KevinD wrote:Don't you think that the different 'colour' is just the dramaticaly different tone / contrast within the two photographs? That is, the deck, etc, looks almost white in the overhead (and the water black), whereas in the smaller photo the whole image is just various shades of grey from light to dark.
Hi Kevin, could be, in fact that is the only picture that I found where the chains seem to be black (or dark). I found the same picture with better definition. I would swear that there are black and light gray segments in the picture. What might be, is that only the links on the deck, with anchors up, were painted, and the rest would remain black or dark color. Could be, just guessing.
Right now, where I currently stand, think that I will paint the anchor chains light gray and give them some sort of weathering, but as I am still several weeks away from that (I was researching the deck colors, not the chains), any information is welcome.
You may find that the chain in the initial image posted by Marco could be either light grey or white, as was the case in many prewar examples.
But lighter colours were not just used prewar as displayed in a wartime DD image of Devonshire. Exeter`s chain may have been repainted dark prior to Graf Spee engagement, as seen in Port Stanley images, but of course images can be very deceiving, in the prior image there is also the question of whether the first shackle only was light coloured.
Marco wrote:Hi Kevin, could be, in fact that is the only picture that I found where the chains seem to be black (or dark). I found the same picture with better definition. Marco
Well there is no doubt that parts / sections of the chains look very dark / "black" in that image!
But why the 'white' sections? Mesurement aid?
"We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it." Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
"A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging." Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Permit me to butt in. Until recently, it was the practice in the Royal Navy during peace-time, to paint the cable that rested on deck between the anchor and the navel pipe, white. That is with the anchor "close home" in its hawse pipe and "secured for sea." Since the 1980's/'90's however, that part of the cable has been left unpainted and I believe that it has been the practice to put a coat of oil on it to inhibit rust. I may be wrong but I certainly never saw cable painted grey or black.
In going to anchor, that part of the cable that rested on deck would be underwater, thus any of the cable above water, of the anchor that was in use, would generally, show as rusty steel.
If, however, the ship was secured to a buoy, it was normal practice to paint the "bridles" i.e. the cable that was on deck and outboard, white; which was probably the initial reason for painting white, any cable on deck anyway. In short it saved time later.
The above information probably holds good for warships of the Empire/Commonwealth navies during the period as well.
Incidentally, anchors of Royal Navy ships and auxiliaries are normally painted the same colour as the hull. They are never black on grey.
I will not digress into the marking of the joining of "shackles" (sorry Americans: "shots") of cable here.
A very good point Guest about black as I can`t identify any images I have seen with black cable either. However you would be incorrect with your later dating concerning the application of white, ie white still applied today. If you haven`t seen a grey cable before here are a couple for you.
I would not ask you of your identity because I believe it would not be supplied, but given your timing to supply comments to these threads, and also your pointed comments and sentence construction your identity may be compromised.
All the best
I take your point and I take the correction. Perhaps I should not have added the sentence "The above information probably holds good for warships of the Empire/Commonwealth navies as well." So be it but perhaps I can excuse myself by adding that I did say "probably." However, I might be laying myself open to the charge of "sour grapes" there and I don't want that.
That said, the comments in my post of 3.33am 9 April were primarily aimed at clearing up the uncertainty that was creeping into the preceding discussion about the cables in HMS EXETER and I hope that I have done that.
I thank you not asking me for my identity, I would not give it but if I did it would only be an avatar. What is important to me though is that what I write on this site is as accurate as I can make it. Inaccuracies about the navy that I served in infuriate me. If I have knowledge that I can properly make available I will, if others choose to ignore though, so be it.
Incidentally, can you identify the ship and date of you right-hand picture? Thank you.
Certainly my friend, the right hand crop is HMAS Shropshire dated Feb 45.
For your interest, here another image of same class earlier sub group, dated approx. mid 43. Different colour to Shrop in 45, chains definitely painted and the same as the rest of the ship very likely G10.
I have a doubt about the location of the stored paravenes on the HMS Exeter. Trumpeter's instructions show them attached to the deck. Eduard PE instructions show them attached to the front/lateral wall of the superstructure. And this one shows them I don't know where, perspective makes it difficult to define, either attached to the wall or to the machinery (I think it is the crane that lifts the paravene) seen on the deck? Any other reference pictures showing a better perspectives of the paravene's stored location?
And looking at this excellent picture, I have the impression some equipment on the decks, including the paravene, are painted maybe white? Notice the structure under the shade of turret A, looks much lighter than the Light Gray of the ship.
