The Ship Model Forum

Nothing really new but still!

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... arter.html

Back with hopefully a final question on PoW (we are so close...) - the RIGGING.

Modelers do this in two ways. One like the image below, and another like on drawings of Tamiya.

What is the correct method?

1) Like this?



2) Or like this?:



My own quick search shows a slight slight angle. Is that a permanent thing, or this varied? I used insulators as a guide.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

the angle should always be fairly small. the horizontal section are longer and needs to be under much higher tension to ensure they don’t whip about and accidentally touch in heavy seas and high wind.

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

I have that IWM image at high res and the slight knuckle that Pascal sketched is actually following the aerials perfectly.

Hi All

Hi Pascalemod, first off your model is looking splendid, as your drawing and Mr Foeth suggests there is an angle, however as Chuck suggests it is quite small as your drawing shows.

These were the primary aerials, there were secondary etc, unfortunately the rig drawing from the NMM is from 1936 and although it shows the aerials in basic form, the TS office between the fore funnel and signal platform is missing, and so the arrangement is different, which is a shame.

Best wishes
Cag.

In terms of actual physics, both 'straight' legs of the primary aerials would in reality be (subtle) catenary curves, but this is quite hard to acheive at scale.

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D

Just to say thanks to all the guys in this thread chiming in and helping me get my FH 1:700 PoW converted from 12.41 to 4.41 period, speed trials phase. I added weathering on the bow. Barrels are elevated on the front as in that famous picture. The rigging was made using metal wire, tried as I might few times to make that bend, I gave up. It was too hard in that scale for my skill set! Im still pleased with how it came out. The dry dock base is coming from another project, but I plan to make one for PoW in same exact manner (not a diorama, just a nice painted weathered base to tie it all together). I cant recommend high enough FH kit, even if it means youll go through installation of dozens of tiny ventilators (FH does not pay me to say this, may be they should ).

Few shots of the completed model below.

Now my battle of Denmark Strait quartet is complete. Thanks all!

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

BEAUTIFUL!!!

_________________
“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

In light of this discovery relating to the colour of H.M.S. Hood's underwater anti-fouling paint:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4702&start=700#p919993

It will be interesting to see does anything similar emerge about the underwater hull colours of the King George V Class?

Hi All

Hi Mr Church, yes I agree, a very interesting and very well done piece of research, I do know the ships books for the 4 surviving KGV class are in the National Archives at Kew, and I do intend visiting and seeing those as soon as physically possible, as well as having another look at the handbooks for the main and secondary turrets of the class.

I'm also hoping to see HMS Norfolk's ships book to find her turning circle and navigation data, so hopefully there is something in that too. Obviously the KGV class were a pre war construction, so who knows what make/colour of anti fouling was used.

When this trip will be, due to current national and local lock downs only time will tell. But I am sure a lot of people will be wanting to see those books now!

Best wishes
Cag.

Hi All

An answer to a request from Guest to know details of the 15inch underwater hit on HMS Prince of Wales on the Hood thread (also thank you to Mr Frank Allen for linking the Hood Association page on the subject).

The shell is estimated to have hit the water at a 20 to 30° angle and on a bearing of Green 40°. It is estimated that it travelled 80 ft underwater and hit the ships side at a horizontal angle 28ft below the waterline 7 inches above the bilge keel at frame 186.

It's entry bearing was about Green 40 to 50°, it was deflected to about Green 60° as it passed through the ships side (30lbs) and passed through the two bulkheads of the air/oil/air spaces (15lbs each) and then struck the torpedo bulkhead its nose and shoulder scooped out gouges in the plating causing dishing and deformation, finally coming to rest on the outer bottom of the inner air space its nose pointing forwards.

The shell is described as stable on entry and having a low velocity ( 150/200 fps) on examination the fuse had initiated and was burnt out but it did not ignite the main shell filling, the fuse was in place but the ballistic cap was missing.

I hope to write something up in the future on the sequence of the hits and how that fits with the course of the battle,

Hope that helps
Best wishes
Cag.

Cag,

Many thanks: I doff my cap!

Hi all,

@Guest - just in case you notice and wonder- there's a difference in the stated entry angle of the shell in the report on the HMS Hood site compared to what Cag wrote above.



