Jump to content

Sink the Bismarck! HMS Ark Royal, 26 May 1941


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

In my head, I know exactly how I want this to look in the end - still a l-o-o-ong way in the future, I fear.  If I get it right it will tell a powerful story of 43 young men about to get airborne in truly hideous weather to attack the world’s most powerful battleship in slow, obsolescent biplanes.  However good the aircraft models are, if there is no-one on the flight deck, or the bridge looks as though they’re on a gentle sleepy Summer cruise, or the ship’s weapons and directors are unmanned and all covered up, or the paintwork looks as though she was only launched the previous week, or even if there’s no lifebuoy sentry closed up or crashboat at immediate readiness... then it will just look silly.

 

Hence ridiculously complex resin HACS director tubs a few pages ago (& I haven’t touched a single Pom-Pom yet...!), and flag lockers, and ages acquiring convincing-looking boats from Shapeways.  But most of all, these 15 Stringbags are the whole point, so they have to be decent.  
 

All this effort will be worth it in the end.

 

Equally importantly, it’s a lot of fun.

They have got to be two of the best arguments I have seen for undertaking any modelling project Crisp and explains why you have put so much effort into getting all of the small details just right. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.  Having just re-read the bit you quoted, I’m not saying that models without every single detail looking right “look silly” - there are countless examples on this very site, and anyway it’s a matter of taste.  But a diorama / model that sets out to portray a specific moment in history has to get it right (or at least be plausible in the absence of clear evidence).  From the very start I left myself no wiggle room by saying I was building Ark at c.7pm on 26 May 1941, so that’s how she must look.  So no port side pom-poms, loads of research (aka questions of people who know more about it than you!) about which aircraft were in which scheme, no folded Fulmar on deck alert (to my disappointment)...

 

But please: no-one should think I’m calling their model “silly”.  Bad choice of word.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Richard E said:

They have got to be two of the best arguments I have seen for undertaking any modelling project Crisp and explains why you have put so much effort into getting all of the small details just right. 

I completely agree, Richard.

 

Crisp's model combines such interesting subjects - ship and aircraft - with a key moment in war history with its human element as well.

As a modeller you can get all of this buzzing around your head, almost transporting you there. Many years ago I built Trumpeter's Hornet as she was at Midway with the Devastators lined up for what was to be their last launch. As well as imagining that point in time, you also know what fate awaited them. It cannot fail to move you.

Crisp, given the cocktail of your first hand knowledge of the FAA, life at sea, history of the events and skill at modelling, you probably feel it a lot more than I did, and that was powerful enough for me.

 

Those Swordfish look superb and sharply detailed. Really hard to believe they are such a small scale!

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

On 07/02/2020 at 08:27, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

  And the moral is.... never tidy up, kids]

I'll let you explain that one to Mrs Martian!

 

Martian the Timid 👽

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen (and built) larger scale aircraft that don't look as good as your stringbags.

Oh, and a request if I may. I have just added L'Aresnal's HMS Fearless in 1/700 to my stash (close to the top). May I bug you for info about her when she went on her little jaunt to the south atlantic in the early 80's at some point in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigdave22014 said:

I've seen (and built) larger scale aircraft that don't look as good as your stringbags.

Oh, and a request if I may. I have just added L'Aresnal's HMS Fearless in 1/700 to my stash (close to the top). May I bug you for info about her when she went on her little jaunt to the south atlantic in the early 80's at some point in the future?

Yes, of course.  I have the same kit.  You need to replace the guns on the bridge wings, for a start - they’re the wrong sort, if I remember correctly.  But basically it looks nice.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey; someone in the North East is on a real roll!  Not content with delivering a sublime Broadsword a couple of weeks ago, Peter Hall (Atlantic Models) has now come up trumps with another beloved ship from my past - Broadsword’s big-nosed half-sister HMS Boxer.

49517360321_3f39d4833f_b.jpg

49517365151_67573168d9_b.jpg

49516840118_9053ca2639_b.jpg

49517365836_619ba8d4d8_b.jpg


Those two are going to be a lot of fun - they’re both safely back encased in bubble wrap and expanded polystyrene for now.

 

Actually, the above shot is a good illustration of the evolution of the Type 22.  In the foreground, the so-called “Batch 1”: in commissioning order, Broadsword, Battleaxe, Brilliant & Brazen.  The first two started life with a big fat funnel - theoretically reducing IR signature, I believe.  It clearly didn’t work, since Hull 3 onwards didn’t have it and the first two had it removed in their first refit; by the time I served in Broadsword she had the slimmer, more elegant funnel.

