ajaycad Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Anyone suggest the best reference books/websites etc for P.O.W especially during Bismarck engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfqweofekwpeweiop4 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Are you wanting specific or general info? thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaycad Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) Anything that covers May 1941, diagrams, photos etc Edited March 12, 2016 by ajaycad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) I suggest either RA Burts British Battleships 1919-1945, or Normal Friedman's The British Battleship 1906-1946. I don't have either, but both are highly detailed works from highly recommended authors. Edited March 12, 2016 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfqweofekwpeweiop4 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Tarrant's book on the KGV class is a good read on the whole class and has quite a few pics of POW in early - mid 1941. The Shipcraft book on the KGV is a good cheap general guide. Finally another must for all British battleship fans, is RA Burt's book on British Battleships 1919-45, which has a section KGV battleships. There are no plans or line drawings of POW in these books but there are of KGV 1940-41 of which POW is almost identical to. POW may have been painted in APC507A Dark Grey on the vertical surfaces and metal decks during May 41 but was certainly painted in APC507B Medium Grey on the vertical surfaces (APC507A still on the metal decks) soon afterwards but the exact time of her repainting isn't certain, so you could paint her either way for May 41. Note that the wooden decks would not have been painted. thanks Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I agree with Mike -- V E Tarrant's KGV book has the best information on the engagement and the while troubled life of Prince of Wales; I have the Friedman and Burt books, as well as Alan Raven's book on British Battleships, and Tarrant is still the best for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) If you go to the IWM site (Link below) and search for HMS Prince of Wales you will find there is a whole collection of photographs of her in April 1941 (sad as I am I did a quick count and there are around thirty) you have to scroll down through the pages to pick up all the photographs they are mixed in with other subjects.I've the R.A.Burt and the Raven and Roberts books plus the Alan Raven Ensign 1 on the KGV's they give general description of her layout at that time and also include a few photographs most of which are from the IWM collection.If you are interested in WWII British Battleships try and obtain a copy of the Raven and Robert's book.One point often overlooked is that POW had a slight knuckle unlike her sisters. Malcolm http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=hms%20prince%20of%20wales Edited March 12, 2016 by Mal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jockster Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Knuckle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Knuckle?Indeed, there is no sign of even a slight knuckle on the hull in the photos that the IWM have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) I've always refered to it as a knuckle and heard it refered to as such, It runs forward from around "B" turret, it's away of identifing her from her sisters especially KGV both at one time having carried a grey scheme,It's visable in the above photograph (guess around 2~3 feet deep possible a little more). Malcolm Edited March 13, 2016 by Mal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 You mean the front of the armoured belt or the flare up to the maindeck? As i'm pretty sure that's on all ships of the class. They don't go straight up from the belt but all flare outboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I can see one feature in the photo, although I wouldn't have called it a knuckle in the same sense as that on the Town class cruisers (except Birmingham). I don't know what to call it, but over the distance described there has been an increase in the flare up to the deck, resulting in a tapered step to the hull side visible forward of the anchor. And presumably another aft? The length appears to be a slightly darker grey, presumably shadow? This flare is then chamfered where it reaches the deck, rather than the deck widening. I don't know whether this is on the other ships of the class or not, but I don't recall seeing anything like it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 The flare up to the main deck,POW unlike her sisters had a knuckle a number of feet below the deck edge running from around "B" turret to the bow.Why her and not the other members of the class I've no idea.I assume it may be an attempt to reduce water coming over the bow?.It's definitey missing from other members of the class,their hulls for want of a better word blend into the deckedge.It was pointed out to me when I was building a model of DOY. Bow of HMS Howe http://www.navy.gov.au/history/feature-histories/british-pacific-fleet Bow of HMS POW http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/prince_of_wales/hms_prince_of_wales.htm These show the difference in the hull along the forward deck edge. Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Ah! I see what you mean now. Every day is a school day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootneck Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 A possible reason for the difference could be the different building techniques of the shipbuilders. The first two ships, KGV and PoW were both ordered and laid down on the same day; however KGV was built by Vickers-Armstrong at Newcastle, whilst PoW was built by Cammell Laird at Birkenhead. Not all shipbuilding companies had the same drawing, cutting and assembly facilities and their approaches were different on assembly. This is usually more noticeable on merchant ships though. Just an assumption but this could be nothing more than different shipbuilding techniques. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 PoW was also damaged while under construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 That'll be a job for a sanding block when I get around to starting PoW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootneck Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 That would depend on whether the deck edge was flattened back, or the deck edge width remained the same and the flare underneath was built out? It's back to the research now, but how would we find out which was done? Another query, as Precopius mentioned that PoW damaged in the blitz whilst under construction, was this knuckle built both sides or just the port side? I haven't managed to find stbd side images of that area. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 In 1/350 I'll just be knocking the edge back with a sanding block either way - it's just a visual effect I'd be after. That's a lot quicker and easier than resculping the hull. Others who haven't got enough to keep themselves busy can do as they please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 That would depend on whether the deck edge was flattened back, or the deck edge width remained the same and the flare underneath was built out? It's back to the research now, but how would we find out which was done? Another query, as Precopius mentioned that PoW damaged in the blitz whilst under construction, was this knuckle built both sides or just the port side? I haven't managed to find stbd side images of that area. Mike if you look at the almost head-on view, you can see that there is a "step out" at the deck level on both sides, which then tapers down to meet the lower hull just below the level of the anchors. Ahead of this the bow is clearly narrower. On the starboard side the railings can be seen to be inboard of this, and although the railings are lacking on the port side the chamfer from deck level to this feature is clear. It looks for all the world like an additional armour plate, except for the way it tapers in towards the hull lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Both port and starboard sides seem to of been the same, I've seen photographs showing her starboard bow when she was in Cape Town,while of course photographs of her port bow taken in Singapore appear in nearly every publication about her.Although I've not heard definitive information about why she was built with a knuckle,the most common suggestion is that it was an attempt to reduce spray,due the class having very little sheer. Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootneck Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Both port and starboard sides seem to of been the same, I've seen photographs showing her starboard bow when she was in Cape Town,while of course photographs of her port bow taken in Singapore appear in nearly every publication about her.Although I've not heard definitive information about why she was built with a knuckle,the most common suggestion is that it was an attempt to reduce spray,due the class having very little sheer. Malcolm Interesting but as this was the second built, and the first hadn't been to sea by the time PoW was launched, how did they know and why only do the second ship; not the first, third or fourth? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Interesting but as this was the second built, and the first hadn't been to sea by the time PoW was launched, how did they know and why only do the second ship; not the first, third or fourth? Pure supposition, but I believe she was the last of the class to be launched prior to the war -- perhaps the need to accelerate war-built ships played a part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamwalker Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 That's NOT a Knuckle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) That's NOT a Knuckle I've always been under the impression a knuckle was an angular break in a hull as most obviously seen in the RN cruiser hulls of the County,Towns etc, Regards, Malcolm Edited March 14, 2016 by Mal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now