Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

dickrd

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Good

1 Follower

About dickrd

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That is me/one of mine: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=42436&start=80#p784236 The photo is dated 16th November 1942
  2. Building on Ned’s helpful posting: Ithuriel did not have a long service life: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-31Turk-HMS_Ithuriel.htm The obvious occasion for a whole-ship repaint that might have resulted in a complete change of camouflage scheme is October 1942 at the conclusion of repairs required after ramming the Italian submarine Cobalto in August 1942. However I have photos (dated June, August and November 1942) taken before and after those repairs showing the starboard side in the scheme shown in the IWM June 1942 photo of Ithuriel arriving at Malta. For the portside I have a clear photo of Ithuriel down by the stern, back broken and disarmed wearing the design depicted in the kit’s instructions. Working back we have the portrait series trio (off the port bow, broadside-on and off the port quarter), one of which (FL 22375) has been posted above. Given that an Oerlikon has replaced the quad 0.5” amidships plus the silhouette of what I interpret as the blockhouse on Plymouth Breakwater showing through the mist above Ithuriel’s stern in one of the images, I think this series of photos were taken in Plymouth Sound late October 1942. So it looks like she certainly had a different camouflage design each side October 1942 onwards. Unfortunately I have no really clear images of Ithuriel’s portside that I can positively date to the period March-August 1942. I have two aerial photos of poor quality dated May 1942. In one of these there are perhaps hints of the kit instruction’s scheme on the portside – but I might be imagining things! However I do have an undated photo of Ithuriel’s portside that comes from the American archives (NARA). Now of course a US ship might have photographed Ithuriel during the period of the Torch landings December 1942 but there were also opportunities in April and May 1942 and USS Wasp in particular took a lot of photos of RN ships during that period. It might of course alternatively have been a British photo supplied to the USN for recognition purposes. The key thing though is that the design on the portside whilst being of the kit’s instructions type, is subtly different to what you see in the October 1942 photo FL 22375 at the bow. The dark panel comes all the way forward to the stem and a little way up it from the waterline and the top edge of this dark camouflage panel has a different profile. I therefore suspect that this 'NARA' photo is from the early period of Ithuriel’s service. If then there is a photo of Ithuriel leaving her builders (as per Ned: in Maurice Cocker Destroyers of the Royal Navy 1893-1981 (London: Ian Allan, 1981) showing her portside in the kit’s design right at the outset of her career, I think we can take it to being more than a guess - Ithuriel must have had the different designs port and starboard throughout her service.
  3. One more thing, do note that there was a different design on the starboard side....https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205144111 Not sure yet whether this was at a different time to the kit's instructions' design or whether the design was different each side
  4. (Thank you Jamie!) As has been highlighted, MS2, MS4 & MS4a is Alan Raven’s suggested palette (WP Vol 2, page 50). This palette would make it a Light Admiralty Type disruptive scheme. There are not that many photos of Ithuriel and few are of very good quality. Looking at them it seems to me there was nothing as light as MS4A present. The overall impression is of a fairly drab scheme. I have hunted through the official designs we have and found no match. To my eye the closest in style (and it’s not very close, just a feeling and one or two similar shapes) is Plate 30 of CAFO 679/42 of April 1942. This is a Dark Admiralty Type with paint palette MS1, 507A & MS3. However I don’t think what we see on Ithuriel was overall that dark. Certainly I see no (near black) MS1 on her. However there were also Dark Medium Type designs, achieved by substituting one or two colours in the Dark Types with lighter-toned paints. The Plate 30 design adjusted to a Dark Medium Type design used a palette of 507A, MS3, MS4. Pending any other information becoming available, if I was modelling Ithuriel, I think those would be colours I would use. However all this really is little more than a guess…. (Of the 17 Dark Medium Type designs listed in CAFO 2146/42, 3 were two colour designs so not relevant to Ithuriel. The 14 remaining were three colour designs. Of these no less than 12 had the palette 507A, MS3, MS4. The other 2 had the palette 507A, B5, MS4. So if I wanted a slightly more colourful model Ithuriel then 507A, B5, MS4 might be an option - interesting that that is what the box art seems to hint at, contrary to the painting instructions.)
  5. Hi EJ. I guessed you had misunderstood me! This is the countershading under the overhang either side of the boat deck on the aft deckhouse that I was talking about: and https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205148912
