Calling all Royal Navy Tribal-class fans

[Admhawk]

I think the Haida display is random. It was moved when the ship was moved from Toronto to Hamilton a few years back and I do not think they were side by side in Toronto, but I could be wrong.

[Brett Morrow]

I had pondered awhile on the propeller orientation, and had contacted the museum about the display, unfortunately no response.
There is no question that the orientation of the 2 photos is correct, if the Haida display is actually as it appears on various sites, I am surprised they have made a fundamental error.

They have the props arse about, and the prop on the right is actually the port, the left is starboard.
So far, the Arunta shot is the only complete stern photo to show a tribal in drydock with props intact, here is an enhanced crop of the props, showing correct orientation and blade pitch.

Perhaps a small issue, but if someone is building a full hull model of a tribal, wouldn`t you want to get it right?
All the best

[Admhawk]

I had pondered awhile on the propeller orientation, and had contacted the museum about the display, unfortunately no response.
There is no question that the orientation of the 2 photos is correct, if the Haida display is actually as it appears on various sites, I am surprised they have made a fundamental error.
They have the props arse about, and the prop on the right is actually the port, the left is starboard.

I finally found a photo of the Props before they were moved from Toronto to Hamilton. They were indeed switched around when moved. The Shorter one is closest.



Regarding making an Error, keep in mind that the only reason the ship was saved, is that a few sailors took it upon themselves to purchase and move the ship to Toronto. It was cleaned up and kept going by volunteers for many years. It had weapons and gear from WWII mixed with 50s and 60s mods. Even the number painted on the side was her WWII Pendant on top of the Postwar Grey. The guys looking after her weren't too interested in whether the props on display were oriented correctly. Heck, they weren't even the same height!

When the ship was fixed up and taken to Hamilton, efforts were made to keep it accurate to the 50's, but still some mistakes were made. I doubt anybody knew which way the props were supposed to go.

[Jamie Alguire]

Guys:
I've been struggling with RN colors to paint Haida in 1944 - Im sure this is common !

Munro plans states 3 colors:
'Off-white' - obviously RN off-white
'Mid grey-green' - which must be G20 ? Wouldnt be the 'warm grey' G45.
'Pale blue', - which must be B30 ? Or is it B55 ?

I know that these ships were painted 'Special Emergency Fleet Destroyer Scheme' which is typically G20, G45, B30 & white. Most models of Haida are painted in a 3 color scheme looking like G20 & B30 & white.
Question is, why was Haida painted in just 3 of these colors, not the standard 4? And what were the colors? Maybe her scheme was a one-off?
Any comments are welcome

[Brett Morrow]

Going back, the Haida props orientation question may go someway to be answered, by the reply received from the museum.

The props are 10 ft 6" in diameter and have a pitch of 13 ft 1". The prop as it is on the jetty is seen from the hull side not the cone. Going forward, the tops would turn towards each other. Not entirely sure which position is on the dock for port or starboard.
Team Haida

Also, going back further to the DCT discussion, further investigation reveals my incorrect identification of DC stowage racks on Bataan.
These were in fact, squared balsa carley floats, to put the record straight.

[Giampiero]

Ciao to all,

For the HMS MOWAHK, the armament remained unchanged in 1941 or had it undergone modifications and had the radar on board?

Thanks
Giampiero

[DJF]

I am building the WEM Eskimo kit as HMS Tartar in mid 1944. I have several photos of the ship and it appears that the original fit rangefinder was replaced by an HACS director. Can someone verify that this was done, my research found no information. If an HACS was installed, what Mark director was used?
Thanks,
Doug

[Brett Morrow]

In 44 Tartar`s rangefinder turret was a MK II W, her fire control was the later Mk 285 array which consisted of 3 parabolic reflectors each housing 2 seven element yagi booms. If you look back in the thread I have posted a couple of shots of the array.
Her earlier 285 array in 41 consisted of 2 double and a single central reflector, they were a different setup.

