Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans

[tjstoneman]

"Perhaps the sloped top is meant for charts spread on top of the flat bottom side to be easily viewed from inside the compass platform" - that's correct - the chart table IS the flat surface, viewed from inside the compass platform (there's no other way to view it!).

[chuck]

Hood's forward superstructure and tripod originally had a spaghetti tangle of voice pipes emerging from every level going to different location throughout the ship. The voice pipe from spotting top, torpedo lookout and searchlight platforms on the tripod seems to be routed to the back of the rear tripod legs before descending into the ship. Does anyone know of any pictures of the back of the tripod legs showing whether these voice pipes are routed down the outside of the tripod legs, or do they enter the legs through some aperture and routed down into the ship through the hollow inside of the tripod legs?

My guess is they are routed down the outside. If they go into the hollow interior of the legs, then the routing paths for the most of them would be more direct if the aperture through which they enter is located at front of the tripod leg rather than the back.

[Mr. Church]

Frank and Dick,

For what this is worth. The Southampton Archives Office holds material relevant to Peacock and Buchan Ltd in the form of account books, testimonials and advertising material under the File Number D/Z 981 (I have not taken the matter any further).
That information was obtained by "Googling." Some more historical information is also available via the same search method. P and B Ltd appear to have been taken over some time in the 1960's by another firm, which might still be trading.

That's a really interesting discovery on the colour of the anti-fouling paint guys. Thanks to all for sharing. Even after all this time new and interesting facts can still emerge about Hood. I await further developments with interest. As does my unbuilt kit of Hood.

As an aside I came across this footage on YouTube of the Queen Mary 2 being dry docked in Hamburg in 2016. She has red anti-fouling paint, presumably up to date and decent quality stuff with her being a prestigious liner. However when in the water and weathered it appears to revert to a light to medium grey colour. Obviously when viewed up close you can see hints of red peeking through the grey, but from any distance it looks greyish topped by green seaweed.

Queen Mary 2 is interesting in this regard as she does her Atlantic crossings as well as cruises in warmer waters so should pick up all kinds of marine life and weathering on her hull. I imagine the British Home Fleet doing their Spring Cruises to the Mediterranean back in the era of Hood would have weathered similarly?

Video and stills here:
https://youtu.be/SgM-nmWNgDU

[chuck]

Regarding the color of hood�s underwater hull.

This is taken Sidney, 1924, when the ship was painted in dark gray. Note the top of torpedo blister under the boot top is of a very much darker tone than the above water hull. This is despite the high angle of the sun as judged by the shadow under the anchor, and thus much better illumination the top of the blister would receive compared to the side of the hull.

This suggest whatever color and tone the underwater hull is, it is not similar to the above water hull as some very recent depictions have shown. Either it is a very dark gray, or it is in fact red, and showing dark because of differing color sensitivity of the black and white film.

[pascalemod]

This suggest whatever color and tone the underwater hull is, it is not similar to the above water hull as some very recent depictions have shown. Either it is a very dark gray, or it is in fact red, and showing dark because of differing color sensitivity of the black and white film.

Black and white pics are very hard to use for reference... especially on the matter of red vs grey lower hull.

[chuck]

But it should be indicative if the lower hull was indeed similar in color and tone to upper hull

[SovereignHobbies]

HMS Hood had an unusually deep boot topping. I don't think a photograph in water can be taken in isolation.

[Mr. Church]

There is a photo of Hood in Bruce Taylor's book taken in the Bay of Biscay in 1937. Hood was at that stage painted in AP507C Foreign Stations Grey. She is rolling in a beam sea and you can clearly see the full width of her boot topping and a good portion of the underwater hull. The underwater hull colour looks a bit lighter than black but substantially darker than AP507C Foreign Stations Grey. But her underwater hull was likely wet when the photo was taken which will tend to make it look darker.

Again, the age old problem emerges of interpreting colours from black and white photos. I have no idea as to the film used or the sensitivities of any particular colours or anything like that. That has all been discussed before.

Hopefully a paint sample of the particular anti-fouling paint used on Hood may emerge from somewhere to help settle the question?

[Guest]

I don't think that there is now much doubt as to what colour the anti-fouling composition probably was on the under-water body of HMS HOOD, when she was last coated: grey. The question in some minds though is likely to be "What shade?" The records for Peacock and Buchan Ltd in the Southampton Archive may provide the answer but I for one will not be holding my breath.