  6. If countershading is to be included then there was quite a bit more under various other projections. I fancy I can see it under the lowest (signal?) of the decks high on the bridge, under the starboard forward pom pom, and under the overhang either side of the boat deck on the aft deck house. It’s a detail very hard to make out clearly in the available photos but more may have lurked elsewhere. If the aim is to depict KGV in her 1942 disruptive scheme then care must be taken not to introduce elements from 1943 and 1944 photos. I have various photos of KGV at intervals dating from July 1942 to February 1943 showing the portside B5 hull panel under X turret and there is no dark stripe on it. Given the box-like office at the extreme aft end of the quarterdeck, EJ’s ebay photo is an April 1943 onwards photo. The strange low protective screen around the floaternets on the roof of X turret may date EJ’s e-bay photo to the period very late Nov 1943-Feb 1944 as this feature is not present in any of the photos I have of KGV May-October 1943 (or indeed earlier). (This screening re-appears intermittently in photos of KGV in the Pacific in 1945). Is it known when (Nov 1943 or Feb 1944) the aft portion of her de-gaussing cable, visible in EJ’s ebay photo, was finally internalized?
  7. Are you sure the starboard one was not similar: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205136762 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205136761
  8. For connoisseurs of the aft-facing fog light, Alexander Meller kindly took these photos on HMCS Haida earlier this week:
  9. Successor to the old fog buoy I think. It lived on after the war: And on another Ark Royal:
  10. Nice photos as ever Ian! Sorry all, I have obviously come late to the game re the history of Ark Royal's paint scheme. What are the dates from-to that it is suggested that she had a deliberate camouflage scheme of 507C/Mediterranean grey on her hull above a band of darker grey 507A lower down ("at the waterline")?
  11. An addendum to Jamie's post: it was actually as early as 28 September 1939 (AFO 2859) that civilian-supplied non-slip deck paints for the flight decks of carriers were introduced (non-slip deck paint where necessary for exposed steel decks having previously been introduced in 1938). The supplying company (at that time) was the International Paint and Composition Company. The colours (then) were as Jamie says but not including white. So it would presumably have been CO Ark Royal's choice whether to continue with the bronze grey colour but using the new paint supplied by the International Paint Company, or to change to one of the other colours. September 1939 is therefore the date for the availability and use of grit paints on flight decks of carriers (by cancelling AFO 1949 of 1933, AFO 2859 of 1939 discontinued AP631). Yunge Bateman's comment (August 1940) makes sense in that context. The flight deck shades he was proposing were slightly different to the International Paint Company's standard shades (supplied to him as samples) and so would have needed to be specially mixed.
  12. Thank you again Ian. I think this photo is Victorious however - the pattern matches her first disruptive scheme along with certain physical details hinted at. I have not dug into Illustrious's paint schemes before so I am now very interested to know the nature of the debate re Illustrious's colours at the time of Taranto and then in early 1941. I would have thought it pretty obvious as you have suggested....?
  13. Great stuff @iang! Dare we ask you also for the dates in September 1940 that her log suggests she repainted from overall grey to the first (low contrast) patterned scheme and for images of the port side comparisons of Schemes 1 & 2?
  14. How do you tag someone on this site?! Ian, to avoid total confusion here, there is more on that file and it is clear that Illustrious never painted into that 1940 scheme of Yunge Bateman's. My interpretation of things is however that, with modifications, the design may well have become Victorious's first disruptive scheme. The only value in that document is in showing the possible genesis of the paints MS1, MS2, MS3 & MS4 but by the time these became codified in 1941 they had obviously evolved somewhat. The ideas for paints referred to in that August 1940 letter/design are, if you like, the pre-prototypes! (Richard)
  15. dickrd

    HMS Howe colour photo

    On the question of the wooden decks: The staining/painting of wooden decks seems to have gone out of official ‘fashion’ towards the end of the war. Whilst making provision for it in various circumstances, such painting was nevertheless described in CB 3098R (May 1943) as being of “doubtful merit” and “not indispensable” and “where decks are often wet, their natural tone is often satisfactory”. When referring to the camouflage schemes to be used by battleships, the subsequent CAFO 2269 of October 1944 stated “no special deck painting is required for camouflage purposes.” However official policy on such matters was not always followed. So I think it’s a question of deciding what you think you can see in the (black and white) photos available. To my eye the aerial photos of Howe in 1944 in this scheme show unpainted wooden decks darkened by weathering/wear and often by being wet when the photos were taken.
×
×
  • Create New...