The Ship Model Forum

Kedge anchors of similar dimensions were typically carried; Prince of Wales has one stowed just in front of the 3P 5.25" turret(see IWM A 4232 partially underneath a stack of boxes). This particular version does look a bit flimsy though (and welded? not sure if that was common at the time).

Kevin,

The kedge anchor pointed out by EJFoeth in the attachment to his post is what would have been known as an "Admiralty" pattern type. However, as you can see in the attachment, the "stock" was usually folded away for convenience and only "deployed" into its place when the anchor was about to be used. HMS's HOOD and RESOLUTION had a similar one as, no doubt did other British battleships of the period.

81542

Thanks gents!

I must say I tend to agree with what you suggest EJ, that is the use of welding being somewhat questionable(?) for that time and the anchor looking a little 'flimsy' for that size of ship. Be that as it may, re the memorial itself, it is the thought that counts.

_________________
“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

Folks,

For those that have not read it - i.e. the Bucknill Report from 1942 regards the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 - and are interested in such, then thanks to Justin Taylan over at Pacific Wrecks , you can now read it.

The hard-copy I had looked like it was a copy of a copy of a copy, and was rather degraded, but a little work in Photoshop and I managed to get it pretty much readable (I think you’ll find anyway) and turned into a PDF. I then sent it to my friend Justin and he has graciously put it up on his Prince of Wales web page.

The document seems to be one of those things that everybody (with an interest in the ‘event’) has heard about, but very very few have actually seen / read. We know now that things were not quite as they thought, but it is still a very worthwhile read. Anyway, here it is, a PDF download - https://pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/pri ... -04-42.pdf

BTW, there are other PDf's and links of interest toward the bottom of his below page also.
https://pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/pri ... wales.html

_________________
“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

Thank you Kevin!

Thank you Kevin. The copy of the Bucknill Report was clear enough to read.

The formation of the Bucknill Commitee, the Report, its circulation and some of the material in it caused the incumbent Director of Naval Construction, Sir Stanley Goodall some annoyance. For those seeking the reasons, details can be found on page 160 of DK Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard."

81542

There once was a picture of PoW in 1941 in dry dock after her battle with Bismarck. She had shown some damage to the hull where 15in shell stuck but didnt explode.

Does anyone know where to find this photo? I seemed to have had it but cannot find it! Was it here or somewhere else?

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

I assume you may mean one of these?

Actually, my bad, as on second thoughts I believe this 'set' is from the bomb exploding next to her while in dry dock for those repairs you mention. Opps.

_________________
“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

Kevin,

I think that Pascalemod might be referring to photographs that I have a vague recollection of seeing years ago in one of the works by Guilin and Darzke (presumably the volume dealing with, "Allied" but not US battleships). It might be worth a try if he can find a copy. Otherwise, "Cag" is bound to know.

81542

Don't have my copy on hand 81' so cant say. And Guilin and Darzke eh? Methinks a slight slip of the keyboard there. They be Dulin & Garzke, as I am sure you actually know.

_________________
“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

Pictures of PoW's battle damage, including the one you are referring to, were on the HMS Hood Association website - on the PoW Damage Report page linked from the Denmark Strait Research Materials page. But the photos are no longer there - seems they've been removed.

The only image there now is a graphic showing the locations of the hits, even though the introductoy text still refers to photos.

I wonder why....

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/denma ... amage1.htm

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

Hi All,

PaulC is correct, the Hood website did used to have images but they seem to have been removed, I think you may find something on the IWM website if you search for Prince of Wales or Denmark Strait battle damage as they do hold copies.

The National archives hold the damage report in which the images appear, its an interesting read and shows that the perceived wisdom of the sequence of hits on PoW is incorrect. Its assumed that the first hit on PoW was the compass platform hit as its hit no1 in the damage report, but its made quite clear that for the report the hits were separated into above water and below water hits and numbered from bow to stern.

So effectively hit no1 is the first above water hit found on PoW starting from the bow and working back, but not the first hit received by PoW in the battle.

The 15 inch underwater hit is classed as hit no5 in the report, photographs show the entry hole and then subsequent images of the hole from inside the hull etc.

