Jump to content

1/350 HMS Birmingham, town class cruiser


Terry1954

Recommended Posts

My eldest sister's husband (now deceased), served on HMS Birmingham during the 1950's. I'm currently doing research on the best way to model this ship (1952 fit), in his honour.

 

I know White Ensign Models did a 1/350 HMS Southampton but it seems no longer available? A friend suggested modifying Trumpeters HMS Belfast which was longer and beamier, along with other differences I'm sure, but that seems like the hard way. I wont start this build till sometime next year, but meantime my research continues. Any ideas on availability of the WEM kit, or using the Trumpeter Belfast?

 

I posted in this thread but could have placed it in Cold war as well, as that is the era I'm interested in.

 

Thanks

 

Terry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gidday Terry, I don't know much about 1/350 kits as I model in 1/600 scale. Like you I wish to do a Southampton class (HMS Sheffield) one day, modifying a Belfast kit.

     One problem with HMS Birmingham though. I don't know if you are aware but her hull near the bow was a little different from all the other British cruisers in that she didn't have a knuckle (I think it was called, or chine). Her hull was flared all the way up to the upper deck. You would have to alter this if you used the kit of another cruiser.

HTH. Regards, Jeff.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday Terry, I don't know much about 1/350 kits as I model in 1/600 scale. Like you I wish to do a Southampton class (HMS Sheffield) one day, modifying a Belfast kit.

     One problem with HMS Birmingham though. I don't know if you are aware but her hull near the bow was a little different from all the other British cruisers in that she didn't have a knuckle (I think it was called, or chine). Her hull was flared all the way up to the upper deck. You would have to alter this if you used the kit of another cruiser.

HTH. Regards, Jeff.

Thanks Jeff that does help. I thought that was the case.

 

Looking at the differences in length and beam, in 1/350 Belfast would be almost 2cm longer, but a mere 2mm wider in beam. I'm not sure if the Trumpeter Belfast is a good starting point though as I have little knowledge of their ship kits, and some reviews have commented on accuracy. That would be less of an issue for me anyway, as I would see the project involving a lot of use of aftermarket and scratch built detail. Would just have rather started with a Southampton class!

 

Co-incidentally a package has just arrived containing two books, one of which is this one:

 

20190725_145038_resized

 

So at least I have some good reference drawings to assist in the project when its underway.

 

Terry

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2019 at 1:34 PM, Terry1954 said:

My eldest sister's husband (now deceased), served on HMS Birmingham during the 1950's.

Served IN HMS Birmingham, dear boy.  You serve IN a ship, not ON it.  [With the exception of HMS Opportune and HMS Active, for reasons that should be obvious]

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

You serve IN a ship, not ON it.

Ah yes, of course, silly me, I stand corrected. 

 

But on in my defenceI I never served on in the Navy ............ 

 

Terry

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 15:04, Terry1954 said:

Looking at the differences in length and beam, in 1/350 Belfast would be almost 2cm longer, but a mere 2mm wider in beam. I'm not sure if the Trumpeter Belfast is a good starting point though as I have little knowledge of their ship kits, and some reviews have commented on accuracy. That would be less of an issue for me anyway, as I would see the project involving a lot of use of aftermarket and scratch built detail. Would just have rather started with a Southampton class!

 

 

 

Hi Terry,

 

I shall be following this with interest as having served in the Type 42 destroyers GLASGOW and BIRMINGHAM, and having already converted the Airfix BELFAST to GLASGOW, my next 1/600 Town class conversion will be BIRMINGHAM at some point in the future.

 

Arnold is absolutely spot on with his observation about the destroyer type flared bow fitted to BIRMINGHAM as opposed to the Cruiser type chine bow fitted to the rest of the class.  Apparently it was an experiment to see which was the better design for future cruisers.  The fact that no other cruiser had that bow suggests to me it wasn't that successful!

 

The other major differences between BELFAST and the earlier ships is that BELFAST had a very prominent torpedo bulge fitted in her post-mining refit in 1940-42 at Devonport which none of the earlier ships did.  Whilst they are described as torpedo bulges, apparently the main reason they were fitted was to improve stability after so much extra top weight was added during the refit.  The forward superstructure, especially around the after end, is completely different and in all Town class apart from BELFAST and EDINBURGH, X and Y turrets are on 01 and 1 deck respectively; the third sub-class carried them on 02 and 01 deck.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham completed in Nov 1937 and it was several months before she got any real sea time. The next cruiser class was the Dido class, which began to be laid down from Aug 1937. After that all the RN cruisers were Colony class or derivatives thereof. They started being laid down in Feb 1938. 

 

So in reality there was no time to evaluate the results of the Birmingham experiment. Given the need to get ships completed it is no wonder they didn’t tinker with the basic hull designs of later ships. There were more important issues like AA armament, radar etc.

 

I’ve not seen anything that comments one way or another about the success of B’ham’s bow. There is a big new book on the Town class due to be published at the end of the year. Maybe that will include something.

 

i seem to recall an article in an Airfix Magazine back in the mid 1970s detailing how to convert the Airfix Belfast to one of the earlier Towns. I also recall trying it and that substantial reinforcement of the hull was needed after cutting out the Belfast bulges and chopping some length out of the hull.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Hi Terry,

 

I shall be following this with interest as having served in the Type 42 destroyers GLASGOW and BIRMINGHAM, and having already converted the Airfix BELFAST to GLASGOW, my next 1/600 Town class conversion will be BIRMINGHAM at some point in the future.

