The Ship Model Forum

God these were beautiful ships. They are the quintessential Art-Deco Warship; looking like they were airbrushed onto a postcard.

I can't wait to get on to building one whenever (if) I get the IJN and USN stuff for the Solomons out of the way.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

The SUSSEX hull casting does not include any superstructure, whereas the AUSTRALIA equivalent includes all deckhouses up to shelter deck level (although the decks themselves are separate), so scratchbuilding of the SHROPSHIRE deckhouses (or removing and transferring the AUSTRALIA ones) would be required. I do not have accurate SHROPSHIRE plans, but all levels of AUSTRALIA's bridge in the Combrig kit (which differs considerably from her prewar appearance) are different to those of the SUSSEX kit. There are photos of the WEM kit parts at http://www.internetmodeler.com/2000/may ... sussex.htm for comparison with the Combrig kit's components

Did either HMAS Australia or HMAS Canberra ever sport the buff and white "China Station" prewar colors that their RN sisters such as HMS Berwick once had?

On the Shipcraft book, County Class Cruisers, by Les Brown, it doesn't really say what was their prewar paint scheme on the profile histories of either cruiser on pp. 15-16 and 49-51.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

Thanks David, that same source above also shows the same thing was true for HMAS Australia in the 20s and 30s in that she didn't seem to have ever sported "China Station" colors:

pics of HMAS Australia

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

There is a model of Kent at the IWM, done while the maker was serving aboard in China waters. Mid gray upper & White hull. I think the colors you are looking for were worn in the West Indies pre-war.
hth John

John,

To show you what "China Station" colours are, here are scans of the 1/700 Berwick model from Les Brown's Shipcraft: County Class Cruisers book. The model in the pics below is a Berwick converted from a Combrig Canberra kit.

I'm pretty certain, from reading this book as well as Raven's ship camo books that China Station refers to the prewar Far East/Asia/Eastern Fleet duty. I just find it puzzling that the RAN didn't adopt this "China Station" paint scheme in the 1930s, considering that Commonwealth navies at the time were supposed to maintain some form of commonality with the RN.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

I'm afraid that the references you are relying on are wrong.

China Station (other than river gunboats which had a different set of painting instructions) went to overall Mediterranean grey in 1935 but for over a decade before that were white hull grey upperworks.

It was the East Indies Station that from time to time inter-war had yellow funnels - the painting policy changed at least three times for that station and is a story in its own right.

Australia was not part of the China or East indies Stations and they were simply following instructions.

Here is an AFO from the era prior to the 1935 adoption of overall light grey on the China Station:

Yes that's right! East...
old age

Thanks for the feedback. I guess that rules out the possibility of painting my Combrig Australia kit in those East Indies colours.

Still, since Australia is one of the Kent sub-class members, how hard would it be to convert a Combrig Australia kit into HMS Cornwall, circa 1942 when she met her demise in the Indian Ocean?

Other than shortening the funnels and possibly deleting the 20mm tubs, what other major changes need to be made?

The Combrig Australia kit is supposed to depict her during the 1920s shortly after her commissioning, so I assume a lot of 1942-era AA mounts need to be placed.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

Hmm. It's going to take a fair bit of scratch work to recreate the hangar. Furthermore, there seems to be a huge gap in the superstructure between the hangar/after mast and the aft 8-inch turrets. In the Australia kit, the superstructure continues right up to just behind of the turrets.

On looking at the Raven camo books on the RN and comparing the sister ship's profiles, it seems Norfolk is closer to Australia when it comes to lacking a hangar, though she was of a different sub-class

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

David,

What if one converted a Combrig Australia kit into Berwick? I'm guessing it might be possible since a Combrig Canberra kit was converted into a 1930s Berwick as depicted in the picture below.

If Australia's stern deck is higher than the RN members of Kent sub-class, do I have to cut it down? Not sure if it's feasible in resin. Unless I don't need to do it at all as depicted below.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

Wait, so with the exception of Suffolk, all the other Kent sub-class RN members had the same level as their Australian sisters?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

Whilst flicking through a book I came upon this unique photo which stirred a lot of interest for me to scan and post.
It is the only photo I have seen anywhere, of all the shots I have on file, and available of HMAS Australia on the domain, which shows this anomaly in her camo scheme.

Take note that the bow face and top of A turret, in addition to its gun barrels are painted in 507A, not evident in any other camouflage photos of her.
Also the camo pattern does not sport the ladies leg, there can be no doubt this photo is correctly orientated with only one anchor on the port bow, also it does not exhibit the telltail signs of clumsy wartime censoring, any trick of light or camera exposure does not appear evident at the location where the ladies leg should be.

The photo in not as clear as I would like but the S18 DF fixed coil aerial can be seen on the bow face of the bridge, the paint on the forward turrets looks crisp and clean.

