The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:51 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:58 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 1176
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
GrahamB wrote:
Hello,

is anyone aware of photographic evidence for HMS Rodney's Flotta scheme (green/brown/507C) worn for a period in 1940?

I have the Shipcraft and Man O' War books but cannot see any photos here that would match. Rodney's scheme in 1940, presumably after the Flotta scheme was painted out is, itself, somewhat mysterious, appearing quite pale with darker paint on the counter-shaded 16" barrels. I assume the latter was 507A and the rest possibly an emergency mix of 507A and 507C. I have similar issues still with the proposed overall 507A 1941 scheme for HMS Hood.
Cheers,
GrahamB


Graham,

Do you mean the dark paint on top of the 16" barrels as shown here?

Image

If so that is significantly darker than 507A ever was, and I think this is a calibration issue you have here both for HMS Rodney and other ships of the Home Fleet - 507A was simply not as dark as portrayed from the 1990s to 2018. The barrel tops are closer in tone to the darkened decks which look near-black, which would be in keeping with the guidance given in Home Fleet Temporary Memorandum 288 dated 20th August 1940 that:

"3. The decks of all ships, cruisers and above, are to be of a dark colour. For wooden decks an approximate mixture of
Japan Black 6 parts
Turpentine 1 part
Liquid Dryers 6 parts
applied to a dry deck gives good results.

4. The tops of gun barrels and other horizontal surfaces are to be painted to tone with the decks, using the non-slip deck paint referred to in C.A.F.O. 1446/40. When dazzle painting is adopted these flat surfaces should be included in the colour scheme."

Image

A 13% RF grey is drastically lighter than recent portrayals of 507A show, yet still much darker than the ficticious "507B Medium Grey". One cannot judge paint chips on white background card against the same paint in real life context.

I've had a lot of milage out of this picture below now - it's our NARN20 - the 13%RF Home Fleet Grey. I wanted to show how it really looked in a life environment to communicate to Richard above back in 2017 I think so I very roughly sprayed some onto scrap MDF board above a black band at the bottom to give a familiar reference like a boot topping. The numbers work. 10% to 13% RF just looks right - because it is right.

Image

In before the "b-b-b-but scale fade" experten apply try to enlighten me with pseudoscience, it works on a model too. This is 13% RF Home Fleet Grey (my NARN20) on Nick Charnock's 1/350 HMS Hood.
Image

_________________
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: Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:21 am
Posts: 125
Location: New Zealand
Hello Dick,

many thanks for the references about the Rodney Flotta scheme - I must try and get sight of these somehow.

Jamie - thanks for the pointer about the probable countershading colour (a deck grey). Still, I could show you heaps of photos of Rodney, Hood etc with the main turrets clearly paler than the rest of the ship and I guess the manufacturer (Armstrongs?) used a different paint. Different tones can be seen in other areas of these ships that has nothing to do with reflectance angles etc.

As for the 507B thing - yes it was a synonym for 507A - but the colour as an intermediate grey/s clearly existed 1940 onwards as you yourself - as Sovereign Paints - produce a model paint of such.

Looking at photographs and greyscales is a challenge and matching within the image itself and across contemporary examples, allowing for light direction etc, can be rewarding - and nothing to do with "scale colour" and other such peripheral issues.

Cheers,
GrahamB


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
Quote:
Jamie - thanks for the pointer about the probable countershading colour (a deck grey). Still, I could show you heaps of photos of Rodney, Hood etc with the main turrets clearly paler than the rest of the ship and I guess the manufacturer (Armstrongs?) used a different paint. Different tones can be seen in other areas of these ships that has nothing to do with reflectance angles etc.


I think the angled plating of the turrets can be deceptive there and make the turrets appear a lighter colour. Look at HMS Vanguard here in a colour stock image that is available online. 'B' Turret definitely looks lighter than 'B' Turret's barbette:

Attachment:
HMS Vanguard.jpg
HMS Vanguard.jpg [ 88.31 KiB | Viewed 3075 times ]


She was completed post-war so never carried any camouflage in active service. Pretty safe to say her turrets were painted the same colour as the rest of her, allowing for the usual nuances of paint touch-ups in service being slightly different to the surrounding areas due to the surrounding areas having weathered and faded etc.