The attachment shows her 285 array, and damage sustained in 06.44 action., by this time she had been fitted with lattice foremast.
She is fitted with a 291 X antenna atop the masthead, the smaller parabolic RDF looks like a 276 outfit AUJ, the image also shows a 253 IFF hourglass antenna.

If you are pondering what the circular objects are on the main yardarm?
They are lantern hoods fitted over the fighting/signal lights to help conceal their illumination from the air.
Many ships by that time had been fitted with these lantern covers, including lower shades, see the attached image.

[Brett Morrow]

Closer study of the 44 image reveals she was also fitted with a 242 IFF antenna.
Most ships by that time were fitted with several different IFF aerial array.

[DJF]

Thanks Brett. I will make a director and radar array to fit on the rangefinder tower part of the kit.
Regards,
Doug

[gerritv]

While researching where to end the antifouling and paint waterline marks for my restoration project of a scratch built 1:72 HMCS Athabaskan, I dug these out of my father's drawing tubes. These are portions of drawing 3S Docking Plan specific to Athabaskan. Scale is 1/4" to 1'

[Brett Morrow]

The bow drawing is of interest, I had previously pondered the circular equipment.
Separate to the retractable 144Q Asdic pod, some Tribals were fitted with them, while others were not.
The Australian ships Arunta and Warramunga were not fitted, but Bataan was.
The use of the word `Oscillators` would indicate `Fessenden` diaphragms, and A/S could pertain to `Acoustic sweep` for acoustic mine sweep.
But A/S could also relate to Hydrophones, Can anyone provide more detailed information?

[Rick E Davis]

I have a question about what camo scheme (paint) that HMS MATABELE was painted with in this photo. From what I can find on her war record, this image (pardon the miss spelling of her name) was taken prior to her refit starting in May 1940 and lasting to early August 1940. At that time her her #3 twin 4.7-in mount was replaced by a twin 4-in mount and she had a Type 286 radar installed. It appears that at the time of this photo, she has a HFDF array installed at the top of her foremast.

The paint in this B&W print appears fairly light, but that can be deceptive.

I read through this thread and found no clear reference to her camo for the pre-May 1940 period.

[Brett Morrow]

Rick, as you correctly pointed, pre May 40.
X turret still 4.7, 6th flotilla band, I believe 507A overall.

[Rick E Davis]

I'm not very familiar with RN camo paint (too many paints and apparently little agreement on what colors a particular ships wore), but isn't 507A suppose to be quite dark?

HMS MATABELE in this photo looks more like a lighter shade. I was thinking 507B or 507C or a light-medium blue.

[Brett Morrow]

Yes Rick, she does look a lighter shade, but we have been down this road a number of times about how variables can greatly influence our visual perception.
I know you have your finger on the pulse, but have you read James Duff`s latest work on the 507 series?
507A & B were apparently the same colours, with the enamel omitted from 507A, both were listed as Home fleet Grey.
The colour debate on RN/Admiralty colours has become quite contentious, if not at times a little confusing, and I prefer to step cautiously when partaking discussion.

My understanding is, in 1940 destroyers of the 6th Tribal flotilla were Home fleet grey 507A, some shots of Matabele around this period display her somewhat lighter while others present her dark, even after returning from refit she still appears quite dark overall.
It all comes down to the variables, which can also include image manipulation, original photo exposure plus all the others combined.
I don`t think anyone is in a position to say without question that she is one colour or another.

The attachments show her early 39, she wears the band of the 2nd Tribal flotilla, she looks somewhat lighter than 507A.
The second attachment shows her early 40, she wears the band of the 6th flotilla, she presents quite dark.
All the Best

[Rick E Davis]

One of my thoughts is that maybe this photo was taken during Completion Trials in late January-Early February 1939. That would explain her being painted in a Light Gray color paint.

I had though that the presence of a HF-DF array dated this photo to AFTER the start of the war. But, I found out that the TRIBAL class started to complete with this HF-DF system as completed in 1939.

