DavidP wrote:KevinD, is that the real HMS Victory as appears to be a size problem as supposedly the Victory was 205' tall from the waterline to the top of the mainmast according to this link under "notes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory
the 1930 Exeter drawing I have says it is 154' 7" to top of flagpole from waterline.
I thought the same thing re size David, and I meant to put a (?) after Victory. Seems I missed it.
I'll do it now.
"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
The photo appears to show the quarter-scale sailing replica of HMS Victory built in the 1930s, which was later to sail in the Solent during a Fleet Review - see https://www.shorehambysea.com/hms-victo ... m-in-1935/. The vessel visible behind her is the coaling hulk C1; the destroyer visible astern of Exeter, in (I believe) Fountain Lake, appears to be one of the later "Modified W" class ships.
Although the replica is said to have been built in 1935, Exeter's configuration (no catapults, foc's'le side plating ending abreast forefunnel) would seem to make this photo earlier, as the catapults were fitted and the side plating extended aft earlier than 1935.
Last edited by tjstoneman on Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tjstoneman wrote:The photo appears to show the quarter-scale sailing replica of HMS Victory built in the 1930s, which was later to sail in the Solent during a Fleet Review - see https://www.shorehambysea.com/hms-victo ... m-in-1935/. The vessel visible behind her is the coaling hulk C1; the destroyer visible astern of Exeter, in (I believe) Fountain Lake, appears to be one of the later "Modified W" class ships.
Although the replica is said to have been built in 1935, Exeter's configuration (no catapults, foc's'le side plating ending abreast forefunnel) would seem to make this photo earlier, as the catapults were fitted and the side plating extended aft earlier than 1935.
I didn't see anything claiming the replica was "built" in 1935, the photos shown said 1935 but the replica was apparently a hull modified to be similar in appearance to the Victory following her 1922-1928 refit/rebuilding. So it could have been made from 1922-1935. it did say it was disassembled in 1944.
My CO prior to flying to the boomer: Our goals on this patrol is to shoot missiles and torpedoes.
Me: Capt don’t we really want to be like Monty Python and not be seen?
LT you seem to be missing the big picture
Oh
................ None of these were really models in any sense of the word, but there was one pre-war vessel which perhaps deserves to be considered the largest period ship model of all time. This was a quarter size version of the Victory, built in 1935 at HM Dockyards Gosport and Portsmouth. The origin of this monster model was as surprising as the model herself, because it arose out of an argument between two historically minded naval officers. Admiral Sir John Kelly, then C-in-C Home Fleet, criticised the reputedly fine sailing qualities of the Victory, which had recently been restored to her Trafalgar appearance and placed in the No 1 Dock at Portsmouth, largely through the efforts of the Society for Nautical Research: Captain (later Rear-Admiral) J H Batchelor, a member of the SNR and a keen amateur naval historian, disagreed and furthermore offered to prove his point with a large scale model of the ship. The proffered wager was eagerly accepted by the sceptical C-in-C, and the two officers agreed to use the resulting replica to promote 'Navy Week'. In short, Captain Batchelor won his bet, for the quarter size Victory sailed so well that HM King George V commanded her attendance at Cowes Week the following year! At the time many photographs were taken by newspapers and magazines, but the accompanying set is unique, being drawn from Admiral Batchelor's own album. They chronicle the building of the model, and as they are the personal property of the Batchelor family, they have never before been published. Sadly, the fate of this remarkable model is a total mystery she was last seen in the Small Boat Dock at Portsmouth during the Second World War, but post-war investigations turned up neither a trace of the ship nor any information about what became of her. (The Model Shipwright editors acknowledged the loan by Admiral Batchelor's son, Lt Colonel H T N Batchelor, of the photographs.) Subsequently, a letter to the editor of 'Model Shipwright' (about four issues later) is understood to have advised that the model spent the War afloat in Portsmouth Dockyard unattended. It was dismantled in about 1944.�
Hence what I thought was a puff of smoke from a saluting gun (in the photo I posted earlier) is, on closer inspection, seeminly, not.
"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
The following will help you to "go figure" why HMS EXETER would have had 4 saluting guns (2 per side).
The procedure when firing a salute from a warship in the Royal Navy is to fire the first gun from the starboard side then the second from the port then alternate until the whole salute has been fired. However, things go wrong and some times a gun will misfire even after they have previously been tested. The gun cannot be unloaded until a certain time has elapsed for safety reasons in case of a "hang fire." In the case of a misfire, the remaining ammunition beside the misfired gun would be immediately moved to the other gun on the same side so that the salute could be continued.
Kevin, I know you mean well but though the saluting gun has no operational worth, getting a gun salute wrong can be taken to be an insult by the one/nation being saluted. Like all ceremonial, get it wrong and it can blight one's career. The guns would have been thoroughly checked before each salute and much time would have been spent otherwise keeping them highly polished, as one can see.
The picture in the clipping is interesting, however, it is "posed" in my opinion, Mr Squibb would probably have been positioned elsewhere so as to control the salute from both sides of the ship.
