The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:51 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 57  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
In May 1941, KGV's AA armament consisted of the 4x 8-barrelled pom-poms on the hangar roof, 1x UP mount on the roof of B turret, 2x UP mounts on the roof of Y turret, and 1x UP mount on the quarterdeck. Obviously the 5.25" secondaries as well, being dual-purpose guns. Pretty light load-out at that stage of the war. The Oerlikons nestled behind the fore sea-break were added later - 42 or 43, I think.


SovereignHobbies - wow, I'm well off then! I'd always thought of 507A as being a dark shade,and 507B as the medium grey. If they were in fact essentially identical, that changes a few things, and raises a few questions from me!

That is indeed the camo scheme I was referring to - do we know what colours were used in it? I had read 507C and 507A, but if A and B were identical, and A/B was used as Home Fleet Grey (or was it??), then the dark parts of the scheme clearly cannot be 507A, since they are very clearly darker, as seen here (March 1941, being over-painted immediately after returning from the US). You can see patches of the first coat of Home Fleet Grey remaining below the freshly painted areas (though not much!)
Image
I appreciate that this was an unofficial camo scheme, and so the exact colours may simply not be documented anywhere. I believe the photos you posted, of KGV in drydock at Rosyth after being received into the navy, was when the scheme was first overpainted (the coat that subsequently peeled off so badly).

Turret roofs were clearly painted dark (grey?) though - this is also March 1941:
Image
Interestingly, the wooden deck does not look particularly dark here. How certain are we that it was painted/stained at this time? These ships were so wet forwards that they were often soaked and of course appear dark due to that...

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:49 am
Posts: 29
Great, great contribution Martocticvs, Yes first I also support the "wet wood--> dark/stained appearance". Some woods get really dark when wet. Surely at second pic it does not look as painted or whatever. But what happenes between that and MAy 27th...?
Thanks also for the "accessories" breakdown, it's really helpful. Apparently that makes most of the Eduard first set unnecessary... if only I had some cranes, though! :(
One thing I always think and which this pictures confirm, is how oversized are even the finest PE railings, you see it's almost invisible even in a good res big picture. I always think that simply vertical poles and very thin thread would be better. Or just no hand raisl at all. I imagine it's an oold debate, what you think guys? ;-)
Happy to keep alve debate on KGV late may 1941, thanks to all!
JJ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 446
SovereignHobbies wrote:
Martocticvs wrote:
Colour scheme for 1941 as far as I am aware would be all-over AP507B, with most horizontal surfaces in AP507A (turret tops certainly appear to be the darker shade). Whether the decks were stained/painted is still unclear to me.

If we're talking very early 1941, the above is still true, but this application of 507B suffered pretty extreme weathering and was peeling off in large patches, revealing remnants of the original AP507A/AP507C camo scheme, and that scheme itself had worn through in large areas revealing white primer underneath. This damaged paintwork seems to have been painted over pretty much the instant KGV returned from North America in early '41. If you're thinking specifically of May and the Bismarck incident, the condition of the paintwork then, as far as I've been able to tell, was pretty good - just some very minor wear around the waterline.


Do you refer to this scheme?
Image
Image

As it's becoming clear to increasing numbers of people from primary source material that 507B was the immediately pre-war high quality version of Home Fleet grey and that 507A was exactly the same paint reintroduced early in the war minus the enamel content for war economies, I think any source referring to 507B replacing 507A, or 507A and 507B comprising a scheme together must be treated with extreme caution now. It's possible some such model paint call-offs end up being more-or-less correct for the wrong reasons, but it's very apparent that the different tones of paint evident in black and white photographs have been misidentified, misunderstood and misinterpreted for a few decades now. The stern photo above shows 3 distinct shades.

What is safe to say however was that HMS King George V was painted Home Fleet grey whilst serving with the Home Fleet under Admiral Tovey. :) The decks were painted with dark grey non-slip paint.


Do you have any idea what paint in your range that the decks of RN ships were painted in (if any in your range exist), also can you explain what paint the 507B may in fact be if it is mismatched. Example could it be B5 which was always identical in your range.

From my time in the Navy and going off what I know from ships particularly RN and US ships, the decks were often a shade darker than the hull and superstructure. I find it hard to believe that an entire RN ship would be painted in the same colour the entire way around. If 507B did not exist then was MS2 used more widely than originally thought. Can you please explain further about the enamels and what this does to the shade of the pain.

It is going to be quite a task repainting all my model ships if this is the case. Unfortunately some may have to remain as is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 1176
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
I'm afraid I can't fully explain all that yet.

There are elements written down which presume other knowledge and there are specifics which are not open to intepretation.

