The Ship Model Forum

I concure, not Barham, could be Malaya. Decks have been recovered with semtex.

They are from the HMS Barham Association website:

http://www.hmsbarham.com/ship/photos.php

Misidentified?

Hello Laurence,

I have to admit I am a bit confused now. i have been on the HMS Barham Association website and looked carefully at some photos. The legend of the top picture states "General de Gaulle onboard at Dakar September 1940". There is no doubt about the Officer being Général de Gaulle indeed, and moreover, there is another picture showing him leaving the ship. Going back to my library and looking at "Dakar 1940", by H.Couteau-Bégarie and C.Huan, two well-known french authors, p.178 " a boat went to take Général de Gaulle and General Spears to a meeting with Admiral Cunningham and General Irwin to take place aboard Barham". Meeting was held on 24 September 1940 from 4pm to 6pm.

Therefore, I think the picture you have posted shows HMS Barham with something on the deck which could be semtex. Looking more at this picture you can identify the position where it has been taken (4"AA+pom-pom). But, is it possible that Semtex shown in September 1940, could have been stripped off in November 1941 ?

Come on Royal Navy British Experts !!!:big_grin: I want my WEM HMS Barham ship kit, to be released soon, as accurate as possible.

cheers

Gilbert

I have changed my mind. It is the Barham, circa 1940.

The event would seem to say yes it is Barham, in which case I would have to assume some alterations were made between the time of this photograph and the time of her loss. Firstly the pompom mount is different, there was a small platform, not sure what for, but half way up the mount as per drawings page 202-203 of British Battleships. It could be the camera angle, but the twin 4" mount looks too close to the pom pom mount and I am not sure why the davits are there, they appear to have been removed in 1941. This makes me think there must either have been minor changes post this photo or maybe it isn't Barham, did de Gaulle visit any other battleships? If not then it must be Barham, which leads me to think some alterations were made after this date, which given the condition of the semtex, might possibly have included taking that up?

Must admit to being a little sceptical of the captions for these photos when on the photo page linked to, second line last photo...

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk

Many thanks Gilbert,

I was going to look up the TROM for Barham and also in the Geoffrey Jones (1979) Battleship Barham book I have to see if it mentioned De Gaulle visiting.
Obviously you have better French sources than me and you have struck the nail bang on the head, excellent!

ar it is nice to see a young dog can teach an old one new tricks!

As an aside, in the Jones book, it also shows 2 photos of Barham undergoing refit at Gibraltar 1941. Looking at Barham's movements her later refit was at Durban (summer 1941) and so the photos in the book must be when she docked on the 15th October 1940 at Gibraltar for repairs for damage sustained at Dakar. In these 2 photos it would appear; despite the photo reproduction not being fantastic, that perhaps she was at that time painted in the Mediterranean dark hull light upperworks scheme that we talked about recently.

Therefore there are 2 refit periods between the time of when these De Gaulle photos were taken Mike (if they are indeed taken on Barham) and the time of her loss.
I am sure I have seen a model somewhere on the net of Barham in 1/700 done at the time of her loss and the modeler had in fact painted Corticene on it and not Semtex. This could be in error from the modeller although it would be interesting to ask him what evidence he used to depict her like that.
The best person to speak to would be Dino, the chap scratching a 1/350 behemouth of her. The relevant thread is somewhere on this site. I sent him all the wartime photos I could fine of Barham (including ones showing clearly her degaussing coil and Alexandra style camouflage scheme) and he looked into the deck-covering question a bit more as he wanted his model to be accurate.

Good debate Chaps
Cheers
LB

P.S. There is good evidence to suggest De Gaulle would have visited Barham due to the Dakar incident (Operation MENACE). What ship did he embark in for it?
Barham was at Gibraltar early September 1940 and then later on in September at Freetown.
This could have been where De Gaulle embarked before sailing on operation MENACE perhaps?

agreed, never saw HMS Barham with this camo. ar should identify the ship

Gilbert

Laurence,

I think you have the answer with the TROM. By the way, is there any dedicated website where can you find them ?