The main gun turrets also look lighter in this stock footage from 1933 showing units of the Home Fleet. Pre-war so no camouflage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeaoDYAHgiI

A fine view of H.M.S. Nelson from 0.55mins to 1.10mins too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:29 pm
Posts: 1284
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Hi all, I skimmed through the thread and never really saw this answered. I just got the trumpeter 1/700 Rodney and would like to build her as she appeared in 1941 while pounding Bismarck into oblivion. What all needs to be done to represent her in this time period? Thanks!

_________________
-Abram


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:15 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Stratton Maine
Quote:
Hi all, I skimmed through the thread and never really saw this answered. I just got the trumpeter 1/700 Rodney and would like to build her as she appeared in 1941 while pounding Bismarck into oblivion. What all needs to be done to represent her in this time period? Thanks!



The Pom Pom on turret B would have to be replaced with 2 20mm. The rear two shelter deck Pom Poms and the sponson they sit on would have to be removed and the secondary DCT towers added back. Submarine look out positions would be removed from CT platform. Remove the 271 Lantern Radar and the type 284 gunnery radar if the kit includes it. Delete all 20mm and their tubs except for the 2 on the B turret and two near the bridge. Fit the Type 279 air warning radars instead of the 281. Depending on the kit it would need the smaller AA platform. The Quad .50 call would be retained on the bridge instead of Pom Pom directors.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 419
For Rodney in May 1941:
A good study of references and photographs is highly desireable!
Omit octuple 2pdr mounting and its enclosure and crew shelter from "B" turret, replace with two single 20mm mountings, and splinter shields, both on centreline of turret.
Omit after pair of octuple 2pdr mountings (Step 22) and their platforms, and replace with copies of secondary armament DCTs (Steps 5 and 6).
Omit all other 20mm mountings and splinter shields.
Omit Part PE-9 (unless depicting her loading torpedoes - this represents the reloading gantry).
Omit all RDF aerials (radar aerials) provided in the kit (Parts PE-5, PE-6 and C19).
Add Type 79 RDF aerials at each masthead.
Omit submarine lookout positions (Parts J9 and J10).
Omit quadruple 0.5" mountings from mainmast (Parts G2 in Step 10).
Omit enclosure and crew shelter for after octuple 2pdr mounting from quarterdeck.
Remove jammer aerials from upper bridge wireless aerial spreaders (Parts PE-3 and PE-4).
Omit RDF offices (?) (parts J17, J18, J19, J33, J42, C20).
Add (empty) sponson on starboard side of Conning Tower Platform Deck (Part H2) opposite cut-out in lower part of bridge tower (Part H3/J35)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:29 pm
Posts: 1284
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Thanks for the replies! Sounds a little involved, but definitely doable. I'll keep doing my research as well.

_________________
-Abram


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:56 pm
Posts: 50
Evening I have the 1 200 nelson stuck in the post.

Is the superdrawings by kagero of the Rodney worth while buying? Cannot find a Nelson version

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2024 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
From FB:
Attachment:
DragonNelson.jpg
DragonNelson.jpg [ 154.04 KiB | Viewed 847 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1759
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Mr. Church wrote:
From FB:
Attachment:
DragonNelson.jpg

I hope the hull is not the final version, at first sight I already see some grave errors... like the widest frame too far forward, and the bilge keels are note even close to what they should look like!

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
I'm not super clued up on the Nelson class, but shouldn't dead flat be just abaft X turret? Not between X and B as appears to be the case here...

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:31 pm
Posts: 51
DavidP wrote:
what should be "dead flat" ?


The bottom of the hull.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1759
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Quote:
... but shouldn't dead flat be just abaft X turret?...

When "dead flat" supposes there is a section where the hull sides and bottom run parallel, like in a tanker or a container ship, then the answer is clearly 'no'. In technical terms this is called a "constant section".

From stem to stern the hull shape of these battleships first gradually increase their frames to a widest point, roughly halfway, and from there reduces again to the stern. But there is really no two frames having exactly the same shape, and hence no constant section.

In the pictures (renderings) of the new model however, it seems the 'widest point' is too far forward, and it's clearly visible too.

