The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:37 am

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: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
Not having a set of 'As fitteds' to hand I can only use the drawings drawn from them by John Lambert in Christopher Amano-Langtree's The Kellys book.

I think it must be the signal lamp in the background is too high.
Looking at a side on profile 'as fitted' drawing in March of both Kelvin (Nov 1939) and Napier FL (Dec 1940) this should not be higher than the side of the bridge.
Which it is in this Churchill photo.
This suggests the bridge wings height is different in relation to the bridge level and therefore it cannot be a JKN.

Am I getting warm yet Paul Daniels? :big_grin:


Last edited by Laurence Batchelor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:35 pm 
Who is Jeff Daniels?
One does NOT need a set of "as fitteds" as a reference in this case.
Go through the RN destroyers that were present at the invasion of Southern France, and then note the bridge configerations, then make the match. This should take no more then TEN minutes.


Laurence Batchelor wrote:
Not having a set of 'As fitteds' to hand I can only use the drawings drawn from them by John Lambert in Christopher Amano-Langtree's The Kellys book.

I think it must be the signal lamp in the background is too high.
Looking at a side on profile drawing of both Kelvin (Nov 1939) and Napier FL (Dec 1940) this should not be higher than the side of the bridge.
Which it is in this Churchill photo.
This suggests the bridge wings height is different in relation to the bridge level and therefore it cannot be a JKN.

Am I getting warm yet Paul Daniels? :big_grin:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:45 pm 
I should have typed; Paul Daniels.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
Not sure about Jeff Daniels, but Paul Daniels is probably Englands most famous magician.

He's been around for decades and I assumed someone who departed England's green and pleasant in 1980 might have been familar, I guess I was wrong.

Hmm have to pick my brains and think were I might have a complete list of the warships involved in those Operations.
My great uncle was there on Ramillies and I know off the top of my head I know Ajax, Dido, Kent, Augusta, Orion were all involved.
Ah thats jogged the grey matter I know I have a complete list, now to find it easier said than done!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
First things first.
I should have consulted my notes on Kimberley's movements earlier!
I have this down for her as contradictory evidence to your hypothesis.

August 14th - Embarked CinC Mediterranean for passage to watch progress of the assault convoys through the Straits of Bonifacio.
(Note: Signal to execute Operation DRAGOON was made whilst the C-in-C was onboard).
C-in-C's advanced command post was established at Ajaccio on the 11th August.
August 15th - Embarked Prime Minister Winston Churchill for visit to the Assault Area.
August 16th - Embarked C-in-C with military commander Maitland-Wilson (is he in my photo?) for visit to landing beaches.
Kimberley was assigned these 'special duties' and on release she redeployed into the Adriatic for support of military operations there.

However this of course is not conclusive as did Churchill only tour the beaches in Kimberley? Did Kimberley pick him up in Algiers (or wherever he was) and take him all the way.
He could quite possibly have transferred vessels more than once.

P.S. Infront of me now I have a complete list of every merchant and naval vessel involved in the landings in the South of France in August 1944 and also the naval support groups.
There are many ships, but strangly no mention of Kimberley
and no this isn't helping! :heh:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:34 pm 
See M Mccabe's post young Laurence.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
there are many Hunts!
so far count over 20 involved, :censored_2:

I only have proper 'as fitteds' for a Type 4 Hunt and certainly on those the bridge does NOT correspound with the photo.
It does show a wind deflector however.

The only thing which so far matches for me on the bridge plans I'm looking at is the semi-circular central break in the windshield on the photo.
It matches a J/K/N in this feature most certainly.

I've just been through the operational notes I have for the 20 or so Hunt's present at these landings.
No mention in any of them of hosting Churchill or any US top brass.
Over to you, I've spent long enough on this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Hunts or not
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:42 pm 
I think ar it is time to reveal why you think it is a Hunt. Playing silly games is all very well but a clear explanation is often much better for your credibility.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Hamburg, Germany
after Mike's reply, and thinking further about my first repy with the question about the signal lamp being so visible as well as the lower bridge sides (see the matelot standing with his hand on the side screen), I also started to drift towards a Hunt, but as Laurence says, 20 were present, including the type4 Brecon which has the stepped bridge. After much longer than 10 minutes came to no real conclusion. R&R's Hunts have some good photos, as does English, but none which show the bridge structure in enough detail except that the general layout of the bridge is similar to a JKN.
So ar, please relieve us of our misery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:05 am 
Sometimes it helps if one looks at a problem in the --- FACE.