81542
And thus, everything in life has got an explanation! Thank you!
Anyone care to speculate what is being loaded here?
Seems to bulky for a torpedo.
Attachments
"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
"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
I at first thought that, but it 'looks' larger than the two stored at far left.
"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
I am inclined to agree with DavidP: it's a "pontoon," more correctly known as a float (from a seaplane). One is looking at the item from the top i.e. it is slung on its side: the things were quite wide. This seems odd but I guess that that it is what worked. There appears to be a similar item lying on the deck between the two funnels. Odd thing is, I can't quite make out how they are "working" the thing and why. Furthermore, is this an item that they are either disembarking or embarking and if the former why? Is it bits of an aircraft that is being landed as wreckage: there is a pale piece that is apparently onboard the inboard lighter, below the ship's after funnel? Is this part of an aircraft? An intriguing picture.
81542 wrote:Kevin,I am inclined to agree with DavidP: it's a "pontoon," more correctly known as a float (from a seaplane). One is looking at the item from the top i.e. it is slung on its side: the things were quite wide. This seems odd but I guess that that it is what worked. There appears to be a similar item lying on the deck between the two funnels. Odd thing is, I can't quite make out how they are "working" the thing and why. Furthermore, is this an item that they are either disembarking or embarking and if the former why? Is it bits of an aircraft that is being landed as wreckage: there is a pale piece that is apparently onboard the inboard lighter, below the ship's after funnel? Is this part of an aircraft? An intriguing picture.
81542
Good point! Viewed like that it could certainly be a pontoon. Maybe(?) it had just 'slipped' in the sling hence why we see the profile as we do? Seeing there are two pontoons stored forward of the fore-funnel, did they carry two sets of spares (for two seaplanes) then? And I also noticed that 'pale' piece of something between small 'ship' and Exeter, like you I wonder what?
"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
I don't think that the float has slipped, it should have been properly secured and I'm sure that that would have been ensured. No, I think that it was deliberately slung that way. Concerning spare floats, a set for each aircraft would be logical: if you have a copy of the relevant drawing, you could check to see how many there was stowage for though additionals could have been safely lashed down on deck.
Interesting point that I hadn't considered before: it's still not clear, however, they could be using the extended forward piece of the port catapult as a derrick and the associated machinery to lower the item outboard. That may seem a bit odd but I've seen pictures of 15 and 11inch gun barrels being used as crane derricks so it may have been possible.
That's possible David. Unfortunately, the image is not clear enough to me. Whatever, getting the item out of the ship would have been a relatively simple seamanship evolution to the men of that era.
Here is the full image gents, in the only size and res I have.
Can anyone discern anything that may date the image to other than '32?
Attachments
"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
Sorry Kevin, I'm not much help on this one. However, judging from the state of the paintwork I'd hazard a guess that she was just out of the builder's on acceptance trials or fresh out of a dockyard refit.
A revision of my last post: the side plating has been extended aft to the fore funnel and the aircraft runways have been added. According to Tonks' Profile No 13 on the ship, this was carried out in late '31 during a refit at Devonport. She then went to the West Indies in January 1932 with the remainder of the Second Cruiser Squadron of the Home Fleet. If you believe my observation on the condition of the paintwork of the hull, it might be said that the image shows the ship in late '31. However, it could be even later. I can't give anymore information than that.
Going through my Exeter photo files and this one caught my eye so thought I'd post. And no, they are not baby seals hung out to dry on the sides of the ship, just men painting (I assume?). Taken I believe, if her 'ports schedule' for the time is correct, late 1938 (Nov / Dec) during her 38-39 South American cruise.
And a belated thanks for that last input 81542.
Attachments
"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
The 3D 'fly-around' of the wreck of HMS Exeter has recently been uploaded to YouTube by creator Stefan Draminski, just in time for the 81st anniversary of her sinking, along with HMS Encounter and USS Pope, on March 1st, 1942.
"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
Always on my search for details of the HMS Exeter at the time of the Battle of the River Plate, I have been looking for the rigging and battle ensigns at the time of the battle, and was pleasantly surprised finding that the captain ordered to hoist five battle ensigns (one report says 7.32m x 3.66m (24�x 12�), another report says 3.73m x 1.85m (12�x 6�)) battle ensigns from the main topmast, port and starboard yardarms, top mizzen and lower mizzen as the Exeter turned to engage the Admiral Graf Spee. So I guess that this painting is quite historical accurate (although it depicts only 4 battle ensigns). Only thing I would doubt about are the lines running from the masts to the jackstaff and the stern staff, would have been removed before entering combat.
The other detail that I found interesting was that the signal flags "E322" (other report says "N322") were raised providing the bearing to the Graf Spee. That would be a nice detail I had not counted on adding to my HMS Exeter, but I will now.
Re: Calling all HMS York class (HMS Exeter-WWII) fans
Taken I believe, if her 'ports schedule' for the time is correct, late 1938 (Nov / Dec) during her 38-39 South American cruise.
