The Ship Model Forum

[quote="dick"]One was red through most of her life but, given the make of paint used (a brief change from her usual one which was presumably temporarily not available at the foreign port in question) at one docking, would have been grey for a short period. The other, given the make of paint specified, should have been red.[/quote]

I think I'll go with red then, Dick... Seems to be the safe bet. And since there's no evidence to the contrary...

Thank you for your assistance... :smallsmile:

One was red through most of her life but, given the make of paint used (a brief change from her usual one which was presumably temporarily not available at the foreign port in question) at one docking, would have been grey for a short period. The other, given the make of paint specified, should have been red.

[quote="dick"][quote="Rusty H"]

....Jamie at sovereign hobbies was doing some good research revealing that the major capital units of the RN were grey not red as previously thought....[/quote]

I think you will find that Jamie at Sovereign Hobbies is simply hosting and illustrating my research into the colour of the anti-fouling on RN ships. For the sake of absolute clarity, only some of the bottoms of the major capital units of the RN were grey. Many were red.

As for RN Tribals, I have only managed to find records of any sort relating to their anti-fouling for two of them and neither is Punjabi. Your choice.[/quote]

Hi Dick, thanks for the clarification on that... On the 2 Tribals that you did find info on, what colour did the anti fouling paint turn out to be? :smallsmile:

[quote="Rusty H"]

....Jamie at sovereign hobbies was doing some good research revealing that the major capital units of the RN were grey not red as previously thought....[/quote]

I think you will find that Jamie at Sovereign Hobbies is simply hosting and illustrating my research into the colour of the anti-fouling on RN ships. For the sake of absolute clarity, only some of the bottoms of the major capital units of the RN were grey. Many were red.

As for RN Tribals, I have only managed to find records of any sort relating to their anti-fouling for two of them and neither is Punjabi. Your choice.

Hey all...

Currently building a Tribal class destroyer (Punjabi) and wondering what the latest consensus is regarding what colour the anti-fouling paint below the waterline was?

Jamie at sovereign hobbies was doing some good research revealing that the major capital units of the RN were grey not red as previously thought, but what about the smaller vessels, such as the Tribals?

Any help would be appreciated...
Russ

Re. HMS Sikh: Naval History Net states that in June 1941, Sikh received 2 single 2-pounders in her bridge wings as an anti-E-boat measure.
In September, 2x2cm singles were fittet to boost AA armament: where were they placed? a) In the bride wings replacing the 2 pounders, or b) replacing the .5 inch quads, or c) somewhere else?

The boats indicated are another example of Trumpeter's patchy research. I know of no boats in the RN inventory which look like either of these; they appear to be approximations of a Kriegsmarine ship's boats! Add to that the lack of sheer for'd, the strange torpedo tube mounting, absence of boat davits, simplistic masthead RDF (not fitted on this build), and the very basic quadruple 0.5" mountings and one gets a below-average replica.

Anyknow knows what kind of boat they are?

Pretty sure they don't look like 25ft Fast Motor boat and 35ft Life Cutter or (FMB)

[attachment=0]Tribal Class Boat.JPG[/attachment]

Thanks, we'll see what else might show up??

Watching with interest, here is a 4" hoist.

Anybody have a photo/image/ diagram of the ammo hoists just behind the 4.7 inch Y gun on the upper deck? Thanks.
Waly Haynes

[quote="tjstoneman"]Zulu's splinter shields did not extend beyond the curved overhang of the for'd and after shelter decks - however, configurations differed between ships of the class; for example, Ashanti had splinter shields fore and aft of the curved sections - eg https://modelwork.pl/topic/40745-projekt-grupowy-royal-navy-na-102/[/quote]

Thank you for the additional information.

Trumpeter's RN and RM ship qualities (released during 200x-201x) are not that good. This post does help a lot on the kit inaccuracies and provides a great inspiration, thank you everyone.