It is a pity but someone posted some images on the site recently, one of which showed a model of a Southampton class cruiser. The under-water body of that model was grey. That may be as good as it gets but I can't now find the image. Can the Moderator move it over here or tell us where it is, please?

Mr Church: thanks for posting the pics of QUEEN MARY 2. I for one will not argue with you that her anti-fouling would appear to be of a red shade but that it has "weathered:" sorry folks, I'm not trying to start an argument over paint semantics! The grey in the pics does seem odd but it might need either a chemist or a biologist (not my "discipline") to suggest a reason for it, providing that the grey is not an additional coat applied over a red one.

Chuck: re your post of 11.47am 21 Nov. I am having great difficulty accepting your points. The image is not large enough to be able to make a valid judgement. The boot topping clearly has some fouling just above the water-line: probably from a light green "grassy" growth: see Mr Church's pics. I cannot make out any part of the "blister:" HOOD did not have a blister as such. The bulged lower part of the hull was an integral part of the side protection system. Newton's "Practical Construction of Warships" and DK Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard" contain images (the same one) of a half section; which also illustrates the scheme of her deck protection.

[Tracy White]

The support pillars did indeed have centre sections which were painted white, with the bottom and top segments being hull coloured. Here�s a shot from @1933-1935:
.

What are the odds this is rope work, painted or otherwise? I see a raised "lip" at the top and bottom.

[Guest]

I don't bet. I'd say that you are right. There is only one thing that they are likely to be: "Turk's Heads." The white painted parts in between are likely to be canvas gaiters, which were sewn on. Case closed!

[Mike E.]

All:

Alan Raven asked me to post this on the board in response to Jamie's artwork re: HMS Hood.

During Hood's 1940 refit, the corticene covering her shelter/boat deck was removed and replaced by a layer of semtex (with the exception perhaps of some of the bridge decks which retained their corticene covering). He doesn't have info regarding the precise pattern of the semtex runs on the deck, however.

Best,

Mike E.

[FW_Allen]

All:

Alan Raven asked me to post this on the board in response to Jamie's artwork re: HMS Hood.

During Hood's 1940 refit, the corticene covering her shelter/boat deck was removed and replaced by a layer of semtex (with the exception perhaps of some of the bridge decks which retained their corticene covering). He doesn't have info regarding the precise pattern of the semtex runs on the deck, however.

Best,

Mike E.

With all due respect to Mr R (and we do indeed respect his knowledge), we ourselves have so far seen no reference to that in the Hood�s cover or her ships books, plus we have photos from 1940 and 1941 which still show panels and strips where corticene was known to be before. If he can please cite a contemporary official source that verifies such work was actually carried out, it would be very helpful (i.e., which part/section of the ship�s books, etc.). It�s possible we could�ve overlooked or otherwise not gotten to something. Otherwise, we have to go by what photos show.

As for Semtex, the only verifiable record we�ve come across so far is a Dec 1937 mention of it being applied under the new 4� guns. There is a later mention of renewal of corticene on the boat deck (38). Again, it would be very helpful if he could provide a verifiable contemporary source for us to consult so that we may be as precise as possible.

[FW_Allen]

I don't think that there is now much doubt as to what colour the anti-fouling composition probably was on the under-water body of HMS HOOD, when she was last coated: grey. The question in some minds though is likely to be "What shade?" The records for Peacock and Buchan Ltd in the Southampton Archive may provide the answer but I for one will not be holding my breath.

It is a pity but someone posted some images on the site recently, one of which showed a model of a Southampton class cruiser. The under-water body of that model was grey. That may be as good as it gets but I can't now find the image. Can the Moderator move it over here or tell us where it is, please?

Mr Church: thanks for posting the pics of QUEEN MARY 2. I for one will not argue with you that her anti-fouling would appear to be of a red shade but that it has "weathered:" sorry folks, I'm not trying to start an argument over paint semantics! The grey in the pics does seem odd but it might need either a chemist or a biologist (not my "discipline") to suggest a reason for it, providing that the grey is not an additional coat applied over a red one.

Chuck: re your post of 11.47am 21 Nov. I am having great difficulty accepting your points. The image is not large enough to be able to make a valid judgement. The boot topping clearly has some fouling just above the water-line: probably from a light green "grassy" growth: see Mr Church's pics. I cannot make out any part of the "blister:" HOOD did not have a blister as such. The bulged lower part of the hull was an integral part of the side protection system. Newton's "Practical Construction of Warships" and DK Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard" contain images (the same one) of a half section; which also illustrates the scheme of her deck protection.

