The Ship Model Forum

Again, pardon my obtuseness, but I assume you mean this - yellow arrow point - is a boat?

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

That's an embarkation ladder. More civilized image:



Not shown: whaler starboard to B-turret, cutter + (gig or whaler) near the catapult.

Hi All

Hi Pascalemod, again I must not be making myself clear sorry, my meaning was it would be odd for the crew to move a boat usually stationed in front of P1 5.25 mount, and then place one directly behind P4 5.25 mount as seen in the image you posted.

I'm pretty sure our guest poster is correct in that it's an image problem and that no boat would be placed there. Hope that's a bit clearer?

Hi Kevin, sorry again, no I was in fact meaning the covered boat seen in the image of PoW on the 22nd of May posted by Pascalemod on page 42 of this thread. EJ is correct the structure you have arrowed is the companion ladder that is used to access the quarterdeck.

That and a cable reel is all I see in my image copy (the two images on page 42, the top one has a boat, the bottom one is like my image and has only a ladder and a reel), I hope that's a bit clearer.

Hello Guest, thank you for your info, it all builds up a better picture. I'm not sure if the 16 foot boat was shipped, the report says all boats were damaged, and then lists them, but again its a "we dont know" situation and so it would be speculation and conjecture for me to say it definitely wasn't there.

Hope that helps
Best wishes
Cag.

So this is awesome... There is like a bunch of boats opposite of the plane hangar, like what we would see later in KGV clas when they ditched the planes. It seems like 3 45ft motor boats are covered, and there are like extra boats placed on main deck where planes are.

What is happening with these boats!

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Pascalemod (and anyone else that happens to be reading the relevant posts)

My mind is in a whirl!!

Re: Nesting of boats.

Although I have no personal experience of nesting boats, there are photographs extant showing up to two other boats nested inside a larger one. This was done by placing the crutches for each boat on the thwarts (seats) of the larger boat below it then securing them so that they did not move. Each of the small boats was then "landed" on its crutches. Once the "nest" was complete or the appropriate number of boats in a "nest" was complete, "gripes" were passed over the "nest" and secured to the deck below the "nest."

Re: Covering of boats.

Covers were provided for each of what was known as the "boom" boats (boom boats because in the days of sail, a ship's boats were stowed amidships on the spare booms and spars). If the designers contemplated a "nest" of boats, a cover was made that covered the intended "nest." It is possible, however, that each of the smaller boats in a "nest" was also provided with its own cover in case of need.
If some of the boats in a "nest" were absent then the big cover did duty for those remaining.

Re: A fly in the ointment (See Image 0 in your post of 04 4.54am Sept)

The boat in the top right corner on your group is a representative of a 32ft motor cutter (a power-driven version of the 32ft pulling/sailing cutter); which PoW does not appear to have carried.

Cag,

I get the impression that you are working on a book that will deal with PoW alone. Good on you! "Seaforth" would be a good publisher to try when you finish writing it. If ever there was a battleship that got dealt a bad hand in the card game, it was her. Best Wishes.

You an me both 'guest'.

Re the following;


Colour me stupid but..................................I still don’t get it. I only see two pics that Pascalemod posted on page 42 with boats in - now in "screen grab" below - and while I see one covered boat on the boat deck above / between P3 and P4, I don't see any boat on upper deck behind P4 in either of them (as, as EJ has confirmed it is a 'ladder'). Like I said, what am I missing? Do you have a similar but different photo showing a boat literally behind P4 on upperdeck, which must mean aft of P4 if it is on the upperdeck, no? Sorry to be a pain in the arse with this!

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Hi Everyone,

Hi Kevin, it's no pain, it may be my explanation that is in error.

Thanks for reposting the two images that helps a lot. I'm afraid my copy was purchased under private use so I'm not quite sure what copyright I'd breach!

If you look at the top image you see a small boat on the boat deck covered with a light covered tarp. Pascalemod has added a green highlight. Below this is a red highlight that surrounds what looks like a very similar light tarp covered boat shaped object.

In the bottom image, which is like my copy, this boat shaped object is absent. Its placed on the upper deck, perhaps when I say behind maybe I should say abaft P4 mounting, that is probably more my error, again sorry, I hope that's a bit clearer.

Hi Pascalemod, well the thing is these were working ships so they stowed boats where convenient, as our guest says even on the catapult deck, but this is good, as dependant on when you depict your ship any placement is possible, well within reason, as a 45 foot boat on the quarterdeck is probably wrong!

Hi Guest, I'm sorry to keep calling you that as it's a bit impersonal, thank you for the advice, I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind, but my problems are twofold,

one all of my research was done under private use rules, there were no thoughts of any type of publication, so a lot of copyright would need to be sought from a lot of archives!

And two,

as you can tell by my posts I'm not the greatest at explaining things!

Great authors like Friedman, Garzke Duhlin and Jurens, or my go to Raven and Roberts give great info in a interesting manner. I'd be happy to even achieve something halfway as interesting but I'm sure I never could.

Antonio Bonomi and his work on the excellent Tirpitz books are a great read, but private papers are very very good too, authors like Sean Waddingham and Dr Paul Cadogan spring to mind on the Denmark Strait battle in particular, and again I'm not sure that I could ever write something that holds someone's interest like that.

I've visited the archives in the Wirral, the Vickers Archives, the Churchill and IWM archives and the National Archives in Kew, I've got the tender sheets and the works build diary for the PoW.

Years ago I did have an idea of a full history with Haynes style sketches as I'm not bad with a pencil, as long as there is an eraser on the end! But then Haynes did the Dreadnought etc and beat me to it! Plus I'm not sure if anyone has the money to even print the size of book I'd end up with never mind buy one!

I'm working on the Denmark Strait battle at present due to various reasons which I wont go into, so my head is full of technical reports and 1st Sea Lords papers!

Thank you very much for the advice, I agree PoW does sometimes get a raw deal.

Best wishes
Cag.

Cag - I posted the original below the edited version. The highlighted in red with green arrow - thats just the same image, I didnt do a good job to "box it properly" but there is like some bizzare confusion it created it seems.

So - There is ONE boat thats covered in that image that confused me, one boat that was shorter than 45ft, one boat thats covered in light canvas. Only one. And I just simply made a duplicate of that area I wanted to draw my attention to. A poor choice of colors and wording and we are chasing our own tail here.

Thus - to clear that image up once and for all, here is what I should have done had I bothered to put a little more effort into it. I have also reuploaded that to original post so that its not confusing anyone any longer.




And here is that ladder everyone talks about behind the P4, in full glory.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Thanks gents. I may be getting old and not have the memory I once had, but I am glad I am not loosing the plot completely (well not yet anyway). It never surprises me any longer though how the written word - and photos - can be unintentionally (mis)interpreted time and time again. And not just here on this forum by any means!

Anyway, for bearing with me and the time I have wasted having you both confirm what I 'thought' may have been the case from the get-go.

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Hi All,

Hi Pascalemod, thanks, I think perhaps my explanations were more in error than your images but that's perfect, thanks!

Hi Kevin, yes image interpretation is a devil, but it's no problem and theres no wasting of time, as I say my wording was no doubt a contributing factor, I wish I could get to grips with posting images!

Best wishes
Cag.

Cag,

I know that this should be a PM but thanks for the reply in your post of 5.11am. I am sorry to have offered unsolicited advice but grateful for the information. Opinion: do look into the book again. I am sure that there is someone on the editorial staff of "Seaforth" who can offer advice on copyright of content that one wants to put into a manuscript.

Best Wishes.

Thanks for the help gents. I went with unpainted deck for April 1941 PoW build, and boats at that point will be a little better to make, closer to plans.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

NIIiiiiCE!!!

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Hi All,

Hello Guest, any advice is always welcome, and it's always a pleasure to chat about ships! Yes maybe I'll have another look at some kind of article, or at least a paper, maybe a collaboration may work? Who knows but your advice and encouragement is much appreciated, thank you.

Hi Pascalemod I echo Kevin's sentiments, a beautiful looking model indeed.

Best wishes
Cag.

if you do a book for it and want a model for it - Im happy to take pics for you of mine . And id buy your book on PoW.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

A short snippet of colour footage of H.M.S. Anson from 1946 showing the late war / early post war dark hull light grey superstructure colour scheme:

https://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675036524_Allied-forces-in-Japan_British-battleship-HMS-Anson-anchored-in-breakwater_Kobe-Harbor_World-War-II

An interesting video of Howe.

Shows that the booms are painted grey like the superstructure.

Of course it got me thinking was that also in early 1940s?

Did PoW have them painted grey on superstructure or were they natural wood? I painted them as wood but... was that accurate? Flyhawk and many modeling PoW seem to follow that wood color idea but im now wondering if thats reasonable? I know Hood had them at least on the hull in grey paint, but not on superstructure and PoW around same time.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

The photo you posted previously here would seem to suggest natural wood? When weathered a bit and exposed to sea salt it would be more or less a medium to light silvery brownish grey anyway?



Though other photos on the IWM Website clearly show the boat booms as having been overpainted with the disruptive camouflage scheme later.

So perhaps they were natural wood when Prince of Wales was overall Home Fleet Dark Grey and camouflaged when she was camouflaged?

Near or close-up photographs taken of PoW at, or around the time of the Denmark Strait action and available by "Googling" "HMS Prince of Wales, Battleship," clearly indicate that all booms and derricks; wood or steel, were painted to match the ship in her current Home Fleet scheme.

Off subject but related to ship because I am not sure that the question has been answered here before: there is a photograph taken from a dock caisson of the starboard quarter of the ship; in dry dock, that indicates to my satisfaction that the ship's name on the stern was plated over. One might also be persuaded to take poison on it that the name on the port quarter was similarly treated! The Royal Navy always went "totus porkus" in those days.

Admiralty Fleet Order 3935 dated 1940 says:

(iv) Varnish. - The use of varnish on spars is to be discontinued, wood spars generally are to be painted.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151