As for 507B, the enamel was supplied tinted and I think the exact wording for the tint was "Home Fleet shade", which appears to mean that it was the same colour as the resultant mixed paint. Even were the enamel tinted white as an extreme outlying notion, the quantity added per CWT is wholly inadequate to meaningfully lighten the colour to the medium grey people have until recently thought was 507B.

I can't say any more on that now. I could speculate further but I genuinely believe that would be counter productive to the modelling community. There is more work to be done.

I do believe I know what fresh B5 looked like though and that's in manufacture now. It's quite distinctive.

_________________
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 Mar 24, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 446
SovereignHobbies wrote:
I'm afraid I can't fully explain all that yet.

There are elements written down which presume other knowledge and there are specifics which are not open to intepretation.

As for 507B, the enamel was supplied tinted and I think the exact wording for the tint was "Home Fleet shade", which appears to mean that it was the same colour as the resultant mixed paint. Even were the enamel tinted white as an extreme outlying notion, the quantity added per CWT is wholly inadequate to meaningfully lighten the colour to the medium grey people have until recently thought was 507B.

I can't say any more on that now. I could speculate further but I genuinely believe that would be counter productive to the modelling community. There is more work to be done.

I do believe I know what fresh B5 looked like though and that's in manufacture now. It's quite distinctive.



Thanks, it is looking more likely to me now that there were two shades of main grey used by the RN the 507A and 507C. Some of the images are very clear that the RN ships were extremely dark that I have been looking at.

Just to clear things up and reinforce the research, have you checked if the tin of supposed 507B is anything that remotely matches any of your paints the RN used during the Great War or WWI?

To put this issue away for good, it would be nice to work out where on earth they got that sample from.

I am hoping that with some help of others on here I can make some visits to some naval archives in Australia to find out what our navy has based on RN paints they used. I am more than happy to invest my money travelling to parts of Australia to do this research if need be. I am also ex Navy and may be able to reach out on Facebook groups to ex sailors older than me who may have some idea about paints if they ever did general duties work in archives or historic centres.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 446
I am wondering if anyone has some diagrams and dimensions of the four HAC towers that were on the HMS Howe in the second world war. I know these are different to the ones used on the other KGV class battleships. I am trying to convert a 1/350 King George V kit to HMS Howe and am just looking do make my own HAC directors.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
Sutho wrote:
I am wondering if anyone has some diagrams and dimensions of the four HAC towers that were on the HMS Howe in the second world war. I know these are different to the ones used on the other KGV class battleships. I am trying to convert a 1/350 King George V kit to HMS Howe and am just looking do make my own HAC directors.

KGV and PoW were built with MK-IV secondary directors. DoY, Anson and Howe were built with MK-V directors. Only Anson later upgraded to the MK-VI. I don't have the dimensions, but I know of an alternative.

https://www.shapeways.com/product/KZPAW ... d=57548036


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
I made some enquiries into the UP sights a while ago at the National Museum of the Royal Navy. They were unfortunately unable to locate any visual information about them, but they did come across a description in a book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nCN ... un&f=false

Two double-barelled shotgun butts atop a steel fence post! This was not what I was expecting!

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:03 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Plymouth UK
Many thanks for that bit of detective work and I suspect that might be the best that will come to light on the subject of the UP sight. I am quite tempted to get a copy of the book as it is quite good at descriptions of actual arrangements onboard.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Good find; I went through all the material I collected during my hunt for bridge equipment pictures but did not find anything. It sounds like an easy enough object to identify if a picture is found.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
I noticed that the version of the Tamiya 1/700 Prince of Wales that I built in this thread only had a single Japanese Betty G4M bomber in the kit, which is numbered Tamiya 122.

In contrast, Tamiya's "Battle of Malaya" version Prince of Wales kit is supposed to have 4 G4M Bettys and 3 G3M2 Nells.

Is the tooling of the Prince of Wales no.122 kit thus inaccurate or flawed that they had to release the Battle of Malaya version? Or was the newer version made just to add more planes?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:02 am
Posts: 9
Hi everyone!
I am now proceeding with Tamiya PoW trying to make KGV with the help of Pontos kit.
The kit suggests to place oerlikons like in picture
But does anyone have the picture of the ship itself with oerlikons placed like this?


Attachments:
iuWDOQCSTPo.jpg
iuWDOQCSTPo.jpg [ 39.44 KiB | Viewed 3345 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:02 am
Posts: 9
DavidP wrote:
what time period as I presume mid to late war?


1942-1943ss. Before the big modernisaton.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Did you try tbe Imperial War Museum?

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=battleship+king+george+v&f%5B0%5D=department%3APhotographs&items_per_page=50


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:02 am
Posts: 9
EJFoeth wrote:


Yep, and seems no luck.
Though there is an interesting picture of KGV in 1942. If you look at the afterdeck, you'll see a number of oerlikons in "nests", while in front of turret "A" there are none of them. Or there are some, but without "nests"?

