The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:26 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 402 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
For those who want to model other RN destroyer classes using Tamiya kits, aren't the C and D classes pretty much identical to the E and F classes save for a few AA mounts? They're both the same length at 329 feet.

The successor to the E and F classes on the other hand, the G and H class, have a shorter hull than the previous class, being only 323 feet.

So that rules out using a Tamiya's E class destroyer kit to simulate the G class HMS Glowworm in a diorama of her last fight against the Admiral Hipper. :frown_2:

_________________
"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: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 863
Location: EN83
The C and D classes each had different bridge configurations than the E&Fs, as well as distinct from all others. This was especially true for the Cs, which featured separate director and bridge structures, with a gap between. The Ds also had a distinctive wheelhouse window arrangement. Other differences can be found in each class' "wing platforms" and deck extensions, support frames, and locations.

While it is best to research each of the earlier classes for details, I did put together a collage of the various groups' bridges, a few years ago. I have included it with this post. I hope it proves useful, but please bear in mind that my intent was to highlight the different features for the purpose of helping to identify "mystery ships" and/ or uncaptioned photographs---not modeling requirements.

Still, it should give you an idea how they differed from the E&Fs. Also noteworthy is that the "leaders" of some RN destroyer classes were noticeably different from their flotilla "regulars", so modeling those specific ships may require further and more significant modifications (fifth 4.7" gun mountings between the funnels, for example).

Regards,

Dan


Attachments:
A-I Bridge Configurations.jpg
A-I Bridge Configurations.jpg [ 140.36 KiB | Viewed 2625 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Dan,

Thank you for your very informative post and the bridge collage. I guess there goes my plan to model HMCS Chaudière or any other Canadian River class destroyer that was drawn from the C or D classes.

The River class was the name the RCN gave to all the former RN destroyers from the A through H class destroyers transferred to its command and given new names while in Canadian service.

For example the HMS Express (H61) was renamed as HMCS Gatineau.

Sadly, after a distinguished wartime career with the RCN and her subsequent postwar decommissioning, HMCS Gatineau's hull ended up as a floating breakwater in Royston, British Columbia, where she remains today. If she had been preserved with her superstructure, she would have been the last survivor of the ill-fated Force Z with HMS Prince Wales and HMS Repulse from December 1941.

RNfanDan wrote:
The C and D classes each had different bridge configurations than the E&Fs, as well as distinct from all others. This was especially true for the Cs, which featured separate director and bridge structures, with a gap between. The Ds also had a distinctive wheelhouse window arrangement. Other differences can be found in each class' "wing platforms" and deck extensions, support frames, and locations.

While it is best to research each of the earlier classes for details, I did put together a collage of the various groups' bridges, a few years ago. I have included it with this post. I hope it proves useful, but please bear in mind that my intent was to highlight the different features for the purpose of helping to identify "mystery ships" and/ or uncaptioned photographs---not modeling requirements.

Still, it should give you an idea how they differed from the E&Fs. Also noteworthy is that the "leaders" of some RN destroyer classes were noticeably different from their flotilla "regulars", so modeling those specific ships may require further and more significant modifications (fifth 4.7" gun mountings between the funnels, for example).

Regards,

Dan

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Victoria, BC
Have you considered going for Resin Shipyard's HMCS Kootenay, ISW's Hesperus, or for one of WEM's G or H classes to do one of the River's. Depending on how detailed you want to be you can get a reasonably accurate model with little effort. Ryan Cameron has a nice HMCS CHAUDIERE on Darren`s page, and he is close to you.

I have a FRASER in progress (stalled) myself.

Tim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:23 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Texas USA
Hi all. Planning my first 1/700 waterline build. HMS Esk (H15) - minelayer conversion. I need your help in getting it right.

Ref: Laurence Batchelor's excellent post of H15 specs, this thread, 27Jun07 (~p.6 today) provides, "HMS Esk as fitted out as a minelayer in the 1930s. Modifications would seem to be both torpedo tubes as well as A&Y mountings [landed]". Unfortunately, the images he posted are now gone.

Which turrets are the A&Y? Removal of the torpedo launchers are a given. Additional on-line reference also seems to indicate the 13mm AAMG and 20-rd depth charge racks, stern davits and rear whaler were removed as well. I'm also looking for images of the 60xmine racks. Will need to fabricate those.

I'm new to this. Detail like I see on this site will probably be lacking; but I'd like to get the big stuff correct. Thanks.

-arnie-

_________________
Building IJN Harusame
Planning USS Hammann; IJN Okinoshima; HMS Esk
Wanting USS Ward


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Palm Beach, Fla
A is the #1 gun at the bow, Y is the last main gun at the stern. hth


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:49 pm
Posts: 247
if you are not aware, mines are available from Admiralty. You might consider 2-rail etches for the mine rails.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:23 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Texas USA
^^ Thanks, guys. ^^ Two packs of twenty four (24) for a total of fourty eight (48) arrived last week in the mail. My present skill set is not up to PE install of rails yet. Time for a practice rail may avail itself as there is a while until the build campaign begins.

