The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 ... 59  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
If it is white canvass, how would you represent it differently on a 1/350 model than if it were white paint? :wave_1: Make it a little more off-white?

Oh, I forgot. EJ will crack 1/350 scale scale whip over his 1/350 minions so they will grow 1/350 scale flax and weave 1/350 scale canvas. :big_grin:

However, given water surface tension, such miniature canvas might be difficult to wet properly for shrink fitting however. :heh:

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
chuck wrote:
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?


Attachment:
SLWA_003.jpg


There's some sleeve on the outside of the tripod, so I'd say neither

WRT to the canvas sleeves; well, whitish? I painted them white already. Can always modulate the colour a bit. No turk's head though...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:48 pm 
Chuck,

Point taken! I like your droll sense of humour. I did wonder if someone would take that up. I have to "pass" on that and leave it to those having to solve the problem.

EJ Foeth,

Thank you. Taking the matter on and to deal with it at further length. Sewing a canvas gaiter onto a stanchion, adding a Turk's Head top and bottom and then painting the whole will not be found in the Manual of Seamanship. Such measures would come under the heading of "tiddly work" or "fancy waist-coats" in the Royal Navy. In other words, though it was probably done for a reason in HMS HOOD i.e. to prevent sailors unfamiliar with the "area" at night bumping into them, the measure was more "decorative" than anything else. One good reason for not doing such a thing is that the covering would hide any corrosion that might be going on, under it. However, it would be accepted on, say the Quarter Deck (the area of authority and execution of ceremonial), where the awning stanchions might be decorated for the purposes of impressing visitors. There may be photographs of such decoration on the HOOD Web-site.

Frank,

Re: Post of 23 Nov 11.25am Thanks again. Respectfully suggest that it is drifting off the beam a little though. Ships of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries did go through some changes in styles of painting regarding the boot-topping and under-water part of the hull; these are outside my area of knowledge though.

Intriguing point is: was grey and red anti-fouling specific to the manufacturing company or was the use of a colour specific to a dockyard or was grey anti-fouling common through out the Royal Navy until replaced (for an as yet unknown reason) by red and if so, why and when?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:26 pm 
I’ve just repainted my 1/200 Hood bottom today in grey and it looks distinctly odd. I’d rather have lived in ignorance of the dockyard records but they seem fairly compelling to me. She looks like an old dreadnought now.....

Steve


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
Mr. Church wrote:
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?


I’m no paint expert, but would assume that her condition would have depended on her location(s), activities and amount of time between drydockings. I’ll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to comment more fully/accurately.

However, I can say with certainty that the condition of the ship’s bottom was documented each time she drydocked and was cleaned/repainted. Quite a number of those documents survive in her ships books. Here is a random one that I’ve transcribed. It is for Hood’s May-June 1938 docking in Malta and it describes the bottom about 6-7 months after the previous docking:

Bottom Composition Area
(a) Anti-fouling Composition: “chafed and abraded as under-coatings, worn off and some patches distributed, worn thin, where previously scaled also flaked off with scale on lower areas aft.”
(b) Protective Composition: “Chafed at bow, abraded in places, worn thin on areas where previously scaled, flaked off in patches with scale on lower areas after, but much adhering.”
(c) Outer Bottom Plating, &c., as to:
(i) Grass, weed, &c. : “Grass:- Fine growth principally on flaked patches and extending down to bilge keels. Weed:- sparse deposit.”
(ii) Shell, &c.: “Sparse deposit of coralline and barnacles generally with several patches of close growth on lower areas and between bilge keels.”
(iii) Slime: “moderate covering.“
(iv) Oxidation of Plating: “Slight oxidation at waterline area.”
It also discusses pitting of plating, rivet points and zinc protectors. They didn’t see any pitting, the rivet points were good and 20% of her zinc protectors were wasted and renewed. I’ve seen other forms where there was pitting and more extensive grass, etc.

As for her boot topping, the descriptions were as follows (the letters apply to the same fields as listed above):

(a): “Bare generally along the float line, much worn below, also abraded amidships.”
(b): “Bare generally along the float line and much abraded amidships.”
(c): “Fairly close covering of moderate growth below the float line.”
(i): “Nil.”
(ii): “Moderate deposit of small coralline and barnacles.”
(iii): “Moderate Covering.”

