Calling all King George V-class (WWII) fans

[David Gatt]

Hi all
I have Flyhawks PoW coming in the mail some time in the future, and was wondering if anyone know if it's possible to get the masts as metal parts? In the kit they are plastic, and I guess they'll be a bit fragile.
The scale is 1/700

If anyone know if this is available as AM, or is better at googling than me, all help is greatly appreciated.

It�s not too difficult to make these from brass rod. I have seen generic yardarm sets which you can use. Superglue can be used to weld them together. If you buy solid brass rod you can actually sand it to a taper. I did this with masts for HMS Cornwall in 1/350. And am about to do another set for a kit conversion into HMAS Canberra. You can easily cut up brass strips from left over photo etch trees.

[Mr. Church]

What period exactly does the Heller 1/400 kit represent? It looks like there are 20mm present, so I'm assuming later than 1941?

It curiously gives you both UP Launchers and Single 20mm mounts which were never carried simultaneously. It has a catapult though and not an extended boat deck in the catapult area. So I suppose the Heller kit is a good starting point for any time before H.M.S. King George V's February - July 1944 refit when the boat deck was moved from the aft superstructure to the former catapult area.

Of course if you wanted to scratchbuild the new boat deck in the catapult area and modify the aft superstructure there is no reason why you could not depict a late war version either. There are aftermarket 40mm PomPoms and Bofors available so in theory any version is possible.

[therese]

@david

Yeah, I might go for something like that. Getting the level of detail I'm sure will be in the kit seems a bit daunting, but there's two kits earlier in the production chain

Thank you for the picture, I'll see what the local store has.

[Mr. Church]

This British Path� video showing the British Reserve Fleet in 1950 might be of interest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdWZr9Fl10o

There is a glimpse of some King George V Class Battleships in reserve with tarpaulins draped over their funnels. This is a still from the above video showing H.M.S. King George V herself I believe, based on the HACS MkIV Anti-Aircraft Gun Directors. The other three surviving sisters would have had more modern versions:

[pascalemod]

Guys, in Denmark Strait were decks grey or beiege (tan)?

Also, did she have that little look at the keel on bow for paravanes? in Rosynth I didnt see in 1940. If building full hull, do I leave it off or on?

Converting 1941.12 Flyhawk PoW to 1941.5.

[pascalemod]

the "Ensign 1 King George the Fifth Class Battleships" book shows the 1942 inboard profile with the bow foot attachment for the paravanes. the Shipcraft "King George V Class Battleships" book has 1940 profile of KG5 with that attachment point.

I know that paravane boot attachment is in the ship's design, I wasnt asking about that. My questions is that in Rosynth drydock in 1940 it doesnt have them, and in summer 1941 it doesn't.

Morever Im wonderin about why Flyhawk felt need to say that 2nd starboard anchor was not certain for addition (they offer you to leave it off).

[Guest]

Pascalemod,

Concerning your post of 6.49am 21 July.

In stating that the bow of HMS PRINCE OF WALES does not have a paravane "clump" or "stem-extension" in Rosyth dry-dock in 1940, I presume that you are referring to the Imperial War Museum photograph A9407? That photograph appears to have been wrongly dated: the ship was still in builder's hands until early 1941. Can you give a reference for the ship not having one in the summer of 1941?

If you are querying whether the ship had one during the Denmark Strait action, one can only say that it is possible. It could have been fitted after A9407 was taken. The port broadside aerial shot of the ship taken 8 May 1941 and in Raven's "Ensign 1: King George the Fifth Class Battleships" shows very faint evidence of the bow chains in the bow wave though this could be debated. The "Ship Cover" for the class may reveal a better answer.

About the statement made by "Flyhawk" concerning the sheet anchor: I would ask "Flyhawk" what they mean. The IWM's A9406 shows clearly that the ship was fitted with one while another photograph in "Raven" (overhead view): mentioned above, shows the chain cable for the subject anchor in place.

