The Ship Model Forum

The question of inter-war RN China Station colours on County Class cruisers seems to be a hardy perennial.The yellow upperworks and funnels idea is a myth. So is the buff funnels idea. The correct colours for the China Command scheme were white hull and grey (507B) upperworks and funnels. This scheme finished in the summer of 1935 after which the China Command ships painted to light grey (507C) overall.

The error has crept in over the years either because people are getting confused with the East Indies Command painting scheme where funnels, masts and spars (but not upperworks) were at times painted yellow, or with the colours of the gunboats of the Yangtze river flotilla which were white hull and upperworks and buff funnels.

The inter-war Royal Navy divided the world up into various commands. The China Command was headquartered at Hong Kong and covered things east and north of Singapore. The East Indies Command was headquartered in Ceylon and covered the Indian Ocean - see the map halfway down this page: https://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3909-04RN.htm#4.2

Each of these commands painted their ships differently. As can be seen in the attached Admiralty Fleet Order (AFO) 3948 of 1919, China Station upperworks were grey at the start of the inter-war period.

Subsequent painting AFOs all the way to the 1935 change to overall light grey 507C reconfirm this painting scheme. AFO 1658 of 1927 spelt out clearly that the grey of the China Station upperworks was 507B and this was also shown in the contemporary Rate Book.

By way of confirmation that the ships of the China Command did paint as the Admiralty in London instructed, attached is a page from the inter-war Janes Fighting Ships 1935 edition. The earlier interwar editions say the same thing.

Contemporary artefacts of inter-war RN China Station ships in UK museums and Royal Navy establishments show grey upperworks. You will find numerous watercolours showing this as well as some models and other sailors’ memorabilia. A few examples:

Here is a link to the builders’ model of HMS Cumberland as she was delivered to the RN by Vickers Armstrong ready for service on the China Station which where she went on first commissioning:
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collection ... 66003.html

Here is as link to a model in the National Maritime Museum made at the time (1931-1934) by a crewman on HMS Kent.
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collection ... 67440.html

If you want to paint a County with coloured funnels then you need to do one in the yellow (not buff) funnels, with white upperworks and hull, of the of the East Indies Station such as HMS Norfolk in 1937.

Thanks again dick! I wish this could be posted as a sticky in the camo. section.

Couple of points not mentioned by Dick.
The issue of incorrect reporting of colours is not helped by different sites, including one touched on earlier, which perpetuate the discrepancy by listing ships of the East Indies stn as being and wearing colours of the China Stn.
It is also worth noting that in the majority of cases, the images had at that time been taken using orthochromatic film which will render the yellow funnels as dark to extremely dark, more so than would be expected for 507B.

Thanks Dick
I like the white and gray even better.
Just released 1/96 Exeter from the build table and the Kent sub class will take it's place.

I have just pre-ordered Trumpeter 1/350 HMS Cornwall from Freetime Hobbies. My experience (HMS Exeter) is that pre-order preceeds postage by several months but is a very positive sign.

My father served on Cornwall throughout the was but was fortunate to be posted off just bedore she was lost.
Barry

Late March is the ETA, at least in Japan: https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10585495

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Yep. These are the lines for the London and Norfolk classes. Note the absence of the bulges, and the more vertical sides of the hull.

_________________
"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

Yes, the hulls of the London an Norfolk classes were essentially the same. The main difference between the two sub classes were the main armament turrets, but to tell the difference you need to have a close look: the Mk. I turrets of the Kent and London classes had periscopes on the side of the turrets, while the Mk. II turrets of the Norfolk class had sighting ports in the front shield, between the gun barrels.

Norfolk was the lead ship in her sub class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-class_cruiser

_________________
"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

Thanks . I wasn't sure because I have seen it called the Dorsetshire sub class .

The last two County class cruisers were the Norfolk class (Wikipedia, as Maarten wrote), the Dorsetshire Class (WW2 Cruisers site - https://www.world-war.co.uk/Dorset/dorset_class.php3), the Dorsetshire sub-group or the Norfolk sub-group, depending on which reference is consulted! Even such a well-known author as Norman Friedman uses "Norfolk class" and "Dorsetshire class" in the same book!

