ar wrote:One; look up the figuers contained in the FINAL approved Legend. These are in the "Ships Covers".
Two; Refer to the specific "As Fitted" set of plans.
Sorry for the bad news.
People will have to wait for Friedman's book.
Looking at Friedman's volume 2 RN destroyer book, and his Data Tables on pages 317-324 there appears still to be gaps in his data on the later classes of wartime destroyers.
Is this due to the fact that original source documents are missing some of these important figures?
Or the case that he does not wish to spend silly amounts of time piecing things together and/or has he simply missed things?
His efforts are still far superior to March and any other author who has published these figures.
I hope this could be one area that can be possibly rectified in Volume 1.
ar please make him aware of this important issue.
Last edited by Laurence Batchelor on Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've been meaning for some time now to post a mssg on this thread concerning the accuracy of Tamiya's E class destroyer kit, since many of the discussions concerning the destroyer variants that can be built from the kit depend, one way or another, on its accuracy.
In terms of basic accuracy, the kit measures out perfectly in length and beam, for an E-F class ship, based on published figures that I used (I relied on multiple sources for this--including Whitley and several other sources that I don't have at my fingertips at this time--that were in agreement on overall length and beam).
As for proportions, I reduced one of the deck-level wartime photos of HMS Echo taken dead abeam, that was posted earlier by Mr. Batchelor on this thread (thank you Laurence), so that the image of Echo was the proper overall length for an E class destroyer in 1/700 scale, and I placed my dry-fitted E class kit up against it. It matched perfectly. Gun shields, bridge, stacks, deckhouses, searchlight and gun platforms, all were in the right places, and matched the positions of the actual features as depicted in the photo.
Now, I know that an abeam photo of ship will be distorted toward the bow and stern (due to perspective), but I don't exactly know how much the image will be distorted, so that is something to consider. But since I don't have plans for an E-F class destroyer, this is the best I can come up with at this time, and the results were satisfactory as far as I am concerned. The model lined up with the photo perfectly.
Sand off the strakes on the hull sides that are a crude attempt at representing hull plating, remove the aztec stairs leading from the focs'l deck as well as the poor attempts at depth charges molded into the deck adjacent to the aft deckhouse, and you've got yourself a pretty nice representation of an E-F class ship, in my humble opinion.
I would be interested in hearing others' opinions on this matter.
This kit certainly surpases the Niko HMS Garland kit, which is wonderfully molded and incredibly detailed kit, but is a piece of fiction from the point of view of accuracy. The proportions are way, way off, if you compare the kit to both photos of actual G-H class destroyers, or the plan for HMS Glowworm in the John Roberts book on RN warship plans from WWII.
The strange thing, is that the line drawing of HMS Garland (I presume) that came with the Niko instructions, appears to be very accurate, as far as I can tell (though it is not reproduced in 1/700 scale). Why didn't they use this to master the kit? This is something that I just can't fathom!
Too bad, because I like the subject, and the kit is otherwise a gem. Instead, she will become a "hanger queen," providing components for my Tamiya E class destroyer--including the very nice midship gun platform that comes with the Garland kit, which replaced the aft torpedo tubes in many wartime E and G class destroyers. At least Niko seems to have gotten this detail right!
I've been meaning for some time now to post a mssg on this thread concerning the accuracy of Tamiya's E class destroyer kit, since many of the discussions concerning the destroyer variants that can be built from the kit depend, one way or another, on its accuracy.
In terms of basic accuracy, the kit measures out perfectly in length and beam, for an E-F class ship, based on published figures that I used (I relied on multiple sources for this--including Whitley and several other sources that I don't have at my fingertips at this time--that were in agreement on overall length and beam).
As for proportions, I reduced one of the deck-level wartime photos of HMS Echo taken dead abeam, that was posted earlier by Mr. Batchelor on this thread (thank you Laurence), so that the image of Echo was the proper overall length for an E class destroyer in 1/700 scale, and I placed my dry-fitted E class kit up against it. It matched perfectly. Gun shields, bridge, stacks, deckhouses, searchlight and gun platforms, all were in the right places, and matched the positions of the actual features as depicted in the photo.
Now, I know that an abeam photo of ship will be distorted toward the bow and stern (due to perspective), but I don't exactly know how much the image will be distorted, so that is something to consider. But since I don't have plans for an E-F class destroyer, this is the best I can come up with at this time, and the results were satisfactory as far as I am concerned. The model lined up with the photo perfectly.
Sand off the strakes on the hull sides that are a crude attempt at representing hull plating, remove the aztec stairs leading from the focs'l deck as well as the poor attempts at depth charges molded into the deck adjacent to the aft deckhouse, and you've got yourself a pretty nice representation of an E-F class ship, in my humble opinion.
I would be interested in hearing others' opinions on this matter.
This kit certainly surpases the Niko HMS Garland kit, which is wonderfully molded and incredibly detailed kit, but is a piece of fiction from the point of view of accuracy. The proportions are way, way off, if you compare the kit to both photos of actual G-H class destroyers, or the plan for HMS Glowworm in the John Roberts book on RN warship plans from WWII.
The strange thing, is that the line drawing of HMS Garland (I presume) that came with the Niko instructions, appears to be very accurate, as far as I can tell (though it is not reproduced in 1/700 scale). Why didn't they use this to master the kit? This is something that I just can't fathom!
Too bad, because I like the subject, and the kit is otherwise a gem. Instead, she will become a "hanger queen," providing components for my Tamiya E class destroyer--including the very nice midship gun platform that comes with the Garland kit, which replaced the aft torpedo tubes in many wartime E and G class destroyers. At least Niko seems to have gotten this detail right!
Sorry, but I can't figure out what you are on about. Having just measured the Niko Garland against the published dimensions in the book you refer to, they come out accurate for length and beam. As for the ship plan, that shows Glowworm as built, whereas the Niko kit is in 1942 fit. Can you help us all out and expand on where the inaccuracies are?
Glad to do so (though I am on the road now and don't have the Garland kit at hand, so I will have to draw on my memory, and apologize in advance for any errors that may result).
The main problems are not in length overall, which is pretty accurate. The first problem is that the Garland kit is way too beamy. Don't recall exactly, but by more than 2mm, which in 1/700 scale is notable. Just put the Garland next to the Tamiya kit and the difference is obvious. Garland looks chubby compared to the Tamiya kit (though to be fair, the Tamiya kit is maybe a tad too narrow abeam--a little less than a mm if I recall--nothing that I would otherwise note). If I recall correctly, the E-F and G-H class differed in overall length by about 6 feet (329 versus 323 feet?), but were almost identical in beam--both about 33 feet (the difference in 1/700 scale would be negligible).
Next, look at the placement of the A gun position. It is way too far aft on the focs'l deck, and therefore too close to the main deckhouse, if you compare the kit to the line drawing on the instructions (which I believe is pretty accurate) as well as photos of ships of this class. Next, look at the location of the fore and aft funnels. Again, if I recall correctly, the fore funnel should be a bit more foreward, and the two funnels are way too close together. Just compare the kit to photos of ships of this class.
Finally, as I noted in a previous post, the stern is squared off; it should be rounded, though this is easily fixed.
The problems of proportion, however, would be very difficult to fix.
Just for the record, I own about six Niko kits, am very excited about their past and forthcoming releases, and wish them only the best, as their success is our gain as potential customers. But IMHO they should never have released a kit--despite the beautiful casting--as inaccurate at the Garland kit, giving the apparent availability of reasonably accurate drawings of ships of that class.
I don't agree with you about the beam though it is hard to measure on a completed kit. As for the rest, does it really affect the look of the model? Is any kit completely accurate? I think your comments are rather harsh and to be honest I'll be shot down for it but I don't think accuracy is absolutely everything in a model. I'm happy with my Garland so I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I was going through my stored collection of Warships journals for another query and I found something on HMS Escapade by Arnold Hague.
For those of you interested in modelling this ship from the Tamiya kit or wishing to learn more about her Hedgehog damage there is a small but very informative article in Warships 115 Winter (1993).
It shows 1 photograph that I posted earlier, but also 2 others taken at Gourock from the bridge looking forward at what's left of 'B' mounting.
This shows some good detail of an 'E' class forecastle only as anything in between is just twisted metal.
Cheers
Something I thought might be useful for all RN destroyer fans - Flotilla markings!
I've found an incomplete list in my notes, I'd appreciate if anyone could fill in the gaps if known.
In general the following funnel markings were applied to RN destroyer flotilla's during WW2. The markings were in the form of bands which were 2ft deep, 2ft apart with the top band being 3ft from the top of the funnel.
This scheme was painted on the only funnel or to the after funnel depending on destroyer type:
Flotilla -- Number/Colour of bands
1st -- One red
2nd -- Two red
3rd -- unknown (possibly no markings)
4th -- unknown (possibly no markings)
5th -- unknown (possibly no markings)
6th -- unknown (possibly no markings)
7th -- Two white
8th -- Three white
9th -- One black over two white
10th -- unknown (possibly no markings)
11th -- One black over two red
12th -- One white over one red
13th -- One white over two red
14th -- One red over one black
15th -- One red over two black
16th -- One red over one white
17th -- One red over two white
18th -- One white over one black
19th -- One white over two black
20th -- Two white over one black
21st -- Two white over one red
22nd -- unknown (possibly no markings)
Destroyer Leaders
One Funnel -- 2ft deep black top band - above the upper flotilla band.
Two funnels -- 4ft black top band on the forward funnel.
Divisional Commanders
One funnel -- marked with a 2ft wide vertical bar running from the underside of the upper flotilla band downwards for 6ft; this bar is the same colour as the upper flotilla band and appears on both sides of the funnel.
Two funnels -- marked on the forward funnel with a 2ft band placed 3ft down from the funnel top; colours were
Home Fleet -- White
Mediterranean Fleet -- Red
China Fleet -- Black
Sources: Pendant Lists dated 1941 and BR6619(2) 1944.
Last edited by Laurence Batchelor on Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
I have a complete list of assigned bands and have collected some material on this subject as actually applied to ships during the war, including those worn by escort ships, and that would include the destroyers assigned to escort groups, which had a different system banding.
Difficult to explain briefly and it really needs an article with visuals.
If I can find the list I will send it off to you for posting on the internet. This may take a while.
Have you finished the Dunkirk thing yet?
I have again a incomplete list for wartime escort groups, so anything you could send me would be appreciated.
I've just photocopied some more stuff for you also, just keep it away from the dogs!
Dunkirk is well on the way, but masters research is still taking priority at present as I have deadlines to stick to.
Please do not use the quotation button as it makes your posts uncessarily long, please hit the reply button.
Thank you, can you cite your sources please or are you ascertaining these from photographs?
I ask this as I wish to find the original sources you found decades ago.
If you find more information I would prefer if you could post things to me (maybe inside the package due to back to me or the forthcoming tube on its way to you?), don't worry I'm in no rush and I can read your hand writing
Compiled MANY years ago. But believed to be accurate.
Although bands were assigned, rarely worn in home waters after Dunkirk. Practice began to be revived in late war on a scattered basis.
To do justice one needs a comprehensive article covering every individual ship throughout the war.
THis is not something that I want to do.
Langtree and John Roberts covered the J/K/N funnels bands well in the former's 2002 book in the camouflage section.
There is something which appears erroneous to me in that section 'The Kelly's introduced the eight-ship flotilla into the Royal Navy and as such had only two divisions'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the Tribals which firstly adopted this flotilla organisation with 8 ships in two divisions of 4 each with a divisional leader in each. These were ordered and commissioned before any J's.
Another case of blame the editor?
But like you they state these markings all went out of the window by 1941 onwards.
Your right this topic would make a good article with photos and the funnels drawn from various flotilla's.
I've seen very little on its revival late-war also.
Cannot abswer youe questions on Flotilla make-up without doing some research.
Funnel bands had started to dissappear by early 1940; had all but gone very soon after Dunkirk for ships in Home Waters. Thereafter use was slight, only on the whim of individual Captains 'D'. Med was different, basically split into two, Alex and Gib.
None of this matters very much anyway because one needs the configerations and paint schemes as well.
26th Flotilla (V Class) A large black "V". No bands.
27th Flotilla (W Class) One black.
Will try and find more at a later date.
The data for the above came from a friend of mine, who is a retired, very well placed person who still has access to just about everything, and when I say that, I mean at a level above nuclear.
ar wrote:
The data for the above came from a friend of mine, who is a retired, very well placed person who still has access to just about everything, and when I say that, I mean at a level above nuclear.
Do you know if there is much MORE, if anything, likely to come out about the post-war (pre- and post-nuclear RN ?
I know that the Brass Foundry have been told that they won't be receiving various ships books which they know exist , but now won't be archived and that there is no intention to send the computerised designs that are the present generation when they become eligable.
ar wrote:
The data for the above came from a friend of mine, who is a retired, very well placed person who still has access to just about everything, and when I say that, I mean at a level above nuclear.
Do you know if there is much MORE, if anything, likely to come out about the post-war (pre- and post-nuclear RN ?
I know that the Brass Foundry have been told that they won't be receiving various ships books which they know exist , but now won't be archived and that there is no intention to send the computerised designs that are the present generation when they become eligable.
Cannot answer the first question much in terms of commercial publications, but there is a tremendous amount of material still hanging around.
As to not being archieved, re your second point, this suggests destruction of material, which can and does happen. However , everything tells me that a pecentage will be retained.
There is one way to pursue this; is your MP a Conservative or Labour? If the latter then write to him outlining the situation; destruction of historical material, national heritage, thirty year rule, the people have a right, etc, etc. You get the picture. Try it, referencing what the museum have told you.
It worked for me.
I will speak to someone this month about the matter. Before I do this, can you recount fully and as accurately as possible what the Museum said to you, and from what department? I don't want to go off half cock.
ps When you say Ships books, I presume you mean Ships Covers? There is a difference.