Terry Pottle wrote:
after Mike's reply, and thinking further about my first repy with the question about the signal lamp being so visible as well as the lower bridge sides (see the matelot standing with his hand on the side screen), I also started to drift towards a Hunt, but as Laurence says, 20 were present, including the type4 Brecon which has the stepped bridge. After much longer than 10 minutes came to no real conclusion. R&R's Hunts have some good photos, as does English, but none which show the bridge structure in enough detail except that the general layout of the bridge is similar to a JKN.
So ar, please relieve us of our misery


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
More crytic glues!
I mentioned bridge faces earlier and you went cold.
I repeat the inside forward edge of the bridge correspounds with a JKN and NOT a Hunt.
The bridge face also does not go sharply downward as Hunts do as their bridges are very blocky.

The only thing which does not sit with me looking at plans and photos of JKN's is that signal lamp in the background.
It should NOT be visible from this perspective and should be below the wall of the bridge.
It is visible on a Hunt however from this position.

I've gone through nearly 300 photos I have of Hunt's in my database.
I have good shots inside Avon Vale's bridge in 1941 & Whaddon's bridge post-war being scrapped.
and no they don't match!

In summary I count around 3-4 sources which all tell me this ship should be Kimberley.
Only this photo is providing a few visual clues it might be a Hunt.
Therefore the weight of evidence is in Kimberley's favour.

Does anyone have Churchill's full wartime memoirs?
Someone please look up where he was puffing away on a cuban on August 15th 1944! :big_grin:

Lastly I still hold out it is Kimberley, I think I've jumped through enough hoops for you.
It's up to YOU to prove ME wrong! :wave_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: JKN
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:07 am 
The ship shown is Kimberley. All other speculation to the contrary is just that - speculation. Two ships carried Churchill, Kelvin to the D-Day landings and Kimberley to the South of France landings. Sorry thats just the way it is.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:45 pm 
Offline
Starling Models
Starling Models

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 786
Location: North Wales
Took me about 30 seconds to work out why it isn't Kimberley and I'm only a modeller. Only had to look at about two photos.

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
Why then is there a need to go for a cloak 'n' dagger routine?

I have put forward my opinions citing the evidence and sources I've consulted.

Why am I the only one to be transparent and I'm not even running for office! :heh:


Last edited by Laurence Batchelor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:55 pm 
Thank you Mr Mccabe.

mike mccabe wrote:
Took me about 30 seconds to work out why it isn't Kimberley and I'm only a modeller. Only had to look at about two photos.

Mike


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Kimberley it is
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:03 pm 
Until someone actually explains in detail why it is not the case then the ship remains Kimberley. I have seen Laurence's explanation and research. I have yet to see anything from ar or Mike. I would add to both of you - if you have the evidence present it. Otherwise your claims cannot be given any credibility. It is up to you to do the research and present your evidence, not me - I am not making the claim. Until then Laurence's conclusion is the only acceptable one.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:36 am 
The evidence is staring one in the---- FACE.
Have fun, just a hobby, not to be taken seriously.
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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Kimberley
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:46 am 
Spell it out then - it is your claim not mine. I have yet to see anything beyond hints and nothing for me to change my previously stated view. Like all research it is your responsibility to prove clearly.
Congratulations by the way on your success.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
As ever it seems to be left to yours truely to advance the debate along.

Here is a photo of of Avon Vales (Batch II Hunt) bridge from the same perspective, although more distant:

HMS Avon Vale L06 1941 Malta Convoy closeup
Image

Note the signal lamp is visible in the same position as the Churchill photo.
The outside bridge face does NOT match the churchill photo.
The wind deflector inside the bridge is present, but is DIFFERENT to the Churchill photo.
The semi circular gap in it, in the middle, is there, but it isn't as prounced as it should be.
This feature is prounced enough on a JKN as I've checked this feature on plans and photographs.
Every photo I've seen of a Hunt shows a glass windscreen in place and also this area is always different to the photo.


Aerial photo of HMS Whaddon (Type I Hunt) L45 Faslane May 1959 being scrapped (lower ship).
Image

Again look at the bridge!
It does NOT match with anything on the Churchill photo.

Finally the only other thing which springs to mind with the Churchill photograph is where is the photographer standing/sitting to take the picture in question?
A J/K/N bridge is quite cramped and I'm not entirely sure precisely his location in order to take the Churchill photo.

The weight of evidence still points to Kimberley, prove me wrong!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Warwickshire, England
ar wrote:
The evidence is staring one in the---- FACE.
Have fun, just a hobby, not to be taken seriously.
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.


There is no excuse why one cannot visit in November then! :big_grin:
Right going for morning run I expect to come back and still not see crytic waffle!
Or is that too much to ask?


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 27 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