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. :)

GrantGoodale

KGV versus POW

Recommended Posts

I have the Airfix 1/600 HMS Repulse. I would also like to build a 1/600 Prince of Wales as a companion piece but Airfix only kits the KGV in 1/600. Their 1/400 kit says that it can be built as either KGV or POW. Is there a good source for the differences between the two ships? I am only looking for major external differences. Any assistance would be most appreciated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Grant, I take it you are building Force Z. Have you built the Repulse yet? If not, check the outboard screws, you may have to switch them over. All Repulse's screws were outward turning, I've confirmed this from a photo on the slipway before she was launched. Otherwise I thought it was a good kit, for my level of skill anyway. If you are building waterline models obviously this isn't an issue. Also I found minor errors in the instruction camo scheme of December 1941. There are two segments of dark grey along the hull, not one as depicted. The second starts at the step in the hull and ends opposite about half way along the aft 15-inch barrels. Also the deck-house supporting the rear-firing single 4-inch guns. On the port side it is light grey as depicted in the instructions but on the stbd side it is the dark grey colour. I have also confirmed this from photos.

     As for major differences between KGV and PoW I don't know of any other than fittings - light guns and radar etc - and camouflage. The KGV kit comes with the AA rocket launchers (UP mounts), one of which mounts on 'B' turret. PoW however was carrying an octuple pompom in that position on her arrival at Singapore. She also carried a single 40mm Bofor on the quarterdeck (the KGV kit has another UP mounting there).

     Other than that, all I do is scroll through images on the net, I often pick up info that way. I hope this helps. Regards, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The two sisters were almost identical at commissioning. One visual difference is that KGV had rectangular portholes at the stern and the other 4 sisters in the class had circular ones. PoW specifically had the rectangular holes plated over containing the smaller round portholes in the new plates. Most kits get this wrong though and model KGV with round portholes so PoW is no problem in this respect.

 

Other than that, there are details about when the UP launchers were junked, and where and how many 20mm Oerlikons were fitted. Obviously Prince of Wales was the first to be refitted and gained more of the light cannons then.

 

Within the confines of the kit itself, I think you can safely call her Prince of Wales using the Airfix 1/600 KGV. Beware of a lot of questionable modern artwork and colour profiles though. Unlike a lot of ships, there is colour cine film footage which whilst fleetingly brief does dispel the persistent myth that PoW was wearing a collage of blues in the latter half of 1941.

 

resized_a51bdc37-6eee-4a12-a517-dccf17f3

 

This is the scheme we believe she was really wearing, but it only "works" after you've corrected the anomalies in the previously accepted RN colour palette. The only shade we'd suggest was open to discussion is the 507A. We're not unhappy with it, but we've seen footage of another ship which is widely understood to have worn B5, and the B5 looks washed out and greyish. Because of that, it's hard to claim that the colour film is entirely honest in its portrayal and where we say 507A, maybe it was B5 instead. I have many versions of the illustration below (I haven't shared them online because that's how misinformation gets reshared without context) and the one with B5 on it at its true colour values didn't at all reconcile with the impression given by the colour cine footage.

 

HMS_Prince_of_Wales_December_1941_Rev2.p

 

I trust you'll agree we're much closer to the truth than either of the following though!

HMS-Prince-of-Wales-11100-King-George-V-

 

main-qimg-9bc600d4b18359dd960a12573d5608

 

If nothing else - PB10 was not introduced until 1944, 507A and MS2 were both dark greys of 10% light reflectance value, and B6 and MS4 were both of 30% light reflectance value!

Edited by Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies
Changed to most recent version of drawing with scrap views of superstructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analytical approach to this specific issue, and RN warship colouring in general, is becoming legendary Jamie - at least to me, others may already know that!

 

I picked up some of your superb colour coats range at Telford last year, and will be trying them out for the first time, on my Vosper when I get to that point. I'll no doubt be seeking some clarity on some potential schemes for that, at some point. This thread is of interest also, as if I ever build a Royal Navy WWII capital ship, it will be one of these beauties.

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

Your analytical approach to this specific issue, and RN warship colouring in general, is becoming legendary Jamie - at least to me, others may already know that!

 

I picked up some of your superb colour coats range at Telford last year, and will be trying them out for the first time, on my Vosper when I get to that point. I'll no doubt be seeking some clarity on some potential schemes for that, at some point. This thread is of interest also, as if I ever build a Royal Navy WWII capital ship, it will be one of these beauties.