About Corticene, I thought having read somewhere that the use of this product stopped after 1939-1940 but I am not sure about this.

cheers

Gilbert

PS - I hope you will say HMS Barham has only teak on her decks in 1941 (Better look for my future model )

I concur De Gaulle was embarked on Westernland (a 16,000 ton Dutch liner with Free French Troops aboard) during MENACE.
Barham, after completing her Liverpool refit, escorted this vessel; along with others taking part in this operation, in convoy from Scapa to Gibraltar August- September 1940.
Thus the De Gaulle photos could also have been taken at Scapa when Barham was first selected as flagship of Force M and De Gaulle may have boarded her for inspection and/or meetings and planning arrangements to be concluded before departure. However looking at the tropical rig and the background in the photos I think this can be ruled out.

The Jones book does mention later meetings were carried out on Barham at Freetown, but only mentions Major-General Irwin, his staff and Vice-Admiral John Cunningham and his staff being piped aboard. It is likely, however, that De Gaulle also would have come on board as they were all joint leaders and he may have even visited while at Gib for 4-days, but the photos don't look like Gib.

As the photos show tropical rig being worn and we can see some British army officers alongside him I'd say they were mostly likely taken at Freetown on board Barham during September 1940.

Barham's basic TROM below (be weary though as Lt Cmdr. Mason has used a limited range of sources; from what I can gather these are pretty much generated from the movement cards held at Naval Historical, and it omits some movements and details found in other PRO sources for example)

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-Barham.htm

It would appear the switch from Corticiene to Semtex was around the time the I and Tribal class were being fitted out and commissioned from 1936 onwards.
The HMS Intrepid book by George Mack, a gentlemen who use to scrub her decks, suggested on her first commission to the Mediterranean in 1938 she was one of the first ships to have Semtex and they and other ships of the flotilla had problems keeping it clean.

Barham had a major refit at Portsmouth in 1938 and the Semtex could have been applied then.

Thanks for these useful infos. I think the picture might have been taken on 24 September 1940 but it could have been taken as well in Freetown. However, there is no doubt about the meeting held aboard Barham on September 24, as it is expressely mentioned in Général de Gaulle "Mémoires de Guerre" book. So, if we assume HMS Barham had some corticene put on some parts on her main deck, do you think, this material could have been stripped off afterwards durin one of the repairs you have mentioned ?

John Snyder was very affirmative when he said to me that HMS Barham decks were uncovered by the time of her sinking. Moreover, he said it was quite clear on the related video and pictures.

Interesting debate but I don't have the clue

cheers

Gilbert

I'm leaning towards teak decks as there seems to have been ample opportunity to get rid of the semtex in two refits.

The ship on the Barham website with the wrong caption is Queen Elizabeth, I think I can make out a tripod mast.

So Gilbert, I think you (and John) were correct all along unless there is definite proof to the contrary

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk

So do I Mike, but anyway this has been a very intersting debate. I think you are right about the picture on HMS Barham website, looks like HMS Queen Elizabeth ; at least this camo sounds more having been depicted on her.
But I still wonder why this semtex would have been stripped off

cheers

Gilbert

I have never read of semtex having been completely stripped from a RN battleship during early wartime refits.
Repaired or being relaid from ware n tear yes, but never completely stripped back down to teak decks.

If Semtex is around the twin-4inch guns i.e. where the gun crews are scurrying about feeding ammunition from the ready use lockers to the mounting itself, surely those decks become slippery if put back as teak and the mountings are being manned in any kind of sea state. Therefore a deck covering will continually be needed at those locations no?

Does anyone, ar included, have any clear evidence of Semtex removal having been carried out during wartime in the period 1940-1941 on board RN Battleships?
During the early war period, refits would always be done in a hurry and there would need to be a pretty good reason to remove a deck covering seen to be needed in 1938 when the twin 4-inch were fitted.

I have the video of Barham sinking somewhere and a series of very clear photographs I will try and dig them out.
LB

Semtex not laid on top of wood decking, but in place of. IE, wood removed, then semtex trowelled onto the steel.

Photo page 221 of British Battleships captioned early 1937 clearly shows a twin 4" with teak decking underneath, no deck covering.

Still no proof that there was a deck covering in 1941, just conjecture, if there is a clear photo available I will happily make the changes but it has to be definite proof.

Incidentally, the sinking photos also show turret tops painted dark grey.

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk

Mike,

I think we have some kind of evidence about HMS Barham wearing some semtex, in September 1940, in the 4" turrets area :

a) - the picture already mentioned showing Général de Gaulle near a 4" turret walking on a deck, clearly not being covered by teak
b) - I strongly believe the picture has been taken during Operation Menace because some of the other pictures on the HMS Barham website show HMS Resolution after having been torpedoed by French Submarine Bévéziers

As ar said semtex don't cover but replace teak, the question is, would it be likely or not for semtex to be taken off and replaced by teak during the already mentioned repairs after september 1940

cheers

Gilbert

My apologies about the Semtex confusion, meant to type stripped back down to steel decks not teak.

Mike likewise there is no clear evidence that it was ever taken off, just a theory based upon 2 people's opinions, which seems based on the sinking footage, which isn't a close up on-deck photo of the area in question; the ship is listing rapidly and the footage, (filmed from Valiant I believe) is distant and blurry at times. Might I add the Barham Profile Morskie supports the theory of teak decks at the time of sinking, but then again we know them to be often unreliable on such matters. Please show me the clear evidence it was taken of by November 1941 and I'll eat my Chelsea hat.

The 1937 photo of Barham's damaged twin 4-inch on p221 of British Battleships is irrelevant as we know Semtex was added in her major refit at Portsmouth in 1938 and was still there in Sept 1940.
Consequently that throws up yet more questions which you seem to have missed Mike. Are those collision photos correctly dated ar as the Jones book states Barham got her twin 4-inch in 1938 at her major refit in Portsmouth, and yet here in your co-authored book you are showing Barham with a mangled twin 4-inch and dating the photo early 1937? Either Jones is wrong or those p221 photos are incorrectly dated. Subsequently you don't give dates as when she had her single 4-inch replaced with twins in Ensign 4 and merely state a vague 1930s. Finally British Battleships gives the correct date on p203 as 1938. So once again it would appear the dates of the photos on p221 are INCORRECTLY DATED or that isn't Barham! Were you relying on what an archivist cataloged the photo as? I'll let you off and you can blame the editor again

That throws up yet more questions on the validly of those p221 photos:
Questions A
1) WHAT ship did Barham collide with and WHEN?
2) Are you positive those photos are in fact Barham in early 1937?

If we consider your theory then that the Semtex was removed and teak decking would have been put back in its place between Sept 1940 and Nov 1941, I would like to throw more considerations out there.
Questions B
1) Could some of the deck around the twin 4-inch have been left bare steel and simply over painted?
2) Could Semtex removal and teak decking have been relaid in any port e.g. Gibraltar or Durban or would it have more likely been done at a UK port?
3) Further when parts of the teak decking were lifted in 1938, at Portsmouth, would it have been put into storage and then if relaid during the early war period would it not have had to be transported to which ever port Barham was going to refit in? This implies elements of fore-planning, allocation, and transportation (mostly likely by merchant ship) so as the Gibraltar refit was unexpected (due to unforeseen action damage at Dakar and was only a very short refit of around 2 weeks), this implies it would have more likely been carried out in her more prolonged and more 'scheduled' (if there is such a thing) refit at Durban during the summer of 1941. This doesn't suggest it was done, merely if it was, I think it more likely at Durban with all things considered above. Of course they could have used fresh teak decking and that blows those ideas out of the water, pun intended.

Finally I have looked at the sinking footage with her in her Alexandria style camouflage scheme on the Roland Smith videos (see below for you tube clip).
Agree the turret roofs appear a uniform dark colour.
Also to me the entire decks also look a uniform dark colour, but lighter than the turret tops. It almost looks as if her decks are over painted.

2 screen captures from you tube, god rest their souls!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/1/1940009/Barham%20sinking1.JPG
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/1/1940009/Barham%20sinking2.JPG

Footage

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6V8O_7olz7I

ar opinions please? you seem unusually quiet. Has that photo arrived in the post yet?
Looking forward to your replies
Kind Regards
Laurence

Will try to look up the damage details re, pre-war photos.

Best guess, re Semtex.
Applied at the time of the refit in which the 4" twins were fitted, ie 1938.
Not replaced with wood at any time thereafter.
Area covered with semtex uncertain, but I believe it would begin from a point where the fore 4"twin was positioned and to then run aft to the fore end of the aft deckhouse. Fore and aft of these two points, the forecastle deck would retain it's wood covering. Semtex would go around and NOT under the boats that were stowed in-board.
Note that semtex darkened down quite a bit over time due to traffic and general wear and tear.
See on-board photos of the Oribi for the above, and page 54 of RN Camouflage Vol One for the as new appearence. Quite possible of course that the wood areas of deck were painted over by late 40/early 41.
Sorry Foeth, unless you have not reached that stage in your model.

The photo has not yet arrived.