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. :)

Our Ned

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Good

About Our Ned

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In addition to the problem of the port-side blind spot, I suspect the flying bridge was intended to make it easier to keep the ship on the planned track in confined waters. The inboard end was on the ship's centreline, thus the jackstaff (when rigged) and the stem would be directly ahead of the compass repeat, and it would be easy to see whether the intended headmark was actually directly ahead of the ship, and any planned transit (if there was one) would be easier to follow. The "angle-off" of the jackstaff or stem when seen from the island could lead to problems in determining the true course of the ship when conning her from there. The USN, in more recent years, has attempted to deal with a related problem by the installation of the so-called "Belknap Pole" in the flightdeck catwalk directly ahead of the bridge in their carriers (after the incident where USS JOHN F KENNEDY collided with USS BELKNAP). See, for example, https://bremolympicnlus.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/uss-ronald-reagan-homeward-bound/. It definitely was nothing to do with aviation! Would anyone want to be on the end of such a platform when aircraft were landing on?
  2. The church pennant over the "interrogative" flag was alledgedly flown by a "navigationally challenged" US destroyer - when asked the meaning of the flag hoist, she is said to have replied "God, where am I?" - don't you just love apocryphal stories!
  3. Our Ned

    HMS Matabele

    To make it less vague, study relevant photographs! There are some of MATABELE's port (left) side in the Imperial War Museum's collection (eg https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205140701 and https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205120190 (also available in the Wikipedia article). Note that her starboard side wore an entirely different pattern; photos of this are much less common, but it was almost identical to ASHANTI's starboard side (see https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205140130). Interpreting colours from black and white images is not easy, and, over the years, there have been a number of attempts to do so! RDF (early term for what we now call radar) Type 285 is the row of Yagi aerials on top of the rangefinder on top of the bridge - it was fitted to most RN destroyers during the war, and there are plenty of photos showing it available online. RDF Type 286 is the fixed antenna visible at the foremasthead in some photos of MATABELE. The beam view I linked to shows the extent of the after funnel height reduction, and the port bow photo shows the "goalpost" aerial spreader which replaced the mainmast.
  4. Initially the RN Tribals' DC throwers were fitted on the after superstructure; later they were moved down to upper deck level (to reduce topweight?). Photos of COSSACK after being torpedoed show that she was lost with the throwers still on the superstructure. The RAN and RCN ships had throwers at upper deck level from build.
  5. Some photos of torpedo firings https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205146971 (HMS DERWENT), https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205093626 (HMS BELFAST), https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/401650932190 (HMS AFRIDI).
  6. I'd suggest removing all but one of the thwarts, and adding an engine casing, as in the first of the two photos I linked to earlier.
  7. Most, if not all Tribal class ships carried a 16' Fast Motor Boat on a trolley, usually stowed to port of the after funnel. Some landed theis boat during the war. The trolley enabled it to be fleeted aft so that the torpedo davit could plumb the boat. At least one 16' FMB survives in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard - photos at https://www.modelboats.co.uk/sites/2/images/member_albums/1557/639715.jpg and https://www.modelboats.co.uk/sites/2/images/member_albums/1557/639714.jpg
  8. Eng - for an interesting and apparently well-researched answer to your query about "Squirrel Grey", there is a four-page article on the subject in the December 2019 issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling.
  9. According to John English Afridi to Nizam (Kendal: World Ship Society, 2001), COSSACK's "X" mounting was replaced by a twin 4" HA mounting during her battle damage repairs completed in June 1940. She had RDF Type 286M (radar) fitted at the foretopmasthead during a repair period in January-February 1941. Photos of her just before she sank (available on the previouslymentioned Cossack Association website, eg http://www.hmscossack.org/images/LO3_Sinking2.JPG) show a shortened after funnel, and a slightly shorter mainmast (the yard moved down to just below the level of the top of the tripod support legs and the mast itself cut off at the top of the legs).
  10. The "other thread running" discusses the colour schemes of the Second World War ARK ROYAL, not the ship represented in the Atlantic Models kit.
  11. Flyhawk kits often include "spare" parts - on one of the sprues ("GB04" http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/hms/cl/Naiad-700-fh/Naiad-GB04b.jpg), if you can find one, there are several suitable pieces - alternatively, at 1/700 scale, simple lengths of plastic rod of appropriate diameter may suffice.
  12. A neat build - thank you for your postings. Whilst the kit has many good points and seems reasonably accurate in most areas, there are some details which IBG appear to have omitted, that you might wish to consider: The kit's bridge is almost devoid of fittings, apart from the director and rangefinder (Parts G9 and G22); in fact there were compasses, sights and other items here. All the photos of the ship which I have seen, eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/ww2images/6854959786, showed splinter shields at the deck edge outboard of "A" and "Y" mountings. All the photos of the ship which I have seen also showed TSDS winches outboard of the after shelter deck where the instructions show two depth charge loading racks should be fitted (Parts G25, PE29 and PE30) - also (just) visible in the above photo. ITHURIEL's ready-use depth charges were stowed on their arbors, and are represented by Parts A8 and G24.
  13. The photo to which the comment from Frank Campey refers is indeed in Scale Aircraft Modelling Volme 4, No. 8, May 1982 It is, as he wrote, a very poor photo showing two Hurricanes taking off - the further one is coded GN-A - however, it is taken from the port side, so does not help answer the OP's question. There is a line drawing of another 249 Sqn aircraft, also showing the port side, coded GD-C (no serial shown). The text of the article states: "Markings during the Battle of Britain were standard for the period - that is dark earth and dark green uppersurfaces and sky underĀ­sides. Type B roundels were above and type A below the wings with type Al on the fuselage. On reforming in May 1940 the squadron was allocated the code letters GN and these were carried with the individual letter in medium grey on the fuselage forward of the black serials. The GN codes were aft of the roundel on the starboard side and forward on the port. Examples of Hurricanes with 249 during this period were P3088 GN:G and V6728 GN:Z." No other reference seems to be quoted.
  14. Having taken a close look at the photo in Cocker's book (captioned as "HMS Inconstant (ex-Turkish) entering Barrow on Builder's trials. Vickers" but clearly displaying pendants H05!) which shows her from the port bow, with some ill-defined land showing behind her, the dark panel on the port side forward is as dickrd describes in the NARA photo. An undated photo showing part of her starboard side (with the same pattern as the photo taken in Malta) is at http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=118056&mode=view.
  15. The IWM photo linked by dickrd depicts ITHURIEL on 16 June 1942, after Operation Harpoon. The kit depicts her somewhat later, after the midships quadruple 0.5" mountings had been replaced by another pair of single 20mm Oerlikons. This change probably took place after her damage repairs following the ramming of the Italian submarine Cobalto on 12 August 1942 - a photo at http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_HMS_Ithuriel_snapshot.html shows she still had the 0.5"s at that date. I've not seen a starboard-side photo which shows the midships Oerlikons, so cannot say whether it then matched the port-side pattern - certainly the port side pattern was that shown in the kit instructions when she left the shipyard (photo in Maurice Cocker Destroyers of the Royal Navy 1893-1981 (London: Ian Allan, 1981)). The only starboard-side depiction I know of with the mirror-image pattern is the Raven drawing in the earlier post by Rob, which depicts her with the midships 0.5"s - ie a different pattern from that from the Harpoon photos (and one stated to be during Operation Pedestal (in Peter Jacobs Fortress Island Malta (Pen and Sword, 2016))). My guess, therefore, is that the assymetric pattern depicted in the IWM photo was worn throughout ITHURIEL's short active career.
×
×
  • Create New...