The Ship Model Forum

...... (Kagero plans are nice, but shouldn't be relied on for accuracy!)[/quote]
...the more I look at the pictures, the more I doubt kagero.......
As in the photograph of the respected EJ, it is noticeable on this that they were able to put a pair of rescue rafts between the installation behind the shield and the radar booth.In addition to the presence of a magnetic belt, the presence of an airplane is also pleasing.What do you think the deck behind the Shield at the tenth gun remained also covered with metal after the missile launcher was removed?

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

When was,this shot taken? The ships following all appear to be Italian.

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

To follow what DavidP said: Italian ships identified....


https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... orge_V.htm

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

Duke of York portholes:
1) were the lower row plated over on the bows? Or it never had them to begin with?
2) were they constantly being “plated over” over its life time or they had done some major refit once (if so, before or after 1943?)

Building the 1943 DoY using Tamiya PoW hull and need to decide if a) remove aome existing ones or b) remove all, redrill all.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

The lower row at the bows were plated over - see the photo attached, where DoY's lower deck bow scuttles are uncovered just prior to being broken up.

I spent a LOT of time a couple of years ago staring at as many photos as I could to determine the scuttle positions for King George V, Prince of Wales and Duke of York. All three ships share most of them in common positions, but each ship has some unique positioning as well. A noticeable feature on Duke of York is the upper row of scuttles aft of the armour belt are set slightly lower than the rest on that deck. On both KGV and PoW the same scuttles are at the same height as the rest on that deck. However, the round scuttles on PoW in the same positions as the rectangular deadlights on KGV occupy the slightly lower positions as per DoY.

I have made it as far as modelling all of the different positions into my KGV hull (and note also the Prince of Wales bow shape is very slightly different than the other ships of the class, right at the very top - narrow vertical band). I have NOT yet got as far as blanking off any of them, but they were all present in the hull.

These are the results of those efforts, port and starboard for each ship (they are not symmetrical) [also all deck and superstructure features are for KGV 1941, regardless of hull in these renders - and even then a lot of it still needs reworking]. Lighting/reflections at the stern on the starboard side images makes some of the positions harder to spot:








Not sure if Prince of Wales ever had any plated over; KGV had several plated over, most likely in refits; DoY may have had the lower deck scuttles plated over by the time she was launched? Haven't seen many early DoY photos so I'm not certain on that last point.

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D

Thank you for these, thats more than helpful.

So if plated over, we talking fully smoothed out on the hull or those rounded plates with bolts? I get the sense that PoW hull used for DoY has them in wrong places, but also the plans provided from the book are even MORE wrong as they placed them way in a different level vis-a-vis hawse pipes.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Good evening. So, in my work on the model, I move on (not without your help ... =) ..) then I have new questions ... first) what are these sleeves and do they have a permanent place of installation (I recall the model for the 43rd year) .... second question) many photos with fallen sloop-beams .. and also without them. Where are they kept?
P.S.Separate thanks Jan Foeth for a brilliant idea with rafts ... but I’m not so endowed with golden hands ... and I’m very lazy, unlike you. So I’ll send them to rubber for later resin casting

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

I think you are talking about trash chutes. They keep the upper hull cleaner.
Doing some good work on her!
Thanks! John

Great work on those Carley floats!! I made only a few and KGV needs lots, so casting this is certainly a great way have 'lots quickly'!

Thank you .... I didn’t have a choice. Tamia’s rafts are just awful ... And those with stupidity I bought a couple of sets of flyhawk turned out to be more like an oval pizza and in size and volume I'm sorry, but could you clarify to me where and what winches were put ... which were standing on the side of the towers and which were in front of the superstructure ... and were there winches in front of the hangars...thanks in advance and sorry for my english

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

In front of A-turret: 2 3-tons winches, one on either side.
In front of the bridge: 2 1.5-ton winches, one on either side
Aft of the aft structure (quarterdeck): 2 1.5-ton winches, one on either side

Don't see any more on the plans.

Guys, need help with deck photos of Duke of York - that shows unpainted focsle and painted main deck in dark grey beyond the first wave breaker. Do we have this picture? I could swear i seen it but on this thread.

Many builds of DoY address this by leaving the fwd part unpainted (I guess paint didnt really hang on there) and the remainder in dark grey.

COuld be super helpful to me to have the pic so I know Im not commiting some error building my 1943 Pontos DoY.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

I don't remember ever seeing this on a real photograph. I suspect it is some "artistic effect" invented by a modeller and copied by others.

_________________
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

OK . but the deck WAS painted, wasn't it?

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

All evidence suggests the decks were darkened. Whether by paint or a dark stain is not something I think can be distinguished, but it is clearly not light, bright planking.

_________________
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

Yet what about these photos then? (attached - some is 1944 granted, not 1943). Look at the second photo (click on it, resolution is ok). You can notice the sharp contrast. First photo Im not sure of - it could just be reflecting wet surface as after first wave breaker it is also a bit white. Usual disclaimers on WW2 photo quality etc apply.

Cant say I yet 100% agree these are imaginations of some modelers there, the ship has a clear break in color. This was posted to me by a guy who built DoY on a russian forum but he said he was docked points on championship for painting it this way. So there is that evidence he gave for defending his view.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

I think in photos like that, it becomes very difficult to distinguish between an unpainted/stained area of deck, and simply a wet area of deck. The KGVs, like all British battleships up to that point, were wet forward, so even though the rest appears fairly dry, it's certainly within the realms of possibility that the forecastle is soaking wet, yet still dark...

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D

That doesnt make sense to me. The focsle is light in color in second picture. You are saying it is just so exactly wet that it appears super bright, while the rest is dark? That doesnt sound very plausible to me. Possible, but look at that photo nr2 and tell me what your gut reaction is. Explain away your theory, or just plainly call out for a much different color. Moreover the picture shows seas fairly calm. The deck is not wet at all in other areas. Looks to me like a strong evidence that at some point in time the ship had unpainted focsle.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

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.

_________________
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

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.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery