The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 241 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2059
Location: Vancouver, Canada
DavidP wrote:
Australia has the same deck level as the Berwick does so no need to cut the deck.


Wait, so with the exception of Suffolk, all the other Kent sub-class RN members had the same level as their Australian sisters?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1838
no as the Cumberland had her stern cutdown like Suffolk around 1935. http://www.world-war.co.uk/Kent/cumberland.php3


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Whilst flicking through a book I came upon this unique photo which stirred a lot of interest for me to scan and post.
It is the only photo I have seen anywhere, of all the shots I have on file, and available of HMAS Australia on the domain, which shows this anomaly in her camo scheme.

Take note that the bow face and top of A turret, in addition to its gun barrels are painted in 507A, not evident in any other camouflage photos of her.
Also the camo pattern does not sport the ladies leg, there can be no doubt this photo is correctly orientated with only one anchor on the port bow, also it does not exhibit the telltail signs of clumsy wartime censoring, any trick of light or camera exposure does not appear evident at the location where the ladies leg should be.

The photo in not as clear as I would like but the RDF 286 aerial can be seen on the bow face of the bridge, the paint on the forward turrets looks crisp and clean.

There can be no doubt this is Australia, could this photo show an initial camouflage scheme applied? before touch-ups to the well known scheme we are familiar with, any thoughts most welcome.


Attachments:
A1.jpg
A1.jpg [ 197.02 KiB | Viewed 1129 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:01 pm
Posts: 135
Location: South Carolina
The photo appears to match the published port side line drawing of this camo scheme.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:01 pm
Posts: 135
Location: South Carolina
Having problems uploading image.


Attachments:
Australia 12-24-1941 600x363.jpg
Australia 12-24-1941 600x363.jpg [ 68.37 KiB | Viewed 1124 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Take another look David, a good look, there are anomalies in the midship pattern.
As for Eric Leons GA profile, as good as it is, it has inaccuracies, including DCT shown in 507C, not 507A as it should be, also shows barrels of A turret painted 507C, and an inaccurate shape of the ladies foot.

In the photo I uploaded the rump of the ladies leg seems to be there, but no foot, and the 507A pattern differs to the profile, and available photo reference.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 149
Location: Australia
From the Australian Archives relating to Professor Dakin.


Attachments:
HMAS Australia camouflage drawing March 1941 stitched reduced to 1200 pixels.jpg
HMAS Australia camouflage drawing March 1941 stitched reduced to 1200 pixels.jpg [ 29.21 KiB | Viewed 1117 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:01 pm
Posts: 135
Location: South Carolina
Brett,

Well, if you say so. Oh, and thanks for posting the photo (I don't have that one in my early war Australia picture archive). There's a lot of spatial distortion by the midships region from the oblique angle of the photo and the bow to stern curvature of the hull. I'm not sure what the "lady's foot" or leg feature is so pardon my ignorance of some of the terminology. Still, I think the hull light/dark scheme in the photo is a pretty good match to both drawings posted. Colors on small details... maybe you have a higher resolution image than the one posted? I do agree that the guns of A turret are dark in the photo, light in the drawing, so there's not a 100% match. (I can't find the DCT.)

Could you photoshop the drawing and mark some of the discrepancies with circles?

Here is another view of the port side in 1941 (resized for the forum). In this one, the A turret barrels appear to be light, not dark.

Dave


Attachments:
Australia-port side 1941 small.jpg
Australia-port side 1941 small.jpg [ 51.65 KiB | Viewed 1103 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
You are most welcome for the pic Dave, I can assure you that you will not find it anywhere on the net, not even on the Flikr kookaburra photostream, not even in the RAN photo archive, it is a unique addition.
The purpose of the upload was to show the subtle differences, of what we know, compared to the photo in question.
I think Medway (Michael) has demonstrated from his uploaded Dakin design, that camo schemes are under constant changes, and the applied pattern may not follow a recommended design pattern, and may very well be changed subtly without it being noticed.

I agree with your point of angle, but from this attached photo, that the bow face and barrels of A turret are 507C, and every photo you can find will show this, not so in my first upload, the scheme anomaly in question is circled, note the difference in the dark 507A shapes, a downward sweep of the pattern towards the boot topping is not present.
the `ladies leg`could be there partially, but it certainly doesn`t look like this.

Without touching to much on Leon`s profile, as this was not the original intention, the DCT (Director Control tower) is shown in 507C, every photo of Australia in 2 tone camo pattern shows it to be 507A, including my first photo, you may also agree looking at your photo that his ladies foot is totally inaccurate.
As to my point of subtle changes to a camo scheme, take a look at Starboard photos of Australia, and you will see in some photos an overlay of 507A on the sheet anchor, other shots have the pattern trailing said anchor which is left 507C, constant touch-ups.

I believe it important to note any changes for accuracy if someone is planning a build, and very interesting to come across something new, and previously unknown. Cheers.


Attachments:
A2.jpg
A2.jpg [ 181.33 KiB | Viewed 1094 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1029
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Brett,

You bring up a very good point. Every time I read a prolonged discussion of paint jobs or camouflage patterns I have to chuckle.

When discussing the paint or camouflage on a ship you need to remember that the actual work is being done by a bunch of guys hanging over the side or on floats or small boats bobbing alongside. They do not have a pattern attached to the hull to work with. They may have a sketch like those posted here, but they have to interpret it from where they stand/hang. Maybe someone in an accompanying boat is shouting "a little higher" but that's about all the direction they get.

They will be in a hurry to get the job done, so careful attention to details is not on their mind. This is especially true during wartime. And different people will interpret the pattern differently - trust me on this! Finally, it depends upon what paints were available and how they were mixed. So it is a given that a ship will never be painted the same way twice in a row.*

What I see in these photos is the same general pattern. But on one occasion the sailors painted the edge between colors a little high, and on others a little low. So unless you have precisely dated photos and you are building the entire ship as it was on that date, don't sweat the small stuff.

Remember, you are just another person interpreting the pattern as you see it, or as you want to see it.

Phil

* I have been studying the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5, a ship I served on. There are no two pictures taken on different dates that have exactly the same paint pattern - and almost all of the hull and superstructure were the same Ocean Gray used by the US Navy after WWII! But First Division painted their hand rails one way (near the bow), Second Division (midships) painted them another way, and Third Division (stern) painted them a third way. The same is true of paint on the decks, the helo landing area and small details like bitts, chocks, vents, etc. And this changed every time the divisions got a new Chief Bosun's Mate or Division Officer.

We got a new Executive Officer on board, and he wanted to paint the ship in entirely new ways. I recall hearing the Captain say to him "You want to make my ship look like a circus boat." But after that Captain left and we had a new Captain the XO was off and running, ordering the circus boat changes.

It is safe to say the paint pattern changed in some way every time we went into port.

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 432
Location: England
Brett,

A slightly better quality version of your photo is in the AWM collection (P02497.039) with location and date given as Brisbane River, Qld. c. 1942. It might be worth checking if they have evidence for this.
(The movements of the donor M Williams for example.)

Best wishes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Thank you very much Dick, a very hard photo to find, as I mentioned earlier I could not pinpoint it anywhere except where you directed.
As usual tucked away in the massive AWM collection, could not find it in any searches other than a search on the donors name.
If you see my post on WNSF, It was posted before your reply here.
As you pointed out, with so many caption errors, further indepth research would be required to prove the date, I expect you would agree that it is a unique shot. best regards.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:01 pm
Posts: 135
Location: South Carolina
Brett,

I must agree that the shape does look like a lady's rear end transitioning to a leg to a foot (now that you've high-lighted it), but that what the picture shows and what the drawing shows are more than a little different. (For some reason I was thinking DCT was some sort of depth charge thrower. Maybe because I build more destroyers than cruisers.)

I'm going to tackle the 1/700 Combrig Australia in this camo scheme when it gets to the top of my to do list. All this discussion is most useful (and I'm taking notes).

Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Good on ya Dav, I,d like to see it when you`ve completed it.
As for the original shot, I now have a much clear crisper image enhanced with photoshop, If you would like a copy send a message to my inbox with your email and I`ll flick it onto you.

I have made an enquiry to AWM to try and narrow the date of the photo, but I don`t expect to much, if it is in fact 42 the scheme could have been modified anytime before August, as DrPH commented, the ship need not be in drydock/refit to receive paint touch-ups.
Would be very interesting to know if there were any alterations made to the starboard pattern, unless another photo for this approx. time period appears we will never know.

