Jump to content

RN Escort Carrier Battler


mdesaxe

Recommended Posts

I could not find a better place for questions about the RN's escort carriers, so I'm posting my question here. Does any one of our many knowledgeable members know the colours applied to HMS Battler at the time of the Salerno operation. I have well over thirty photographs of this ship that clearly show the pattern but, as they all are black-and-white, I don't know the colours. Alan Raven depicts seven American-built escort carriers in British schemes (plus one in what seems to have been a standard pattern originally painted up in the United States) but none of these is Battler. Malcolm Wright shows Battler, but the pattern he depicts matches none of the photographs I have from the period, so I don't really trust his colour specifications.

Any assistance much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mdesaxe said:

I could not find a better place for questions about the RN's escort carriers, so I'm posting my question here. Does any one of our many knowledgeable members know the colours applied to HMS Battler at the time of the Salerno operation. I have well over thirty photographs of this ship that clearly show the pattern but, as they all are black-and-white, I don't know the colours. Alan Raven depicts seven American-built escort carriers in British schemes (plus one in what seems to have been a standard pattern originally painted up in the United States) but none of these is Battler. Malcolm Wright shows Battler, but the pattern he depicts matches none of the photographs I have from the period, so I don't really trust his colour specifications.

Any assistance much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Maurice

Ask at http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/#.WmAEPE2WzX4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you

 

All the various browser I use to access send me a similar response to this website; either 'this page isn't working' or 'problem loading page'. This is the response I've received to all my requests of any kind from this site for at least the past month.

 

Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mikemx said:

What do you think the colours are for HMS Searcher 1944 (first pic on it's page).

 

thanks

Mike

 

 

Hi Mike, at a glance I can't decide if that's a 3 or 4 colour scheme. I think it's 4 though.

 

I'd like to compare the respective LRVs as proportions of each other then compare the boot topping black against black paint's real value to proportion the rest to test if the numbers support this, but at the moment I'm thinking the bow is either G10 or B15. The stripe behind is possibly B30, G30 or G45. The darkest shade amidships is G5 or G10 (depending on the which the bow is - if the bow is G10 then this is G5, if the bow is B15 then this is G10). The lightest shade on the bridge is either G45 or G55. I feel G55 is less likely to be found here. That could drive us backwards to, lightest to darkest:

 

G45,

B30 or G30

B15

G10

 

 

... but as above, I'd like to try some numbers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mikemx said:

Thanks Jamie! What do you think the deck might be? I'm guessing one of the Dark Greys but I'm not sure which.

 

thanks

Mike

 

On the basis that we know the LRVs for Temperate Sea Scheme colours are in high single digits, and that the deck looks approximately in the same sort of range, and that there isn't an obvious contrast with the darkest shade on the hull, I'm going to throw in my lot with G10 for the flight deck. That would be in the same sort of reflectance range as other dark deck paints used by the UK, USA and Germany and even British Merchant Ship Deck grey from earlier in the war.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

OK, you mentioned it first.  Are you going to produce the Merchant Navy Greys in the Colour Coats range?  Or are they already there, hidden under different names?

 

I took matches for MSS and MSD as per the samples at Kew but haven't done anything with them. I will take another trip there anyway to measure them more precisely with the new gadget we now have.

 

Truth be told, nobody ever asked before.

 

We've over 100 existing greys though so I really hope they match something we already have 😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Truth be told, nobody ever asked before.

 

 

I suspect that the reason lies in lots of Japanese merchant ships but no British ones.  Not in injection form anyway, and I suspect that the majority of scratchbuilders prefer the civilian peacetime heraldry.  I do however have a resin CAM ship.  I could always do a British-operated Liberty too, of course.

 

Given that I have most of your greys already, I'd be perfectly happy with a match to something in your present range.  (Except that I'm looking for a few extra colours to make up the required 12 for an order.)  Under wartime conditions, I suspect a close match will be every bit as useful as an exact one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to thank everyone for their assistance. I must admit that I still cannot access the royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk site either using a browser search or by directly pasting in the address. This despite trying four browsers (Safari, Explorer, Chrome, Firefox) on each of two computers (one running Windows 10 and the other Windows 7) that each have separate providers and physically are located 2 km apart. Maybe the site doesn't like foreigners!

 

I am intrigued by the discussions suggesting it is possible to determine colours using light reflectance values observed within black-and-white photographs. Among the images I have of Battler there are several that were taken from very similar angles but the obvious differences in light conditions and reflectance from the ocean play havoc with the intensities of the shades of corresponding panels, so i wonder how this works. I've also observed similar wild variation in shades in photographs that were taken on the same day but from different perspectives. I'm not sure of the protocol for posting images on the site that may have copyright restrictions so I am cautious about putting them up to illustrate this.

 

Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

On the basis that we know the LRVs for Temperate Sea Scheme colours are in high single digits, and that the deck looks approximately in the same sort of range, and that there isn't an obvious contrast with the darkest shade on the hull, I'm going to throw in my lot with G10 for the flight deck. That would be in the same sort of reflectance range as other dark deck paints used by the UK, USA and Germany and even British Merchant Ship Deck grey from earlier in the war.

Thanks again Jamie! Now I've just got to work out the Oerlikon fit, I can see a pair of twins on the bow and I think there's a couple on the port side galleries but after that I've no idea!