 

Arnold is absolutely spot on with his observation about the destroyer type flared bow fitted to BIRMINGHAM as opposed to the Cruiser type chine bow fitted to the rest of the class.  Apparently it was an experiment to see which was the better design for future cruisers.  The fact that no other cruiser had that bow suggests to me it wasn't that successful!

 

The other major differences between BELFAST and the earlier ships is that BELFAST had a very prominent torpedo bulge fitted in her post-mining refit in 1940-42 at Devonport which none of the earlier ships did.  Whilst they are described as torpedo bulges, apparently the main reason they were fitted was to improve stability after so much extra top weight was added during the refit.  The forward superstructure, especially around the after end, is completely different and in all Town class apart from BELFAST and EDINBURGH, X and Y turrets are on 01 and 1 deck respectively; the third sub-class carried them on 02 and 01 deck.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Chewie, I appreciate that and I just checked out your link to your HMS Glasgow build which is not only very impressive, but very helpful too! My build is unlikely to start this year, but there is a possibility you may see something before the end of the year. I'm still deliberating on the way to go. The original 1/350 idea is the favoured route, but your thread on HMS Glasgow in 1/600 has made me think a bit. It will be great to have you along when I start the WIP though!

 

25 minutes ago, EwenS said:

Birmingham completed in Nov 1937 and it was several months before she got any real sea time. The next cruiser class was the Dido class, which began to be laid down from Aug 1937. After that all the RN cruisers were Colony class or derivatives thereof. They started being laid down in Feb 1938. 

 

So in reality there was no time to evaluate the results of the Birmingham experiment. Given the need to get ships completed it is no wonder they didn’t tinker with the basic hull designs of later ships. There were more important issues like AA armament, radar etc.

 

I’ve not seen anything that comments one way or another about the success of B’ham’s bow. There is a big new book on the Town class due to be published at the end of the year. Maybe that will include something.

 

i seem to recall an article in an Airfix Magazine back in the mid 1970s detailing how to convert the Airfix Belfast to one of the earlier Towns. I also recall trying it and that substantial reinforcement of the hull was needed after cutting out the Belfast bulges and chopping some length out of the hull.

 

 

Thanks Ewan, it's great that originally posting my plans for this build on here has already generated interest and some good knowledge. My Brother-in-law would have been very interested in this, so a real shame I never got round to doing the build whilst he was still with us.

 

Terry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EwenS said:

So in reality there was no time to evaluate the results of the Birmingham experiment. Given the need to get ships completed it is no wonder they didn’t tinker with the basic hull designs of later ships. There were more important issues like AA armament, radar etc.

 

I’ve not seen anything that comments one way or another about the success of B’ham’s bow. There is a big new book on the Town class due to be published at the end of the year. Maybe that will include something.

 

I certainly wouldn't argue that point.  The annoying thing is that I know I have read somewhere that the trial wasn't considered a great success, but having just checked Friedman, McCart and Waters, none give any evidence for its success of not so let's hope the new book has some more info

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alternative approach in 1/600 is to use the Hull of a Tiger with the stern and deck of a Belfast.  This is not quite as simple as it sounds but does provide a much stronger hull to work with.  There remains problems with the superstructure etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2019 at 4:17 PM, Chewbacca said:

Apparently it was an experiment to see which was the better design for future cruisers. 

Gidday Chewy, I didn't know WHY Birmingham's bow was different, just that it was. Many thanks. Regards, Jeff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

An alternative approach in 1/600 is to use the Hull of a Tiger with the stern and deck of a Belfast.  This is not quite as simple as it sounds but does provide a much stronger hull to work with.  There remains problems with the superstructure etc.

Thanks Graham. Not sure the hull of a Tiger would help as that would involve lengthening a Tiger hull rather than shortening if starting from a Belfast I think?

 

2 hours ago, EwenS said:

You might like this from 1946 - 0.10 onwards.

Great clip there Ewan and a good shot of Birmingham passing.

 

To throw more confusion in to my plans I notice Atlantic models are showing that Starling will be releasing a 1/700 Southampton class (WEM I assume), so that's clearly an option, but not the scale I'd prefer for this one really.

 

Thinking hat on and more planning needed!

 

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Terry1954 said:

Not sure the hull of a Tiger would help as that would involve lengthening a Tiger hull rather than shortening if starting from a Belfast

Gidday Terry, I'm not sure this would be difficult with this hull. By my calculations the hull would need to be lengthened 18mm (36 feet - 555 to 591 feet oa). If you were to cut cleanly across the hull, separate the two halves the required distance, bridge the gap with strong girders (heavy sprue) on the inside then plating and filler on the outside. Screw both halves to a block of wood while doing so for rigidity. Admittedly I haven't done this exact method yet myself but am planning to, with this conversion in mind (Tiger to Sheffield) and for a whiff I have in mind, lengthening an Airfix Nelson hull. But I have altered the length of five hulls now (two KGV and three Ajax, one of which is my current build) using a very similar method so I think this would work.

     Maybe give it some thought anyway. HTH. Regards, Jeff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I should add for anyone else considering this - the Belfast decks can be slipped into the Tiger hull without being thinned (thus retaining all the detail).  Which I did, but now think it was a mistake, because when attempting to revise the superstructure there's a mismatch between the plans for a Town, the kit parts, and the width of the deck.  This may not have worked ideally the other way either, so stop and consider this before adding the deck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/19/2019 at 3:54 PM, Terry1954 said:

To throw more confusion in to my plans I notice Atlantic models are showing that Starling will be releasing a 1/700 Southampton class (WEM I assume), so that's clearly an option, but not the scale I'd prefer for this one really.

 

That isn't on the current list of planned kits, L'arsenal have a 1/700 Sheffield available.

Mike

  • Thanks 1
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...