Tamiya 1/700 E-class came in today's mail, so am set except for detailed research. Need to find specifics of the deck layout for the mines. Cheers.

[Edit 1/16/2014 - this mornings on-line research yielded an image of Esk as a minelayer. Of all places - ebay (Br, as the photo prices were in pound sterling). But research is where you find it! Image is off the starboard bow and water level - as most images seem to be. More of a periscope view, as it were - wartime censors doing their thing. She sure looks naked with most of her armament landed.]

_________________
Building IJN Harusame
Planning USS Hammann; IJN Okinoshima; HMS Esk
Wanting USS Ward


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Dan,

Upon looking at various online articles about the C and D class destroyers, while comparing them to the E and F class, it seems the former was not that different from the latter.

Both had the same length at 329 feet. In spite of the collage you posted, I would insist that the main difference I observed among both groups of classes, other than the differences in AA suite, was the C & D classes had two portholes on their bridge/wheelhouse, while the E and F classes had 3 portholes.

The bridges of the D, E and F are pretty much identical save for the differences in portholes. The C class is slightly different because of the small overhang above the portholes, but one can simply modify the corresponding part on the Tamiya E class kit to rectify that small difference.

Other than that, the bridge superstructures of all 4 classes were pretty much identical from what I can see.

This is after searching through pics of many class members in all 4 classes that had been transferred to the RCN.

Just thinking that I really can use Tamiya's E class kit not only to model the identical F class DDs, but C and D class destroyers as well.

To model the C class and D using the Tamiya's E class kit, one would have to replace part G23 from the kit's instructions. That part has the bridge wheelhouse front with the 3 portholes. If one can scratchbuild their own part which has 2 portholes, then you're home free to make any of the C and D class destroyers.

*On a sidenote, the G and H class destroyers' bridge/wheelhouse were identical to the preceding E and F class since they also had 3 portholes, but they were smaller at 323 feet. If you wanted to make any G and H class destroyer from the Tamiya E class kit, you'd have to shorten the hull somehow.


RNfanDan wrote:
The C and D classes each had different bridge configurations than the E&Fs, as well as distinct from all others. This was especially true for the Cs, which featured separate director and bridge structures, with a gap between. The Ds also had a distinctive wheelhouse window arrangement. Other differences can be found in each class' "wing platforms" and deck extensions, support frames, and locations.

While it is best to research each of the earlier classes for details, I did put together a collage of the various groups' bridges, a few years ago. I have included it with this post. I hope it proves useful, but please bear in mind that my intent was to highlight the different features for the purpose of helping to identify "mystery ships" and/ or uncaptioned photographs---not modeling requirements.

Still, it should give you an idea how they differed from the E&Fs. Also noteworthy is that the "leaders" of some RN destroyer classes were noticeably different from their flotilla "regulars", so modeling those specific ships may require further and more significant modifications (fifth 4.7" gun mountings between the funnels, for example).

Regards,

Dan

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:06 am
Posts: 170
I'm interested in modeling HMS Fury in 1942. I have a lot of pics courtesy of the IWM but not a lot of other information. I'd welcome pointers to good sources, but for now I have three concrete questions:

- the 3" HA. I think this was an unshielded mount on a rectangular raised platform with low side walls. I base this on a few photos, but these two kind of seal it for me. Am I interpreting it correctly?
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141926
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205141930

- the wikipedia article (like I said I'd welcome pointers to good sources :big_grin: ) says she was fitted with a single depth charge rack and two throwers but I haven't found any photos that show this clearly. Anyone have one? Or know how this was typically configured?

- not sure how to paint her. I'm assuming this is a western approaches scheme with 3 colors, but the photos leave me a little confused. Here are three:
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205143852
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205144030
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205195251
I know interpreting black and white photos comes with lots of caveats. Looking at the second pic in particular it looks like the bottom of the hull is the darkest shade, and there is a similar band across the lower part of the superstructure, then the very light stuff at the top. I would guess these are green, blue, and white respectively. I would sort of expect the hull to have white on it but I don't really know. So any insight on this would be great.

thanks
- mic


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
Hi all

I'm starting my build of the Tamiya E Class destroyer this weekend, to be completed as HMS Express H61 as she appeared in December 1941. Most of the reference photographs of Express supplied earlier in this thread have been deleted. This is what I have found so far from this thread:

Rear funnel was shortened, by at least a 1/4

Rear torpedo tube replaced by 3 inch gun
Do we know if this gun was single or double barrel? I have a spare 1/700 3 inch double barrelled gun lying around, but not a single

Medium grey overall with dark grey deck
Roughly goes with Tamiya's painting instructions and what I've read around here. I'm not certain on the deck color scheme though. Express did not have her camo at this time, she did by Feb 1942

Fitted as a minelayer
Really not sure how I would implement this into the model. Was this before or after December 1941?

