Calling all King George V-class (WWII) fans

[peppe]

in the burt's book on british battleships of ww2, new ediction 1919-1945,they are some foto of this area
ciao peppe

[Aop Aur]

I actually went to the imperial War Museum website and found several photos myself of the anchor equipments area (Foeth advised that, but I don't know why his post is gone. Thanks EJ!

@David, Thank you very much for your kind offer. I think what I have gathered is already enough, besides the fact that the drawings tend to be less accurate than photos!

@Peppe, thanks for the photos!

Here you can see my latest post of my 3D Lion class progress, using the photos as a reference.

Aop

[JH]

Hi!

Just received the Flyhawk PoW 1/700, looks to be a fine kit!

Just checking if anyone has any experience from the kit, any inaccuracies one should account for if building her as sunk Dec 1941?

/Jens

[EJFoeth]

I've spotted details in the kit that have to come directly from the original plans (well, I assume as much), so my guess is the kit is very accurate (without having actually seen it in real life). So the only thing they may have missed are changes she received during her short career and most have been captured. The only thing I spotted so far is that the boat complement is not correct; the largest motorized barges (with cabins) where replaced by standard 35 ft fast motor boats. Perhaps there are more changes in the boat complement, haven't really looked that well yet.

(this is the right type: https://www.shapeways.com/product/HYK45 ... motor-boat)

[JH]

Sounds good! Just had a brief rummage through the box, seems very impressive so far!

Noted regarding the boat compliment!

/Jens

[pascalemod]

I've got a Flyhawk PoW 12/1941.

I want to backdate it to May 1941 Bismarck engagement.

What exactly should I remove from Dec 1941 version, and what should I add?

I know the overall paint scheme was 507B like Hood, with gray secondary decks and teak main deck.

There were UP launchers and oerlikons removed but how many, where exactly and so on Im not sure. Appreciate any help here guys!

[tjstoneman]

Time-consuming to check a longish thread like this, but there is discussion of POW's modifications , and useful photographs, earlier in the thread - admittedly ten years ago (February 2008). Later in the thread there is also mention of the addition of RDF Type 271 and seven 20mm Oerlikon mountings (July and December 1941 respectively) - these would need to be omitted (and the decks made good) for a May 1941 representation. I don't think the lookout shelters (angled structures inboard of S1 and P1 5.25" turrets) were fitted at the time of the Denmark Strait action. [Edit - please ignore last sentence. Prompted by EJFoeth, I checked again and the shelters WERE fitted, probably from completion. Apologies for any confusion caused.]

[EJFoeth]

Go nuts here

Basically: 2 UPs of Y-turret, 1 UP on B-turret, 0 Oerlikons, no Type 271 (but a tub with the elusive UP sight? Plans say pompom director, for the aft director platform as well), do not change the boat complement (erroneously correct for the early version). Turret tops on KGV and PoW appear markedly darker than the vertical surface color.

@ TJStoneman: do you mean the night lookout positions? These are also on the builders plans and present in pics taken in April.

[pascalemod]

So to sum up, for Flyhawk 1/700 PoW backdating 12/1941 to 5/1941 one has to mind the following:

Techical differences:
1) Radars: Remove 271 (the lantern)
2) UP launchers: 2 on rear (Y) turret with dedicated enclosures, 1 on superfiring (B) fwd turret in enclosure
3) remove Oerlikons
4) Boats / leave as in kit, wrong for 12/1941 but correct for 5/1941

Camouflage:
5) Superstructures - Painted 507A for Bismarck action (so the darkest tone) - after battle repainted to 507B... Correct me here with reference if wrong pls! Other sources I had point to 507B like Hood from the get go.
6) Decks - unpainted, teak, only slight weathering as it was a new ship

Anything else Im possibly missing? Things like thickness of the boot topping? Seems quite thin on early KGV class vs later pics.

[Martocticvs]

As per the latest research by James et al at Sovereign hobbies - 507A and 507B are now known to have been the same shade, only difference being glossiness: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=166889

We know the ship was repainted after returning from North America in early 1941: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205143298. Hard to say for sure, but it looks fairly dull so I would guess that is the enamel-free 507A being applied there. I'm not aware of any major repaints between then and May. 507B did not cease to be produced until September 1941, so it is possible she was repainted in this after the battle.

