Calling all Iron Duke-class (1914-1946) fans

[SovereignHobbies]

I don't have enough of a collection of Iron Duke to say either way. I do wish people would take more care in their wording though. Dark Slate Grey in British parlance was and still is a recognised specific colour and I've yet to see any evidence for it being used on British warships.

It's the olive greenish colour used in British aviation as seen on this Martlet:

[Caravellarella]

Dear Boys & Girls, were there ever any old conversion articles in magazines such as Airfix Magazine exploring conversions of the old Airfix 1/600 scale HMS Iron Duke kit? I'm thinking particularly of conversions to the previous Orion class and King George V class battleships.

Terry (Caravellarella)

[Xanthar]

I'm wondering if anyone here has built Modelik's 1/200 Scale Card model of HMS Iron Duke? If so, would you recommend this kit?

[tjstoneman]

As completed, the class carried four pulling boats (whalers and gigs) hung on davits along the edges of the boat deck. Since, in this position, they could not be lowered straight into the water (they were directly above the upper deck, and not over the ship's side), they were presumably lowered and hoisted by the main derrick or the sided derricks abeam the after funnel. Similarly, there is a gig slung from davits on the after superstructure, directly above the barrels of "Q" turret.

However, the instructions for the Deluxe version of the Flyhawk 1/700 kit of Iron Duke indicate that these boats were slung from falls, with lifelines hanging vertically from the wire jackstay between the davit-heads, and with ladders to board the boat from the edge of the boat deck or superstructure. As the lifelines (ropes hanging vertically from the jackstay and coiled inside the boat when at the davits, intended for crewmen to hold onto as the boat is lowered into the sea), and perhaps the ladders, would not be needed if the boat was not lowered into the sea from the davits, are the instructions in error?

[81542]

DavidP,

Not the boats that tjstoneman is writing about.

tjstoneman,

I would tend to agree with you: the instructions appear to be in error. Why? I offer these possible reasons:

1. The kit manufacturer has seen photographs of the sea-boats, fitted either in this class or elsewhere, with the items that you described and because its designer saw the boom boats mentioned, hanging from davits in the IRON DUKEs, assumed that they should also have what you described and included them in the kit.

2. However, there is the possibility that the draughtsman of the plans from which the kit was designed included them in error and the kit manufacturer didn't check the facts!

All that said, fitting the boats mentioned to complete a kit may depend on time period the model that it is to be displayed. The boats shown are likely to be "as fitted" and only carried in peace time. They may have been sent inshore (landed) in war. Certainly they would have been at risk from blast/action damage if not.

81542

[tjstoneman]

Thank you DavidP; however, the davits for these five boats were at the deckedge of the boat deck or after superstructure, and they overhung the upper deck, not the ship's side. They were normally stowed with the boats away from the deck (because, for the ones at the edge of the boat deck, the boom boats filled all available space inboard), and I don't think the davits would have rotated. Thus directly below the davithead was the upper deck, not the water.

See, for example, the depiction of the ancient Airfix 1/600 scale model at http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uke-04.jpg - the only boats which overhung the water would have been the pair of cutters abreast the bridge, not the four at the edges of the boat deck (between the funnels).

[tjstoneman]

The Flyhawk 1/700 kit is labelled as 1914; the Airfix 1/600 version has features of a mixture of dates, eg 6" guns aft (removed in 1915-16 and remounted at foc's'le deck level amidships - the kit depicts them in BOTH locations!). Photos show at least some of the class with boats abeam the boat deck into the 1930s.

[tjstoneman]

The boom boats were carried on the boat deck, which is colloquial term for the area at the after end of fo'c'sle deck level, between and abreast the funnels. Thank you for posting the "as fitted" plans, which show her as fitted, with annotations showing alterations to 1921 and to 1923, and show the five boats to which I was referring.

[81542]

DavidP,

Thanks for posting the images in your post of 8:58pm 11 April. They prove that the draughtsman did not erroneously; or otherwise, insert the standing and running rigging on the davits of the smaller boom boats as I surmised he might have done. What works of art too!

81542

[JC_4130]

I am wondering about the timing of when the protective shutters for the 6" guns were removed. Do we know if it was at the same time as when the aft pair of guns were relocated to the forward superstructure? R.A. Burt says they were removed following trials, which to me implies this was done before the aft guns were moved (he says the guns were moved 1915~1916). However I cannot find any photographs of the ships with the shutters removed AND the aft guns in their original positions. But early war photos seem hard to come by. There are a number of photos of the ships that are labelled 'as commissioned' which still show the shutters in place.

Basically, for the Flyhawk kit, which has the original 6" gun placement, I am wondering if it is appropriate to show the ship without shutters. I think they are rather ugly and look like a hassle to mount I actually would prefer to show the ship with the 6" guns relocated forward (the original placement looks so silly!), but that is more surgery than I am willing to do.

[JC_4130]

DavidP,

Thanks for posting the images in your post of 8:58pm 11 April. They prove that the draughtsman did not erroneously; or otherwise, insert the standing and running rigging on the davits of the smaller boom boats as I surmised he might have done. What works of art too!

81542

Unfortunately it looks like DavidP's posts have dissapeared. I'm curious about the plans that this comment is referring to?

[FFG-7]

email sent.

[JC_4130]

email sent.

FFG, I didn't see any email (I checked my spam folder, etc). I will send you a PM - thanks for your help!

[FFG-7]

email sent with files.

[JC_4130]

The Flyhawk kit has a contradiction between the painting instructions and the actual molding of the forecastle deck. The portion of the forecastle deck behind of the bridge and forward superstructure, where the funnels and boats are situated, has planking molded on the deck as with the rest of the forecastle and quarterdeck. However the instructions show this area as dark brown linoleum(?), the same as the decks of the upper superstructure levels, which are not planked. In the attached shot of the instructions, it's the area in the blue box.

I am trying to determine which is correct - the instructions or the part. The only enlightening picture I have found is of Iron Duke in 1939. It seems to show the area in question as darker than the rest of the wood planked decking, suggesting the instructions are correct (no wood). But it's not the best quality, not to mention that area could have been altered later in the ship's career (the kit depicts the ship in 1914). Has anyone found any pictures that would shed light on this? Does it seem like my interpretation that that area is NOT wood planking is correct?

[81542]

JC_4130,

The drawing showing the plan of the area of the ship in RA Burt's "British Battleships of World War One" would seem to indicate that neither are correct but gives no further indication. The drawing seems to indicate that the forward part was covered in Corticene as the painting instructions show: with the after part definitely not being planked. It is possible that the "As Fitted" drawings of the ship might reveal what the area was covered with but you would need to ask the National Maritime Museum; which might hold them. I consider that to be your best bet.

I know of no photographs showing the subject area of the ship and consider it extremely unlikely that any exist.

[MartinJQuinn]

There is this photo of Jellicoe on Iron Duke, allegedly at Jutland. Would seem to show the deck is not planked.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205086940

[81542]

Thanks, Martin. I remembered that image from some years ago but discounted it when writing my last post as being of little value from memory: apologies.

I agree with you: it does seem to show that the deck in question is not planked. In view of that and seeing that there is a lack of evidence of any hold-down strips for Corticene I would think that the area in question was painted. What colour? Pass!

It does reveal another interesting point though: the ladder up which Sir John Jellicoe is climbing is not in the correct place on the drawing in Burt's "British Battleships of World War One!" Had he been trying to climb it in the position it is in "Burt," he would have shortly fallen about 7 feet onto the Forecastle deck.

Do we also now need to check our secondary References for correctness?

[JC_4130]

.
Do we also now need to check our secondary References for correctness?

I can't rememer specifics, but I believe the drawings in Burt's books are not immune from errors. The ladder placement is bizarre.

I had resorted to trying to find pictures of this area on other, similar ships (Orion, KGV, Lion) but so far no luck. There is an overhead pic of KGV in DK Brown's book The Grand Fleet with boats absent, but the picture is too small to be of use. If I could find a bigger version...

I have seen the Jellicoe pic. There is some sort of seam in the deck on the right side but I couldn't say what that means.
I was hoping to solve this mystery as I was writing an in the box review for the kit, but I might have to punt. I feel pretty confident in saying the planking detail in the kit is incorrect. But in any event, the area in question is mostly obscured by boats anyway.

[JC_4130]

Here is an interesting development... I happened to find a scan of a newspaper front page featuring the famous Jellicoe picture. Low and behold, planking seems to have appeared! Unless I am misinterpreting? Is it possible the other version of the photo lost that detail in the process of retouching? One seam seems to have survived. The 1939 photo still shows no planking here, but perhaps it was removed at some point.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1914- ... 81509.html