 

Terry

 

Hi Terry, thank you, but the vast majority of the work here was done by the gents named at the bottom of the picture. Evert Jan Foeth and Richard Dennis had already done an extensive job of work to sift through countless B&W close-ups to accurately map the complex shape of the camouflage scheme. Michael Brown, Sean Carroll and Linsday Johnson had likewise been contributing for a good while analysing these photos with the aforementioned against the "panel map" marking them up darker than/lighter than their neighbour until they concluded that there was a total of 5 camouflage paints on the ship and coding each individual section of camouflage Tone A, Tone B, C, D & E.

 

Once you have the colours themselves clarified and have a list that says:

 

MS1 = 5%

MS2 = 9~10%

507A = 10%

B5 = 15%

MS3 = 20%

B6 = ~28%

MS4 = 30~32%

507C = 45%

MS4A = 55%

White = 75%

 

... and you know which colours were out of the time frame because they either didn't exist yet (e.g. PB10) or they'd been culled already (e.g. the Flotta green and brown)

 

...then you can narrow down the theoretical combinations of Tone A through E from dark to light like that. The existence of colour footage is a great help. MS1 could, possibly, have been ordinary black but for the modeller it makes next to no difference. Tone A is clearly MS1 (or maybe black). How light Tone E is is judged against other factors e.g. is it noticeably darker than the white uniforms the sailors are wearing, or is it darker or lighter than HMS Mauritious appears in photos next to POW in Singapore and so on. Once A and E are bounded, there's only so many options for B, C and D and the colour film gives good clues as to these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! The amount of knowledge here is amazing. Many thanks to all of you.

 

I still have some of the original WEM ColourCoats - great stuff. It is unfortunate that we can't get then here in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Hi Terry, thank you, but the vast majority of the work here was done by the gents named at the bottom of the picture.

Well let me add my thanks to Evert Jan Foeth, Richard Dennis, Michael Brown, Sean Carroll and Lindsay Johnson, for getting all this information as current as possible.  As Grant has just indicated, the amount of knowledge here is amazing!

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting feature of POW that was difficult to illustrate well on the above is that the top of the main armour belt was painted MS1 or black in places - this idiosyncracy was spotted by EJ Foeth.

 

file.php?id=109021&mode=view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, there is a diagonal flash of the lightest paint (Tone E), 507C, on our picture on the port quarter that appears very light on the cine still above it.

 

This does appear to have been very light grey or perhaps white in August 1941 at Gibraltar. When she arrived and was extensively photographed in Singapore it is almost certainly in Tone E. The group (Richard I think, or maybe Sean) produced a close up photograph of the ratings on ropes over the side paint brushes in hand with that specific patch of camouflage half repainted in a darker tone! That reconciled some potential doubt there. We don't know exactly what date that photo was taken but if modelling Force Z, the PoW turned up with it already darkened to the same lightest camouflage tone used elsewhere (which we think was 507C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday AWFK10, well spotted. Your photo of PoW coming alongside at Singapore is quite a well known one, that I referred to in my comment regarding the UP mount replaced by the pompom, an yet I never noticed the absent degaussing coil. Thanks. I have a photo of DoY firing her main guns, I'll check that photo tonight. DoY was shipping a lot of water over the bows in that photo, the lack of the coil may not be evident there. Regards, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 7:16 AM, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

The two sisters were almost identical at commissioning. One visual difference is that KGV had rectangular portholes at the stern and the other 4 sisters in the class had circular ones. PoW specifically had the rectangular holes plated over containing the smaller round portholes in the new plates. Most kits get this wrong though and model KGV with round portholes so PoW is no problem in this respect.

 

Other than that, there are details about when the UP launchers were junked, and where and how many 20mm Oerlikons were fitted. Obviously Prince of Wales was the first to be refitted and gained more of the light cannons then.

 

Within the confines of the kit itself, I think you can safely call her Prince of Wales using the Airfix 1/600 KGV. Beware of a lot of questionable modern artwork and colour profiles though. Unlike a lot of ships, there is colour cine film footage which whilst fleetingly brief does dispel the persistent myth that PoW was wearing a collage of blues in the latter half of 1941.

 

 

So - the other way round - can I easily (yes, I remember the stern portholes) use the amazing 1:700 FlyHawk PoW to represent the 1943-fit (MTO ops) KGV with no mods needed to anything above the deck?

Cheers

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

So - the other way round - can I easily (yes, I remember the stern portholes) use the amazing 1:700 FlyHawk PoW to represent the 1943-fit (MTO ops) KGV with no mods needed to anything above the deck?