[EJFoeth]

I also looked at the same pics with the new colour information in mind; but turret tops and the decks are markedly darker than the vertical surfaces. This image scanned from Raven's Ensign shows HMS PoW with darkened decks (note the deck near the catapult is not dark) and you can clearly see a darker steel deck (fwd superstructure).

Ensign_01_016.jpg

A random pic I once bought shows the dark turret top (compare to the vertical surfuce of the rangefinder hood)

Presspic_A2885 KGV.jpg

As far as the decks are concerned, I think some weathering is allowed to simulate the wearing-off of the dark top layer, just look at this aerial shot of an early-war KGV

deck_KGV.jpg

[Martocticvs]

I have noted the dark turret tops before. I assume they are painted with the elusive 'non-slip dark grey' paint. Sadly it seems no records have been found yet to shed light on what shade this may have been, but it certainly looks at least one tone darker than 507A/B.

Do we think KGV's weather decks were painted/stained at this time? It's hard to tell if that's heavily worn paint or just lingering damp areas... [edit] I see the second photo is labelled as KGV - if that's correct, I would say that's fairly conclusive in favour of painted decks matching the turret tops.

[Cag]

Hi All,

As far as PoW is concerned Evert-Jan is spot on with the May 41 changes to the kit. From her builders plans PoW had Borneo white hardwood decks with teak spurnwaters. I don't think this makes too much difference colour wise if you check the colours (There is an Admiralty Fleet order from the 1920's somewhere that states the growing scarcity of teak and the allowed useage of the Borneo hardwood).

From PoW ships log it is noted that during the usual cleaning of paintwork etc metal decks were painted and upper decks were being stained, I have seen a Fleet memo that also mentions the decks of ships being darkened.

There are also orders that allow turret tops to be painted in non slip paint, this was available in various colours including dark grey and Home Fleet grey.

As for KGV decks I'm sorry I've not got her ships logs so I couldn't tell you for sure (These are available from the U.K. National Archives) but photographic evidence is still our best bet there. We do have to be careful though as wet decks do darken in tone in images.

Best wishes
Cag.

[EJFoeth]

This is a great example of the effect of a wet deck on contrast, so I agree that interpreting shots of ships at sea with regards to darkened decks is very tricky. Now I'm not even sure about the PoW pics with the catapult area being a shade lighter, and the third pic with all the wear & tear might just as well be a deck drying up.

ON BOARD THE BATTLESHIP HMS KING GEORGE V. MARCH 1941.. � IWM (A 3646) IWM Non Commercial License

[pascalemod]

Hi All,

As far as PoW is concerned Evert-Jan is spot on with the May 41 changes to the kit

Who is Evert-Jan?

[EJFoeth]

It is I

[Admhawk]

I also looked at the same pics with the new colour information in mind; but turret tops and the decks are markedly darker than the vertical surfaces. This image scanned from Raven's Ensign shows HMS PoW with darkened decks (note the deck near the catapult is not dark) and you can clearly see a darker steel deck (fwd

I just want to point out that it can be very difficult to trust these old photos. Whether in books or scanned, it doesn't take much to change tones and shades when resizing and saving.

In the above photo alone, the sides of the 2nd turret look the same as the top. The tops of the fwd turrets are much lighter that the aft turret. In life colour pics of US BB's pre war, the sides of the turrets look white from glare and I was convinced that they were a different colour until a photo without glare was found.

It's possible that the lighter shades could be simple glare from the sun.

All I'm saying is be careful when making conclusions based on old photos, things aren't always what they appear to be.

[Sutho]

It could also be a photo from after the ship left the builders yard. I read once that the builders often painted the teak decks of RN ships under construction to protect the wood and often after delivery the ships crew would remove the paint from the teak.

[pascalemod]

Guys did PoW have that paravanes catching hood on the bottom tip of the bow?

Flyhawk instructinos are literally "?" this. Whats up with that.

[EJFoeth]

That's the Paravane Bow Clump and should have two holes through it, horizontally spaced. HMS Prince of Wales did not seem to have it. With KGV it an extension faired into the hull, not at all like a plat plate (see IWM images oof KGV in dock).