Not sure this helps, but hopefully it does.

NOTE: I speech to text to write this and there were some minor errors. I went back in after posting to correct the mistakes.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Last edited by FW_Allen on Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Guest wrote:

Intriguing point is: was grey and red anti-fouling specific to the manufacturing company


I posted the answer to this as at 1937/38 a few days ago: There were then 17 authorised suppliers of Admiralty quality ships’ bottoms compositions. The colours of their anti-fouling coats were as follows: six supplied in grey only; seven supplied in either grey or black; one supplied in grey or green; one supplied in red or black; and two supplied in red, grey or black.

In the article I am putting together, the manufacturers' colour changes before and after this that I am aware of from the Fleet Orders and subsequent Rate Books will be noted. However it is clear from one particular WW1 AFO that some manufacturers at that time did supply in more than one colour so the overall situation then was probably fairly similar to 1937/38.

Guest wrote:

or was the use of a colour specific to a dockyard


I think not exactly in the way you may be thinking which I infer to be one colour per dockyard. The IWM Pears paintings from Rosyth to my eye show at least 4 different colours in use at Rosyth in 1918. Proximity of a particular manufacturer to a particular dockyard may have played a part in which supplier's product might be used originally on a ship, but there are clear indications from Hoods' D.495s that after that if possible they used the same manufacturer's product on a ship at her subsequent dry dockings at whichever dockyard they took place. This makes sense as some of the different manufacturers' products would not have been compatible chemically. During WW2 it appears that the Admiralty sometimes centrally allocated particular manufacturers' products to specific classes of ship and, although of course I haven't checked the location of every one of each ship's dry dockings, if it was a large class it is impossible for all of the class to only ever to have been drydocked for bottom treatment in one particular dockyard.

Guest wrote:

or was grey anti-fouling common through out the Royal Navy until replaced (for an as yet unknown reason) by red and if so, why and when?


Depends what exactly you mean by "common". If you mean universal then no, but if you mean quite often used then yes. You will have to wait until I have finished writing up everything I have for more on this and the why and when. I am thinking of taking the story up to about 1947/8 and by then grey (and other colours) had still not been 'replaced' by red although the writing was on the wall.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 567
FW_Allen wrote:
Mr. Church wrote:
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?


I’m no paint expert, but would assume that her condition would have depended on her location(s), activities and amount of time between drydockings. I’ll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to comment more fully/accurately.

However, I can say with certainty that the condition of the ship’s bottom was documented each time she drydocked and was cleaned/repainted. Quite a number of those survive in her ships books. Here is a random one that I’ve transcribed. It is for Hood’s May-June 1938 docking in Malta and it describes the bottom about 6-7 months after the previous docking:

Bottom Composition Area
(a) Anti-fouling Composition: “chafed and abraded as under-coatings, worn off and some patches distributed, worn thin, we are previously scaled also flaked off with scale on lower areas aft.”
(b) Protective Composition: “Chafed at bow, abraded in places, worn thin on areas were previously scaled, flaked off in patches with scale on lower areas after, but much adhering.”
(c) Outer Bottom Plating, &c., as to:
(i) Grass, weed, &c. : “Grass:- Fine growth principally on flaked patches and extending down to bilge keels. Weed:- sparse deposit.”
(ii) Shell, &c.: “ spires just posit of coralline and barnacles generally with several patches of close growth on lower areas and between bilge keels.”
(iii) Slime: “ moderate covering.“
(iv) Oxidation of Plating: “Slight oxidation at waterline area.”
It also discusses pitting of plating, rivet points and zinc protectors. They didn’t see any pitting, the rivet points were good and 20% of her zinc protectors were wasted and renewed. I’ve seen other forms where there was pitting and more extensive grass, etc.

As for her boot topping, the descriptions were as follows (the letters apply to the same fields as listed above):

(a): “Bare generally along the float line, much worn below, also abraded amidships.”
(b): “Bare generally along the float line and much abraded amidships.”
(c): “Fairly close covering of moderate growth below the float line.”
(i): “Nil.”
(ii): “Moderate deposit of small coralline and barnacles.”
(iii): “Moderate Covering.”