Aftermarket detailing
I have the White Ensign photoetch for this model, which calls for a few additions to the model but does make it clear that not all vessels were fitted with, for example, depth charge racking and rear radar array. I would appreciate advice for Express with this. The trouble with looking at photographs online is that most of them don't declare what year they were taken in.

Thanks,
Paul


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:49 pm
Posts: 247
I can't answer all your questions, but the 3in gun was a single. I don't think the RN had a twin 3in mount - if so I don't think common. It was not used on destroyers as AA defence.

The minelayers were rigged as such when built - the external difference in normal use would be the sponsons built out at the rear. I suspect the mine rails were taken up when not in use: the aftmost gun, depth charge equipment and other fittings were removed for minelaying work.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 419
There is a photo of EXPRESS held by the Imperial War Museum (reference A17867) which can be viewed online, which was taken after her repairs (ending Autumn 1941) and (probably) before the end of the year. It shows the following:
Platform abreast fore part of bridge (possibly holds a single 20mm Oerlikon, but not clear from the photo).
Whalers at foc's'le deck level abreast after part of bridge (to keep clear of minerails when fitted); foc's'le deck extended aft to accommodate after davits for whalers.
Motor cutter abreast forefunnel on starboard side.
RDF Type 286 at foremasthead
After funnel shortened.
For'd set of torpedo tubes mounted (these would have been landed when fitted for minelaying).
Lengthened torpedo davit to allow mines to be hoisted aboard.
After set of tubes replaced by single 3" HA Mk V mounting.
Mainmast removed.
Depthcharge throwers at for'd end of "X" gundeck, not at maindeck level (to clear minerails).
Sponsons for minelaying rails and laying gear on quarters.
TSDS davits on quarterdeck.
Paravanes on quarterdeck.

She was fitted for minelaying from completion, but when employed as a destroyer, the rails were not fitted. To allow for the extra topweight when mines were carried, the torpedo tubes would be landed, as would "A" and "Y" guns and (probably) the depth charges (although the throwers and associated davits would be retained).

As far as I know, none of the "A"-"I" class ships carried RDF (radar) aft, so I'm not sure what is mean by a "rear radar array".


Last edited by tjstoneman on Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
Cheers tj and Graham. I found the IWM photo you described here https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205150691 It even shows carley floats were installed on the rear instead of the front.

Is it just overexposure from the sky or is there no deck railing to be seen on the length of the ship?

I see the 3inch gun is mounted on its own platform - this would require scratchbuilding which I've never attempted before... The funnel can be cut down with the tools I have at my disposal but this platform will be a challenge. I suppose I'll find a similar looking one from another 1/700 kit.

Yes I meant the HF/DF mainmast array, not radar my mistake.

Express looks lighter grey in the IWM photo, rather than medium-dark as I thought.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 419
A higher-resolution version of the online IWM photo shows guardrails in all the places one would expect - note that, if she went into action, some of those would be struck to avoid fouling the armament's training arcs. No HF/DF was fitted until some time later than you are discussing - there appears to be a mainmast in IWM's photo A9686 (I believe EXPRESS is the destroyer in the background, visible between ISIS and the two merchant ships), although other photos at a similar period don't show it - - possibly the work of a censor?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:17 am
Posts: 59
tjstoneman wrote:
A higher-resolution version of the online IWM photo shows guardrails in all the places one would expect - note that, if she went into action, some of those would be struck to avoid fouling the armament's training arcs. No HF/DF was fitted until some time later than you are discussing - there appears to be a mainmast in IWM's photo A9686 (I believe EXPRESS is the destroyer in the background, visible between ISIS and the two merchant ships), although other photos at a similar period don't show it - - possibly the work of a censor?


Thanks. I'm well on the way to completing it already, ETA next weekend. Dispensing with a lot of the photoetch details as the 1/700 size is too small the fiddly for me; already broken/bent some parts beyond repair. And the provided gun shields do not fit the kit gun barrels. Actually it's my first time using photoetch...I will be sure to watch A LOT of how-to videos on 1/700 railing, as that is some detail I definitely don't want to compromise on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:58 pm
Posts: 56
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Having served in ships of the RCN, RN and USN I noted it was common practice when going to Action Stations, and if time permitted, the guard rails along all topside decks were removed to prevent these items becoming flying projectiles due to enemy action.

Paul

_________________
Paul O'Reilly


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Gents,

I wonder if someone could tell me what is either under or inside this 'enclosure' (black arrow) in front of Encounter's open bridge?

TIA!


Attachments:
HMS Enocunter.jpg
HMS Enocunter.jpg [ 154.34 KiB | Viewed 864 times ]
HMS Encounter - crop.jpg
HMS Encounter - crop.jpg [ 145.01 KiB | Viewed 864 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 157
Chart table?

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:49 pm
Posts: 247
Looks like a Carley float in the enclosure underneath, with a rather heavy fitting. The box above will include the chart table, if that's what it is (seems likely).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 402 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: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 23 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