The Ship Model Forum

Many thanks for the help, appreciated

I'm not 100%, but I think the floats on the KGVs were mainly or entirely of the smaller size, and from the few photos where I can see the floor of them, they look like the wooden slats. The 3D prints are only really accurate for floats stowed in a horizontal position though, with the slatted floor centred. When stowed vertically, the floor drops down behind the float, so it looks like it's only half a floor, the top half being net.

See here: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205137830

Hi Timmy, my apologies poor explanation

by Eduard

Type 1 looks like a diagonal mesh??

Type 2 has I assume wood slats running length ways with cross slats

The ones with the KGV kit looks nothing like them both?

Bob

Not sure what you're asking, Bob. Which brand's "Type 1 and 2" are you talking about?

Afternoon can someone help me?

Planning ahead to do the Tamiya POW, Eduard do 3D Carley floats in different types and for no of crew,

Type 1 & 2 in 10, 25 & 40 crew. I don't have a clue. I assume they were all the same or a mixture. They look the same on the spues of the kit?

Thanks in advance
Bob

Hi Martin,

Re the above link, it seems it no longer works, all I get is "The requested topic does not exist."

And a search usung the terms "salvage of PoW/Repulse wrecks" etc, turns up nothing (that dates circa or prior to your post).

Does that thread still exist? If so do you have another link?

TIA.
Kevin

Thank you VERY much Lethal!

Quite the treasure trove there in "all of them".

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38214/page/1237

Here is all of them: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/awards-and-accreditation/content/100325

Hi guys, do you have correct dimensions of turret for QF 5.25"/secondary armament please?
Thanks!

I wonder if any member here might have a copy of the London Gazette supplement from February 1948 that covers the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse?

The front cover of that supplement below.

That's a sad sight, no doubt even worse now

I don't have the drawings, but I know ModelMonkey makes them in various scales, most importantly in 1:350

Of interest to some may be found in this thread - with a link to a seemingly recently released PDF of 2019 survey report - that I started elsewhere with regards what remains of the wreck of Prince of Wales (and, far worse, Repulse).
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=384960

A sneak peak of what remains of PoW's wreck below.

Does anybody have drawings of the square shaped HACS Mark V director?

I assume then it was likely to have been the 3-pounder QF Hotchkiss gun? Perhaps without the sights, as per these examples:

Yes,saluting guns, according the plans. Interesting thing, what a waste of place and weight in 1940.

Does anyone know what King George V was mounting in 1940/41 on her forward superstructure? There are these two emplacements on either side at the lower platform level, and the forward of the two has something mounted on it - a signalling/saluting gun, maybe? The rear position appears to be empty.



Photo from https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205138033


It seems the equivalent position on the port side was empty, at least in January 1941... https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205137232

Hi All,

Hi 81542, thank you for your kind words, indeed I have seen documents from many archives and take their copyright conditions very seriously, theyve given me the opportunity to see such important historical items and i feel it incumbent upon me to respect their conditions of viewing. I do try to help if I can but can only give truncated detail which I hope is enough without betraying any copyright agreement.

The most interesting thing about the hits on Prince of Wales is that the damage report author seperated the hits into above and below water hits and numbered them from the bow aft. This means hit no1, the compass platform hit is the first above water hit on PoW starting from the bow, but not the first hit received by PoW, even though many accounts do state that it was.

The Captain of PoW, the Gunnery Officer and the damage report author all give the correct position of the first hit. I'm pretty sure I've got the sequence correct but it's a "guesstimate" and so not accepted wisdom.

Plus at least one early numbered hit comes from a completely different direction to the others, which would mean that the ship that scored that hit would need to have reversed course, fired, and then reversed course back again, which I'm pretty sure isn't recorded by anyone as happening.

Hopefully one day I may write a paper on these things and get permission to publish, but as with all these things real life gets in the way!

Best wishes
Cag.

Further to my Post of 3 Feb last and for those who may still be interested.

Garzke WH Jr and Dulin RO Jr; with line drawings by Webb TG (1980): "British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships of World War 2" published by Jane's Publishing Company: London and Sydney, ISBN 71060078X contains a number of photographs and drawings of the shell-fire damage suffered by HMS PRINCE of WALES during the Denmark Strait action between pages 177 and 209. These are attributed to "Royal Navy: HMS Excellent;" which means that they were Crown Copyright at the time and for all I know, may still be, which is probably why Cag has not chosen to splatter what he has all over the Net. Kudos to Cag for his scrupulousness: meanwhile, excuse the error in my post of getting the names of the authors of the book mixed up.

I am afraid that I only managed a quick look at the above Reference but can assure those interested that it is worth finding a copy to read.

Concerning the pictures by KevinD in his post of 3 Feb; showing the bomb damage suffered by the ship: this was actually suffered while the ship was fitting out at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead and not at Rosyth.

Re: the matter of "Boot Topping." I advise anyone with queries regarding this matter as it concerns ships of the Royal Navy to read the attachment to "Dick's" Post of 24 Jan 24 "Royal Navy ships' bottoms and boot topping 1936 - 1950" in the "Camouflage and Coatings" section of this site. It is an excellent piece of work and as good as it is likely to get.

81542

From what I have read on the subject, you have to be careful interpreting "intent" on a wavy edge. The boot topping was usually a glossy paint to prevent things from sticking. As a result, the boot topping was often painted first, and the sides above and below the boot topping painted after. Less care was taken in keeping the line straight on the upper sides and the anti-fouling paint because they did not adhere well to the glossy boot topping paint. So wave action was expected to peel the overspray, ultimately straightening the demarcation line. At least, that was the theory I have read.