Not sure this helps, but hopefully it does.


Thanks Frank, I imagine the degradation depends heavily on the type and characteristics of the individual paint. No doubt some paint products were better than others as is likely still the case today. Plus of course time between dry dockings as you mention.

It is worth watching the video of Queen Mary 2 I linked earlier as well as the two still photos. The video shows a few more angles and clearly demonstrates the varying degrees of degradation to the different areas of the underwater hull along with some more closeup views. I'm sure if cross referenced carefully with the descriptions of Hood you posted the different types of deterioration and growth could be identified?

Great that such comprehensive and detailed records relating to Hood survive and can be published. Thanks again for sharing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
EJFoeth wrote:
chuck wrote:
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?


Attachment:
SLWA_003.jpg


There's some sleeve on the outside of the tripod, so I'd say neither

WRT to the canvas sleeves; well, whitish? I painted them white already. Can always modulate the colour a bit. No turk's head though...



Thank you. Judging from the presence of the upper plotting room, this was taken sometime after 1931. Which raise the question of was the cladding that covers the voice pipes always there, or was it added after 1924?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:29 pm 
I thank Richard for his comprehensive, all-embracing, all-inclusive, blanket, broad, catholic, complete, encyclopædic, exhaustive, extensive, full, inclusive, sweeping, thorough, umbrella and wide reply to the musings in my post of 1.48pm 23 Nov. I look forward to reading his completed "paper" when it is promulgated.

There will no doubt be a few kit manufacturers sticking pins into his wax effigy when it is though, not to mention a few proud but sensitive builders who have already completed models. Meanwhile, I am glad that the three models that I have built over many years are beyond discussion regarding their anti-fouling colour: they are all water-line!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:02 pm
Posts: 143
Phenomenal turn in the thread. Congratulations to those of you uncovering primary evidence and changing not only the colours of our Hoods, but also the entire way RN warships have been viewed as models, online, and in print. I did go aboard Ark Royal in Fremantle in the mid '80's as a kid when she had that very light-blue underside iirc

Lilac...

Eagerly awaiting the article at Sovereign Hobbies.

FWIW, for my Hood I'd just got satisfied with the correct grey and red, and painted the hull and sealed it after '50 shades of Grey' over a few years. Changing paint chips, new research, the scale effect, and what I could reasonably lay my hands on here in regional Australia; it came a full circle and I ended very close to where I started, I believe John Donne wrote a poem about something similar...

Now the grey lower hull on Hood - was it grey or black? My own graduate level History qualification and experience screams to me 'listen to the bloke who said he painted the thing and the POW witnesses' - but we will see, as the lower hull distinctly seems lighter to the bootstrip in her final photograph. And all those builders' models with the alternate grey lowers that we've seen images of for years and years, hmmm.

Last questions: grey underneath Repulse and POW??? (either of them with lilac, as sunk, what a ship model that would make!) A County on China station with the grey lower hull (like the builders' model of Cumberland) would be quite distinct too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:02 pm
Posts: 143
Just like to put it out there too, that if you don't have access to much beyond Tamiya for acrylic paints, maybe a XF66 upper (lightened or darkened to scale and %) might easily combine with XF75 Kure Arsenal Grey on the lower, given the speculative nature of this lower paint in the interim. It *kind of* looks similar to the coloured plans...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Jamie has kindly uploaded my little paper on RN ships' bottoms to his site where it can be found here:

https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/page ... ur-schemes


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 4:50 am 
Thank you, Richard. Your diligent work and effort is appreciated. Let's hope people read it. Perhaps the Moderator would consider placing notice of it in the "Camouflage" section.

For FW Allen and what this is worth: I was browsing Alistair Roach's "The Life and Ship Models of Norman Ough" recently. Pages 124/5 indicate that there is a model of HMS HOOD held in the Plymouth City Museum. This is not mentioned on the HOOD website and may be a useful Reference. There is evidence of a connection with Mr Ough on the base of the mount though whether he actually made the model is not clear.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
Guest wrote:
Thank you, Richard. Your diligent work and effort is appreciated. Let's hope people read it. Perhaps the Moderator would consider placing notice of it in the "Camouflage" section.