Tha above is from Captain Leach's report which is posted on the HMS Hood site, while I believe what Cag has stated is taken from the official damage report so would be the more reliable/accurate estimate (40 - 50 degrees off the starboard bow). Correct Cag?

For Leach's report to be accurate, PoW's bow would have had to be pointing almost directly at Bismarck! That's extremely unlikely even during her turn to avoid Hood's wreck zone.

Paul

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

I also noted that the first figure for angle of fall was between 20 and 30 degrees. According to the now well-known ballistics tables for the German SK C/34 38cm gun that would imply a range of circa 24,000 yards to 32,000 yards or approximately 22.5km to 30km, very roughly speaking. Certainly the angle of fall reported was double that which hit the Hood and would imply a far longer range of engagement than actually took place.

I do wonder therefore if that figure was arrived at experientially using British ballistics data using the reported ranges rather than calculated based upon how the shell arrived at Prince of Wales through the water.

_________________
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

Great point James, those angles of fall are way too high.

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

Hi All,

Hi Paul, yes you would think so, the inspectors measured the holes and the paths which all the shells took, which when read is quite a surprise when one reads the book accounts of the battle.

Hi Jamie, a very good point, I'm in the process of checking that out as I've got the original German 15 inch ballistic data, I guess the British would have based it on both their own and on German WW1 performances and reports from other actions, ie Graf Spee, as mention is made of both of these in the shell inspection report.

As far as I can remember the report gives estimates of ranges where possible and hit 5 (the underwater 15 inch hit) is estimated at approximately 20,000 yards. There is of course the question of shell dispersion etc to consider, German spreads were described as small but possibly in the region of 100m or so.

As I say I'm going to try and write out a hit sequence, as well as other findings regarding the battle, at present, thanks to a very kind gift of data from a very kind person, I'm working through drift calculations for the 14 inch gun at ranges from 14100 yards up to 26500 yards.

Yes I do hate trigonometry and yes I am that sad!

Best wishes
Cag.

Starting to do some preliminary work on Tamiya's 1/350 Prince of Wales (I can never have just ONE project going at time, I get bored and need to switch off). I've got the Pontos upgrade set to go with the kit. I have two questions.

1) For anyone who's built this kit and used the Pontos set: looking at the instructions, it seems that all the vents, boxes, protrusions, etc. (other than the barbettes) are to be removed in advance of installing the wood deck, and then replaced with resin parts from the Pontos set, once the deck is installed. Is that correct?

2) What color was PoW undersides? Was she another ship painted in grey? Or would her bottom have been red?

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Dreading the answer to this...

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Hi All,

Hello Mr Quinn, yes as far as I can remember the vents are replaced in the Pontos set, I think there will still be the original Pontos KGV thread on the forum with pics, so that may help.

The placing of deck vents were a little different from ship to ship, my kit is in the 'pending' list, as I was waiting for the Flyhawk 1 350th arrival, but think I may have to dig out the Tamiya kit again, which needs a bit of work.

As for the lower hull, I'm afraid that will only ever be a guess. The National Archives have ships books for the rest of the class which may reveal something, but the UK is in full lockdown at the moment, so research is on hold at present.

Even so this may only tell us what other ships used, the book for Prince of Wales will have no doubt rotted away many decades ago on the seabed of the South China Sea and so exact data has gone. I'm going to check on dive reports on the ships, the earliest was in the 1960's so not sure how much paint was left.

I do have the original tender sheets etc from the Cammell Laird Archive, but it contains no detail, nor does the construction managers diary, only giving details that "painting" was carried out, not what was used.

Prince of Wales was constructed prior to the outbreak of the war and so the lower hull colour I guess could be grey, the only existing colour film of PoW is from a distance, she's in Camo, and only lasts for seconds (so far, I've contacted a few archives to find the original film but as of yet drawn a blank) and so doesn't show her underwater hull.

Hopefully soon once things return to a more normal footing the National Archives and the National Maritime Museum will be inundated with requests for ships books, and we might know more, I envy those who build waterline kits!

Hope that helps a little
Best wishes
Cag.

Hi all,



The only thing I can add here is a quote from David Thomas' book "The Battle of the Java Sea" (1968) describing Prince of Wales' final moments:



Now there is no reference given for the "great red hull" description, but either the author had a source for that description of the sinking, or he just made a presumption. But there it is for what it's worth.

But isn't there some definitive evidence from the wreck?

Paul

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