Calling all HMS Repulse & HMS Renown fans

[Timhan]

Hi all
If i may chime in at this point, some weeks ago i corresponded with Dan about my own
build of the Trump. 350 kit. He gave me a very detailed and helpfull critique of my effort,
pointing out various errors and ommissions, some build related and some product related.
Some, alas, are too late to be rectified, but others i will revisit at some time.
Not wishing to be too presumptuous, may be Dan would share some of his comments
with the participants of this forum. Hope, Dan, you don't mind me making this suggestion,
as i feel others would be most interested in your unique knowledge of this great ship.
Tim.

[dick]

Dear Dan,

I think you are being hampered by the poor quality reproduction of the photos available on the internet/published in books.

The two pictures you have posted are part of a series taken as Repulse steamed through a convoy on its way to Singapore in late 1941. Your picture �no shields� is a cropped version of IWM photo A6794. Even in the poor quality version you have posted you can just about see that the Oerlikons had shields, but having examined the original under a magnifying glass I can assure you that they were shielded.

Your �even better view� is a crop of IWM A6793. Being side-on to the camera, the shields are barely visible in this photo. However if you saw A6792 taken a few moments later as Repulse pulls ahead you would quite clearly see the shields.

I think that even your �even better view� shows that there was something around the base of the Oerlikon mounting pedestal for the gunner to stand on. Again, in the originals at the IWM it is somewhat clearer. I believe it to be this sort of standard, tiered circular affair:

Oerlikon single Mk II.jpg (10.36 KiB) Viewed 3096 times

Again, in published images I have, the dark camo block pattern on the ship's sides and aft superstructure appears darker than the paintwork on Y. To date, I have seen no convincing photos, including some taken just prior to her final operation, that can prove Repulse's Y turret being the same, dark camo color. I'm not saying it WASN'T, only that enough evidence exists to make me question the issue.

I sense that you are softening your position on the question of the turret colour. I think you first have to ask yourself is it at all likely that when the ship was painted from overall 507B in 1941 they would have left just one turret in the original colour. I think you then have to look very critically any of the photos where the turret looks lighter and ask what generation reproduction it is and what are the lighting conditions playing on that turret. I suspect that in the photos you have where it appears lighter it is a combination of strong overhead light on the angled side of the turret and/or a much republished version of an original photo. Having looked at the originals in the IWM, and particularly photos where the light is playing uniformly (no strong overhead sunlight) on the side of the superstructure, turret and hull, I am personally satisfied that Y turret was dull black.

Best wishes.

[RNfanDan]

....having examined the original under a magnifying glass I can assure you that they were shielded.

Your �even better view� is a crop of IWM A6793. Being side-on to the camera, the shields are barely visible in this photo. However if you saw A6792 taken a few moments later as Repulse pulls ahead you would quite clearly see the shields.

Excellent! It seems I have also been relying on faulty information, separate and independent from the photos. I shall have to order a copy of A6792, as soon as I am able. I'll buy a bottle of crow sauce on my way home today, as well! My apologies to all for basing my opinion on faulty evidence.

I think that even your �even better view� shows that there was something around the base of the Oerlikon mounting pedestal for the gunner to stand on.

Dick, at what point did I indicate there was nothing around the base of these weapons? There most certainly WAS and, as I described earlier, I had long believed these were "slatted" platforms, as was common (but in a larger form) among British destroyers.


I am very happy to stand corrected on that detail thanks to your outstanding, posted photo of what is essentially the "un-tubbed" version of the concentric platforms. If these platforms have been depicted incorrectly in a number of model kits and plan drawings of RN 20mm AA platforms (as slatted hexagons), then your photo is a valuable contribution and can be used for correcting those to the proper configuration. Modelers take note, please! Thank you, dick.

I sense that you are softening your position on the question of the turret colour.

You sense wrongly, I'm afraid. I have never been firmly on one side or the other, and have expressed myself to that effect, right here in this MW thread. Where are you going with this?

I think you first have to ask yourself is it at all likely that when the ship was painted from overall 507B in 1941 they would have left just one turret in the original colour.

I have done much more than ask myself that question, Dick; in fact, it has been one of the roots of my entire 1941 camo pattern(s) research, since first being asked about it a couple years ago.

For those who care to know why I have not rested firmly on a black-grey Y turret color, please refer to photographs of the other changes made in Repulse's 1941 block camouflage patterns, between early 1941 and her sinking in December of that year.

Best wishes to all,

Dan

[Timmy C]

Dan, I don't think "Dick" is "Dick J" - at least, not that other registered member who specializes in USN matters.

[RNfanDan]

Dan, I don't think "Dick" is "Dick J" - at least, not that other registered member who specializes in USN matters.

I'll make that TWO bottles of crow sauce, then. I apologize for confusing the two members. Sorry, Mr. J.

Thanks for letting me know, Timmy.

