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

[EJFoeth]

I recall images of the drum of the winch sticking out of a bulkhead (just below the mounts of the fwd derricks, for example), so she'd have her winches inside.

Edit: this is confirmed by AOTS Warspite; two pair fwd (Both forecastle deck), two aft (Main bulkhead quarterdeck, same as HMS Hood, two aft platform). You do have this volume, right? If not...

[MartinL]

Yes i have AOTS. I had found the front ones before posting this thread,and the rear ones shortly after . I suppose these replaced any deck mounted winches... which is why i can't find any.. Oh well i won't get to use any of NorthStars nice resin pieces But thanks for looking

[Haijun watcher]

What color scheme was HMS Warspite at the Battle of Cape Matapan? Was she still in the same 507B she wore at Narvik?

Les Brown's Shipcraft book on this class only mentions her paint schemes from 1942 onwards, but not before.

Also, the book mentions that Barham reverted to "overall grey" (p. 55, Brown) for a time before she received the two tone (507A and white) camo she had at her sinking. Does anyone know which grey he was referring to?

I'm assuming Barham was in that overall grey during Matapan.

Ahem, would someone PLEASE answer my question above?

Many of us neophyte RN battleship builders outside the UK don't have the access to such extensive, rare sources as many of you seasoned modellers in the UK do, and and the info we're looking for can't always be found in internet searches.

[MartinJQuinn]

According to Raven in Warship Perspectives, Camouflage Volume One: Royal Navy 1939-1941, on page 33, he states that "Warspite wore this pattern (referencing the drawing on the page) from early 1941 (exact date unknown) to the end of her career with only small changes". Warspite, of course, wore a second pattern starting in 1943. The author does correct that error in his next volume.

His volumes don't have any mention of Barham that I recall, but he does mention in volume one that ships operating in the Mediterranean started painting out of straight 507c light grey and into disruptive camouflage by August 1940. He also states that "This type of camouflage, known as the 'Alexandria type' was carried on almost every ship based at Alexandria beginning in August 1940 and through 1941".

Finally he shows a rendering of Malaya wearing a scheme similar to Barham's when she served in the Med. She wore that pattern from August 1940, even after she moved out of the Med, probably until March 1941.

It's not a stretch to think both Warspite and Barham were both sporting camouflage patterns that night.

Here's the Warspite's pattern:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... te-350-rs/

[Haijun watcher]

Thank you Martin for the detailed answer. Perhaps I should invest in a copy of Burt's battleships book as well.

According to Raven in Warship Perspectives, Camouflage Volume One: Royal Navy 1939-1941, on page 33, he states that "Warspite wore this pattern (referencing the drawing on the page) from early 1941 (exact date unknown) to the end of her career with only small changes". Warspite, of course, wore a second pattern starting in 1943. The author does correct that error in his next volume.

His volumes don't have any mention of Barham that I recall, but he does mention in volume one that ships operating in the Mediterranean started painting out of straight 507c light grey and into disruptive camouflage by August 1940. He also states that "This type of camouflage, known as the 'Alexandria type' was carried on almost every ship based at Alexandria beginning in August 1940 and through 1941".

Finally he shows a rendering of Malaya wearing a scheme similar to Barham's when she served in the Med. She wore that pattern from August 1940, even after she moved out of the Med, probably until March 1941.

It's not a stretch to think both Warspite and Barham were both sporting camouflage patterns that night.

Here's the Warspite's pattern:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... te-350-rs/

[J Spencer]

There are several phots of Warspite in her version of the Alexandria scheme in 1941 in Iain Ballantyne's Warspite history. There is a useful phot of Warspite's tower bridge while she was being repaired in Washington state in 1941 following her Crete damage. Google "HMS Warspite battleship WWII" to see it on the web. There is a good view of W's starboard side in a Path� film of the ships involved in Matapan. Check the Path� site or YouTube. Note: the geometrical pattern she wore post-Washington, and this is the scheme usually seen on Warspite models, differs from the scheme she wore in 1941 (cannot speak for 1940, I have never seen a phot of W in the Med in 1940), especially for the starboard and front of the tower bridge. The phots in Ballantyne are indispensible for a Matapan W.

Malaya lost her Alexandria scheme while being repaired in the US after her torpedo hit. In 1941-first half 1942 she was either A.P. 507A or medium gray.

Good question about Barham at Matapan. Since the Path� film shows Warspite and Indomitable in the Alexandria scheme, it's possible Barham was still in her version. But, she was, indeed, in dark or med gray at some time in 1940-41.

[Haijun watcher]

Gents,

Thanks for all the feedback so far.

I found this picture on wiki which shows HMS Barham in Feb. 1941 at Souda Bay in Crete, clearly showing her in the same disruptive camo she had on when she sank.

While I would have preferred to have found a picture of her from March 1941 to confirm she wore this at the Battle of Cape Matapan, it's the closest picture I could find so far.

[Guest]

I was wondering whether anyone has got the Trumpeter 1/700 kit of the 1941 Queen Elizabeth and what they think of it? I am looking at getting that and the 1939 Valiant and using them for the time of the Italian attack on Alexandria and was unsure of how much work would be rrquired on each kit to get them to look 95% correct for this period of the war?

It is not configured for 1941 as described. Built as indicated in the instructions, it is a model of the Queen Elizabeth after her repairs from the Alexandria attack. Specific clues are the lack of a sternwalk--Which I am not sure was still in place at Alexandria though it was at the end of the rebuild--and the replacement of the quad 0.5" MGs on the turrets with twin Oerlikons and addition of single Oerlikons on the lower bridge deck and scattered around. The configuration means the model is only for the short period between the June, 1943 end of repairs in the US and the September, 1943 completion of A's&A's in the UK out-of-the-box. There are the usual Trumpeter problems with the main guns' muzzles and the topmasts.

One question I have is if anyone can indicate the location of the two non-bridge deck pom-pom directors? Raven and Roberts indicates there were 4, and in 1943 four sets 282 radar were added. I have looked at the excellent overhead picture taken in June 1943 and cannot pick out the Yagi aerials. Side views just have the things that small fading in the general topside clutter.

[JCRAY]

Photo in Ensign 4 shows the stern walk with the 1st pattern camouflage states it was taken in Alexandria in 41. Looks like quad 0.5's on X turret. I also see the the yagi antennas on the rear high angle directors.
hth! John

[shingen]

I could see the six-prong type 285 Yagi aerials on the HA directors, I'm looking for the two-prong type 282 aerials. There are a couple of tubs on the forward corners of the aft superstructure that Trumpeter has you fill with 9-foot rangefinders. In the photos, the port side one has something more boxy in it while the starboard side one appears to be empty. The photos are the series that were taken in on June 10(?) 1943 by the dockyard for archive purposes. I don't have enough information to say whether the directors were being put in place, but the radar was not installed yet.

I guess another question would be whether the photos were taken when the QE was ready to sail home or during a shakedown run after drydocking was complete but with alongside work still underway.

[JCRAY]

British Battleships Raven & Roberts state "282"director : 4 sets added 6 Sept (42) to June 1 (43) Refit in US.
Are you doing a first camo. scheme?
If so what colors have you chosen?
Thanks John

[Atma]

How accurate is the HMS Warspite 1915 from Trumpeter in 1/700 ? To me it seems like a reboxed 1918 HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Is it more close to a 1918 HMS Warspite ?

Thanks in advance.

[tjstoneman]

The kit is indeed a reboxed QE - see review on this site at http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html.
As is often the case, the kit as provided doesn't accurately represent the ship at a particular date. In 1915, WARSPITE had short towers around the after funnel for searchlights (rather than the tall ones provided in the kit), no searchlight platforms on her after superstructure or mainmast, sided searchlights on the after superstructure and no platform below the foretop (Part B11 in the kit). There were also yards on the foretopmast.

[Atma]

So it seems logical it will be ideal -with minimal alteration- for a 1918 fit ?
Thanks in advance.

[tjstoneman]

By 1918 she had had the maintopmast removed (a very short stump topmast was fitted in 1918), range clocks fitted on the after searchlight towers and foremast, training scales painted on "B" and "X" turrets and flying-off platforms fitted on top of "B" and "X" turrets. Still no platform below the foretop.

[RichardP]

This is somewhat long after the kit came out but I have only recently started working on the Academy Warspite.
I'm troubled by how they have molded the torpedo bulges, in particular the lines of the outside corners where the two sloped tops turn to a vertical sides (the lower edges). Academy have molded these in graceful curves similar to that of the bilge keel below but in the AOTS book (and on a Trumpeter QE I built previously) these lines look to run distinctly horizontal. This means the slanted surfaces maintain the same width along their entirety (and makes them longer) whereas with the Academy version they narrow and flatten out towards the bow and stern. This also affect the rubbing strip.

I've also noticed that where the lower wider torpedo bulge merges back with the upper into a single torpedo bulge structure, it kind of bulges out again, This is most evident just aft of the Y turret, not so much at the front. It's not so visible but I find if I run my finger gently along the hull side, I can feel the change in direction quite clearly; If I press a stiff piece on plastic rod against the side in this region, gaps can be seen where the rod is pushed out by this. The deck drawing in the AOTS suggest that this area maintains a simple smooth curve, but admittedly it is harder to interpret this.

Here's a photo that hopefully make it clearer which lines I'm talking about and the area of the bulging

????

[GTDEATH13]

I have a small question for you gentlemen:

I came across a second QE Trumpeter kit in 1/350 scale and I was wondering if I can build the QE or the Valiant out of this kit with a painted deck. My problem is that wooden decks are hard to fing here, so if there ever was a camo pattern with painted deck I can follow on my build that would be great.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions - answers.

[SUBNUT]

A 1941, HMS BARHAM in 1/350. Are their any detailed conversion/build articles on this ship?


Thanks!

[Aop Aur]

Dino Carrancini scratchbuilt a fantastic Barham in 1/350 here.

Regards,
Aop

[Atma]

Did HMS Malaya had the enlarged openings in the turret for greater elevation of the main guns as well ? Trumpeter's 1/700 1943 version kit show that he has the larger openings for the main guns compared with the turrets of 1918 HMS Queen Elizabeth. Is that correct ?
Thanks in advance.