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

[mike mccabe]

Martin
Many thanks for posting this, a very useful and interesting photo, though I agree with Gilbert that the decks look unpainted. It appears to be a very bright day with the sun possibly overhead, I can see no shadows. It does seem when this is the case that those conditions can make the deck look darker than surrounding metal.

Also I note no radar fitted at the top of the mainmast.

By the way, I am also building the Waveline Barham, though you seem further ahead than me, I am maybe half done.

Mike

[Sylvain Auger]

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

No problems there Gilbert

[dick]

I think that its Greenock in the background of Martin's picture. Note also what the crew on deck are wearing.

Cheers.

[Gilbert]

I think that its Greenock in the background of Martin's picture. Note also what the crew on deck are wearing.

Cheers.

Hello Dick,

I have looked at her TROM and did not see any mention of Barham's being there from 1939 till her loss.

As Martin's picture shows clearly the UP mounting on 'B' turret, and as according to ar "British battleships in WW2" p.205 "During this time (December 1939 to March 1940), she was fitted with a UP mounting....", the picture is taken after 1939. You can notice that she has a camo pattern, quite similar with the one appearing on the video of her loss. Back to ar's book p.392, Barham's camouflage was as follows :
"Late 1939 : Overall dark grey
Mid-1940 : Unofficial design of large grey disruptions on white field.
Late 1940 : Overall medium grey
Early 1941 : Modified Peter Scott scheme"

I think the camo we are looking at on Martin's picture is the Modified Peter Scott scheme one.

Therefore, the timeframe of the picture is more than likely very early 1941 after having applied her last camo and before removing the UP mounting.

Back to her TROM, she arrived in Alexandria on 14th November 1940 and stayed in Mediterranean waters until June 1941 when she sailed for Durban to repair her damage sustained on May the 27th, where a bomb hit her Y-turret while in support of military operations in defence of Crete.
She returned to Alexandria in September 1940 and stayed in Mediterranean waters until her loss.

Now, looking at the sailors uniforms, I do agree they don't look white or any light colour. But, if we assume Martin's picture being taken in the first days of 1941, you could get some quite cool temps in Egypt during winter time. I remember one of my trips there, in the last century, about 21 years ago in February, I did not wear any shorts but trousers instead, because of cool temps .

For all these reasons, I still think the picture has been taken in Alexandria unless some new evidence comes up

cheers

Gilbert

[dick]

Hello Gilbert,

I would not rely totally on Geoffrey Mason's TROMs. They are not always fully detailed.

I hope these pictures help. Greenock was frequently a point of departure for ships heading east. But it is also between Gladstone Dock and Scapa...

Cheers

[Rob]

Martin
Many thanks for posting this, a very useful and interesting photo, though I agree with Gilbert that the decks look unpainted. It appears to be a very bright day with the sun possibly overhead, I can see no shadows. It does seem when this is the case that those conditions can make the deck look darker than surrounding metal.

Also I note no radar fitted at the top of the mainmast.

By the way, I am also building the Waveline Barham, though you seem further ahead than me, I am maybe half done.

Mike

Also check out some of the photos taken of Warspite during the Spanish Civil War. In a few of them Warspite's deck under the lights conditions is very dark indeed yet is certainly bare teak as other pictures will confirm. On this basis I would go with a bare teak deck.

Furthermore, Type 281 radar was a set-up that was fitted to both mastheads before 1943 (source: Derek Howse). In photos of Malaya you will see a stump topmast is fitted to support the forward aerial. I woud expect the same fitting to be on Barham but the only prominent new feature high on her foretop is the HACS director.

Therefore unless there is conclusive photographic evidence to the contrary I would leave a Type 281 aerial well away from a model of Barham.

Rob

[Gilbert]

Thanks for the pictures, Dick. I have compared the Greenock towers to the one in the backgroung of Martin's picture and I dont think they quite match, although I agree there is some likeness. But, what about the camo scheme and the UP mounting ? If Greenock is the place where the picture has been taken, it would mean that Barham has left Mediterranean waters very early in 1941 but for what purpose then ? To my best knowledge, there is no evidence she was in Home Waters at anytime during 1941. And such a fact, for a RN capital ship would have been written in related books in general and in ar book in particular.

On the other hand, there is another picture on the Barham's association website showing her with the same camo and still the UP mounting in Suda Bay in Crete, in 1941, according to the commentary. You can clearly see there is no radar aerials fitted on the mainmast.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate.

Cheers

Gilbert

[mike mccabe]

Firstly, Rob's post is absolutely bang on in my opinion. I know the photo of Warspite you mean, the decks look very dark yet clearly there is no reason why they would be painted or stained, and since it was pre WW2 I think we can rule out the dirty decks theory.

I don't really know enough of Barham's movements, Alexandria or Greenock to comment about the location of the photo, but it does look awfully sunny, Gilbert is correct about the camo scheme and it would seem a long way out of the way to go when on station in the Med to me. But as I said, ship movements are not my strong point.

Mike

[dick]

Gilbert,

You are right - Greenock's tower does indeed look a little anorexic compared to the one in Martin's photo. And I do have a photo somewhere that was definitely taken at Alexandria showing ratings in dark rig. Apologies for my red herring!

Cheers.

[Gilbert]

Gilbert,

You are right - Greenock's tower does indeed look a little anorexic compared to the one in Martin's photo. And I do have a photo somewhere that was definitely taken at Alexandria showing ratings in dark rig. Apologies for my red herring!

Cheers.

Dick,

To be honest with you, your Greenock tower gave me some headhaches before I enlarged Martin's picture at the maximum on my computer . Moreover, the debate about the picture's location has been helpful because I've come up with the Suda Bay picture showing Barham in the same camo and clearly without radar. Therefore, no apologies please, and thanks for your input.
cheers
Gilbert

[mike mccabe]

As more than a week has gone since Laurence stated he had conclusive proof of Barham carrying radar and no such proof has emerged, I think we can safely assume that he was in error about this. The deck debate to my mind has not been conclusive other than showing semtex was carried in the area around the 4" guns, I think as it was worn in 1940 it is safe to assume it was there at the time of sinking.

What remains then is the deck colour issue of Barham at sinking, which I think no conclusive proof will emerge one way or the other, at least not in time for me to complete my model. The sinking photos seem to be the only documented evidence and although they show the decks dark, this could just be lighting conditions. However it seems the Malaya when in a very similar scheme to Barham in 1940 did have painted decks, though because one ship had, it is not necessarily so that another did, especially as it seems the Alexandria camouflage was not uniformly applied to all ships the same way.

To summarise I think we can say that for a Barham in 1940, decks were teak, for 1941 decks may have been painted, as Barham was sunk in November, it seems a reasonable assumption to portray the ship has having painted but very faded decks, though given the lack of information, this is all based on assumption, opinion and best guesses.

Certainly no radar though.

Mike

[Laurence Batchelor]

Excuse delayed response, was seriously ill and in bed 4-days last week.

Also as I have migrated broadband providers on Monday this necessitates me to reinstall my scanner on the network as it went through a different router before the change.
Thus I need to sort that before I scan in any photos.
I will endeavour to try later on this week and also catch up on the various pm�s in my inbox here at MW.

LB

[Dino Carancini]

Hi gents,

I was trying to get some motivation to go on with my Barham when I saw that you went really far from my last visit.

About the deck color I remember I posted a photo from a SM79 dated october '41



This would not be of any help concerning the semtex/corticene problem, but in my opinion it shows unpainted decks, at least on the forecastle. I can't be 100% sure of my sentence, but comparing the AP507B on the sides, with the deck color, that was what I though.

A more complex problem are the circular structures added below the pom-poms near the funnel. These are represented in the drawings on "British battleship of WWII" so I suppose that the source are the as fitted plans. I would be interested to see how White Ensign Models reproduced this particular.

I was tempted to buy the "as fitted plans" to try to resolve this problem, but I gave up because I would not spend so much money without to be sure that I would find any answer. Anyway I bought on ebay a nice photo that, if scanned at high resolution, shows a lot of details, but it isn't the definitive solution of my problems.

So good luck to whom is building this great ship! I'll try to finish mine one day!

Dino

PS @ Mike: I'll send you some material soon.

[Gilbert]

Hello Dino,

Thanks for your input. I just got three days ago my WEM Barham kit.

Regarding the circular structures below the pom-poms near the funnel, you mention, they are duly represented by WEM and all you need to is add the three triangular supports. Deck is another matter. You have noticed that we had quite a long debate on the subject and so far we did not come to a definite conclusion. What we do agree on, is unpainted decks and semtex in the area around the 4" guns, in september 1940, as we have some close pictures to support this assertion.
In 1941, the debate is still under discussion. Personally, as she was camouflaged in Alexandria in early 1941, and as Malaya had a similar camouflage painted in august 1940 in the same place, and as according to Alan Raven in 'RN Camo..vol.1 p.39 "While in camouflage the wood decks were painted dark grey" , I would go for very faded painted decks at the time of her sinking, but this is only my 2 cents.

Cheers

Gilbert

[mike mccabe]

Thanks for posting the photo Dino, there seems to be a lot of strong shadow in the photo but I think there is an indication of unpainted or at least heavily weathered, painted decks, though a step forward it still isn't conclusive though. To my mind it is the choice of the individual to come up with their interpretation as no proof one way or the other has come to light.

The small platform underneath the pom poms is represented in the Waveline kit I am building and also shown on the drawings in Raven and Roberts, not quite sure of the purpose of it.

One thing we can say with absolute, categoric certainty, is that there was no radar.

Mike

[Dino Carancini]

This is for ar.

Does someone knows the purpose of the structure in this photo?

( link to the complete image http://www.webalice.it/d.carancini/img/hms-barham.JPG )

[Dino Carancini]

I forget to add a note for those that are using the Morskie profiles. The photo above ( the one complete ) shows the new HACS, as correctly stated in Raven Roberts bible, while in the morskie drawings there are two MKI.

[JIM BAUMANN]

hello guys...
Having completred SMS Wien-- a rather natty little KuK Pre Dreadnought....

Comin soon here at MW.com....

It seems that I will be next venturing into bigger stuff again-... Argghhh!!

-by building the 1/350 ISW HMS QE as in '43....

I have a full set of NMM as fitted plans...

I am currently assessing how much to cut away, what to scratchtbuild... what to ignore etc etc...!

Its a lot of work anyway!!

Popular opinion has always been--as far as I am aware that QE's decks were natural wood.--certainly that is the conclusion Roger Antrobus reached--as did the Profile Morskie colour rendition( pretty--but wrong in places)
I do wonder if her decks may not have been painted at this stage of the war--any opinions...?

I enclose this interesting photo--captioned:

HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Med in 1941. Original taken by Willie Scott. Colourised by Bill Scott in 2008.

Your thoughts mucho appreciated!

Jim Baumann

[Gilbert]

Hello Jim,

In Ensign 4 QE Class battleships booklet, by A.Raven and John Roberts, the centerfold profile shows her clearly with a natural wood deck as in 1941. Moreover, it is written "In the case of Queen Elizabeth a lack of aerial photos in 1941 and 1942 means that we must assume that the decks where planked were natural colour and the areas of bare steel were a Home Fleet dark grey".

Cheers

Gilbert

[mike mccabe]

I see somebody is after that Best in Show hat trick!

Mike