[dick]

Dear Dan,

Sorry if I sound �prosecutorial� but you have a habit of retrospectively altering the wording of (or indeed now deleting) your posts in response to subsequent poster's posts which can leave the subsequent poster�s posts looking somewhat inept.

You now pose some questions.

1. You ask:

�Dick, at what point did I indicate there was nothing around the base of these weapons?�

In your original (now deleted) post you wrote:

�The concentric inner gun-tub tiers were steel, and each tier was fitted with replaceable, non-metallic traction strips. Note too, that Y-turret's Oerlikons were NOT fitted with these.�

2. I wrote:

�I sense that you are softening your position on the question of the turret colour.�

You now write

�You sense wrongly, I'm afraid. I have never been firmly on one side or the other, and have expressed myself to that effect, right here in this MW thread. Where are you going with this?�

Yet you originally wrote:

�With Y-turret, it does not appear that any changes were made in its color throughout 1941; if it were mine to model therefore, I'd paint it 507A on top, with 507B sides and guns.�

3. You ask:

�Can you please give us your opinion as to the color of Repulse's "middle block" in her 1941 camo pattern(s)?�

Sorry, but I have not got time to wade back through 14 pages of posts to try to work out what is the exact nature of the debate re the central dark block? What is the question please?

Best wishes.

[RNfanDan]

1. You ask:

�Dick, at what point did I indicate there was nothing around the base of these weapons?�

In your original (now deleted) post you wrote:

�The concentric inner gun-tub tiers were steel, and each tier was fitted with replaceable, non-metallic traction strips. Note too, that Y-turret's Oerlikons were NOT fitted with these

(Note: bold-my emphasis)

I see what happened now. Please bear in mind:

a) I meant "these" to describe the entire tubbed mountings, as I understood them at the time I posted that entry (see below);
b) Until subsequently shown your informative image of concentric tiers mounted in an open support structure, I had no idea they existed in any configuration other than being fitted inside a "tubbed" mounting.

I therefore had no reason, at that point, to append the word "these" with "tub mountings".

I wrote:
�I sense that you are softening your position on the question of the turret colour.�

You now write

�You sense wrongly, I'm afraid. I have never been firmly on one side or the other, and have expressed myself to that effect, right here in this MW thread. Where are you going with this?�

Yet you originally wrote:

�With Y-turret, it does not appear that any changes were made in its color throughout 1941; if it were mine to model therefore, I'd paint it 507A on top, with 507B sides and guns.�

I see nothing here that needs explaining, dick. I will not ask where you are going with this. I'd paint a 1941 Repulse model's Y-turret as described, if one were mine to do, but one never will be. I believe the rear turret was 507A (roof) and 507B (rest, except blast bags, etc.) until proven otherwise, to my satisfaction.

3. You ask:

�Can you please give us your opinion as to the color of Repulse's "middle block" in her 1941 camo pattern(s)?�

Sorry, but I have not got time to wade back through 14 pages of posts to try to work out what is the exact nature of the debate re the central dark block? What is the question please?

Best wishes.

Dick, the middle block to which I refer is the central hull-side camo block, between the two dark areas. I'll give you benefit of the doubt on your mis-stated "central dark block", and even give you this refresher: Stern-- a light block; forward of that-- a dark block; next one forward, the central block--???(subject of my question); next one forward of that--a dark block; finally, the bow--a light block. Just for absolute clarity, I am not including anything which applies to the superstructure.

If there is an active debate over this, I am not aware of it, and this question is NOT intended to start one brewing. A fair question, just asking your opinion for the benefit of those interested.

I have no intention of further posting in this thread, as it currently exists, excepting the following suggestion:

It might be better if the forum's moderators agree to split this combined Renown & Repulse thread into two, individual thread topics. Gainful, informative discussions of each of these one-time "twin sisters" can perhaps best be achieved that way, as their technical, operational, and wartime service histories became sharply divergent, especially from the 1930s onward.

[dick]

One is reminded of the saying �two countries divided by a common language�, but in practice misunderstandings in an internet discussion such as this can occur just as easily between fellow-countrymen. We all use the English language slightly differently.

Dick, the middle block to which I refer is the central hull-side camo block, between the two dark areas. I'll give you benefit of the doubt on your mis-stated "central dark block", and even give you this refresher: Stern-- a light block; forward of that-- a dark block; next one forward, the central block--???(subject of my question); next one forward of that--a dark block; finally, the bow--a light block.

When I look at Repulse broadside-on it appears to me that �the middle block� (OED1: at an equal distance from the extremities of something; central) of camouflage on the ship is a dark one. If I get a measuring tape out and measure from the bow to the stern, at the halfway point (and a little to the stern of it) the hull is black. The superstructure above (hangar etc) being black even further aft adds to the visual impression that �the middle block� of camouflage is black. However I now understand what you mean by �the middle block� (OED2: (of a member of a group or sequence) placed so as to have the same number of members on each side). But please desist from (what sounds to my ears as) puerile sarcasm (if that is what it was).

