Calling all HMS York and HMS Exeter (WWII) fans

[tjstoneman]

This is purely conjecture: the box stuctures above the funnel trunking were only present in photos taken prior to her damage repairs after the Battle of the River Plate, and only when she had Walrus aircraft embarked. Photos taken when she was carrying Fairey IIIF floatplanes show replacement aircraft floats in that position. The unidentified boxes appear (without any accurate measurements available) to be roughly the size of the folding section of a Walrus's mainplane. Are they stowages for spare wings?

(Edit: I have found one photo showing the boxes when she was carrying IIIF aricraft.)

[Marco]

Thank you very much for your input. The description of the pipes would be enough to build them on my Exeter, and I think I�ll issue the �box-like� structure, although I think that the cover might be soft, like canvas on something, and I see a slight curve, sort of hangar-shaped cover.
Let�s see if it looks right on the model!

Marco

[KevinD]

It is hard to say for certain if it is hard or soft topped, but given it has objects stacked on top of it (images 3 and 4) that do not appear make it bow downwards / deform from their weight, nor do I see any 'overhang' at side (in image 6) as would be expected of a tarpaulin like / canvas cover, suggests to me that it is hard. But, if you'll pardon the pun, it is hard to say for certain.

EJ, you say you have found one photo of the box onboard while the Fairys where still shipped. I also have one of her going into Malta, another at a Fleet review, and another (all undated) with Fairy's aboard that may show that box, but they seem too indistinct to be certain. Actually, on closer inspection, since writing the previous sentence, they all appear to be just a soft canvas siding, with no front or top. unlike the hard sided box when the Walrus's are on. Are either of my photos the one you have? That hard sided 'box' certainly shows in all the photos I have with Walrus's on board though. And the Walrus's were shipped in 1936, no?

[Guest]

Marco,

For what this opinion is worth:

1. The pipes are possibly "leads" from the safety valves in the forward boiler room. Remember that EXETER and her sister were originally meant to have three funnels but the first was later trunked into the second to clear the smoke from the bridge. Whatever, they are certainly heavily lagged as a precaution against the heat of steam travelling up them.

2. Using Picture 5 of KevinD's post of 20 Feb, I am of the opinion that the "box" was a light metal spray tight stowage for whatever it was. The lid(s) would likely have been of the same material: one can see the butterfly clips that were used to keep the lid down when closed and thus the water out. If a soft (canvas) cover had been used it is likely that it would have been "laced" down when closed and I cannot see any evidence of that.

[tjstoneman]

The photo I was referring to is at https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/co ... e_was_the/

There is an undated photo showing part of the "box" at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 60808.html. CLearly the side of the box is solid.

There is another photo of her taken from the starboard quarter, under way in Alexandria (?) with IIIFs embarked, also showing the box (which, in this photo, looks like it may have a canvas side).

[KevinD]

The photo I was referring to is at https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/co ... e_was_the/

Yes, that is one of the ones I have. Below is a crop from that. On close inspection it is a bit hard to tell exactly whats there in this one.

There is an undated photo showing part of the "box" at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 60808.html. CLearly the side of the box is solid.

Clearly solid, with 'wing-nuts' holding down the top (crop below).

There is another photo of her taken from the starboard quarter, under way in Alexandria (?) with IIIFs embarked, also showing the box (which, in this photo, looks like it may have a canvas side).

I had found one in my collection the other day - but of course can't put my hand on it now - that looked like there was (at the time with Fairy's shipped) just framed canvas siding either side of the spare Fairy floats, but no top or front or rear (when photo was taken).

[Marco]

Marco,

For what this opinion is worth:

1. The pipes are possibly "leads" from the safety valves in the forward boiler room. Remember that EXETER and her sister were originally meant to have three funnels but the first was later trunked into the second to clear the smoke from the bridge. Whatever, they are certainly heavily lagged as a precaution against the heat of steam travelling up them.

2. Using Picture 5 of KevinD's post of 20 Feb, I am of the opinion that the "box" was a light metal spray tight stowage for whatever it was. The lid(s) would likely have been of the same material: one can see the butterfly clips that were used to keep the lid down when closed and thus the water out. If a soft (canvas) cover had been used it is likely that it would have been "laced" down when closed and I cannot see any evidence of that.

Well very interesting insights and pictures, thank you! The explanation linking the pipes to the original three-funnel design sounds interesting. in the picture shown in one posting before, the pipes enter sort of a "box" on the front upper deck, quite easier than trying to bend the parts.

Back to the storage area in front of the funnel, the picture below provides a good idea of the shape of the storagte box, not square but rectangular, I think that I have enough information to scratch build it into my HMS Exeter!


Marco

[Guest]

Marco,

Concerning your comment on my suggestion that the two lagged pipes were leads from safety valves of the forward boiler room, there is a further possibility: they could be lagged galley funnel pipes. One would need to know where the galley was located to be sure but in the case of your model, it probably doesn't matter too much what they were for, you will be representing them and that is all that really matters.

[KevinD]

What exactly is the device on the post refitted Exeter model (Aoshima 1/700) that the red arrow points to below? I assume some sort of 'control aid' for a gun, and if so then which gun/s does it relate to? If not, what is it?

Thanks in advance.