Zulu's splinter shields did not extend beyond the curved overhang of the for'd and after shelter decks - however, configurations differed between ships of the class; for example, Ashanti had splinter shields fore and aft of the curved sections - eg https://modelwork.pl/topic/40745-projekt-grupowy-royal-navy-na-102/

[quote="tjstoneman"]I've seen no photos or other evidence that ZULU ever wore a patterned camouflage scheme. A series of photos held by the Imperial War Museum (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=hms+zulu - ref number A6376 is probably the best) captioned as taken in the Atlantic on 17 November 1941 show the configuration clearly, including the short vertical polemast for the HF/DF aerial (the aerial itself is somewhat blurred, but there are other photos of this sort of aerial online). Despite what naval-history.net says, the weapon in the port bridge wing appears to be a single 2 pounder gun, not a 20mm Oerlikon, and the depth charge throwers are not on the quarterdeck, but have been moved down from the after shelter deck to upper deck level abreast the searchlight. Also shown are the splinter shields at the deckedge abreast the main armament and 4" HA mountings, and the RDF (radar) Type 286 aerial at the foremasthead, again not provided in the kit. Most of the additions are available in the White Ensign photoetch set (except for the splinter shields and 2 pounders) as more accurate representations than the Trumpeter versions.[/quote]

Found another inaccuracy in Trumpy's 1/700 Zulu,

From the IWM photo collection, we can see that:

Splinter shields for main armament and 4'' HA mounting are semi-circular, Trumpeter got it wrong.

[attachment=1]Zulu deck edge.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Trumpy Kit.JPG[/attachment]

Thank you, Dick,
Looks like I'm getting the paint brush out again.
Tom

When built, all the RN Tribals had latex deck coverings specified for specific areas such as those walkways. Ship by ship these coverings varied between Semtex, Aranbee or Supertex depending upon which manufacturers' product was allocated to which ship.

Did the Tribals have any covering (corticene, semtex etc.) on their main decks?
The '350 Trumpy kit has a moulded 'walkway' from the f'c'stle break past the funnels and TT to the after superstructure either side.
Tom

I'm about to order some micromaster 3D printed boats to replace the ones on my Tribal class build. Am I right in thinking the boats carried were as follows...

25ft fast motor boat
25ft motor cutter
27ft whaler
14ft sailing dinghy

Thanks in advance for any help with this matter. Ta

I am fairly sure that I have read in some document/Fleet Order that the extra draught marks were to assist damage control but one senses that they were perhaps being a tad over-optimistic if they thought things would be salvable if the water had reached forecastle deck level!

The October 1942 edition of CB 0815B (the half yearly armament return), corrected to 30th September 1942, gives Eskimo 6 x 4.7”, 2 x 4” HA, 1 x 2 pr pom-pom 4 barrel, 2 x .5” M MG, 2 x Lewis and 4 x Oerlikon.

As Brett has highlighted, two of the Oerlikons were on the wings of the signal deck. There is a photo of Eskimo taken in July 1943 during Husky showing a third was centrally on the light AA platform between the funnels (ie between the quad 0.5”s) and a fourth right aft on the quarterdeck. I have a (private) 1942 photo taken onboard Eskimo showing that this was offset to starboard so as to avoid the centerline depth charge rail.[attachment=0]Eskimo July 1943 Husky.jpg[/attachment]

There is a well-known photo of Eskimo taken during PQ18 (Sept 1942). The silhouette of the angled shield of the quarterdeck Oerlikon can be discerned (the gun is aiming broadside to port). The Oerlikon on the light AA platform cannot be made out but there is a distinct gathering centrally there where it should be between the quad 0.5”s. Maybe someone has a clearer photo?[attachment=1]Eskimo Sept 1942 PQ18.jpg[/attachment]

[quote="Brett Morrow"]A good question concerning draft gauge extension Darren, another possibility could have been to gauge settlement depth after a torpedo hit.
Images of Canadians late war show the depth gauge at launch extended the full height of hull.[/quote]

Torpedo hit is an interesting thought.

I checked my photos and of the 8 RCN ships, 2 of them, Micmac and Nootka, had the bow draft marks up to the deck level at launch. Interestingly, they were launched in 43 and 44, the same years the other ships afloat showed the markings. Definitely a late war thing.