Have also picked up a port and starboard overhead of the Oz when dressed in 2 tone, deck colours can be most difficult to ascertain.
At this time the deck looks to be a light grey, but my guess is bare teak, these would be the only O/H shots I have seen for this time period. cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:19 am
Posts: 188
Location: Washington, DC
Brett:

Would you be willing to post the overhead pictures of HMAS Australia you mentioned? I've also been looking for overhead shots of Australia from early in the war without success, and would be very interested in what they show with regard to the configuration of the bridge, deckhouses, and searchlight platforms.

Many thanks for considering this request.

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Mike,
Attached shots for the 18 month time period Jan 41 to mid 42, not the best for detail unfortunately, and will not serve your purpose, but do give an idea of deck colour.
They are AWM shots, I have cropped and enlarged them from the small shots open to public domain on the website.
Better resolution photos would be available from AWM if you are willing to pay their fees.

I believe they were taken at different times, the port shot would be the latter as the masts appear a light colour which would possibly indicate compliance with AFO directive issued mid 41, Australian cruisers mast heads to be painted sky blue.

A3 shot is cropped from a photo with USS Selfridge in company dated 42, not sure if this photo is in the archive.
Once again not the best, if date is correct this may be latter half of 42 after receiving her new colour of Chicago Blue.
Exposure and light plays tricks, so horizontal surfaces appear lighter than what they really were, glare has masked the 507A colour of the centre funnel in starboard photo. As you mentioned O/H photos of Australia for this time period are rare.


Attachments:
a1.jpg
a1.jpg [ 143.78 KiB | Viewed 949 times ]
a2.jpg
a2.jpg [ 172.7 KiB | Viewed 949 times ]
a3.jpg
a3.jpg [ 196.75 KiB | Viewed 949 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 149
Location: Australia
Brett Morrow wrote:
Good on ya Dav, I,d like to see it when you`ve completed it.
As for the original shot, I now have a much clear crisper image enhanced with photoshop, If you would like a copy send a message to my inbox with your email and I`ll flick it onto you.

I have made an enquiry to AWM to try and narrow the date of the photo, but I don`t expect to much, if it is in fact 42 the scheme could have been modified anytime before August, as DrPH commented, the ship need not be in drydock/refit to receive paint touch-ups.
Would be very interesting to know if there were any alterations made to the starboard pattern, unless another photo for this approx. time period appears we will never know.

Have also picked up a port and starboard overhead of the Oz when dressed in 2 tone, deck colours can be most difficult to ascertain.
At this time the deck looks to be a light grey, but my guess is bare teak, these would be the only O/H shots I have seen for this time period. cheers


The RN issued instructions in 1940 that decks were to be of a dark colour of which the main ingredient was Japan Black. The archives have these comments for Australia in 1943.


Attachments:
Deck coverings 1943 inc HMAS Australia.jpg
Deck coverings 1943 inc HMAS Australia.jpg [ 113.91 KiB | Viewed 905 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:38 am
Posts: 273
Location: Czech Republic
Hi all, there is also this o/h photo of Australia at AWM. Although the deck appears very light (and so do the upper surfaces of her Walrus, that were Extra Dard Slate Grey and Dark Slate Grey, so quite dark actually), there is less glare at the aft part of the deck. There is no exact date given by AWM but she carried this scheme (with Sky blue foremast) at Guadalcanal.

What I found interesting at the A3 photo posted by Brett earlier is the quite well seen dark colour on top of the B turret (although in direct sunlight). This cannot be seen on the photo below, but do you think it may mean turret tops were painted another colour (deck colour?) than the sides/front of the turret (as an be seen on some of the photos of Australia in 2-colour camouflage)?


Attachments:
HMAS Australia 1942-43 with HMAS Hobart AWM 300272.JPG
HMAS Australia 1942-43 with HMAS Hobart AWM 300272.JPG [ 162.21 KiB | Viewed 883 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 155
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Vladi,
Just to prove a point on visual perception and variables, on the day your shot was taken the circling aircraft took 3 photos.
There can be no argument as the ships boat is in the exact same position, in the broadside pic Hobart was underway and moved out of shot.
The port quarter o/h excellently demonstates how angle, exposure, glare, background and followup photo manipulation can all alter an image, the upper forward mast presents in a dark colour, when we know that it is in fact a light colour, undoubtedly sky blue.


Attachments:
42.jpg
42.jpg [ 139.87 KiB | Viewed 840 times ]
42  p1.jpg
42 p1.jpg [ 195.85 KiB | Viewed 840 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:19 am
Posts: 188
Location: Washington, DC
Thanks Brett for posting those photos. Very interesting and helpful.

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 241 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group