The Ship Model Forum

I do not think she had anchors on her bow for this one-way mission. See clipped photos (all from Bundesarchiv source).

your close up picture takes the bow to far away from bow and starts where I put the red 1 ...the anchor I think is to be seen in 2 between the legs of the men standing germans....the other picture you show is from the other side...and indeed non to be seen...maybe she had the port anchor but not the starboard ...

Thank you both for your responses, I found the attached photo where the anchor does not seem to be in place. I was wondering if the space used for stowage of the anchor cables was used for the explosives. Al.

Apologies to a guest poster - your post saying you found a drawing in AOTS Campbelltown with the anchor not drawn was accidentally disapproved. Please resubmit and I'll get it through the filter.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I was merely stating that I had forgotten I owned the AOTS CAMPBELTOWN book, which shows no anchors, but that is not necessarily definitive. However, in view of weight-saving efforts made during her reconstruction for the mission, and practical considerations, it seems very unlikely she had anchors at all...and no photos (AFAIK) actually show anchors.

The explosives--an absolutely huge amount, said to be over 8,000 lbs, I believe--were in a forward tank--most likely a converted fuel tank--and covered by concrete. In her class, several such tanks were located near the bottom of the hull in that area.

My revel 1/240 USS SOMERS is finished...thought it good to put pictures here...if you wanna see full build...
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=207229

For info as USS SOMERS was scraped 1930 I had to modify according my Campbeltown... I suppose it give a realistic view of the Clemson class between 1920 and 1930

and a few more

That is certainly excellent work. Old tincan men would appreciate it, I'm sure.

1) Here are three fourpiper (Asiatic Fleet) photos, ca. 1939-40, with some smaller details that may also be of interest or value to model-builders. I selected them to show closeups of the stern, and also the after deckhouse/steering platform w/gun No. 4 to note the light attached to the mainmast.

2) On the nice bridge interior details: I think there was a blackboard attached to the bulkhead (port side, IIRC) showing basics like speed, course, etc.

3) I also wonder what the consensus of opinion is with regard to wooden decking on fourpipers? Not the main deck, but above the galley deckhouse.

This is my extended version of the 1/240 (approx) USS WARD. I bashed two kits together to add length, added camber to the deck and sheer to the foc'sle. I also modified the propeller shafts and the inlet/outlet for main seawater sea-chests. The extended length model now measures 41.5 cm.

Having rebuilt one of those 15 or so years ago, I can appreciate the work you've done! Hope to see it finished

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

The length is incorrect for that scale. The stacks are also the wrong height.

The extended hull is the correct scale length for this kit. I did it this way:

The beam of the original kit is about 4 cm. The overall length (314.5 ft) to beam ratio (30.5 ft) of the ship class is about 10.3. The scale overall length should be around 41.5 cm. The measured overall kit length of the hull is 39.5 cm so it is about 2 cm short. I used overall length not length between perpendiculars (waterline). The true length of these ships varied so the length measurements are not an exact science. I discovered this when I blew up the plans in the Al Ross book and discovered the problem. I used the measurements in Alden's "Flush Decks and Four Pipes". Because of the stern, the differences between the overall length and waterline length can be confusing. Plus no two sets of plans appear be the same.

Roger. Good conversation. I am glad you are happy with your measurements. Thank you.

I went back and checked the references and remeasured my modified kit. Everything I posted above was from memory and I was not correct in some areas. I was going to edit my above posts but have decided to summarize it here for posterity. But first a couple of points for clarification:

1. The major four-piper references all have different beam measurements that are within plus/minus 0.75 feet. When I modified the hull last May, I used the Al Ross "Destroyer HMS CAMPBELTOWN" book as my major reference. His references look solid.

2. I used Mr. Ross' book because many of the plans (General Booklet of Plans, Floating Drydock, Blue Jacket, National Archives...) provide different deck arrangements and scale measurements. At least the Anatomy of a Ship Series had enough info to build an entire ship model (right or wrong), and allowed me build templates to build items and mark locations.

3. As a retired Surface Warfare Naval Officer and a Naval Architect who now works at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), I know official Navy plans may or may not be accurate. General Booklet of Plans are "General" in nature and do reflect any ship in any particular "as built" or "as modified" condition. They are good a reference for general details. No two ships are exactly alike, or may not reflect actual features in the drawings. So to overcome this problem, I had to estimate and compromise in several areas, and live with any mistakes. Round-off errors to the first decimal are ok (to me).

4. The plans in Mr. Ross' are 1:256. I upscaled them on a photocopier by magnifying them (x1.14). As the guide of this ratio, I used the widest beam kit measurement (4.0 cm), divided by the 1:256 plan beam of 3.5 cm (4/3.5=1.14). I rebuilt the kit to match the dimensions on the up-scaled plan, and not to any particular scale. Just the max kit beam dimension that the kit afforded me.