" ... It was then realised that smaller �diamond shaped� rotating doubled loops would be more successful on higher frequencies than the some what extempore fittings previously used on large ships. Clearly they would also be much more suitable for fitting on smaller vessel, especially destroyers. This proved to be most significant step and the fixed Frame coil design used had two rotatable smaller loops and became a standard fit in TRIBAL Class destroyers on build before September 1939. The final design used one of two different designs of aerial units, identified as Frame Coils S16 and S17. These were of different sizes, that of S16 being 3ft square and S17 of 4ft 6� square. The size of aerial used depended on the structure of structure of particular ships mast. The aerial unit was mounted on a pole mast fitted at the top of foremast of the ship. Both Frame Coil and Pole-mast could be struck using a separate beam to lower or raise the complete assembly when necessary to allow passage under a bridge or for replacement. ... "

The date on the 80-G mounting card caption, could well be in error. It happens a lot.

Also, as an aside, I noticed that this image is for sale on E-Bay. Available at US NARA for free if you do your own scanning.

[Brett Morrow]

If the photo was taken at acceptance trials, and she wore a funnel band it would have been black.
This bow quarter shot has been taken at exactly the same time as the previous stern quarter image, X turret is trained to port stern.
Note that she appears darker than the stern quarter shot, it is also quite apparent that this image, along with the previous has been manipulated in some way.
The 2 images are reported taken 16th April 40 at Hamoaze near Torpoint ferry.
The images appear over exposed, if the exposure or brightness is force manipulated down then of course she will appear even darker.
This perfectly illustrates my comments on variables, and how they can alter what we see in a digital image, just this one variable has altered her tone in 2 shots, let alone combining the other points.
Basically, anyone can alter these images and make them as light or dark as desired.

Also an attachment showing the method of striking the DF pole as per the previous post comments.

[Brett Morrow]

My mistake, date should read April 1939, not 40.

[Rick E Davis]

I'm quite aware of the wide grayscale variation in negative based film/prints. There simply are too many variables in film type used, camera and settings used, filters that may be applied to the camera, the weather conditions, where the sun is or existence of cloud shading, plus the whole print processing introduces potential variations in shades seen to know what is the color by grayscale shade. It is really impossible to determine specific "colors" from B&W film without additional information. Knowledgable people familiar with the ship and what paints were being used in the time frame of a given photo can give an educated estimate. I scanned this image myself at US National Archives (NARA) from a print in a collection called the 80-G collection of mostly USN taken views in grayscale. When I scan I do NOT change the settings to make the image lighter or darker ... it is what it is. In general the scans look like the prints, except that aging sepia tone of the print paper isn't seen in the grayscale scan.

Having said that, it is normally difficult to produce an image like this one if the subject ship was painted in a dark gray. If this paint has a blue paint component to it, then it will naturally show up lighter with many films of the era. Here are samples of some of the other images I have scanned from another collection of prints at NARA called 19-LCM that date in the 1940-41 early war period. Whether all those dates provided on the prints are accurate, I can't say. It should be noted that it appears to me that many of these photos were provided to the USN by the RN during WWII for recognition purposes. Also, many (if not all) were prints made from copy negatives. Copy negatives have a tendency to increase contrast.

Two images of HMS VIMIEA supposedly taken at the same time in 1940. One is darker (and further away) than the other image. The darker shade than the other image is likely due to backlit sun on the subject.





HMS FERRIE dated 1940. She is a lighter shade than most of the others here.



The next three images are all in a darker shade, which I would assume shows Dark Gray 507A

HMS GARTH dated 1941



HMS IMPULSIVE dated 1941



HMS JACKAL dated 1941



Then we have.

HMS KIPLING dated in 1940. If reports are correct, she was one of the destroyers painted in Mountbatten Pink.



So for the image of HMS MATABELE, the only difference with this photo from the others above is that it is an aerial view and the details are sharper than many of the above images. The black and white (or light gray) on the mast would seem to put the paint on the ship somewhere in between and fairly light in shade.

So I taken it that this photo dates HMS MATABELE to about a one year period from when the 2nd TRIBAL Flotilla became the 6th Flotilla in April 1939 to May 1940. So, it could have been taken early in her career before the war started.