For FW Allen and what this is worth: I was browsing Alistair Roach's "The Life and Ship Models of Norman Ough" recently. Pages 124/5 indicate that there is a model of HMS HOOD held in the Plymouth City Museum. This is not mentioned on the HOOD website and may be a useful Reference. There is evidence of a connection with Mr Ough on the base of the mount though whether he actually made the model is not clear.


Someone recently posted photos of that model on the HMS Hood Association’s Facebook page and it does match up with the one in the Norman Ough book you mentioned. Nice rendition of Hood circa 1927.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
Since a little time has passed, and some other topics have come up, I thought it time to refocus on the issue of Hood’s shelter deck (also called the “boat deck” by crew). After the drastic changes uncovered following the revelation of Hood’s true underside colour, this shelter deck issue should have the next largest impact on the appearance of Hood models going forward. Most of what is presented here, has been stated previously. This again, is just an attempt to recap and refocus. We welcome any comments or corrections:

RECAP: The aft section of Hood’s shelter/boat deck was planked with teak and the forward half was, for some time, widely believed to have been painted metal (probably due information presented in the AOTS book). Recent photo analysis (initiated by Hood expert Dave Weldon and further researched by EJ Foeth and myself) has indicated that this was not necessarily true: we’ve seen evidence of widespread corticene/linoleum usage on the forward section for most of Hood’s service life. We’ve also found official verification of corticene usage on this deck in ADM136/13, Hood’s “books.” We’ve also seen photos of a 1927 Norman Ough model that has a brown forward shelter deck (indicative of corticene).

This basic arrangement changed in late 1937 when the deck was widened to cover the 5.5” side batteries. At that point in time, ADM136/13 verifies that Semtex was applied to the forward section of expanded deck, specifically on the working areas for the 4” guns at stations 161-205 port and starboard (see figure 1). The rear area was originally to be covered with teak, but it was not available. Photos indicate that this was covered with corticene. So, for a time, there were just two areas with Semtex and the rest were corticene.

Problem/Issue: From 1940 onward, things are far less clear-cut: First, we’ve heard that there was an order to remove corticene from warships. Second, we were informed that Royal Navy expert Alan Raven noted “…Photos show that the SHELTER deck; had the corticene removed and relaid with Semtex,this was in line with the practice of the time, re 1940.” Unfortunately, we’ve not seen any mention of this work being carried out aboard Hood in her books or cover. There was only a solitary reference to Semtex in 1937 and a mention of corticene in 1938. There is, to the best of our knowledge, no other surviving official documentation to verify the belief that all corticene was removed. So, the best we can do (until additional official documentation comes to light) is to continue to rely upon a re-analysis of photos confirmed to be from 1940 or later.

Photo Analysis:
Please note that most photos have been cropped and annotated to show the specific areas in question.

Attachment:
fig1.jpg
fig1.jpg [ 194 KiB | Viewed 1644 times ]

Figure 1a – The Original Confirmed Locations of Semtex on Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck (Side Profile)
The image above shows the locations of stations 161-205 (the areas to which semtex was added in December 1937). There are also inserts showing the use of corticene in 1938 and 1939.

Attachment:
fig1a.jpg
fig1a.jpg [ 127.87 KiB | Viewed 1713 times ]

Figure 1b –The Original Locations of Semtex on Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck (Stations 161-205 Starboard, 1938)
This photo shows the starboard side of the forward shelter deck sometime in 1938. In the inset, we see the gun mounted at Station 161S...and the absence of panels and strips shows us that this is after semtex was applied. A view of the wider area (main photo) taken at the same time shows that this was confined to the area immediately around the gun and that corticene still existed outside of the area. We cannot see the deck for station 205, but presumably it would be the same. This verifies that the deck initially had only a small amount of semtex in limited locations. This was not in doubt, but its nice to have visual proof for the time period in question. It shows a progression in the changing of the deck materials.

