtly different again, with a thin vertical extension above the deck level, and a rail afixed to the outside running at least part way along the hull midships... The hull on KGV and DoY seems to finish, rounded off slightly, only slightly higher than deck level. Photos I have at deck level of PoW suggest that the hull finishes higher above the deck than on KGV/DoY, but it is a thicker piece of steel than on Anson.


Attachments:
Anson side.jpg
Anson side.jpg [ 77.63 KiB | Viewed 2717 times ]

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
And I think on all of the ships (KGV, PoW and DoY definitely), there was a vertical portion at the very top of the hull from just forward of the armour belt, all the way to the stern.


Attachments:
KGV stern.jpg
KGV stern.jpg [ 145.85 KiB | Viewed 2717 times ]
DoY stern 28Aug1945.jpg
DoY stern 28Aug1945.jpg [ 89.82 KiB | Viewed 2717 times ]

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

Hi 81542, yes you're correct a knuckle is actually more like the hull structure seen on the Town class cruisers at the bow (except Birmingham!), I'm afraid I didn't know how else to describe it!

I put PoW as in my research that is how she's referred to in official documents at the time, but PWLS is a good way to refer to her, it's difficult now as there are 3 large ships of that name, a pre dreadnought, a KGV, and a QE class Aircraft carrier (I'm still searching to see if the story that her original name was changed.)!

I'll keep on researching but from what I've found (posted above Nov 19th) the framing spaces appear to match what we see in the image, and the plans do show internal intercostal welding, so your Naval Architect friend is most probably spot on.

Hi Mr Church, you're correct we do learn something new every day, it is the great thing about these ships, sometimes tiny sometimes large changes characterise each individual ship of a so called identical class.

I will continue the research as I'm working on the Denmark Strait gunnery battle (trigonometry is fun?!) so require further trips to the archives. Will update if I find anything, unfortunately PoW (PWLS) ships book is lost so that's a dead end but as 81542 says the ships covers may reveal something.

Hi Martocticvs, could it be the 4 x1.5 inch beams welded to the upper deck I spotted on the plating drawing? More research, maybe the Cammell Laird Archive has something more to see.

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
81542 wrote:
...............photographs of PWLS during launch (Sorry, folks, using "PoW" now appears to be "incorrect")


OK, I'll bite. :smallsmile:

Why is PoW incorect at that time? I can only 'assume' because she has not been officialy named / 'christnend' (upon launch?) so to speak?

And what is PWLS?

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Hi Kevin,

I think "PWLS" is a very modern abbreviation created for this ship (and possibly for Twitter purposes):

https://twitter.com/HMSPWLS

Just as this is "QNLZ":

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz

I do not intend to retrospectively apply PWLS to the WW2 battleship as I cannot imagine that anybody ever used that abbreviation to refer to her, and applying that to her now risks confusion with today's carrier.

Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
PoW/PWLS, is a good point. The use of whichever one chooses for the specific ship is now logical. I can't somehow see PoW being used by the Royal Navy for the 'carrier with its also being an abbreviation for something rather sadder. One does now wonder where it came from. Is it like "KM:" short for Kriegsmarine as in KM BISMARCK, which was never used by the German Navy for its ships (that I can see) probably a model-makers construct that has now become a convenience?

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
--


Last edited by EJFoeth on Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Thanks for the input / explanation gents. I like Dick would not even dream of referring to the WWII ship as PWLS.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

In all RN reports etc all ships names are usually given in full, most times in capital letters, so for example Sheffield would be SHEFFIELD.

However in correspondence regarding Prince of Wales, I've only ever seen her referred to as PoW or P of W, from such people as S.V. Goodall and Winston Churchill.

Personally I don't mind if PoW, P of W or PWLS is used, having had a family member who served on PoW, I'm just glad that people are interested and still remember the ship.

No doubt the crew of the London Class pre dreadnought Prince of Wales wanted to distinguish their ship from the KGV class ship and the same applies today to the carrier of that name.

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
Cag wrote:
I'm just glad that people are interested and still remember the ship.


Now you're talking.

Hopefully all of our models of her and discussion about her will go a small way towards keeping alive the memories of all her poor Officers and Men who went off to war and never came home. R.I.P.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
--


Last edited by EJFoeth on Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

Yes very interesting thanks EJ (by the way I've seen your PM but can't reply to it?), like the expert in the video I've been very lucky to see the 14 inch gun manual and the Gunnery aspects of both PoW and KGV, I agree the crew of PoW did well in the fight with Bismarck, despite their inexperience.

However when you look at the Admiralty and Vickers Armstrong reports you see how much went wrong in the action in which Hood was sunk, two guns were kept in action by manual means, ie one by the use of a crowbar the other by use of a hammer! One gun was lost in A turret after firing one salvo and two guns were lost from Y turret (which seemed to be the most troublesome turret) mid way through the action, B turret lost hydraulic power too at some point (engineers in damage control switched off the hydraulic ring main).

Y turret jammed on turning away (the shell arrestor failed and it buckled the connecting trays to the shell ring) and despite repairs it jammed again on the ship's voyage home, again due to shell ring jamming.

I've read letters from the Gentleman who ran the fire control table on PoW, with typical understatement he mentions that the battle was fought with "difficulty" due to the continuous dwindling number of gun ready lamps.

I'm looking at the battle at present using the range tables (kindly given me by a very generous gentleman) for the gun to calculate out the ballistic errors to work out the salvo battle, but as with all these things there is some info out there, but there's always large gaps (powder temps, gun erosion figures, Air density calculations).

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:44 pm
Posts: 138
Guest wrote:

Re: The painting of spars and booms. I cannot argue with what has gone before on this subject. However and as most will know, the problem with painting any surface is that one may not achieve full coverage of the previous finish until two or more coats of paint have been applied. It is therefore possible that the effect we are seeing is the nature of the wood "grinning" through the grey paint that has been applied. This is likely to be even more obvious if the paint applied is no more than a cosmetic "wash" in order to cover the varnished surface and comply with a general order to tone down "bright-work."


So for painting spars and booms, I am a little late to this discussion. But hypothetically if one had already painted them wood and glue them on the model, maybe a light coat of gray would be realistic? Basically I am looking for an easy way to fix it. Or I could just leave it...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

Hello JC_4130, well I've seen pics of PoW in her Home Fleet grey with wooden spars still in evidence, as Guest says it also depends on the number of coats used, the amount of use the spar or boom gets that would inevitably lead to wear.

I'd say it's your model, if you like the look leave them, if you want more realism then maybe a chipped used look, or if your model is a fresh look then again either nice and wooden looking or completely fresh painted in surrounding colour.

Really it's up to you, I'm sure your model looks good as is but the great thing is these ships had many iterations so yours portrays a timeline with wooden spars!

Hope that helps
Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

Just a post to remember all those lost on this day from HMS Repulse, HMS Prince of Wales and the crews of the aircraft of the Genzan, Mihoro and Kanoya groups of the Japanese Naval Air force.

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
--


Last edited by EJFoeth on Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 5:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
Cag wrote:
Hi All,

Just a post to remember all those lost on this day from HMS Repulse, HMS Prince of Wales and the crews of the aircraft of the Genzan, Mihoro and Kanoya groups of the Japanese Naval Air force.

Best wishes
Cag.


80 years ago today, Rest in Peace.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 ... 57  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: janschu and 55 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