 

thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mikemx said:

Thanks again Jamie! Now I've just got to work out the Oerlikon fit, I can see a pair of twins on the bow and I think there's a couple on the port side galleries but after that I've no idea!

 

thanks

Mike

 

According to here:

https://www.navsource.org/archives/03/022.htm

... there were 10 Oerlikons onboard. 

 

In this photo here from the above we can see 3 of them, single mounts, with their splinter shields sillouetted against the sky just above the flight deck on the port gallery. I think the twins in the tubs forward might be the Bofors mounts?

0302211.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

According to here:

https://www.navsource.org/archives/03/022.htm

... there were 10 Oerlikons onboard. 

 

In this photo here from the above we can see 3 of them, single mounts, with their splinter shields sillouetted against the sky just above the flight deck on the port gallery. I think the twins in the tubs forward might be the Bofors mounts?

0302211.jpg

 

HMS Searcher had 8 twin Bofors in the same positions as the USN's Bogues, so the mounts on the bows are not Bofors. They are most definitely power twin oerlikons and on some pics it looks like there's another one or two twin oerlikons in the miships port side galleries. As for 10 Oerlikons, on one of the pictures you can see 12 singles on the Starboard side alone! At some point they must have swapped single Oerlikons for some twins, it's just a case of working out what ones and when.

 

thanks

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Ah the powered twins makes sense :)

I have the now ancient HMS Tracker from Skywave and I read that HMS Searcher, was the only Royal Navy Bogue (as oppose to the Ameers) that had the 8 twin Bofors of the USN ships, so unless you want to do some major surgery it somewhat limits what you can do.

 

thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the US Navy (which ordered them) both the Attacker-class and the Ameer-class carriers were the same class: the Bogue class. The differences were in the armament outfits (and the post-delivery modifications for Royal Navy service). Useful drawings illustrating the differences are here for Battler:

 

http://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/acv6.pdf

 

and here for Puncher:

 

http://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cve53-d79.pdf

 

Maurice

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the Ameer's had slightly different dimensions but I can't remember if that was the hull or flight deck or both. If they had slightly different dimensions, they could have a slightly different shape - especially if it's the flight deck. The kit in question is the same plastic as the USS Bogue kit, the only difference in the kit is for the British ones you leave off the SK radar and put the little tower with radar lantern on top of the bridge. I'll have a look at the drawings when I have more time

 

thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks like its about to turn into an interesting project. 

 

I was toying with buying the Tamiya Bogue kit and building it in next years "Carriers Ahoy - Things the fly off things that float" group build as HMS Emperor but not being a naval modeller i'm not sure about the necessary conversion.  I was considering HMS Emperor April '44 Operation Tungsten as I have part of the airgroup (Hellcat Mk I NAS 804) as a WIP and (Hellcat Mk I NAS 800) in the stash..

 

So if you do a WIP thread - do you mind if I hover here in the corner?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the Bogue class were built on the same hull - the Maritime Commission's standard C-3 ship. Every set of published dimensions differs but that is almost a necessary function of the fact that everyone measures differently (I'm not being sarcastic - it's a fact that such basic dimensions as length or beam can be measured from and to different points). I compared all Hobbs's dimensions for these vessels to those published by the US Navy and found that the only point of complete agreement was that the hangar was 260 x 62 x 18 feet!! According to Hobbs, the flight deck of the Attackers was 442 x 88 feet and of the Rulers 450 x 80 feet (it seems improbable that the Navy would want narrower flight decks!). According to the US Navy, all of them were 442 x 88 feet. A wikipedia article (with flags all over it saying it needed verification) mentions that the flight decks were lengthened as part of the Royal Navy's upgrade program, but I have never seen that stated in other documentation.

 

PS - Even the US Navy can't agree about dimensions! Another of its publications lists the flight deck of the Bogue class as 442 x 80 feet! 

 

In reality, if you want to turn the Pit-Road or Tamiya Bogue or Tracker into a Royal Navy version (or a US Navy, for that matter) there are bigger changes necessary than lengthening the flight deck by 3 mm or so (if that longer deck number is correct). The hangar sides aft by the 4 or 5-inch gun platforms should taper towards the stern parallel to the taper of the platforms and there are no roller doors in the aft bulkhead. The forward face of the hangar in the kit bears no resemblance to the real structure there. There should be a rectangular extension ahead of the elevator into the erstwhile cargo hatch well. The fo'c'sle does not have a solid aft bulkhead across it - there is a passageway below its deck slightly to starboard amidships and there is a small boxy extension back from the bulkhead that contains the 20mm clipping room and an ammunition trunk. Weapon outfits were all over the place and also changed during the war. Battler, for example, was delivered with American 4-inch 50 caliber low-angle guns aft (the same guns as used on the flush-deckers) but had British 4-inch HA guns by the time of the Salerno operation. Sensors also changed during the war. Finally, the bridge needs significant modifications, since the British carriers had an open bridge with different platform arrangements.

 

I am indeed building Battler from the kit. My principal hesitation about posting is the prevailing habit on all these fora for people to put up random comments that do not really advance matters (I do not become upset when what I post does not receive umpteen responses). My other hesitation is that I build quite slowly because I have a more than full time job and have to travel quite frequently, so I'm not sure how entertaining it will be.

 

Maurice

Edited by mdesaxe
More information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...