Attachment:
fig1c.jpg
fig1c.jpg [ 93.76 KiB | Viewed 1713 times ]

Figure 1c –The Original Locations of Semtex on Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck (Station 205 Starboard, 1938)
This photo shows that the decking around station 205S (red arrow) is somewhat "bland" and shows no raised strips. Corticene panels can be seen inboard of the small boat. Again, confirmation that for a time, both materials were definitely in use.

Attachment:
fig2.jpg
fig2.jpg [ 104.1 KiB | Viewed 1713 times ]

Figure 2 – 1940/41 Photos of Hood’s Starboard Shelter Deck.
The above photo (figure 2) was taken near stations 189/187 in front of the forward starboard ladderway/companionway. Inboard you can see strips separating two contrastingly different deck surfaces. The inboard surfaces is darker and has border strips (indicated by yellow). The outboard area (red arrow) is featureless and light in colour. This is suggestive of corticene inboard and semtex outboard. We are unable to pinpoint the exact date or month of the photo, so we have no way to confirm if this was before or after her 1940 refit.

Attachment:
fig3.jpg
fig3.jpg [ 78.63 KiB | Viewed 1713 times ]

Figure 3 - Forward Shelter/Boat Deck, October 1940.
Figure 3 shows stations a crewman standing near the forward starboard UP mount with the base of the bridge visible in the background. Because of the angle, the crewman and corresponding field of view, we can’t see transverse strips but one of the fore-aft strips can be clearly seen (red arrow). This roughly aligns with the edges of the engine room vents below the funnels.

Attachment:
fig4.jpg
fig4.jpg [ 72.67 KiB | Viewed 1713 times ]

Figure 4 – Port Amidships Boat Deck, Spring 1941
Figure 4 shows stations 208-210 on the port side. This corresponds to the area just aft of the disinfector house and amidships searchlight platform. This photo clearly shows three different deck coverings: Blue indicates teak planking. Yellow is likely corticene (as evidenced by different shade and presence of both fore/aft and transverse strips) and red indicates likely use of semtex (in an area where its usage was documented). We base the date on the fact that in the uncropped original photo the men are posing in front of a 35ft Fast Motor Boat (which was supposedly fitted in 1941).

Attachment:
fig5.jpg
fig5.jpg [ 186.18 KiB | Viewed 1713 times ]

Figure 5 – Hood’s Boat Deck, Likely Early 1941
Figure 5 shows Hood’s boat deck as seen from the bridge, most likely in early 1941. This is evidenced by the fact that her rear funnel has a patch following damage incurred at Mers El Kebir in July 1940. UPDATE (13 Dec 2020): The presence of 35ft Fast Motor Boat crutches on the port side indicate this was taken during her 1941refit. In this view, the areas along the sides and under the guns (blue and red arrows) are light in colour. You can see indications of a rectangular deck feature (red arrow), which corresponds to a previous location of corticene (see inset for two 1938 photos that shows similar panel lines...in other, closeup shots not presented here, these lines are clearly corticene retaining strips). The comparison does show, however, that this strip pattern is not the same in 1941. As such, its unclear how much, if any corticene remained in this area. So, this confirms that although the rear deck extensions were, at one point, covered with corticene, they appear to have changed later (perhaps semtex?).

Attachment:
fig6.jpg
fig6.jpg [ 50.18 KiB | Viewed 1709 times ]

Figure 6 – Hood’s Boat Deck, 1941 (Enlargement of Figure 5).
Figure 6 shows the deck alongside the second funnel base vent (both port and starboard). Its difficult to be certain, but the photo suggests the possibility of strips on the deck in these locations. This could of course also be other features or even image artefacts, but they do match-up with modern analyses of the corticene pattern (most notably EJ Foeth’s model). UPDATE (13 Dec 2020): I corrected the year to be 1941 (see the reason in the description for figure 5).

END OF PART 1. PART 2 FOLLOWS.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Last edited by FW_Allen on Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:42 pm, edited 15 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
H.M.S. Hood Corticene Redux continued!

Photo Analysis (continued):
Again, please note that most photos have been cropped and annotated to show the specific areas in question.