The file also holds the bomb damage report and images Kevin posted above, unfortunately Pascalemod I'm not able to post an image from the report but as I say a search on the good old google or the IWM website might result in something.

Hope that helps a wee bit
Best wishes
Cag.

I think I was a bit off in naming it, it was supposedly the 8in shell from Prinz Eugen that hit the ship below water but just didnt explode. I was looking for exactly how the ships boot top looked below water (wavey or straight) as I plan to repaint my PoW lower hull grey and apply Sovereign Hobby decals for depth gauge, to complete the ship. Ive done it to Hood recently, to reflect the grey lower hull situation, and I believe PoW is now due for that as well.

The image I found recently in a Youtube video, but it is zoomed in. Sadly I cannot locate the original anywhere. Below is best I found.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Hi All

Hi Pascalemod, ah sorry maybe we both got mixed up, but it's no problem. Yes that is pic of hit no7 the 8 inch or possibly 5.9 inch hit aft, this punctured the hull, hit the sloped part of the armour over the steering gear and ricocheted back out of the ships side.

Hit 6 was a similar hit but just snagged the wood cover plate on the side Armour and exploded in the officers cabins on the lower deck flooding that deck from the armoured bulkhead aft.

I'll take a look at pics I have of PoW in dry dock after her completion to see what her boot topping looks like and let you know,

Best wishes
Cag.

More general question: where people are seeing the lower boot topping edges as wavy, were they actually painted that way, or are we really just seeing the result of wave action wearing the paint away unevenly..?

_________________
King George V class Battleships in 3D

The intention should have been a straight horizontal at the light load level. Can you provide an illustration of the sort of wavy edges you are referring to?

This is not Royal Navy obviously, but the same is seen on Royal Navy ships, including Hood in dry dock. Mind, not ALL have exhibited this, only some. Either in situ painting was good enoug and left, or images show ships BEFORE the clear straight line on low low was drawn. I dunno. Thoughts?

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Hi All,

Hi Pascalemod, I've had a look at a number of images of Prince of Wales in drydock prior and post Denmark Strait and of King George V after completion and during repair after damage due to collision and as far as I can see both the top and bottom extremities of the boot topping line are straight with no undulations.

As for why we see this on other warships I'm afraid that's one for the experts, maybe wear and tear at the cross over point when at light load or just crew painting lower than normal during refit to add extra protection for spots of corrosion?

As for your PoW the boot topping is straight whilst she was in Home Fleet grey.

Hope that helps
Best wishes
Cag

From what I have read on the subject, you have to be careful interpreting "intent" on a wavy edge. The boot topping was usually a glossy paint to prevent things from sticking. As a result, the boot topping was often painted first, and the sides above and below the boot topping painted after. Less care was taken in keeping the line straight on the upper sides and the anti-fouling paint because they did not adhere well to the glossy boot topping paint. So wave action was expected to peel the overspray, ultimately straightening the demarcation line. At least, that was the theory I have read.

Further to my Post of 3 Feb last and for those who may still be interested.

Garzke WH Jr and Dulin RO Jr; with line drawings by Webb TG (1980): "British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships of World War 2" published by Jane's Publishing Company: London and Sydney, ISBN 71060078X contains a number of photographs and drawings of the shell-fire damage suffered by HMS PRINCE of WALES during the Denmark Strait action between pages 177 and 209. These are attributed to "Royal Navy: HMS Excellent;" which means that they were Crown Copyright at the time and for all I know, may still be, which is probably why Cag has not chosen to splatter what he has all over the Net. Kudos to Cag for his scrupulousness: meanwhile, excuse the error in my post of getting the names of the authors of the book mixed up.

I am afraid that I only managed a quick look at the above Reference but can assure those interested that it is worth finding a copy to read.

Concerning the pictures by KevinD in his post of 3 Feb; showing the bomb damage suffered by the ship: this was actually suffered while the ship was fitting out at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead and not at Rosyth.

Re: the matter of "Boot Topping." I advise anyone with queries regarding this matter as it concerns ships of the Royal Navy to read the attachment to "Dick's" Post of 24 Jan 24 "Royal Navy ships' bottoms and boot topping 1936 - 1950" in the "Camouflage and Coatings" section of this site. It is an excellent piece of work and as good as it is likely to get.

81542