You see the paravane secured to brackets on the bridge superstructure "screen" in your picture. This may have been the normal position: out of the way of gun blast. They are likely to have been moved further forward and down onto the forecastle when required for use but I cannot be sure. You surmise that some of the fittings on the ship's upper deck may have been painted white. I agree (educated). This was a "smartness"/"pride in ship" measure (the Royal Navy word was "tiddly:" it has nothing to do with being drunk!). However, be careful, painting fittings white was largely confined to such things as fairleads, bollards/bitts, capstans/cable holders and reel covers, nothing else. Fixed structure/superstructure was left grey and that is what the barbette structure of "A" mounting is in the picture. White fittings and all bright-work was painted grey on mobilising for war unless it was left white as a counter-shading measure.
You see the paravane secured to brackets on the bridge superstructure "screen" in your picture. This may have been the normal position: out of the way of gun blast. They are likely to have been moved further forward and down onto the forecastle when required for use but I cannot be sure. You surmise that some of the fittings on the ship's upper deck may have been painted white. I agree (educated). This was a "smartness"/"pride in ship" measure (the Royal Navy word was "tiddly:" it has nothing to do with being drunk!). However, be careful, painting fittings white was largely confined to such things as fairleads, bollards/bitts, capstans/cable holders and reel covers, nothing else. Fixed structure/superstructure was left grey and that is what the barbette structure of "A" mounting is in the picture. White fittings and all bright-work was painted grey on mobilising for war unless it was left white as a counter-shading measure.
Thank you for the input, Guest, quite useful! I will put the paravene attached to the wall (screen as you name it, I am not an expert in naval terminology), I have some pictures from other RN ships showing that was the standard way of storing these. Regarding the lighter color, I suppose it would have been standard procedure to paint light gray every highly visible item on deck, and white would be highly visible. Good for parade, bad during war, absolutely.
Different images of Exeter at different times show she shipped a set of paravanes supported on brakets as seen in the above image. Other shots show her shipping a spare set located on deck, some images show her carrying none. A second spare set was not uncommon for cruisers and the location of that set was moved around, sometimes they were moved to the deck beside the barbette, at other times they were stowed behind the barbette. The cropped image below, which appears earlier in this thread, shows a second set located qtr aft of the barbette. They were deployed and recovered with the PV derrick which is in the stowed position in above image, the second image below shows the derrick erected.
I would not disagree with guest that the paravane shown may at that time have been white, but like many pieces of equipment they painted them different colours at different times. Images can be very deceiving, other equipment including the recovery winch also appear a lighter colour.
Wise move, Marco! Mr Morrow may be correct in suggesting that the ship was complemented with paravanes additional to those attached to the bridge superstructure screen and may be basing this suggestion on an item that can be seen resting on the deck outboard of "B" barbette (I presume that this is on the port side) in the first photograph in his post of 10.22pm 27 April. However and it is a big "however," because we cannot see the location of the starboard paravane in that picture, it COULD be the starboard paravane that was temporarily stowed there. That said, it could be a spare. The only way that you are likely to be able to establish the number of paravanes allowed to the ship, together with their locations with any accuracy, is to ask the Historic Photographs and Ships Plans section of the National Maritime Museum to check the "As Fitted" drawings of the ship.
Finally, while Mr Morrow advises that it was not uncommon for cruisers to be fitted with a second spare set of paravanes, I believe that HMS EXETER is your ship of interest therefore you need to confine what you need to know to that ship.
Random subject change...Did Exeter have her anti aircraft armament increased when she was sent to the Pacific, or did she just keep the two Pom Pom and four 4 inch guns only?
According to a post on this thread (admittedly 11 years ago - 5 January 2010!), the 20mm were never fitted in the tubs on "B" and Y" turrets, with mountings for single machine guns instead. Not sure if any weapons were ever fitted in the tubs abreast the mainmast.
The single 2 pounder pompoms had been replaced by quadruple Vickers 0.5" machine guns some years before the war. The four single 4" HA guns had been replaced by 8 4" guns in four twin mountings, and two octuple 2 pounder pompom mountings added, during her 1940 repairs.
I thought this weapons subject had been put to bed way back, Tim is almost on the money.
She never got oerlikons, whilst the answer concerning X tub is elusive, an earlier image shows 2 single Mk I 303 Vickers fitted, an early 42 image shows B tub fitted with what appears to be 2 twin Lewis.
tjstoneman wrote:According to a post on this thread (admittedly 11 years ago - 5 January 2010!), the 20mm were never fitted in the tubs on "B" and Y" turrets, with mountings for single machine guns instead. Not sure if any weapons were ever fitted in the tubs abreast the mainmast.
The single 2 pounder pompoms had been replaced by quadruple Vickers 0.5" machine guns some years before the war. The four single 4" HA guns had been replaced by 8 4" guns in four twin mountings, and two octuple 2 pounder pompom mountings added, during her 1940 repairs.
That's very interesting. Where would the octuple pom poms have been mounted?
