The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:48 pm 
Offline
Starling Models
Starling Models

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 786
Location: North Wales
ar wrote:
You are being cruel Mr Mccabe.


OK I'll stop. Here's a clue, it begins with an H....

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:21 pm 
To coin a phrase from the Goon Show, "you naughty man you".
I believe that you are ONE HUNT Short.
I have never had so much fun since last thursday at 4.01 EST.


mike mccabe wrote:
ar wrote:
You are being cruel Mr Mccabe.


OK I'll stop. Here's a clue, it begins with an H....

Mike


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
ar wrote:
What is serious is when the market goes up over two percent in one day and you make about $40,000 as a result. That IS serious. What a great week it has been. Oe can only hope that the shorts get killed this coming week as they were this.


Forgot to mention this earlier, perhaps your new found wealth would be best spent by investing in a 2nd print run of Warship Perspectives, especially the camouflage books.

Also one assumes either of you cannot tell me what ship it is as you don't know yourselves.
You just see visual clues that make you see HUNT and not JKN.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:23 pm 
Offline
Starling Models
Starling Models

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 786
Location: North Wales
Sorry, I was just trying to help out, as I said it's in the list and the name begins with an H.

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: back on topic
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:58 am 
Thanks for the photos- Max


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Hamburg, Germany
before the subject of Kimberly & Churchill at the Dragoon Landings is forgotten, will someone please give the correct answer - directly without any asides.
If its a Hunt with an "H" that leaves Hursley and Haydon from Laurences list, or is it the one that wr say's is missing

please answer

tia
Terry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
Hugh I believe your photo to be c1948.
Cheers
LB


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
Terry Pottle wrote:
before the subject of Kimberly & Churchill at the Dragoon Landings is forgotten, will someone please give the correct answer - directly without any asides.
If its a Hunt with an "H" that leaves Hursley and Haydon from Laurences list, or is it the one that wr say's is missing

please answer

tia
Terry


I was re-reading the Hunts section in Friedman this morning.
It does allow one to compare bridges on the various different Hunts and that reminded me of this Churchill photo.
It would appear to me that the Churchill photo would mostly likely, if taken on a Hunt class, be taken on a Type I Hunt.
Why?
The bridge face fits best for early Hunts which don't have the 'reduced' style bridge.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:01 am 
Well done young Laurence.
You win a prize, which should be with you late this, or early next year.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:38 am 
Offline
Starling Models
Starling Models

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 786
Location: North Wales
ar wrote:
Well done young Laurence.
You win a prize, which should be with you late this, or early next year.


About two months then, about as long as it took him to figure it out.

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
To be fair I did say similar things very early on and there are elements which don't fit with any Hunt bridge I've seen with you are all silent on.
For example, that internal flat windshield thingy attached to the inner face of the bridge, I've only ever seen fitted on JKN bridges.
Further, I haven't spend 2 months on this, about 3-4 hours including all those references on Kimberley I went through.
In the meantime I've wrote about 10,000 words of my thesis, plundered several more archive collections, began to write an article on destroyers at Dunkirk and kept up appearances at the local.

Does anyone wish to state which Type I Hunt it probably is or are thee not bothered?

wr something should arrive on your doorstep, somewhat earlier, perhaps on Monday.
Your Everton's I've found, but not your Needler's I think they have stopped making them, though the brand still survives.

The question is do I risk another RN photo to be posted on here, or do I want some piece and quiet! :big_grin:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
Finally my copy has been dispatched! :woo_hoo:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:49 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Maryland
For WWII RN, is the Hunt Class considered a destroyer or destroyer escort type? Yes I know that's USN type naming practice but i like to break things down in that system as I know it.

_________________
How do I get the pen to write here? Now my screen's all smeared with ink.........


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hunt Class
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Dear Ron,

This side of the Atlantic we called the Hunts "Escort Destroyers". But they tend to be considered a destroyer type.

Cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hunt Class
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Ron,

Although it may be debated ... I think they fall under the category of Destroyers even in the USN during WWII. The ONI 222 recognition manual listed them in the Destroyer category not with the DE's of the Captain class.

The USN had Destroyers "called" Escort Destroyers when they were modified to be primarily ASW escorts ... AKA most of the Flush-Deckers were referred to as Escort destroyers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hunt Class
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:41 am 
The US DEs in RN service were classified as Frigates. The Hunts were classified as Destroyers. These definition things do get a bit tangled and vague at times, but the Hunts carried torpedo tubes and were capable of 30 knots, at least when new.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hunt Class
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 863
Location: EN83
The torpedo-carrying Hunts were limited to the Type 3 and 4 subclasses.

The Admiralty intended the Hunts' principal use to be as escorts for merchant and transport ships right from the start. They needed something larger and more capable than a corvette, faster than a sloop, and with better AA than most fleet destroyers had. Their initial design was based on the hull of the Bittern class.