Attachment:
fig7.jpg
fig7.jpg [ 124.75 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

Figure 7 – Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck, 1941.
Figure 7 shows the port side abreast the rear funnel. At the extreme right is the port forward ladderway/companionway. Inboard of the ladderway is a line in the deck (yellow arrow). This line reaches from the planking at the rear and extends towards the outside of the bridge. This is in an area known to have had corticene in other late 1940/early 1941 photos (see figure 8). UPDATE (13 Dec 2020): I have altered the year to be 1941based on the presence of @ second 35ft Fast Motor Boat (fitted during 1941 refit).

Attachment:
fig8.jpg
fig8.jpg [ 145.37 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

Figure 8 – Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck Near Station 210, Late 1940.
Figure 8 shows the area immediately aft of the disinfector house/motorboat workshop/amidships searchlight platform. The teak planked section of the deck is just out of view to the right. Corticene retaining strips can clearly be seen in this view. We date this to late 1940 based on the photographer’s service period in Hood (he was aboard in 1940 and left as one of the so-called “lucky 13” who departed the ship shortly before she sailed to meet Bismarck) and the fact that there is no 35ft Fast Motorboat present behind the “lady.”

Attachment:
fig9.jpg
fig9.jpg [ 158.55 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

Figure 9 – Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck Near Amidships Searchlight Platform, Late 1940/Early 1941.
Figure 9 shows the port side abreast the rear funnel/just forward of the amidships searchlight platform. Strips can be seen very close to the ready use lockers. The strips seem to be inboard whereas a featureless deck is outboard. This may indicate semtex outboard and corticene inboard. We date this to late 1940/early 1941 based on the photographer’s service in Hood. It should also be noted that the paint is quite matte in appearance.

Attachment:
fig10.jpg
fig10.jpg [ 102.73 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

Figure 10 – Portside Between Funnels, 1940/41.
Figure 10 shows a crewman (who joined the ship in 1940) standing on the port side of the forward shelter deck near stations 185-187. In the background is the forward edge of the rear funnel and engine room vent. The open door leads to the Coppersmiths Shop and/or Incinerator Room. He is standing on a featureless section of deck, but behind him are telltale corticene retaining strips. This suggests corticene inboard, possibly semtex outboard. Previously this outer area also appeared to be covered with corticene...and the edges of the panels were previously neatly aligned in a grid pattern. The absence of a lateral strip and a change in deck contrast suggests it may have been repositioned (staggered) or removed outboard.

Attachment:
fig11.jpg
fig11.jpg [ 95.57 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

Figure 11 – Hood’s Starboard Shelter/Boat Deck, 1940.
Figure 11 shows the starboard side abreast the structure between the funnels. In this view the prominent fore-aft line mentioned previously can once again be seen (red). Additional lines/strips can be seen inboard (yellow). This may (or may not indicate corticene strips inboard). Generally, the deck seems bare outboard of the prominent line. This may indicate semtex usage. The exact date of the photo is difficult to discern, but we believe it to be from 1940 based on a set of stacked boats in the background of the original full-size version of this photo (the top has been cropped here to show only the deck area in question).

Attachment:
fig12.jpg
fig12.jpg [ 157.73 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

Figure 12 – Hood’s Shelter/Boat Deck, 1940.
Figure 12 shows the starboard side abreast the structure between the funnels. In this view the prominent fore-aft line can yet again be seen. The line divides the deck into two areas of different contrasts...lighter outboard, darker inboard. The composition shown also matches other photos taken of this area (use the ladderway as a reference point). This shot is most likely from 1940 as it appears to have been taken from the rear of the Admiral’s Bridge deck (which was mostly enclosed during Hood’s 1941 refit).

Current Findings/Train of Thought
Based on these photos, its obvious that the coverings on Hood’s forward shelter deck changed not only in 1937/38 (as the last known surviving documentation has verified), but again sometime before Spring, 1941. This much was already known (or at least expected), but the amount/degree of change still eludes us. We DO see what must be semtex, but we also see indications that SOME corticene remained in place (inboard/around the funnels) even after the 1940 refit in which it was supposedly removed.

It may not “make sense” to have such a mix...especially in light of a supposed CAFO/order for the removal of corticene, but photos do not lie. Unless, we’ve drastically misinterpreted things, photos indicate that corticene was still present in places on the shelter/boat deck (and bridge decks) following the 1940 refit and possibly even the 1941 refit. We can only speculate as to why corticene remained. We do know that the ship’s books are filled with examples of work that was slated but not actually carried out (reasons generally involved stock/availability, the ship’s schedule, etc.). So, its not beyond the realm of possibility that this was the case here.

So, until someone can produce more official documentation or better photographic coverage, we’re left with the following possibilities for Hood’s FINAL shelter/boat deck coverings (listed in no particular order). Please note that the last two images below are simply “onscreen musings.” They are VERY rough/crudely done and are in no way intended as an accurate painting guide!

Attachment:
fig13.jpg
fig13.jpg [ 39.3 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

1. Above- In the above example, the deck is mostly corticene (brown) with a few isolated areas of semtex (light grey...please note that we don't really know what the actual colour was...it could have been tan, light or dark gray, brown, green, etc. It may have even changed colours over the years) . The semtex areas are where it was first applied in 1937/38 (where the forward UPs were later installed) and under the extended areas of the deck.

Attachment:
fig14.jpg
fig14.jpg [ 38.77 KiB | Viewed 1711 times ]

2. Above- Areas of Semtex outboard/running along the outer portions of the deck , but the inner portion of the deck (to include the area around both funnels and the rear of the bridge) being covered with corticene. We don’t have enough coverage of the area ahead of the forward UPs to be certain of what covering was actually applied there. This interpretation is based on the observations of the deck further aft and shows what it would look like if carried forward.

3. A “patchwork” situation with some high traffic inboard areas /paths covered in corticene and large areas in semtex. I didn't bother trying to create an image for this possibility as it would delve wildly into the realms of the imagination.

I’m curious to hear what others deduce from these same references. Thoughts anyone?

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Last edited by FW_Allen on Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Great stuff Frank (and I suspect EJ too?)! Which CAFO are you referring to as ordering the removal of corticene?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
dick wrote:
Great stuff Frank (and I suspect EJ too?)! Which CAFO are you referring to as ordering the removal of corticene?


Yes, we both assembled notes for this one! In fact, I stole the idea from some of his earlier posts. Well, I wanted to reassemble/regroup/refocus, etc.

Thanks for pointing out the bit about the CAFO reference...I need to clarify that. I have only heard that such an order was issued (can't remember from where I heard that right now). I have not actually seen nor confirmed it. So, its just hearsay for now.

I've tweaked the text in my original post slightly to reflect this (I added "supposed" in front of the CAFO reference). Hopefully someone here will know the corticene removal order answer/specifics, but again, until then its just hearsay.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 338
FW_Allen wrote:
I've tweaked the text in my original post slightly to reflect this...

Just an FYI to everyone that I've tweaked the original post a couple more times: First, I'd forgotten to mention the names of the folks who researched the corticene and second, I had incorrectly attributed the very first image. Both have been updated.

As for the other dozen or so updates, these were all from just after my initial posting...some image problems and some spelling/grammatical issues that my computer didn't catch. If I find any other things that need to be tweaked, I will be sure to annotate the change appropriately (with a bold/italic notation of the date and what was changed). If site admin’s find this to be too confusing and would prefer me to make new posts instead, I will certainly be happy to do so. For now, however, I’m trying to keep the original posts as accurate as possible.

Anyway, please let us know what you think? Any comments/suggestions/questions? Anyone disagree with anything presented? Fire away!

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk
Image


Last edited by FW_Allen on Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
FW_Allen wrote:
I have only heard that such an order was issued (can't remember from where I heard that right now). I have not actually seen nor confirmed it. So, its just hearsay for now.


With a similar caveat to my comments re ships’ bottoms that I was not systematically searching for AFO’s/CAFO’s dealing with the removal of Corticene during WW2, the only ones that I have come across during Hood’s war lifetime are from early 1940. There was one saying it was not to be fitted to motorboats and another one ordering its removal from the weatherdecks of destroyers. I have mentioned this latter one on various boards in the past when discussing the appearance of destroyers’ decks. I suspect that this is the source of your hearsay re an order.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 ... 59  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group