There can be no doubt this is Australia, could this photo show an initial camouflage scheme applied? before touch-ups to the well known scheme we are familiar with, any thoughts most welcome.

The photo appears to match the published port side line drawing of this camo scheme.

Dave

Having problems uploading image.

Take another look David, a good look, there are anomalies in the midship pattern.
As for Eric Leons GA profile, as good as it is, it has inaccuracies, including DCT shown in 507C, not 507A as it should be, also shows barrels of A turret painted 507C, and an inaccurate shape of the ladies foot.

In the photo I uploaded the rump of the ladies leg seems to be there, but no foot, and the 507A pattern differs to the profile, and available photo reference.

From the Australian Archives relating to Professor Dakin.

Brett,

Well, if you say so. Oh, and thanks for posting the photo (I don't have that one in my early war Australia picture archive). There's a lot of spatial distortion by the midships region from the oblique angle of the photo and the bow to stern curvature of the hull. I'm not sure what the "lady's foot" or leg feature is so pardon my ignorance of some of the terminology. Still, I think the hull light/dark scheme in the photo is a pretty good match to both drawings posted. Colors on small details... maybe you have a higher resolution image than the one posted? I do agree that the guns of A turret are dark in the photo, light in the drawing, so there's not a 100% match. (I can't find the DCT.)

Could you photoshop the drawing and mark some of the discrepancies with circles?

Here is another view of the port side in 1941 (resized for the forum). In this one, the A turret barrels appear to be light, not dark.

Dave

You are most welcome for the pic Dave, I can assure you that you will not find it anywhere on the net, not even on the Flikr kookaburra photostream, not even in the RAN photo archive, it is a unique addition.
The purpose of the upload was to show the subtle differences, of what we know, compared to the photo in question.
I think Medway (Michael) has demonstrated from his uploaded Dakin design, that camo schemes are under constant changes, and the applied pattern may not follow a recommended design pattern, and may very well be changed subtly without it being noticed.

I agree with your point of angle, but from this attached photo, that the bow face and barrels of A turret are 507C, and every photo you can find will show this, not so in my first upload, the scheme anomaly in question is circled, note the difference in the dark 507A shapes, a downward sweep of the pattern towards the boot topping is not present.
the `ladies leg`could be there partially, but it certainly doesn`t look like this.

Without touching to much on Leon`s profile, as this was not the original intention, the DCT (Director Control tower) is shown in 507C, every photo of Australia in 2 tone camo pattern shows it to be 507A, including my first photo, you may also agree looking at your photo that his ladies foot is totally inaccurate.
As to my point of subtle changes to a camo scheme, take a look at Starboard photos of Australia, and you will see in some photos an overlay of 507A on the sheet anchor, other shots have the pattern trailing said anchor which is left 507C, constant touch-ups.

I believe it important to note any changes for accuracy if someone is planning a build, and very interesting to come across something new, and previously unknown. Cheers.

Brett,

You bring up a very good point. Every time I read a prolonged discussion of paint jobs or camouflage patterns I have to chuckle.

When discussing the paint or camouflage on a ship you need to remember that the actual work is being done by a bunch of guys hanging over the side or on floats or small boats bobbing alongside. They do not have a pattern attached to the hull to work with. They may have a sketch like those posted here, but they have to interpret it from where they stand/hang. Maybe someone in an accompanying boat is shouting "a little higher" but that's about all the direction they get.

They will be in a hurry to get the job done, so careful attention to details is not on their mind. This is especially true during wartime. And different people will interpret the pattern differently - trust me on this! Finally, it depends upon what paints were available and how they were mixed. So it is a given that a ship will never be painted the same way twice in a row.*

What I see in these photos is the same general pattern. But on one occasion the sailors painted the edge between colors a little high, and on others a little low. So unless you have precisely dated photos and you are building the entire ship as it was on that date, don't sweat the small stuff.

Remember, you are just another person interpreting the pattern as you see it, or as you want to see it.

Phil

* I have been studying the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5, a ship I served on. There are no two pictures taken on different dates that have exactly the same paint pattern - and almost all of the hull and superstructure were the same Ocean Gray used by the US Navy after WWII! But First Division painted their hand rails one way (near the bow), Second Division (midships) painted them another way, and Third Division (stern) painted them a third way. The same is true of paint on the decks, the helo landing area and small details like bitts, chocks, vents, etc. And this changed every time the divisions got a new Chief Bosun's Mate or Division Officer.

We got a new Executive Officer on board, and he wanted to paint the ship in entirely new ways. I recall hearing the Captain say to him "You want to make my ship look like a circus boat." But after that Captain left and we had a new Captain the XO was off and running, ordering the circus boat changes.

It is safe to say the paint pattern changed in some way every time we went into port.

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle