Calling all Queen Elizabeth-class (1914-1947) fans

[Gilbert]

Therefore, it's Malaya having been hit by a merchant ship. Liverpool refit was before september 1940 ?

cheers

Gilbert

[Laurence Batchelor]

Yes and Yes.

Liverpool refit was as a result of December 1939 torpedo damage on the port side from U-30 which was kept hush, hush.
Barham was under refit from 30th December 1939- June 1940.

[Gilbert]

Thanks. At least, thanks again to you, we are moving forward on the subject . Back to the deck colour, I was wondering if someone could find something like a document from the Admiralty stating "From....decks are to be painted..." Such a document would really help. In other words, from when was the first deck painted on a RN Battleship ?

cheers

Gilbert

[mike mccabe]

One thing is clear, Barham's 1940-41 fit isn't correctly documented in ANY published source.
If people are building kits on these facts they will make errors.

If the facts are available but either ignored or not looked for then it is an error. If a fact is not available, then anything based on assumption given the best information to hand it is not an error. Seems to me that a great deal that is written about naval history is based on this premise. If you don't know, how can you then say it is wrong?

Gilbert makes a good point very well and shows a good understanding to my mind of the factors at play which would cause objects to look darker than they in fact are. I would add to this that as in my previous post, teak decking often looks far darker than it would be expected. I agree entirely Gilbert, all the factors you point to suggest that you are right and there is no evidence to the contrary. Logic might dictate that decks were painted but as I said before, this was war and logic did not always lead the way.

Mike

[Laurence Batchelor]

If the facts are available but either ignored or not looked for then it is an error. If a fact is not available, then anything based on assumption given the best information to hand it is not an error. Seems to me that a great deal that is written about naval history is based on this premise.

Mike

That is correct and so if you wish to build her as sunk you will have to go with the best information/interpretation to hand. One would certainly be making a more accurate depiction of her, by following this thread, than anyone else who was following only the published material available in the last 30-years. So far in mere days we have showed Semtex was on board her in Sept 1940 along part of her forecastle deck, Type 281 radar was atop her mainmast by 1941 and 4-photos in British Battleships claiming to be here are mis-identified. It isn't a bad start and has certainly moved the debate along.

I already mentioned exactly what you said above earlier i.e. if you want to do painted decks on a 1940 PoW or all teak decking on an as sunk Barham no one can say your model is wrong, merely someone else's interpretation is different. However if you stray and start to say "well the semtex was removed between Sept 1940 and Nov 1941" you then are in error and making convenient statements, with no evidential backing, in order to make producing a model easier and/or fit your previous opinion. In addition it is far more solid ground to model her as WE KNOW she looked between Sept 1940 and early 1941 and hope few alterations were carried out at Durban other than the UP mount removed en route at Port Said during the summer of 1941.

My opinion as to why sometimes teak decks often look dark in RN WW2 warships on deck photos is simply because they are dirty, especially in relation to 1930s photos we often compare against.
I have seen many yard photos where you can see workmen have been clambering all over them and they haven't been cleaned for weeks and again the teak decking looks dark.
Same again for during wartime, many ships were so overworked deck cleaning got put to the bottom of the list of things to do once in port when 2/3 of the crew were sent on leave and only 1/3 were left for harbour duties (assuming 3 watches). It is funny that one finds, when perhaps a dignitary is on board during wartime, photos show miraculously the teak decks are lighter again.

If you really want to make an accurate as sunk Barham you will have to do some leg work yourself Mike and visit the IWM to locate further wartime photos of her (if they exist).
Also write/email the secretary of the HMS Barham association to see if he is willing to ask their association members if they have any. Often they are only too happy to help and send you photos in the post.
Failing that, you can put a free advert in the Navy News or just revise your idea and go for a late 1940 / early 1941 fit where several wartime photos exist and you are on more solid ground.

Kind Regards
Laurence

[mike mccabe]

Well I don't think anyone could ever accuse me of trying to make a model easier to build, nicer to look at yes, easier to build I don't think so.

I threw up the semtex replacement smokescreen not that I ever believed it, but to make the point that in the face of no evidence, anything could in fact be possible. It is in the nature of the gaining of evidence that you can prove something is there, you cannot prove it is not.

You have missed the point of my post, it is not merely in WW2 that teak decks look dark, at any point including interwar, when there was plenty of time to clean decks, teak decks often look darker than the surrounding painted metal, that really is a most incredibly weak theory and does strike me as a very 'convenient statement'.

No I am not going to spend any more time on a fruitless search for information, your hobby may be research, mine is building models. This is after all MODELwarships.com not navyresearchers.com. On the subject of building models I would have to say there is a point at which accuracy can only take you so far, no model is ever completely accurate, there is a point at which you have to stop, assess what you have and go with the best solution to make the best model. Actually if I feel like building Barham with bright and shiny teak decks that is exactly what I will do if I feel it makes a better model. I think what this discussion has shown is that accuracy is only perceived and in fact is at times a pretty intangible commodity.

Mike

[ar]

Could somebody have a look at the film of the Barham sinking, and see if they can see any type 281 radar aerials at the mast heads. My maching is a little sick, otherwise I would do this myself.
Thank you.

[mike mccabe]

There is an ensign at the top of the mainmast head so I presume this would mean no?

Mike

[Gilbert]

There are several pictures of HMS Barham's sinking on this site :

http://www.worldisround.com/articles/16107/

Even with a maximum zoom, it's hard to see any radar aerials , but you can, on some pictures, clearly see the Ensign mentioned by Mike

cheers

Gilbert

[ar]

There is an ensign at the top of the mainmast head so I presume this would mean no?

Mike

THank you,
Definately NO RADAR fitted.

[mike mccabe]

Maybe they fitted it as in larence's photo then took it off again before she was sunk? Probably at the same time they removed the semtex then.

Mike

[ar]

Maybe they fitted it as in larence's photo then took it off again before she was sunk? Probably at the same time they removed the semtex then.

Mike

Be nice now.

[ar]

I can confirm Barham had by 1941 Type 281 air warning radar atop her mainmast.
Something missed by Raven & Roberts in Ensign 4 and British Battleships and also the Profile Morskie doesn't pick up on it either.
Source: Clear closeup 1941 photograph.

Can you -post the photo in question?
I ask, as I missed the above post of yours, however I cannot see anything in the photos of her sinking.

[mike mccabe]

Be nice now.

It's all just good clean fun!

Mike

[Rob]

I can confirm Barham had by 1941 Type 281 air warning radar atop her mainmast.
Something missed by Raven & Roberts in Ensign 4 and British Battleships and also the Profile Morskie doesn't pick up on it either.
Source: Clear closeup 1941 photograph.

Can you -post the photo in question?
I ask, as I missed the above post of yours, however I cannot see anything in the photos of her sinking.

Please do, the top of the mainmast is indistinct in the sinking photos. By the by I interpret that deck as bare teak.

Rob

[mike mccabe]

The best quality bit of web video I could find is probably this -

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... rham&hl=en

There is quite clearly an ensign fluttering away at the head of the mainmast and the decks look, well teak coloured mostly, turret tops definitely darker than the decks. No sign of any radar.

Mike

[MartinJQuinn]

Since I have a HiMold 1/700 Barham about 75% done, I've been following the discussion on the decks with interest, and would like to share the following picture of Barham, from a private photo album. My understanding is that the photo was taken from Queen Elizabeth. I'm not sure of the location - could it be Alexandria?

While the angle is poor, it appears the decks are darker than the 507C on the turrets sides, and may be painted/stained.

Barham from Queen Elizabeth. Norman A. Robinson collection, via Mike Dobrzelecki

The photo was originally shown to me by Mike Dobrzelecki, who is a member of my local IPMS/USA club (New Jersey IPMS). Mike works with the late Mr. Robinson's son, who, in the course of conversation, told Mike that his Dad was in the Royal Navy during the war. Ian then brought some photos for Mike to see and eventually scan. According to Mike:

The photo was given to me by an engineer, Ian Robinson, I work with here at XYZ Corporation. It was part of the collection of photos kept by his father � Norman A.Robinson. Robinson joined the Royal Navy early in war, or just before it. He had a quite interesting service life. He first served aboard the cruiser, HMS Ajax, and participated in the hunt for the Graf Spee.=2 0He related that they were very relieved that the Spee was scuttled by her captain. He then transferred to the battleship, HMS Queen Elizabeth serving on a 40mm quad pompom anti-aircraft gun, which gave him a ring side seat for the combat s the QE participated in. Prior to sailing from England the HMS Queen Elizabeth took on a lot of cold weather gear they were going to need for convoy escort work for Artic run to Murmansk, Russia, but, in classic military fashion they were redirected to the Mediterranean. He was aboard when the Queen Elizabeth was sunk at anchor by the Italian Miale chariot mini-subs. He spent a lot of time languishing in North Africa until the QE completed temporary repairs sufficient enough to sail to a port for more extensive drydock repairs. Rather than go straight west past Gibraltar, the Royal Navy thought it was a better idea for QE to pass through the Suez Canal, go round the Cape of Good Hope off South Africa and make their way across the Atlantic to the US Navy base at Norfolk for drydocking, repair and refit. Since a good portion of the crew had nothing really to do many were transferred to other Royal Navy vessels. Norman was employed in transporting LST�s and landing craft across the Atlantic. During the D-Day invasion he was based in Portsmouth England sending off the invasion fleet and resupply ships to the coast of France.

Ian Robinson�s uncle on his mother�s side, Albert Sanderson, served aboard the HMS Rodney and took part in the Hunt for the Bismark.

When I asked what Mr. Sanderson's duties on Rodney were, Mike replied that:

Ian Robinson�s uncle was in the Royal Marine detachment aboard the Rodney. As Ian recalls, his uncle was topside for some of the action and, at the end, he witnessed the final moments of the Bismark, remarking how he saw German sailors standing the deck through powerful binoculars.

Mr Sanderson is still alive and living in Florida. Mike is trying to arrange, through his co-worker, to talk to him.

Hopefully this picture will further the discussion of the deck colors and the radar (or lack thereof).

[Gilbert]

Hi Martin,

I think, according to the ship's camo and the fact that there is no more UP mounting on 'B' turret, we can date the photo as in 1941. According to ar in "British Battleships in WW2" p.205 "Early in 1941, the UP mounting was removed, two 0.5 inch machine-gun mountings were fitted, one on 'B' turret.....

Therefore, I think you are right about the picture having being taken at Alexandria, as Barham was part of Force A since late 1940.

However, I am still unconvinced by her decks having being painted. They don't look very dark and 507C looks very light on the picture.

Anyway, thanks very much for sharing this good picture

cheers

Gilbert

[Sylvain Auger]

Hi Martin,

I think, according to the ship's camo and the fact that there is no more UP mounting on 'B' turret, we can date the photo as in 1941. According to ar in "British Battleships in WW2" p.205 "Early in 1941, the UP mounting was removed, two 0.5 inch machine-gun mountings were fitted, one on 'B' turret.....

From what I can see there IS a UP mounting on B turret. The tub looks like the one on Hood and the UP gun is covered in Canvas on the picture. It dosen't help the deck color discussion but it might help to pinpoint the date and location of the Barham picture which Martin kindly provided for us.

Cheers

[Gilbert]

Yes, you are right Sylvain, I have jumped too fast. I stand corrected and see the UP. Therefore, the picture was probably taken as in late 1940, beginning of 1941, in Alexandria.

Thanks for correcting me

Gilbert