For years the conventional wisdom has been that Repulse repainted into a two-colour black and light grey scheme in early 1941. No less an authority than Alan Raven in his Warship Perspectives Vol 1 (pub. 2000) gives the colours as black and 507C. I have seen nothing that causes me to doubt this.

Dan, you are the one challenging the orthodoxy with the suggestion of a 507B Y turret. You also seem to be implying that the middle light panel on the hull might be something other than 507C. Where I come from the onus is therefore on you to make your case. So I would welcome the opportunity to read your reasoning and see the pictures that you believe support your argument.

Best wishes

[G. Shoda]

said the onus is therefore on you

.

"Onus" has negative connotations. Nicer way to say it is "the burden of proof is therefore on you."

[dick]

I am very happy to stand corrected on that detail thanks to your outstanding, posted photo of what is essentially the "un-tubbed" version of the concentric platforms. If these platforms have been depicted incorrectly in a number of model kits and plan drawings of RN 20mm AA platforms (as slatted hexagons), then your photo is a valuable contribution and can be used for correcting those to the proper configuration. Modelers take note, please! Thank you, dick.

Dan, Just to highlight that there certainly were some hexagonal platforms....

[MartinJQuinn]

Gentleman...ironing out differences of opinion help us get to a consensus, if not the truth. Let's keep the discussion civil and on topic.

[Guest]

That Maritime Quest link is excellent. Thank you!

[Chuck Bauer]

New question:

Any opinions as to the color of HMS Repulse's launches at the time of her sinking?

[Guest]

Since I am a computer novice and don't know how to "un-post a post", I'm just withdrawing the question so this thread can continue on in whatever direction it may take.

Since discovering this forum I have learned a lot and will stay tuned in the future.

My model is coming along slowly and when finished I'll post it on Model Warships first.

Thanks, guys

Chuck

[MartinJQuinn]

New question:

Any opinions as to the color of HMS Repulse's launches at the time of her sinking?

I would think they would be the color of the surrounding camouflage, unless the RN had a different practice than the USN.

[chuckbauer]

Thanks for the reply. Some day I'll figure out how to log in so I don't have to be a "guest."

Chuck Bauer

[Gernot]

Sorry to derail the Repulse 1941 discussion, I'm wondering where to find more (and possibly recent) useful information to correct what looks like a fairly atrocious light AA fit representation on my recently acquired 1944/45 Trumpeter/Pitroad Renown.

What I have in my library is all from the early 1990's:

• British Battleships 1919-1939, R.A. Burt (1993)
• British Battleships of World War Two, Alan Raven & John Robert (4th Impression, 1988)

The latter will have to be my main resource unless there is a newer one worth getting hold of.

Wikipedia mentions 72 Oerlikons in twin and single mounts fitted after 1943, but the Trumpeter kit has about two dozen quad Vickers 12.7mm weapons, incongruous to say the least. I haven't found any plans, drawing or photos online after a brief search, would appreciate pointers.

I'm thinking Admiralty Modelworks might be able to do a great upgrade set, and conversion sets for 1943, 1944, 1945 fits...

Many thanks in advance,
Gernot Hassenpflug

[Guest]

New question:

Why do some photos show the big guns with unpainted, machined ends and others show them painted all the way to the ends?

Chuck B

[Alan Raven]

I would suggest that you stick with Raven and Roberts. Not perfect but I believe the best even today. Compiled from official returns and photos.

Sorry to derail the Repulse 1941 discussion, I'm wondering where to find more (and possibly recent) useful information to correct what looks like a fairly atrocious light AA fit representation on my recently acquired 1944/45 Trumpeter/Pitroad Renown.

What I have in my library is all from the early 1990's:

• British Battleships 1919-1939, R.A. Burt (1993)
• British Battleships of World War Two, Alan Raven & John Robert (4th Impression, 1988)

The latter will have to be my main resource unless there is a newer one worth getting hold of.

Wikipedia mentions 72 Oerlikons in twin and single mounts fitted after 1943, but the Trumpeter kit has about two dozen quad Vickers 12.7mm weapons, incongruous to say the least. I haven't found any plans, drawing or photos online after a brief search, would appreciate pointers.

I'm thinking Admiralty Modelworks might be able to do a great upgrade set, and conversion sets for 1943, 1944, 1945 fits...

Many thanks in advance,
Gernot Hassenpflug

[Gernot]

I would suggest that you stick with Raven and Roberts. Not perfect but I believe the best even today. Compiled from official returns and photos.

Dear Mr. Raven,
Many thanks for the advice, I've greatly enjoyed reading and re-reading your works over the past 15 years or so.
Sincerely,
Gernot Hassenpflug
(ex-wannabe researcher)