The Ship Model Forum

what time period does the model represent?

Yup I know....World of Warships models.

I actually got the kit by mistake. I had ordered a Bretagne to build as Provence, but the seller joined the reciprocal club and mixed up the last 2 digits of the kit number - Bretagne ends in 26, while London is 62. When I got the package, suprise! London it was. I decided to keep it and the seller agreed. (Who knows when Flyhawk will get around to theirs?!)

I'll have to live with what I can't fix! LoL!

& there is issues with the full hull as most files to do the 3d printed full hulls come from war games not naval drawings.

The one I got is waterline, but they do have a full hull version.

full hull or waterline?

Hi guys,

I recently acquired the SS-model 1/700 London kit. It's in late war fit and beautifully printed - crisp and clean.

However - for those who are sticklers for absolute accuracy - it is off scale, the hull is approximately 1/2 cm or more longer than the Trumpeter and corrected Aoshima kits. Also, the freeboard is noticeably lower (though London had overweight issues after reconstruction, so maybe that's not too bad?) and the deck forward of the breakwater is printed as wood planking rather than steel.

In any case, It will build into a great-looking model.

But question: Does anyone have any ideas as to what colours she wore in her post-1943 refit camo scheme as per the photos below?

[img]https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/uploads/site/products/p_k9y39/img_K757.jpg[/img]

[img]https://uboat.net/media/allies/warships/br/ca_hms_london.jpg[/img]

MS1 is there almost for sure, plus B5, MS4 and MS4A maybe?? (Pure guesswork on my part).

I know 1945 Eastern Fleet is G45 with the B20 hull panel. Easier to do certainly, but I'd like to use the disruptive camo if feasible.

Any help would be much appreciated!

The hulls were similar between the London and Norfolk sub-classes. Both had the armour inside, as opposed to the Kent sub-class.

About the difference in the 8inch armamant you are correct: the visible difference is that later Mk.2 turrets were 2 feet longer than the original ones. That's a little under 1mm on 1:700 scale to be removed. Also their sighting ports (periscopes) were differently arranged.

Another difference I spotted in the drawings that in the Norfolk/Dorsetshire the funnels were moved slightly together, just one frame less spacing between the funnels than the Kent class. So that's another one to be checked, whether the Londons had the Kent arrangement maintained or followed already the closer arrrangement of the Dorsetshire/Norfolk. I have to break out my Sussex plans to do that check.

And for the superstructure: these varied widely amongst the entire County class, and individual modifications were many. So for a project of building HMS London pre-restructuring you could go by any kit and work out all the required modifications. Finding the kit that requires the least mods is already a search in itself.

I do not know how similar the London and Dorsetshire class were. At least the bridges were very different and there were other difference in regard of the superstructure - and also the 8" turrets were of a different model. The hull could be very similar.

The Sussex kit is already a London class kit, featuring e.g. the old bridge structure.

[quote="maxim"]Suffolk: the best kit would be probably Kent by Aoshima or Trumpeter. But a lot of conversion would be needed, e.g. the bridge, anti-aircraft armament, removing the the armor belt...

London: there was a kit of Sussex by WEM and there is one by Snake (likely a copy of WEM), which probably has to be modified in regard of the anti-aircraft armament and some other details[/quote]
For London, would Aoshima's Dorsetshire or Norfolk be a feasible option? At least these have the straight-walled hull in common already.

Suffolk: the best kit would be probably Kent by Aoshima or Trumpeter. But a lot of conversion would be needed, e.g. the bridge, anti-aircraft armament, removing the the armor belt...

London: there was a kit of Sussex by WEM and there is one by Snake (likely a copy of WEM), which probably has to be modified in regard of the anti-aircraft armament and some other details

Hi all,

My great grandfather served on a Suffolk (1930-'33) and London ('37-'38).

Which of the 1/700 kits is going to give me the best starting point? Suffolk would almost be in her commissioned state and London pre reconstruction. Finding it hard to work out which kit would be the best based.