Incidentally, the KGV class weren't all fitted with the same type of paravane system and some ships changed over.

I hope that this helps.

[pascalemod]

Pascalemod,

Concerning your post of 6.49am 21 July.

In stating that the bow of HMS PRINCE OF WALES does not have a paravane "clump" or "stem-extension" in Rosyth dry-dock in 1940, I presume that you are referring to the Imperial War Museum photograph A9407? That photograph appears to have been wrongly dated: the ship was still in builder's hands until early 1941. Can you give a reference for the ship not having one in the summer of 1941?

If you are querying whether the ship had one during the Denmark Strait action, one can only say that it is possible. It could have been fitted after A9407 was taken. The port broadside aerial shot of the ship taken 8 May 1941 and in Raven's "Ensign 1: King George the Fifth Class Battleships" shows very faint evidence of the bow chains in the bow wave though this could be debated. The "Ship Cover" for the class may reveal a better answer.

About the statement made by "Flyhawk" concerning the sheet anchor: I would ask "Flyhawk" what they mean. The IWM's A9406 shows clearly that the ship was fitted with one while another photograph in "Raven" (overhead view): mentioned above, shows the chain cable for the subject anchor in place.

Incidentally, the KGV class weren't all fitted with the same type of paravane system and some ships changed over.

I hope that this helps.

1) Thanks, I guess it helps actually. I was referring to Rosynth dated supposedly incorrectly photo. I will leave it out perhaps though Im aware this might be wrong, I do like the shape of the ship without it.

some followup questions.

2) I also was wondering on that radar mount on the very top on HACS TOWER. In April -May what was there, before the lantern was installed? THe mount itself appears shorter also and made differently.

3) Finally did PoW carry all four Walrus planes or ? I only see one in pics. Considering how to position them, Id like to have couple of Walruses, not the usual one.

[Guest]

Pascalemod,

According to the previously mentioned reference written by Alan Raven, Type 285 was fitted to the HACS directors. Type 284 was fitted atop the main armament director: Type 282 was fitted to the pom-pom directors.

I do not know the precise number of Walrus that the ship was carrying at the Denmark Strait action. However, I recall reading somewhere that the one that she was definitely carrying was ditched prior to opening fire due to contaminated fuel. If carrying the other three, they would have remained firmly stowed in their hangars with the shutters closed. I am unable to comment on aircraft operations onboard British battleships carrying more than one "spotter," however, it is most unlikely that more than one would have been on the catapult simultaneously, unless it was for maintenance.

[Martocticvs]

So that's something I've always been curious about - the official complement of planes being 4, but there apprently being space only for 2. Where were the other two stored? Was there some kind of lift system inside the hangars, with additional space below, or were they in a disassembled state? I have seen in photos there are 'spare' tail planes, etc, attached the hangar walls...

[mpgl62]

Hello

Some comment or advice it is welcome.

Bigger drawing at

https://mobile.twitter.com/ManuelPedroG ... 3183955968

[pascalemod]

Pascalemod,

According to the previously mentioned reference written by Alan Raven, Type 285 was fitted to the HACS directors. Type 284 was fitted atop the main armament director: Type 282 was fitted to the pom-pom directors.

I do not know the precise number of Walrus that the ship was carrying at the Denmark Strait action. However, I recall reading somewhere that the one that she was definitely carrying was ditched prior to opening fire due to contaminated fuel. If carrying the other three, they would have remained firmly stowed in their hangars with the shutters closed. I am unable to comment on aircraft operations onboard British battleships carrying more than one "spotter," however, it is most unlikely that more than one would have been on the catapult simultaneously, unless it was for maintenance.

Hey, I meant THIS: what was here in April-May 1941?

see these two where you you have arrows pointing (later pom pom 282s but in April-May there were no PomPoms so... what went there? On rear (Blue arrow) I think there was just search light? but on front no good angles...

[FrancisMcN]

If you look at pages 25 and 26 of this thread, there was some discussion on the subject of location of the sights that the controlled the UP rocket launchers.

[Guest]

Alright but as Mae West was quoted as saying "One at a time, boys!"

This answers Martocticvs: Raven and Roberts's "British Battleships of World War II" page 310 states that four aircraft could be carried, one in each hangar and two on the catapult but the latter pair were never carried. The "as designed" establishment is great in theory but the two on the catapult would have increased the maintenance load. Apologies for the mis-leading statement in my previous post.

Meanwhile, in advance of trying to answer Pascalemod's Post of 1.30pm 25 Jul. I am confused by his "but in April - May there were no PomPoms so ..." Photographs on pages 288 and 289 of the aforementioned Raven and Roberts show that PoW did have her pom-pom mountings onboard.

[pascalemod]

Alright but as Mae West was quoted as saying "One at a time, boys!"

This answers Martocticvs: Raven and Roberts's "British Battleships of World War II" page 310 states that four aircraft could be carried, one in each hangar and two on the catapult but the latter pair were never carried. The "as designed" establishment is great in theory but the two on the catapult would have increased the maintenance load. Apologies for the mis-leading statement in my previous post.

Meanwhile, in advance of trying to answer Pascalemod's Post of 1.30pm 25 Jul. I am confused by his "but in April - May there were no PomPoms so ..." Photographs on pages 288 and 289 of the aforementioned Raven and Roberts show that PoW did have her pom-pom mountings onboard.

I havent spoken clearly - I was asking for how the UP sights looked, essentially, that went into the two tubs - one in rear - and on top of HACS tower. Now through the earlier links I found that it actually looks (nothing complicated). Further, once established that this is same thing that KGV and Hood had) I think the matter is solved for me on how to model these.

Let me ask my other BIG visual question - April-May HMS Prince of Wales - paravane "boot" - yes or no?
Im trying to decide if leaving it off on the speed trials in April or Denmark Strait version of the model would be OK or not? BELOW are only pics I found for reference of course. Just to use for illustrating the question.

[KevinD]

[
Let me ask my other BIG visual question - April-May HMS Prince of Wales - paravane "boot" - yes or no?
Im trying to decide if leaving it off on the speed trials in April or Denmark Strait version of the model would be OK or not? BELOW are only pics I found for reference of course. Just to use for illustrating the question.

In the two historical photos you posted, my money is on a definate no.

[EJFoeth]

Images from April 1941 show the paravane chains deployed at the bow, so, I say yes. Also, 1940 KGV shows no paravane clump when in drydock, but present after the Punjabi incident. Possibly they added the clump later to avoid the clump to be destroyed when the hull is pivoting on the bow point during launch?

[KevinD]

Images from April 1941 show the paravane chains deployed at the bow, so, I say yes.

Just to clarify, are you saying 'yes' to being shown in the two drydock photos in the collage pascalemod posted above? Surely not?

[EJFoeth]

Shots of HMS KGV later show the clump fitted and assuming it was not added by magic than it had to be added in drydock; might have well been during the 1940 refit that is shown in the images above. If these images of the ships in drydock were taken prior to any work having been done on them then naturally they wouldn't show. The collage even shows a small scaffold being erected around the fore foot. Plus, chains going down to the forefoot are an indication that provisions had been made to attach those chains to something.

[KevinD]

Shots of HMS KGV later show the clump fitted and assuming it was not added by magic than it had to be added in drydock; might have well been during the 1940 refit that is shown in the images above. If these images of the ships in drydock were taken prior to any work having been done on them then naturally they wouldn't show. The collage even shows a small scaffold being erected around the fore foot. Plus, chains going down to the forefoot are an indication that provisions had been made to attach those chains to something.

Pardon, I misinterpreted the intent of the original question, that is are we seeing the 'boot' in the picture, which we are not. As to your speculation that we are seeing preparations to install it, then of course you may be correct.