Calling all RN County-class fans

[Brett Morrow]

Vladi,
In respect to your build of Canberra, I would fit the first variant as shown on Arunta, only because Warra was commissioned Nov 42, which would have allowed development of possible second variant antenna. The Arunta aerial also shows what might be a longer element at the cross point? very difficult to tell.

Not many bites on this subject which I can only surmise implies little knowledge about the A290, in worst case scenario no one can dispute your accuracy of fitting to your build.
As to the possible fitting of a 290 to Adelaide, if interested send a message to my inbox and I will point to its possible fitting.
If you ever find a clear photo, please post it.

[Vladi]

Hello Brett,

I am still not quite sure whether 290 was the same as A290, information is really scarce. It seems to me that variants were usually differentiated by a letter after the type designation, but I may be wrong. Most importantly aerials depicted at some places as Type 290 are very different from what we see at Canberra, Arunta etc.:

I agree to your point about the "cylindrical enclosure", that�s what I meant by the "tubular object" above.

And I agree about the shot of Australia dated 31.8.42, it looks like A290 to mee, too. I just still wonder about the "tailfin", it certainly resembles a tailfin (especially at the Arunta photo), but that does not seem to make sense to be present at an aerial that was rotatable (any tailfin would increase the tendency to turn the aerial down the wind, but the purpose would just opposite - to reduce any unnecessary drag so that the aerial stays in the direction set up by the handwheel). It actually was this "tailfin" that made me searching for more info, because the rest is the circular enclosure with a simple Yagi antenna on top of it that can be depicted easily - and it will all come out ridiculously small in 1/700 anyway

Thanks!

[Vladi]

Hi all, you may be interested in a brief preview of Micro Master 3D printed turrets and other details suitable for County-class cruisers. All Micro Master detail sets are available in various scales.

[Vladi]

If you are interested in HMAS Canberra in her as-lost configuration you may find interesting my post in Completed Builds viewtopic.php?f=60&t=165672. I took advantage of the latest findings by fellow RAN researchers as well as my own research of available reference, some of which were discussed in this thread.

I am really happy I managed to finish her just in time for the 75th anniversary of her final battle. Thanks!

[Brett Morrow]

An interesting and new photograph of HMAS Australia, certain to be unseen before by the majority, from a private collection at WNSF.
The original photo was badly yellowed, I have cleaned it up and adjusted the greyscale.
I date this shot around April/May of 41, and am confident to say this is looking east down Sydney harbour, Clark Island is to the left, HMAS Platypus is in the background and Point Piper headland behind.

Apart from the obvious, this photo shows several interesting features, the upward sweep of the forward 507A pattern is well back from the sheet anchor, all other shots show it just behind or overlaying the anchor.
The starboard face of B turret appears to show a mix of 507A and 507C, not evident in other photos, and her middle funnel appears to be 507C.

[able]

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Spanish heavy cruiser Canarias.

What's the relation to the topic 'RN County class' ???

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

they used the same hull & main turrets\guns as the counties also made by same company but in spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canarias-class_cruiser

Aaaah, thanks! Never was aware of this derivate County class!

[PaulC]

Hi all,

(Edited thanks to Brett's post below!)

Forgive me if this has been picked up before - I didn't really go through the whole thread - I just noticed that there was variation in Dorsetshire's 1941 camo scheme - specifically on the hull. The length of the lighter-coloured section varied - it looks like during the Bismarck operation it was longer.

I took a "screen shot" from the "After the Bismarck" British Pathe newsreel of her docked at the quayside and noticed that the lighter section began between the first and second portholes behind the anchors.

Screen shot of Dorsetshire quayside after Bismarck operation

But when I looked at two more broadside photos, it is clear that one of them has it starting much further back while another matched. The aft end point also differs.





In late 1941 (not as sunk!), it started just forward of A-turret and ended just aft of Y. Aoshima's Indian Ocean Raid model uses this scheme which is incorrect for the as sunk depiction.

But during the Bismarck operation in May 1941, that section ran from just behind the hawsepipes to just a few portholes forward of the stern walk. (So if Aoshima uses the same scheme for both models, it will be wrong for both!)

Some photos I've seen suggest there may have been 3 shades used (as suggested by Monty Mills� illustration) � such as the photo on the worldwar.co.uk Dorsetshire page makes it look like there are 3 shades.

https://www.world-war.co.uk/Dorset/dorset.php3 (second photo from bottom)



But another print of the same photo which (from Raven & Roberts) is posted on P.9 of this thread looks like 2 shades and states in the caption that the darker shade may have been Mountbatten Pink rather than Home Fleet grey as one might initially assume.

MBP was in used in a number of Home Fleet cruisers in 1941 � Aurora, Galatea, Manchester to name some � so why not Dorsetshire?

So, is it 2 or 3 shades? Is the photo on the WW2 cruisers site a case of B&W photo variation causing it to just look like 3?

In any case for May 1941 and late 1941, there is undoubtedly a difference in the hull pattern, with the former fit having a longer lighter-coloured streak along the upper hull.

Thoughts?