Thanks

[quote="81542"]... he is being published and thus filling a niche....

81542[/quote]


Sorry 81542 but I see no "niche" for this sort of thing:

[attachment=1]London basic b.jpg[/attachment]

It saddens me deeply to see otherwise beautifully built models which must have taken their builders many, many hours of patient labour to construct beginning to appear in hopelessly inaccurate colours as a result:

[attachment=0]Nubian model - Copy.jpg[/attachment]

[quote="81542"] If we think that we can do better then we should take a leaf out of the Duke of Wellington's book and publish (if you can find a publisher) and be damned: one can always issue a revision in the form of a second edition later.
[/quote]

Hi,

Whilst it's relatively straight forward to draft (and indeed we have) something about what the paints were, when they were in use and what they really looked like which does move things on a bit from Raven's era, it's a whole other kettle of fish to produce a book full of camouflage schemes which are underpinned by anything which can be evidenced.

That's the Brandolini's Law aspect. Mal produced a series of profiles for light fleet carriers. Richard and I have spent 4 months developing a single properly researched profile for one of those ships. We knew immediately that Mal got the scheme wrong, the colours wrong and the names of the colours portrayed wrong, but over the 4 months of close examination of extant evidence though we also discovered he got the deck markings wrong as well as the both the AA weapons and the radar fit wrong too - both things illustrated and explicitly described in his text. He's even got profiles of two aircraft types which never embarked upon this particular ship in colour schemes that are spurious in their own right. That's 4 months to properly research and portray a single ship at a single point in time though - and one which we already knew the colours of!

One thing is very clear though; if you don't first have a clear understanding of the paints, what they really looked like and when they were in use, you cannot even begin to produce sensible camouflage profiles for the ships which used them. It's an absolute prerequisite.

[quote="81542"]...
Alan Raven wrote over a considerable period of time during which more information on the matter came to light. He will have made mistakes but I am aware that he did make some corrections to previous errors in the final "volume" in his "Warships Perspective" series...
81542[/quote]
As I also found out when doing the patterns for my May 1941 Suffolk or my December 1943 Belfast, one cannot fully rely on any published pattern alone, but one is at best guided into the right direction. One has to research closely all the photos referring to the period and study these closely to come to a 'hypothesis' on the correct pattern for that specific date.
Take also the Norfolk for that matter: the scheme between June or December 1943 is largely identical, but the shades used are reversed and the bow area reverted to the original light grey in the latter. So a 1970s b&w scheme pattern ala Raven may look right, but could easily be misinterpreted when the colours are taken wrong.

It is a shame that these criticisms of Alan Raven's works: no doubt well-intentioned, are made now that he is no longer here to defend himself.

He was, with two exceptions, for the last 40+ years the only authority on British warship camouflage. Peter Hodges made one good attempt; albeit in a small way, at the matter during the 1970's with David Williams writing what I would classify as the most "scholarly" book to date though that was now some years ago and it did cover (or attempt to) all of the 20th Century's combatant navies. Someone will tell me that there have been others; which I must accept.

Alan Raven wrote over a considerable period of time during which more information on the matter came to light. He will have made mistakes but I am aware that he did make some corrections to previous errors in the final "volume" in his "Warships Perspective" series.

From what Sovereign Hobbies and "Dick" have written and continue to write though: I enjoy the fruits of their labours very much, by the way, it is clear that the matter remains a "work in progress." I have seen some of Mal Wright's books. They may not be everyone's "cup of tea" but he is being published and thus filling a niche. If we think that we can do better then we should take a leaf out of the Duke of Wellington's book and publish (if you can find a publisher) and be damned: one can always issue a revision in the form of a second edition later.

Meanwhile, thanks to Sovereign Hobbies for leading me to Gandolfini's Law via Google. It is a crude way of defining the problem but a very real one for all matters in history, not just naval camouflage.