 

Then came “Batch 2”; stretched c.50’ to fit in some (at the time) highly classified electronic warfare gear just behind the bridge and a towed array sonar aft, Hulls 5 & 6: Boxer and Beaver.  These two still had same the 2-Lynx hangar and flight deck as the Batch 1.  The clipper bow was there because they were designed to have a chin-mounted active sonar (as opposed to 2016, which was pretty much underneath the bridge), so the designers had to come up with a way of ensuring that the anchor wouldn’t damage the sonar dome.  In the end Boxer never had that sonar fitted, though several of the class did - but the hull shape made her supremely fast; with a clean hull out of refit she reached 34 knots, which is not hanging about for 5,000 tons of frigate.
 

The later Batch 2s - Brave, London (originally to have been named Bloodhound), Sheffield (Bruiser) & Coventry (Boadicea) had an extended flight deck & hangar capable of operating a Sea King or Merlin, but still the towed array, so were exceedingly capable passive ASW ships.  [I was always sad that the Falklands War led to the name changes, because my Uncle had been 1st Lieutenant of the previous HMS Bruiser - a tank landing ship - during WW2].

 

Finally came the Batch 3s, with a gun, Harpoon and other changes (including different engines) effectively making them almost a different class - so they had names starting with C...  Cornwall, Cumberland, Campbeltown and Chatham.

 

Anyway.  I served in Boxer from late 1983-1985 (as a seaman officer) and in Broadsword from 1989-1991 (as Flight Commander), so though I am sure Peter will be releasing the later Batch 2s and a Batch 3 in due course, I already have the ones I need!  
 

Yum yum.

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those ships keep impressing me!

 

Also, it's a good thing you have 15 Stringbags to build for this project - with all this sail material, I'm gonna miss your aircraft modelling for a loooong while.....

 

 

:D

 

Ciao

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another 22, excellent! As you say comparing the two together like that really shows the differences quite clearly. Does the slimmer funnel you refer to cause that extra gap between it's front and that deckhouse just ahead of it? It's less easy to see if those funnels are different but I've assumed that deckhouse is similar size and position on both ships?

 

Terry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Terry1954 said:

Another 22, excellent! As you say comparing the two together like that really shows the differences quite clearly. Does the slimmer funnel you refer to cause that extra gap between it's front and that deckhouse just ahead of it? It's less easy to see if those funnels are different but I've assumed that deckhouse is similar size and position on both ships?

 

Terry

The apparent difference in spacing you mention is purely because the models are dry fitted for those photographs!  The funnels should be in the same place relative to what is around them, and the funnels themselves are the same.  Apart from the cut-out in the port quarter of the flight deck in the Batch 1s (to do with launching the Type 182 towed acoustic decoy), seen from above the two ships were essentially identical from the stern to the fore-mast inclusive; most of the ‘stretch’ was between foremast and bridge; the bridge, for’d Seawolf and fo’c’s’le were basically the same, then the different bow in the Batch 2.  
 

Seen from astern the Batch 2s had the very distinctive “elephant’s bumbum”, a very large fairlead on the port side of the quarter deck, through which the towed-array sonar was led - but you can’t see that in any of those pictures.

 

[Edit: the forum is clearly too delicate for Naval slang.  The TA fairlead was an elephant’s R sole, not a bumbum...]

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

The TA fairlead was an elephant’s R sole, not a bumbum...

I'll take your word for that!

 

OK, I looked at the overhead shot and now see what you mean re the differences. Thanks.

 

Lovely ships, they will make excellent models, and I am sure you will do them justice.

 

Terry

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a move that will probably alarm Giorgio, with his yearning for more Stringbag, this evening I’ve moved back to the ship for a few hours - specifically to working on the pom-pom platform immediately abaft the funnel / island.

 

I think when you last saw this thing - the odd-shaped deck-on-stilts in the left foreground here - it was just a flat piece on stilts. [The stilts, by the way, are there because underneath were 1. a modicum of shelter from the weather for the Chock-heads; 2. the  gas bottles for filling met balloons; and 3. the pistons, accumulator and recoil tackle for the crash barrier (which ran approximately where the shadow falls across the deck).]. The profile of the deck edge also shows why the stilts are such an odd shape on that side.