As Planned: I backed out my preliminary measurements in the following way: In Mr. Ross' the the overall full scale length 314.5 ft (95.86 m) and the beam 30.75 ft (9.37 m). Using these numbers, the length to beam ratio is 10.23. Using my planned beam of 4 cm, the scale overall length should be around 40.9 cm. At this point I cut up two kits and bashed them together. I cut the kits at the max beam, so the new longer halves mated perfectly. After a month of sawing, sanding and filling I measured the rebuilt hull. The bow, deck sheer/camber, propeller shafts and rope guards were another horror story that I will not discuss here.

As Built: After the hull was built I measured everything. My kit is heavily modified (cut-up and decks replaced...) and bears little resemblance to the original kit in any comparable way. The max kit beam is measured as 4.07 cm, which times x10.23, gives an "as-built" predicted length of 41.63 cm. The as-built measurement of the actual modified hull is 41.6 cm. The main deck to keel projected dimension also matches my blown-up Al Ross plans. Most of this turned out to be so close by good fortune and not by plan. I may be off a "mm" or two but I did the best I could.

Summary: My as-built kit comes in at about 1:230 scale and matches the up-scaled Mr. Ross plans within a fraction of a cm. Interesting because when I started the scale was not an issue considered because i thought it was 1:240 "-ish". I just wanted to have a properly dimensioned kit based on the old WARD kit using the Mr. Ross plans. Mr. Ross' plans may not be perfect and/or my hacking and slashing modelling style is imprecise, but the result is good enough me given my discussion in Para 3 above. The "as Planned" and "as Built" kit was within 0.7 cm, but with a slightly wider beam it checks out nicely. This ship will end up as the the USS PREBLE (DD-345), the namesake of the first ship I first served on.

Lessons Learned: Thank you for your patience reading this post. I am glad I documented this discussion here because I had forgotten much of it until I went through my records. As a modeler, with an engineering background, I always think in terms of numerical ratios, not model scale. I did not build a kit to a particular scale but an existing kit to a set of drawings that would accommodate the maximum beam of that kit. I hope you have better insight into my modelling approach with this kit.

Looking for some help please, I intend to build the Mirage HMS St Albans as she was in 1943 when she was returned to the RN. The pictures in the two links from the IWM and U-boat net, look to be about the same time period. Compared to the kit the single gun tubs are in different locations and the anchor crane looks to have been removed also there is a boat on the portside, any information or best guess welcome. The two pictures that I found on the internet show a similar pattern to the kit instructions but the colours are much different, does anyone know what MS3 light would be, maybe a mix of white and MS3. Any help appreciated thank you Al.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205120692 , https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/5886.html

This probably isn't going to be helpful, at least for her camo, but I scanned these images at the US National Archives of HMS St ALBANS (I.15) taken as she completed an overhaul at BosNY in December 1943. Shortly after the photos were taken I understand she was placed in reserve in early 1944, then transferred to the USSR. Maybe some of the configuration details can be of help

When I scanned these images, I thought she was still operating with a Norwegian crew and under their flag. These views show her portside, which shows that the camo pattern doesn't look much like the patterns you have posted for the starboard side.

The two photos posted by Rick show St Albans flying a Norwegian ensign. Does this mean that she was still Norwegian manned in late 1943 (despite some references giving the date of reversion to British manning as autumn 1942), or is the date on the photos wrong?

Miss-identification of ships and dates can be a fairly regular thing in Navy photos, but generally happens to photos that were passed from the originator to another command for whatever purpose. These are Boston Navy Yard Photos and the photo number indicates they were shot in 1943. Most of the yards around this time used a numbering system that essentially started sequentially at the beginning of the year and tacked the last two digits of the year at the end. Even if there's no date on the photo but there is a yard photo number one can at least determine the year and sometimes early/middle/late by how high the initial number is.

I would rate it very high that these dates are accurate.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

For what it's worth, I have a book on the Norwegian navy (Sverre Mo's Norske Marinefartøy), which has St. Albans as under Norwegian command until February 4, 1944.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

MS3 light is a figment of someone's imagination. The coloured illustration of the 1943 camouflage on St Albans and the book it came from is best ignored.

St Albans’ 1943 camouflage design comes from CAFO 679/42 Plate 28. It appears that St Albans wore it first on emerging from her Falmouth refit in October 1942. It is obviously an Admiralty Dark Medium Type as per CAFO 2146/42. If applied by the book this would mean the paint colours at that time should have been 507A, B5 and MS4 as marked up on this photo:

The paints in the Boston December 1943 photos look slightly different. The bow paint panel seems darker than before (the same as the dark further aft) and the draught marks are showing up much lighter than before; the forward two funnels are now all the darkest tone; the pendant number is smaller. It appears that she has been repainted and it may be that the scheme has been simplified to just two colours on the hull but maybe the bridge has been painted a third, lighter, tone? Further we can perhaps speculate that instead of the B&G Series RN 1943 paints she has been repainted by Boston NY using USN equivalents.