The common use is to name the class of a ship after the first ship launched or put in service. In this case the Norfolk was ahead of Dorsetshire on both accounts, for that reason the class should be called the 'Norfolk class'.

Now, I know this practice is sometimes trifled with, for good or not so good reasons. An example of an understandable and good reason is the 'Thresher class' of SSN submarines of the US Navy. After the lead ship got lost through a very emotional accident with great loss of life, it became custom to call the class after the second ship: the 'Permit class', as to avoid regular painful references to the lost Thresher.

In case of the Norfolk and Dorsetshire maybe the opposite happened: as the Dorsetshire was lost in action, maybe some wanted her not to be forgotten and even modified the class name to memorize this. However, I don't believe this was ever official, and for that matter the Norfolk had a very good record of actions herself. So I don't see a good reason to veer of the standard practice, and suggest to maintain the name 'Norfolk class.'

Even the authoritative Norman Friedman can make a - rare -mistake! I made the mistake myself too, in my earlier posting, maybe adding to the confusion. Therefore I have corrected it there.

_________________
"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

This practice may be common in Europe, but all American warships are assigned a hull number before they are even ordered. Often before they are named. U.S. Navy practice is for the ship with the lowest hull number to be class leader, regardless of which ship launched or commissioned first. Some unofficial publications of the 1930's tried to use European practice in naming U.S. ship classes, particularly with destroyers, but the official USN designation was (and still is) by hull number.

Indeed! It always bugs me to see reference to "Maryland-class" battleships, or "Constellation-class" battlecruisers.

It does amuse me how, more-so than any other navy, the RN tends to end up with colloquial-turned-ubiquitous "Naming Convention"-classes.

I mean, sure, you could call IJN ships "mountain-class heavy cruisers," or USN "state-class Battleships," but no one ever does. I suppose you might hear "politician-class aircraft carriers" on occasion; but that's just being snarky, not serious.

- Sean F.

Quad Vickers MG on HMAS Canberra in August 1942?

I think this story might be of interest to followers of this thread - how responding in a general Facebook discussion lead to further perfecting our knowledge of the final fit of HMAS Canberra and my already finished model. Check this link for more details.

_________________
Battle of Savo Island Collection (all 1/700)
Recently completed: USS Wilson DD-408
At works: USS Astoria CA-34 | USS Patterson DD-392 & USS Bagley DD-386
Prep stage: USS Vincennes CA-44 | HMAS Australia | Yubari | Kako

So, just to clarify for my build, ignoring the possibility of Mountbatten Pink, of the Dorsetshire:

1. During the Bismark chase she had the longer light area on the hull and the forward two funnels in the darker color.
2. Later in the year and possibly into 1942 the light grey section was shortened and the all funnels were the same color as the superstructure.
2. At the time she was sunk in the Indian Ocean, Dorsetshire was completely different, with large sections of the hull in at least 3 different colors.

Does this sound about right?

Maybe this is a useful reference for you?
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Appendex_1-4_Notes-RStuart-Adobe.pdf

_________________
"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

A very good find with the report Maarten.
Did not see any reference within pertaining to her mast mods, topmasts of the fore and main were dropped by approx. 20`
This occurred in her May/June 40 refit, some sources inaccurately quote 41.
An image of her at Simonstown second half 40, with lowered masts and wearing either Home or Nth Atlantic stn colours.

Maarten, thank you. That is very useful.

I think the funnels kept the same pattern - the first two had the same colour as the lower hull/bow/stern and aft superstructure.

See a better quality version of the photo on page 9 of this thread (where MBP was suggested for late 41) here:

http://www.world-war.co.uk/Dorset/dorset.php3 (scroll down)

That photo makes it look like there are 3 colours though - but that's lighting for you. The contrast in the funnels in pretty clear nevertheless.

Paul

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

True, but the photo of her at Scapa Flow in August of 1941, to which Maarten posted a link, seems to have all three the same color. Again, lighting adds to the confusion. That is why, in addition to the historical interest, I am sticking to the earlier version.