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 am
Posts: 228
Perhaps I have my terminology wrong, or the meaning changed from the 18th/19th centuries, but by dead flat I meant the body stations that would be marked with O overlaid by X on the sheer plan. Where the numbered aft stations and lettered forward stations meet. Frame(s) of greatest breadth, at any rate.

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2024 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:34 am
Posts: 116
Location: Hajdúszoboszló, Hungary
My friend once told me that there was a photo of one of the Nelsons showing the damage to the deck after a 16" fire, but I never seen such a photo. Does anybody know if such photo exists?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
Hello "All,"

For what this is worth: "dead flat" is defined in Watson TH 1898 (Third Edtion) "Naval Architecture: A Manual on Laying-Off, Iron, Steel and Composite Vessels:" (Andrew Reid and Co Ltd: London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne) with the text "sometimes marked (that funny O with two back to back C's), is the straightest part of the ship's bottom, or the greatest section amidships, and the point where the frames change." In other words, the absolutely the widest part of the hull of a ship.

If a hull is continuously curved, this will be shown on the Body Plan as a curve of its own on both halves of the image and the bow and buttock lines will be shown inside that.

One notes that some are querying the shape of the hull of the new model. I would not know, "plastic" models are not my "discipline." The only way to check true-ness will be to compare an example of the hull against a body plan for the ship on which the model is based. In the meantime however, it seems probable that some are getting into a tizzy because their eyes are being seduced by the fact that the bridge superstructure of the subject ship was somewhat abaft the "dead flat" than was normal in such ships. In most gun-armed surface warships of the period, the bridge structure was situated about one third the way aft of the stem, on the pivot point.

NELSON/RODNEY were a contravention and this appears to have affected the way that their handling was perceived in the Royal Navy. For those wishing to examine this further, I refer them to Page 13 of Raven A and Roberts J (1979) "Man o' War 3: Battleships RODNEY and NELSON:" (Arms and Armour Press: London): it would be interesting to know what the bridge watchkeepers of the big USN CVA(N)'s think, where their bridge superstructures are currently so far aft but that may be "Classified."

Final point: the Royal Navy does not give a class name to groups of ships where there are only two of the type. Witness the current situation with HMS's QUEEN ELIZABETH and PRINCE OF WALES, it also probably saves fights among the ships' companies which might argue over precedence :big_grin:

I hope this is of some service, and thanks for reading :smallsmile:

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2024 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
81542 wrote:
Final point: the Royal Navy does not give a class name to groups of ships where there are only two of the type. Witness the current situation with HMS's QUEEN ELIZABETH and PRINCE OF WALES, it also probably saves fights among the ships' companies which might argue over precedence :big_grin:


At the risk of derailing the topic, this does not appear to be true? https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ ... beth-class

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1759
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
81542 wrote:
For what this is worth: "dead flat" is defined in Watson TH 1898 (Third Edtion) "Naval Architecture: A Manual on Laying-Off, Iron, Steel and Composite Vessels:" (Andrew Reid and Co Ltd: London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne) with the text "sometimes marked (that funny O with two back to back C's), is the straightest part of the ship's bottom, or the greatest section amidships, and the point where the frames change." In other words, the absolutely the widest part of the hull of a ship.

If a hull is continuously curved, this will be shown on the Body Plan as a curve of its own on both halves of the image and the bow and buttock lines will be shown inside that....

I hope this is of some service, and thanks for reading :smallsmile:

81542

Well, thank you for explaining what "dead flat" means. In this forum your translation "absolutely widest part of the hull" is something we all understand.

The point in question was that the 3D rendering of the announced Dragon 1/350 kit shows this "widest point" to be too far forward on the hull, whereas it should sit at the "X" turret, not further forward than that.

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
Maarten,

Thank you. I agree with you about the apparent position of the "dead flat."

It will be interesting to know if the Dragon 1/350 hull is of the correct form once someone has had a chance to review the kit. The manufacturers must have got the dimensions from somewhere. If the form is not correct, the question is why?

That said, I believe that Tamiya and the Almighty Airfix marketed one or other of the pair (NELSON/RODNEY) many years ago: one wonders if there was any problem with those.

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
Thank you, David


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 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