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.JPGhttp://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/1/1940009/Barham%20sinking2.JPGFootage
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6V8O_7olz7Iar opinions please? you seem unusually quiet. Has that photo arrived in the post yet?
Looking forward to your replies
Kind Regards
Laurence