The Ship Model Forum

Thanks!
Wonder why not use the Octuple mounts for the added main deck mounts?

Plus one either side on the signal deck extensions: https://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/attachments/1/0/4/6/3/31846.attach

[quote="TZoli"]I wonder how accurate this drawing of Duke of York in her 1945 state?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lyyqzi/a_comparison_of_hms_king_george_v_in_1941_with/#lightbox

Did she really had this much Quad Pom-Pom-s all around the hull?[/quote]
The two on the stern are seen here: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205161420
One of the two by Turret B: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205161490

I wonder how accurate this drawing of Duke of York in her 1945 state?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lyyqzi/a_comparison_of_hms_king_george_v_in_1941_with/#lightbox

Did she really had this much Quad Pom-Pom-s all around the hull?

[quote="FFG-7"]Maarten, a number of US battleships had 40mm gun mounts on their forecastle.[/quote]
Thank you, I didn't know that.

Maarten, a number of US battleships had 40mm gun mounts on their forecastle.

Thanks guys. Yes, I was very skeptical of that statement as I know they didn't get Bofors on the forecastle even in 44/45, or post war when the single mounts started appearing. In fact they had a lot of the Oerlikons removed from the forecastle in the 44 refit. The quad mount Bofors were in short supply and I couldn't see them risking them in such an exposed position.

And 40mm Bofors guns [b]on the forecastle [/b]seem very unlikely in any ship. You can read the passage even that these were ripped off the accompanying destroyers, and those certainly didn't have any guns on the forecastle, it would be far too impractical.

Martocticvs,

I have not read the book that you mention, however, despite it being a "decent read," I recommend that you treat the information given with reserve.

I have checked both Raven and Roberts' "British Battleships of World War 2" and Burt's "British Battleships 1919 - 1939."
The former is the best technical record. Burt is also good but tends more to the biographical side of the ships' lives.
Raven and Roberts gives details of the additions/removals of close-range armaments throughout the lives of all of the
KING GEORGE V class. DUKE of YORK did not receive any 40/60 Bofors mountings until the 1944/45 refit prior to going to the Far East when she was given two quadruple mountings.

Concerning weather/self-inflicted (blast) damage suffered off the North Cape: Burt contains what I take to be an extract from the ship's Report post the action. It is worth reading.

Hope that this is useful.

I've just finished reading King George V-class Battleships by Daniel Knowles. A decent read, but one passage in particular caught my attention. In an account of the conditions faced by Duke of York during the Battle of North Cape, Knowles says this:

[quote]... the large waves of the following sea made if difficult for the destroyers to keep up with the [i]Duke of York[/i]. A number of 20-mm Oerlikon cannon and [b]40-mm Bofors that had been fitted on the forecastle[/b] were ripped off their mounts along with ready-use lockers as the battleship d[r]ove headlong into the waves...[/quote]
As far as I can remember, this is the first reference I have ever come across to there having been Bofors mounted on the forecastle of any KGV, and in 1943 as well. I've never seen any photographic evidence to support this, or any drawings. Does anyone know of any references that could back this up? Knowles doesn't give a reference for this paragraph.

i paid for this very set of plans 170 pounds in 2022. They are really beautiful, even with the position and size of every single bolt and rivet.
Expensive but really good. the images are high resolution .tiff, perfectly scanned and registered.

You can download reduced resolution images from those links. If you only need to have an indication where the plates are situated, that might be sufficient for your purpose. If you however need the exact dimensions related to the frame nrs, then you'll have to order the full size prints - but it'll be quite costly!

I have ordered those prints from the Hood and the Nelson, many years ago. The prices have increased since then - of course!

You can purchase them from the RMG Picture Library:

https://images.rmg.co.uk/search/?searchQuery=M3142
https://images.rmg.co.uk/search/?searchQuery=M3143
https://images.rmg.co.uk/search/?searchQuery=M3144

One option.

You might need to buy them from the National Maritime Museum or ask one of the building yards (or whoever now holds the archive for each company) if they have a copy. Note, the former does not do exchanges!

81542

Hi
I'm looking for shell expansion/shell platting for KGV hull. I have for exchange the same drawing for HMS Nelson/Rodney
Thank for help
chris

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/object/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