Also I'm sorry for incorrect usage of terms (especially parts of the ship) if I commited any. My English is not perfect :Oops_1:


Attachments:
oa4ZDmaHn0I.jpg
oa4ZDmaHn0I.jpg [ 315.83 KiB | Viewed 3219 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:27 am
Posts: 58
I will be attempting a build of the Heller HMS KGV in the same time period as you. I posted a similar question to you and from 2 really helpful gentleman, Peter Hall and Gary Johnson I got the following information respectively.

The old blast shield on the KG5 stern position was where one of the UP launchers was removed from in December 1941. It wasn't used for anything until late 1945 when a 4 barrelled Pom Pom was fitted there.
In December 1941 Eighteen single 20mm Oerlikons were fitted, 5 x to the rear of the quarterdeck, 4x 2 on each side of the aft superstructure angles , 4x 2 on each side of the forward superstructure at 02 deck level.
5 x on the focsle behind the breakwater.
There were not anymore until late in 1943 when another 18 were added. 6 to the quarterdeck, 8 x 4 on each side of the catapult deck ( two on each side of the catapult at the deck edges) 4 x 2 on each side of B turret barbette on the main deck.

I have checked three sources including Friedman's "British Battleships," and it appears the KING GEORGE V did not carry UP mounts and 20mm Oerlikon mounts at the same time. In 1940, KGV carried 4x 8-barrel pom-pom mounts and 4x UP mounts. By December 1941, KGV had landed all of the UP mounts and had added a single 4-barrel pom-pom to B Turret, one additional 8-barrel pom-pom mount on X Turret, and 18x 20mm single mounts. The 20mm mounts were positioned as follows: 5 at the forward breakwater on the upper deck, 5 on the aft quarterdeck near the fantail, 4 on the aft superstructure forming a semicircle on the boat deck level, and 2 each port and starboard on the No. 1 platform.

This configuration was retained until mid-1943 when 18 additional 20mm single mounts were added. These were distributed as follows: 4 on the upper deck around B Turret, 8 on the flight deck around the catapult track, and 6 more on the aft quarterdeck. This configuration was retained until KGV underwent a five month refit in Liverpool from February to July 1944 in preparation for er deployment with the British Pacific Fleet (BPF). There were substantial changes to the AA suite during this refit.

I have some pictures form various sources but am unsure about copyright as someone posted something in response to a question from for me and was pulled up about it. Please send me your email address off board and I'll forward them.

Al.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 419
The second photo in magisterman's post shows the five 20mm Oerlikon mountings on the foc's'le. I have yet to find a photo of her showing the tubs (although the five on the quarterdeck were in tubs).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
The ship's company cheering Admiral Sir John Tovey as he passes the Flagship, HMS KING GEORGE V, on board a destroyer.

Image
ADMIRAL TOVEY LEAVES HOME FLEET TO BECOME C-IN-C THE NORE. 8 MAY 1943, SCAPA FLOW, BRITISH HOME FLEET COMMAND CHANGE OVER WHEN THE NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF, HOME FLEET, ADMIRAL SIR BRUCE A FRASER, KBE, CB, TOOK OVER FROM THE RETIRING C-IN-C, ADMIRAL SIR JOHN C TOVEY, KCB, KBE, DSO, WHO IS TAKING UP HIS APPOINTMENT AS C-IN-C, NORE.. © IWM (A 16476)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Cannot find any other pic, only this one from a series also showing the UP launchers (so pre-42) and three single mounts, no tubs.

Attachment:
pic.jpg


This one was part from a large series of images on Ebay (that I did not buy because $$$$)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Some pics of HMS Prince of Wales (#1, #2, #5 are not a positive id, but it makes sense in the order of the pics, so, ight be HMS PoW).

Image
THE VISIT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING TO ROSYTH. 5 MARCH 1941.. © IWM (A 3363)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Image
THE VISIT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING TO ROSYTH. 5 MARCH 1941.. © IWM (A 3364)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Image
THE VISIT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING TO ROSYTH. 5 MARCH 1941.. © IWM (A 3365)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Image
THE VISIT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING TO ROSYTH. 5 MARCH 1941.. © IWM (A 3366)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Image
THE VISIT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING TO ROSYTH. 5 MARCH 1941.. © IWM (A 3367)IWM Non Commercial Licence


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:26 am 
EJFoeth wrote:
The ship's company cheering Admiral Sir John Tovey as he passes the Flagship, HMS KING GEORGE V, on board a destroyer.


Is this a 'cropped' photo, or where is the DD, out of photo I assume?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 57  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 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