Cheers

Michael

I'd check radars and Oerlikons but you'll be almost there using the Flyhawk kit I think :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:
7 hours ago, KRK4m said:

So - the other way round - can I easily (yes, I remember the stern portholes) use the amazing 1:700 FlyHawk PoW to represent the 1943-fit (MTO ops) KGV with no mods needed to anything above the deck?

Cheers

Michael

I'd check radars and Oerlikons but you'll be almost there using the Flyhawk kit I think

Would this also work for KGV at North Cape in December 1943?

Cheers,

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Richard502 said:

Would this also work for KGV at North Cape in December 1943?

Cheers,

Richard

 

Hi Richard,

 

I assume you mean Duke of York, but if so then yes same applies except that Duke of York was built with Mk.V HACS (High Angle Control System) Directors. You can get these from ModelMonkey. They're pointed out below and the Mk.V is square whereas the Mk.III fitted to KGV and POW were circular. If anyone is interested in what HACS is for, here you go, but basically they direct the anti-aircraft fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HACS

 

There are some great aerial views of the AA fit of Duke of York from this time period:

file.php?id=85764&sid=47127de42752b824a3

 

 

The following is Evert Jan Foeth's markup from his website http://ontheslipway.com/ where he has some absolutely brilliant reference photos.

bridge_equipment_03.jpg

 

 

file.php?id=85766&sid=47127de42752b824a3

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I assume you mean Duke of York,

Yes, of course: my silly mistake, please accept apologies and thank you very much for the information.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2019 at 14:24, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Hi Terry, thank you, but the vast majority of the work here was done by the gents named at the bottom of the picture. Evert Jan Foeth and Richard Dennis had already done an extensive job of work to sift through countless B&W close-ups to accurately map the complex shape of the camouflage scheme. Michael Brown, Sean Carroll and Linsday Johnson had likewise been contributing for a good while analysing these photos with the aforementioned against the "panel map" marking them up darker than/lighter than their neighbour until they concluded that there was a total of 5 camouflage paints on the ship and coding each individual section of camouflage Tone A, Tone B, C, D & E.

 

Once you have the colours themselves clarified and have a list that says:

 

MS1 = 5%

MS2 = 9~10%

507A = 10%

B5 = 15%

MS3 = 20%

B6 = ~28%

MS4 = 30~32%

507C = 45%

MS4A = 55%

White = 75%

 

... and you know which colours were out of the time frame because they either didn't exist yet (e.g. PB10) or they'd been culled already (e.g. the Flotta green and brown)

 

...then you can narrow down the theoretical combinations of Tone A through E from dark to light like that. The existence of colour footage is a great help. MS1 could, possibly, have been ordinary black but for the modeller it makes next to no difference. Tone A is clearly MS1 (or maybe black). How light Tone E is is judged against other factors e.g. is it noticeably darker than the white uniforms the sailors are wearing, or is it darker or lighter than HMS Mauritious appears in photos next to POW in Singapore and so on. Once A and E are bounded, there's only so many options for B, C and D and the colour film gives good clues as to these.

Jamie,

 

Great work as usual. I've been going through the "Calling all KGV fans" thread on Modelwarships, and on September 4 2009 Kevin Denlay posted a photo of one of the Carley floats from POW on the bottom of the South China Sea.  It looks to be in a blight light blue.

 

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4715&start=140

 

Any idea of the colour and how it fits with the colour palette you describe above, assuming that the float was painted the same colour as the structure it was attached to?  

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

iang,

 

It is nothing to do with the paint scheme - put copper in salt water and that is the colour it goes. See Kevin's again four posts further on which reads:

 

"It is my understanding that the interior of the Carley float was 'solid' so to speak, so what you are seeing here is the 'blueing' of the hollow metal core from its prolonged immersion in salt water.

Now, while not a great believer in everything that Wikipedia says, the following does seem to describe the floats construction accurately. Later they may have been made of canvas, or something similar, but the ones on PoW are metal core. The crushing under pressure (from the water pressure at depth) of the hollow metal core can be seen in the image I posted lower right on float.

From Wiki
"The Carley float was formed from a length of copper or steel tubing 12-20inches (30-50cm) in diameter bent into an oval ring. The ring was surrounded by a buoyant mass of kapok or cork, and then covered with a layer of canvas rendered waterproof via painting or doping. The metal tube was divided into waterproof compartments with vertical baffles. The raft was thus rigid, and could remain buoyant, floating equally well with either side uppermost, even if the waterproof outer was punctured. The floor of the raft was made from a wood or webbing grating. Boxes containing paddles, water, rations and survival equipment were lashed to the floor grating. Men could either sit around the rim of the raft, or, if in the water, cling to rope loops strung around its edge."

Edited by dickrd

Share this post


Link to post
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...