Paul

[Brett Morrow]

Paul, as sunk Dorsetshire had a completely different camo scheme applied.

[dick]

Paul,

I have two other broadside photos of Dorsetshire in the World Naval Ships.com version of her 1941 scheme and they show the forward two funnels as the same darker tone colour as that low on the hull and the aft funnel as the same light tone colour as the upper panel on the hull.

So I think just two tones.

Best wishes.

[PaulC]

Wow - thanks Brett! (Why didn't that photo come up in my searches until now??)

I've edited the post to reflect that...so Aoshima's camo depiction is totally wrong. And it makes sense now. Last night I was thinking about the Mountbatten Pink possibility - wondering how the RN would send a ship to the Indian Ocean in that scheme.

And I just checked the upcoming releases thread P 104, and realized that, of course, Flyhawk will have it right (they use the picture you posted).

So thank you!


And thanks Dick! But what about the forward turrets? Light or dark?

[Brett Morrow]

There would no doubt be other shots in private collections of Dorsetshire in this short lived scheme, but I cannot find others within the P.D.
You can read an interesting thread about the incorrect box art, and new pattern on page 4 of the forum on SN.
The reference can be found here,
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/battle- ... ormidable/

Here are 2 images of interest, Cornwell can be identified by her hanger, Dorsetshire`s new scheme can just be discerned.
All the best

[PaulC]

Thanks again Brett - really great reference with great photos. Had never seen that before.

Couldn't locate the SN discussion though.

[PaulC]

Hi all,

Have another question - specifically regarding the Aoshima Dorsetshire kit.

For the fo'c'sle deck forward of the breakwater the kit gives the alternative of using a planked section (tan coloured plastic as the rest of the deck) or a steel section (molded in grey like the rest of the kit).

Does anyone know which is the correct choice?

Plan drawings I've found of Dorsetshire suggest wood planking was in place.

Thanks,

Paul

[Brett Morrow]

Paul, Dorsetshire was 1 of only 2 units of subclass Norfolk, clear shots of Dorsetshire`s forecastle cannot be found on the PD.
Here is the forecastle of Norfolk dated 1933, whether these areas were plated over by 1942, like some of the Kent subclass, I cannot tell you, but I suspect not.

[PaulC]

Thanks Brett, much appreciated.

[Mike E.]

All:

With the Trumpeter 1/350 kit of HMS Cornwall due to be released early next year, I would like to know if anyone knows where I can find any photographs of HMS Cornwall in her light gray/dark gray scheme as depicted in Alan Raven's RN Camouflage in WW2, Part 1, and in Eric Leon's artwork here:

https://www.world-war.co.uk/Kent/cornwall.php3

I am kicking myself, because I came across just such a picture online a few weeks ago, and though I thought I downloaded it, I can't seem to find it. Arghhh!!!!

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Mike E.

[PaulC]

Hello all,

All the best for 2019!

I've just received my second Dorsetshire kit which I plan to convert to Norfolk, 1941.

(This time it's the"Bismarck" kit which, by the way, is chock full of extra goodies including 6 Swordfish, Flyhawk-quality Quad Vickers and Pom Pom replacements, 2 u-boats including PE for them, plus the Sunderland,Wellington and Walrus that are in the other kit.)

My query relates to Norfolk's deck colour.

I've seen a reference which states that her decks (wood and steel) and turret tops in 1941 were painted "dark blue".

I bought a bottle of True North's RN 1941 Dark Blue but was shocked when it arrived - it is a bright turquoise colour (this isn't represented on the True North website) which I subsequently saw to be reasonably in line with Snyder & Shorts RN paint chips which I saw on their ship camouflage website and here (bottom right):


http://www.steelnavy.com/images/chips/RNchip02.jpg

But I cannot fathom how the RN could in its right mind have painted a warship's decks with that!

I know that there has been a lot of recent work done on RN colours with significant changes to what was previously represented. Anyone have any thoughts or ideas on what the story really is regarding the dark blue decks??

Thanks!

Paul

[Brett Morrow]

Paul, the presented colour does seem odd, but honestly, how would you know, personally I would not use it.
Deck colours are even more controversial and vague than other colours discussed.
There appears a wide variance not only to colours presented in different colour charts, but a variance to reported deck colours also.

The reference you mentioned was probably from `Warship perspectives Vol 1` which quotes Dark Blue for Norfolk`s decks, but dark blue could be one of several colours, not just the DB presented on the S & S chart, which to my eye does not look DB at all.

It is mentioned by Dakin (Australian camo directorate) that Sydney`s decks were blue in Med service, what blue?
I had seen a coloured crop of a deck (can`t find it again and don`t remember which ship) which was reported as B15 and looked pretty close.
B15 and B30 were widely used on decks, for the purposes of modelling, these 2 colours and even B20 could be applied.
Dependent on who`s chart and which manufacturer colour you use, they could all be acceptable colours, no one is in a position to challenge you.
The 3 colours mentioned are very close on the Sovereign chart, and accurate IMO, each chart varies.

How can you achieve accuracy when your references are ambiguous, vague and unknown for certain?