Merchant and convoy Escorts were not normally required to turn a high speed, and in most cases the 26-26 knot loaded speed of the Hunts met those requirements. Only the Type III and Type IV subclasses carried torpedo tubes and of these, 28 of thirty Type IIIs were fitted with twin tubes, while two others were never fitted with TT. The Type IV Thornycroft-designed ships carried triple TT, and were slightly slower at full speed than the others.

They were originally called "Fast Escort Vessels" but this was likely a term carefully chosen as a concession to assure funding and avoid the "D" word among politicians, than any technical or practical variance in their status. In the end, all such political pretense was done away with and they were became Escort Destroyers. The Hunts were armed (in the majority) as escorts and therefore, could qualify as DEs by that navy's standards.

I think it's largely a matter of semantics.

_________________
:no_2: Danny DON'T "waterline"...!


Last edited by RNfanDan on Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:59 am 
The Hunts were required to do 32.5 knots, although they only realised 30.25. Using standard measurement - deep they achieved 26.5. They were indeed initially referred to as Fast Escorts; however the initial requirement did include torpedo tubes, though more than fitted to the Mk.IIIs. Following the introduction of the term "Frigate" to cover the US destroyer escorts, I feel that the Hunts would have been similarly classified had been considered equivalent.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:49 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Maryland
Thanks guys, I shall lump them in with destroyers then as the majority opinion leans that way. Hopefully by the end of the year folks in this thread will be happy with what results from it.

_________________
How do I get the pen to write here? Now my screen's all smeared with ink.........


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:19 am
Posts: 325
Location: Washington, DC
All:

I recently purchased the Choroszy Modelbud 1/700 scale British Hunt II class destroyer ORP Krakowiak, which was manned by a Polish crew while serving with the Royal Navy during WWII.

Photos and a description of the kit by Jim Baumann can be found at http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/index.html, so I will limit my comments to the detail and accuracy of the kit.

The kit is extraordinarily detailed and very cleanly cast. Be advised, that this is a very, very small kit; most people will require optical visors and very nimble fingers to clean up, assemble, and paint this kit.

In terms of dimensional accuracy, the kit comes up about 3mm short in overall length (about 119mm vice 121.9mm) but the kit is spot-on in the beam (13.7mm). Fortunately, it seems that the shortfall in the kit’s overall length is spread both fore and aft, and is therefore not really noticeable.

The shape of the hull is basically accurate (in terms of the sheer of the bow and and shape of the stern), though the bow flair seems a bit exagerrated. Deck detailing is excellent, and gun shields and interior bracing (a very nice touch) are finely cast and generally appear to be the correct shape--though when viewed from above, they are perhaps a bit more angular and less rounded than they should have been. Scuppers are delicately rendered, and nice and straight. The hull plating is nicely rendered too, though it seems that the lower row of plating ends a bit short of the stem. All sources I consulted show the lower row of plating running the entire length of the hull to the cutwater. Likewise, the aft end of the Y gun shield is enclosed. I believe that this is incorrect, and it should be open (i.e., when viewed from above, the aft shields should look like two parallel ellipses). It looks like this is the result of a misinterpretation of the plans used to build the master for the model. This, however, should be relatively easily remedied with a knife and some sandpaper.

The resin used in the kit is a bit brittle—it requires careful handling while removing casting gates and cleaning up parts, if damage is to be avoided. There were also a couple of tiny pinhole bubbles and some roughly cast surfaces on the bridge that were easily repaired with thinned putty.

The kit is a bit on the pricey side (I paid $45 plus postage, direct from the manufacturer), but given the astonishing level of detail and number of parts in the kit (including turned brass gun barrels, an extremely detailed PE fret, and decals), the price seems justified: I’m pretty sure this is the most finely detailed 1/700 scale kit ever produced.

Those who would like to build a different Hunt II from this kit should keep in mind that the Hunt IIs were built with several different pattern bridges, and funnels of different heights. As best I can tell, one cannot build any of Krakowiak’s Polish sisters (Kujawiak or Slezak) using this kit (they had a slightly different style of bridge). One can, however, build several British Hunt IIs out of the box, including HMS Chiddingfold and Calpe, with perhaps only minor modifications, depending on the ship (e.g., building up the funnel height, omitting the type 272 radar from the searchlight platform and back-fitting the searchlight, etc.).

As for the paint scheme, I have no idea if the color call-out on the instructions is accurate, though I can say that the pattern does seem to match up with that depicted in a photo on the internet, which can be found here:
http://wp39.pl/niszczyciel-orp-krakowiak-2

In sum, I can strongly and enthusiastically recommend this kit, though only to the more experienced model builder. I hope that Chorozsy Modelbud will continue with their 1/700 scale series and release additional Polish and Royal Navy subjects. I will gladly pay the extra money they charge given the quality and completeness of their product.

_________________
Mike E.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 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