[tjstoneman]

The device indicated is a representation of the director, and associated Type 282 RDF (radar), for the multiple 2pdr mounting. However, there should be two "tubs" on each side of the superstructure, not one; the intention was that a single 20mm Oerlikon would go in one, and a 2pdr director in the other. I have yet to see any evidence that either guns or directors were fitted - certainly neither are visible in any photo I have seen.

Also, the photo posted shows the aerial for Type 285 RDF on the after HA.DCT - whilst the frames for them WERE fitted, I believe the aerials (and presumably the sets themselves) were never fitted to either the for'd or the after system.

Further, the structure just aft of the after ends of the catapults appears to have been a light frame, rather than the solid structure depicted.

[KevinD]

The device indicated is a representation of the director, and associated Type 282 RDF (radar), for the multiple 2pdr mounting. However, there should be two "tubs" on each side of the superstructure, not one; the intention was that a single 20mm Oerlikon would go in one, and a 2pdr director in the other. I have yet to see any evidence that either guns or directors were fitted - certainly neither are visible in any photo I have seen.

Also, the photo posted shows the aerial for Type 285 RDF on the after HA.DCT - whilst the frames for them WERE fitted, I believe the aerials (and presumably the sets themselves) were never fitted to either the for'd or the after system.

Further, the structure just aft of the after ends of the catapults appears to have been a light frame, rather than the solid structure depicted.

Thanks TJ, I thought as much. I had already mentioned the missing 'tub' on another thread (following link) and posted historical photos of same showing their layout there, but just wanted to be sure what the device was supposedly for. Thanks! viewtopic.php?f=60&t=314282&start=40

And you are also correct as to nothing being in either tub, as there was nothing in either of the tubs that were visible (the port side ones) on the wreck. And correct also that that box like structure actually just being a 'frame' rather than solid, which IIRC was already addressed in earlier in this thread. As for the aerials on the HACS, they are not to be seen in one of the last clear photos of Exeter (below, Feb 42, Lampung Bay, Sth Sumatra) so I cant imagine them being fitted in Indo after that.

For anyone so interested, below 'plan' is not to scale nor shows all details, just meant to show those extra empty 20mm tubs and approximately where those director tubs (green dots) should have been, that is closer to the mast struts / legs (red dots) than Aoshima has them located on the model.

[Kazec]

Further, the structure just aft of the after ends of the catapults appears to have been a light frame, rather than the solid structure depicted.

Any photo/illustration to show how it looked like?

[KevinD]

Further, the structure just aft of the after ends of the catapults appears to have been a light frame, rather than the solid structure depicted.

Any photo/illustration to show how it looked like?

There are several photos / discussion of it in posts partway down previous page 29.

[mickstvr]

When Trumpeter first announced their 1/350th Exeter I heard at the time that they would release it in the 1942 fit at some point. Does anyone know if this is still the case?

Mike

[Timmy C]

When Trumpeter first announced their 1/350th Exeter I heard at the time that they would release it in the 1942 fit at some point. Does anyone know if this is still the case?

Mike

I don't think they ever announced a second variant. You can see the catalogue images from 2018 and 2019 here and it only shows up as the one Exeter, no date: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37762

Stevens International, Trumpy's distributor for the US, also shows only the one undated Exeter listing.

[KevinD]

Gents,

A little advice if I may ask.

I am just in the process of having an old (1946 I think?) well known painting of Exeter sinking redone, with some additions and corrections (for instance, aft turret - here - points wrong direction, no survivors in rafts next to her at this final stage of sinking, etc). Among other changes I also want to add an ensign (or two?) to mainmast.

So I ask, would it be appropriate to have two flying (a larger and smaller one) from mainmast as shown in below, or just the larger one? And PLEASE pardon my very crude Photoshop adjustments, those are just for the artist to get an idea of the 'new' look'.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

KD

EDIT. Oopps. pardon, put up the wrong example. be back shortly with the correct image. OK, done, replaced with correct example.

[KevinD]

I don't see any flags in this link. https://www.world-war.co.uk/York/exeter.php

Thanks, but.......................................................... that photo you link to wasn't when she was fighting the enemy, so one wouldn't expect to have all ensigns flying then.

So the question remains, IF she was flying her ensigns in battle would / could she have had two on the mainmast?

PLEASE NOTE: I am not asking DID she have two flying there in her final engagement, but would it be "appropriate" - as in could / would it have been done in 'real-life' - to show two flying off the mainmast in a painting as above?

TIA.

[dick]

PLEASE NOTE: I am not asking DID she have two flying there in her final engagement, but would it be "appropriate" - as in could / would it have been done in 'real-life' - to show two flying off the mainmast in a painting as above?

TIA.

Yes. When a battle ensign was hoisted high on the mainmast it was above the normal steaming ensign.

See also: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205135772

Where I would be suspicious that the artist got it slightly wrong is with the relative sizes of the two ensigns on Exeter's mainmast - I would have expected the lower (steaming) ensign to be smaller than the upper (battle) ensign.

[KevinD]

Yes. When a battle ensign was hoisted high on the mainmast it was above the normal steaming ensign.

Thanks Dick. So, in the opposite / reverse 'order' than I have pasted them in in my above then, that is the larger battle ensign at top, and the smaller one below.

[dick]

Kevin, Yes, but now looking even more closely at your '1946' art I'm wondering if the artist has not shown the small steaming ensign after all and so put three ensigns on the mainmast!