 

This evening I have added 1. A pair of ready-use ammunition lockers for the pom-pom (which will eventually fit where the prominent hole is). 2. That raised pulpit thingy, in which will go a pom-pom director. 3. The railing and ladder 

49526678228_a136d57c20_b.jpg


From the other side, you also see the newly-fitted large flat screen with the sliding door in it [this is one of the ways to date photographs of Ark, since it wasn’t there when she was built but was added some time in 1940.]

49527414937_d6e00850a6_b.jpg


With all this dry fitted for the photos, gradually the island is starting to take shape.  To modern eyes it looks pretty small, dominated by the huge funnel.  In her very early days Ark’s funnel was lower, but it became apparent on sea trials that there was too much funnel gas and turbulence on the flight deck, so by the time she entered service it had been raised.  Of course modern carrier islands are larger because they have to support large radars, which Ark narrowly missed.

 

In this third shot you can see some pairs of 0.4mm holes up above the flag deck (into which will go Tetra PE ladder rungs in due course).  Tetra supply a series of templates through which to drill these holes, which is a really neat solution to getting them evenly spaced.

49526677138_43145eded2_b.jpg


Here you might be able to make out another set of ladder holes, this time leading up to the pom-pom deck where all tonight’s work has been concentrated.

49526678438_aeda5b4744_b.jpg


In fact you can see a couple of the templates in the background of this final shot, with tape still attached 

49527415352_4a471a713a_b.jpg

 

Sooner or later I am going to have to bite the bullet and finish that bridge....it’s not supposed to have gaping holes on either side...   but for now, I am happy with how she is developing.

 

More soon

 

Crisp

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

As for Giorgio yearning's, he did get a little peak there in the background ..............

Yes he did :rofl:

 

Impressive detailing as ever, Crisp :worthy:

 

Ciao

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

In her very early days Ark’s funnel was lower, but it became apparent on sea trials that there was too much funnel gas and turbulence on the flight deck, so by the time she entered service it had been raised.

Illustration of the funnel change: here the initial version - half-way up the tripod mast, even allowing for the angle.  I reckon this could even be before she was commissioned: note the crude guardrails on the for’d part of the flight deck, the fact that her boat booms aren’t fitted... and those aren’t her final RT masts, either.

Ark Royal pre-War, port side: low funnel, so sea trials?


And here the final version from roughly the same angle (in a much-published PR photo that beautifully captures inter-War carefree Naval flying) - almost to the top of the tripod.  Still a pre-War picture; note Spanish Civil War neutrality markings (red, white & blue stripes) on the for’d-most 4.5” mounting.

48359845027_99465915b4_c.jpg

 

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

note Spanish Civil War neutrality markings (red, white & blue stripes) on the for’d-most 4.5” mounting.

I'm off to the opticians; It all looks grey to me.

 

Is the '4.5"' mounting the thing that someone called the Tesla Logo a few pages back?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kirk said:

I'm off to the opticians; It all looks grey to me.

 

Is the '4.5"' mounting the thing that someone called the Tesla Logo a few pages back?

Can’t be fished to go back and find that reference, but...

 

Look at the mast, with the large cylindrical aircraft beacon on it.  Bring your eyes vertically down, through the island and across the flight deck to the near edge (i.e vertically on the picture; a diagonal path in real life).  Just below the near edge of the deck, in line with the left hand edge of the hull opening below it, is a gun turret: it contained 2 x 4.5” guns - you can see the barrels pointing to the left as we look, with their muzzles visible just above the deck edge.  
 

The turret is striped.  Yes, it is a B&W photo, but contemporary accounts tell us that the stripes were red, white & blue.

 

If you follow the edge of the flight deck aft, you’ll find a second turret which is identical in every way... apart from being grey.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kirk said:

I have zero idea how you're making things this small look so good.

Do absolutely nothing in a rush.  Invest in really good lights.  Make sure you have the best tiny tweezers you can afford.  If you get tired or frustrated, stop at once.

 

Other than that, it definitely helps to be an ex-matelot, because you usually understand what these weird & wonderful bits of kit are for & can at least make an educated guess what they looked like.

 

Above all, accept that a build like this will take a long time, so if you don’t love the subject don’t bother - cos you’re going to give up half way through.

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:
4 hours ago, Kirk said:

I'm off to the opticians; It all looks grey to me.

 

Is the '4.5"' mounting the thing that someone called the Tesla Logo a few pages back?

Can’t be fished to go back and find that reference, but...

 

That's be me Crisp.  I was getting lost with all the abafts and pom-poms and was the only way I could think to describe one of those Naval protrusions

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
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...