It was Dick who posted the following links:
�This may help explain what we see on a number of (often builders�) contemporary models in British museum collections for example:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67452.html

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 66003.html (read the description)

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 65979.html

https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/201 ... aldo-8.jpg �

[chuck]

Would anyone be able to help with a previous question I posed - were the voice pipes that run down the back legs of the front tripod exposed on the outside of the legs on the way down, or routed down the hollow interior of the tripod legs?

[EJFoeth]

All:

Alan Raven asked me to post this on the board in response to Jamie's artwork re: HMS Hood.

During Hood's 1940 refit, the corticene covering her shelter/boat deck was removed and replaced by a layer of semtex (with the exception perhaps of some of the bridge decks which retained their corticene covering). He doesn't have info regarding the precise pattern of the semtex runs on the deck, however.

Best,

Mike E.

There were a refits in Q2 1940 and Q1 1941.

1941deck.jpg

Picture of the deck in 1941. Note from the small light mushroom vents in the bottom of the image that to the right a change in contrast runs where we now had the Semtex/Corticine edge. That is, from pictures we have the pattern of the corticine that was estimated at 12x6ft patches; part of these were removed and replaced by Semtex earlier. This image suggest that part of the deck is still corticine. Let's refer to this line as our reference line.

ON BOARD A WARSHIP. 1940, ON BOARD THE BRITISH BATTLECRUISER HMS HOOD.. � IWM (A 171) IWM Non Commercial License

Strips clearly running inward of our reference line (this strip is 6ft inboard wrt the reference line, no appreciable contrast change visible). However, not her final configuration.



Image of JE Moon, who joined HMS Hood in 1940 (exact date of the image not known). Again, note the contrast change and Corticine cover strip patterns not continuing more outboard. This is at the reference line.



Late 1940, early 1941. The counter-evidence confusor; note there is no contrast line visible here, however, the Corticine strip pattern is still present more inboard at our reference line. The pattern is not visible outboard of this line anywhere (I have the pic at a better resolution, and really tried finding more lines but cannot). What is also confusing is that the HA emplacement shows a different surface texture, as if it has been painting (sloppily) or simply just wet.

So, photographic evidence shows that outboard of our reference line the Corticine covering strips have all been removed, at the locations where the logs clearly mention Semtex. Inboard of our reference line the Corticine pattern is always visible, but the contrast change between Corticine and Semtex is not. So far I inclined to conclude that corticine was still partly present on the boat deck. Supporting or contradicting images or documents welcome, of course.

(I just added that pattern to my model so will now passionately defend it with cognitive dissonance set to stun).

[EJFoeth]

I don't bet. I'd say that you are right. There is only one thing that they are likely to be: "Turk's Heads." The white painted parts in between are likely to be canvas gaiters, which were sewn on. Case closed!

HMS Hood - starboard battery (web)2.jpg

Perhaps, but the pillars seem to have the exact same outer diameter over their entire length, including in the 'white' region (A canvas gaiter would be a fun explanation).

[Guest]

Frank:

Re: Post of 22 Nov 6.46pm. Many thanks!

EJFoeth:

Re: Post of 23 Nov 3.01am. How thick do you think that a single thickness of canvas will look when sewn onto a stanchion, shrunk on with water then allowed to dry before being painted? In your admirable passion for accuracy, you are in danger of ignoring the advice of someone who has actually seen such an effect on fittings of British warships ..... me (and no doubt others amused by the way that this matter seems to be flying around in ever decreasing circles)! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck! Lights out!

[FW_Allen]

Frank:

Re: Post of 22 Nov 6.46pm. Many thanks!

Here�s another one. This is admittedly not a �builder�s model,� plus it�s from a bit earlier than Hood. It�s but famous artist AB Cull�s interpretation of battle cruiser Queen Mary. I didn�t realise he built models in addition to creating paintings.

It�s probably not as reliable as the more contemporary examples Dick cited, but I thought I�d point it out it anyway:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67366.html

[EJFoeth]

you are in danger of ignoring the advice of someone who has ...

Actually, I find the explanation quite compelling and tried finding more information; such as in ye olde manual of seamanship (no luck so far)... just wondering what the appearance would be on other ships...