Thanks for reading.

81542

I had all of Ravens books, he was often in error.

Thank you very much, James!

My confusion is not the result of Wright's books, but the massive conflicts to the older books, e.g. by Raven. Wright mostly copied Raven - and I found very often that the patterns in Raven's and Wright's books do not match photos of the real ships.

Thank you again James!
Wrights " books " should be burned. I threw my copies away.
Rubbish

[quote="maxim"]

Wright shows two different patters for June and December 1943 - differing regarding the two darker colours (MS 3 and B30 on B 55 on the first, 507A and B15 on B 55 on the second). That would fit to the lower contrast on some photos. I know that there are many who criticize Wright and I do not agree with regarding the December 1943 pattern - again, as in Raven, the pattern on the port side is very different from the photos which I have found.

Caused by the new findings by Sovereign Hobbies, I am anyway completely confused regarding British colours ;)[/quote]

Hi,

Whilst colour placement is not always easy, it is much more simple than e.g. Mal Wright's books suggest. He is singularly clueless about Royal Navy paints and each profile is a fruit-salad of official paint names from different time periods corresponding to random colours on his drawings. Use his books to light your next barbecue as the weather improves and things will appear simpler. MS3 would not be used with B30 and B55. B30 and B55 were part of the G&B (or B&G!) paint series which superseded the MS&B series which included MS3. The contemporary slightly greenish-grey of 20% Light Reflectance Value to B30 and B55 was G20. MS3 was replaced by G20. Likewise 507A would not be used with B15 and B55 for the same reason. By the time B15 and B55 existed, the dark grey paint of 10% Light Reflectance Value which looked like 507A was G10. Unfortunately Mal can generate this stuff a great deal faster than a more knowledgeable person can explain why it's all nonsense - a sort of Warship Camouflage manifestation of Brandolini's Law, if you will.

This diagram hopefully illustrates the rationalisation and re-classification of RN camouflage paints which happened in May 1943.
- You would continue to see the old paints after this date until they were repainted.
- You are highly unlikely to see any new schemes composed of a hybrid of new and old paints. Any drawing or profile claiming such should be disregarded unless overwhelming evidence of a hybrid scheme can be demonstrated.
- You will not see the new paints applied to a ship before this date. Any drawing or profile claiming such should be disregarded.
[img]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/RN_Colours_for_Facebook5_1024x1024.png?v=1609585177[/img]

A more contextual narrative with more such diagrams is available here if it helps:
[url]https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-brief-history-paints[/url]

[quote]...
And there are these photos dated December 1943 (in the first one, the rear panel is darker, the second photo is very dark):
[url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153331[/url]
[url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205153330[/url]...[/quote]

YES! I agree the first of these excellent photo's is VERY convincing for your theory, the other has too much backlight that we can make out the colour shades.
(note to everyone else: when you open the links to these photos, you'll come into the photo viewer of the Imperial War Museum. Use the zoom button + to focus in to the Norfolk (the smaller of the two ships)[attachment=0]large_000000(14) zoomed.jpg[/attachment]
And this leaves us know with the tantalizing question: what did the PORT side really look like BEFORE October 1943? Would that drawing of Alan Raven still have ground and were the colours changed in October, but before December? A least it suggests the bow is painted in a mid-tone, like the photos of the SB side seem to suggest. I personally think the 'knuckle shadow' isn't really explaining what we see on those pictures: the bow is almost exactly the colour of the rear patch (you can check that with cutting away the center part of the photo)
[attachment=3]Norfolk PRE October 1943 (Raven).jpg[/attachment][attachment=2]Norfolk PRE October 1943 .jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]Norfolk PRE October 1943 cut.jpg[/attachment] When you cut the mid part of the photo away, the bow is even darker that the rear patch...

But then again: who really wants to build a pre-October 1943 model of HMS Norfolk, as one is intending to build her in the colours of North Cape?