I disagree entirely there. Giving up on painting could only be suggested by someone who comprehensively misunderstands the Royal Navy's whole culture.pascalemod wrote:The explanation I have seen that I also found believable is that because the ship was constantly wet forward of the first breakwater , they basically gave up on painting it. Simply put, it was just a pointless thing to paint there as paint only held few days anyway. Now, is that more plausible then your explanation for witnessing a paint being stripped - photo nr 2 above is dated from 44, and one before that (two lighter sections) is 43. So none of it really makes sense, but I certainly wouldnt go and claim that unpainted forward section is ahistorical. It was like that for some point in time. Why would they all strip the paint from the bow? Why not all at once? why start at the bow? Too many unknowns ... It seems you guys havent seen these photos and still trying to explain away what you see using your own theory on it being a fantasy of modelers in the past. I think the whole thing is at least an open question, not a case shut.SovereignHobbies wrote:I think he's saying you may be seeing a reflection forward of the first breakwater.
What doesn't make any sense is having the area ahead of the breakwater deliberately a lighter colour. There is no concealment or confusion advantage at all to be gained from from doing that, and no credible means for water action to have so neatly paint stripped it.
The only plausible explanation I can think of would be if the crew had started stripping back the darkened decks to bare wood again but had to put to sea shortly after they started and that would limit it to a fairly narrow time window before the Captain wanted it sorted out one way or another at the next opportunity.
The second photo above shows an apparent lighter appearance back to the fwd breakwater. The first photo shows a lighter appearance back to P1 5.25" mount.
You may be seeing an ongoing stripping work in progress.
The KGV class was no wetter than any other ship. All fast ships were wet forwards including all the American capital ships. There are other examples from the KGV class with darkened decks which did not exhibit this as a problem.
If it was a real problem and not fantasy, there would have been many examples of it on British capital ships and cruisers but there aren't. Furthermore, if it were a real problem it would have been complained about in letters to shore, and to my knowledge there aren't.
There is no British senior captain at a point in his career to be given one of our newest and most capable battleships who would simply give up on maintaining his ship's appearance. They had pride, with or without a war on. Giving over your KGV class battleship's appearance - particularly when the feature being surrendered is a concealment measure - due to some water washing over the bow would imply things about a man's character which would ensure he never stood on the bridge of a destroyer, never mind a battleship.
Sorry, but I do not find "giving up" even remotely credible. If it was a real effect seen in the photos, it was deliberate. The decks took a day or two to darken but much more effort to strip back to bare wood. Not being able to put men over the side to paint the hull is one thing, but to give up on maintaining the main deck is unthinkable. This was the Royal Navy - who considered themselves the finest Navy in the world and certainly the most oldest and most experienced. The pride in that service amongst the Officers particularly cannot be overstated.
)
....=) Thank you so much ...... easier .. =) ... how it stood on the KGV in 1943 ...Can you believe in the drawings of Kagero? I just don�t have any photos of this section
... 
I am an old stupid monkey .. !!!!!! ..... I have this photo but for some reason marked as DoY....thank you so much
... were four smaller before installation
"
) ..... Pontos .. and Kagero .. I think that they are wrong !!!
... just super ... 
