Worms Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 My first ship in at least 25 years! I have read and inwardly digested all the latest info on colour schemes...researched the ship (internet) and well...it's certainly going to be grey! 😉 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Well, the first bit was easy, hull assembled and that and the main deck primed! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Some modifications to A, B,and Y 4.7" gun housings. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoldAmbrose Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Gidday Worms, they were graceful yet powerful destroyers, I think. You didn't mention 'X' mounting. Are you going to replace it with a twin 4-inch? Many of them did. And will your model be full hull or waterlined? Regards, Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Hi Jeff, Yes, the Tribals were a new breed. I initially intended to make X turret a 4 inch...although I have read that Cossack was fitted with a 4.7 turret with modified (increased) elevation...a bit more research methinks! I'm intending to model her as she was (or probably was) in May 1941 with shortened rear funnel and rear mast and...now the controversial bit...507a hull with a lighter, possibly 507c, vertical faces to the superstructure with a very dark deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoldAmbrose Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 2 hours ago, Worms said: although I have read that Cossack was fitted with a 4.7 turret with modified (increased) elevation.. Gidday Worms, I didn't know that. Thanks. The reason I asked about full hull or waterline build is because I think the hull is 4mm too deep, mine was anyway. I can't see how that can be easily fixed on a full hull model, and it does present one issue - the prop shafts. You'll have to extend the shaft struts a little or the shafts will slope upwards, not downwards when looking aft towards the screws. That was an easy fix. Naturally, waterlined builds won't have these issues. HTH. Regards, Jeff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Hi Jeff, Sorry I didn't reply to the hull question...mine will be full hull. I too had read about the inaccurate hull depth but at the time of starting I was more interested in a bit of practice on ships....things just started getting away from me as I commenced what I thought was going to be a oob build...as usual...😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Torpedo tubes from brass tube mounted on the original kit base and one of the 4.7" guns. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 15 hours ago, Worms said: now the controversial bit...507a hull with a lighter, possibly 507c, vertical faces to the superstructure A fairly typical destroyer scheme actually, so you can use with some confidence and anyone telling you it's wrong will need some specific and weighty evidence otherwise. Just be sure to use corrected versions of both - Snyder & Short copies will have far too much contrast between them and look odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Thanks Jamie, That's a relief!....I have mixed my own 507a using Tamiya X4, XF1 and XF54 at a 1:2:7 ratio...I know monitors vary but it was pretty close to your colour chip and looks right to me. I have used straight XF54 for vertical superstructure so far, that looks pretty close too. The dark deck grey was 1:4 XF1 and XF54. I'll post some pics later! Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 As I found more references to Cossack being fitted with a 4" twin mounting on x turret I went with that. This is just loosely mounted as I'm hoping for some Atlantic pe to turn up any day... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelholic Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 AFAIK Cossack (and all the other 4.7"twin Mk.XIX mount armed ships), had an elevation of 40 degrees with a (later) single mount having 55 degrees. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-45_mk9.php (a great site for all things weapony) Royal Navy AA was fairly dismal in the early war years but got a lot better when the various radar equipped directors and small cannons appeared. The Airfix 600 scale brings back some memories, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 53 minutes ago, Modelholic said: AFAIK Cossack (and all the other 4.7"twin Mk.XIX mount armed ships), had an elevation of 40 degrees with a (later) single mount having 55 degrees. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-45_mk9.php (a great site for all things weapony) Royal Navy AA was fairly dismal in the early war years but got a lot better when the various radar equipped directors and small cannons appeared. The Airfix 600 scale brings back some memories, Tom Hi Tom, that's a good site, I used that in my research! Early Tribals were built with four double 4.7" mounts but the loss of a number of ships to aerial attacks early in the war prompted the replacement of X turret with a dedicated AA mount in about 1940. Cossack was re-fitted and repaired from the end of April 1940 when her 4" turret was fitted according to numerous reports....It's just that I found one report that said HA 4.7" guns were fitted...perhaps absolute evidence isn't available? I'm assuming that this claim is probably reasonably accurate; 29th Passage to Portsmouth for permanent repair. 30th Taken in hand for repair. May Repair arranged at J I Thornycroft shipyard at Southampton . Taken in hand for repair Pennant Number for visual signalling purposes changed to G03. (Note: Refit work included: Installation of Radar Type 286, which was an RAF air/surface equipment modified for naval use and the first radar outfit to be fitted in RN destroyers. For details of the development and use of radar equipment in the Royal Navy see RADAR AT SEA by D Howse.) Twin 4.7in mounting in X position was replaced by twin 4in HA mounting and modifications were made to other ship services. source:http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Cossack1.htm Yep, Airfix's 1/600 brings back many memories for me too..thought I'd renew the acquaintance with a few of them again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelholic Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 I'm thinking your referring to the 'other ship services' which could be anything. I've never heard/read of the twin 4.7 having it's elevation increased (something to do with the trunnion height maybe) this would have been a very desirable thing to do and would have been well documented. i wonder if there's been some mix up with the L and M class destroyers which also used 4.7" in a different turret that had the higher elevation of 50 degrees? http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-50_mk11.php Still whatever the elevation the builds looking spot on. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 19 hours ago, Modelholic said: I'm thinking your referring to the 'other ship services' which could be anything. I've never heard/read of the twin 4.7 having it's elevation increased (something to do with the trunnion height maybe) this would have been a very desirable thing to do and would have been well documented. i wonder if there's been some mix up with the L and M class destroyers which also used 4.7" in a different turret that had the higher elevation of 50 degrees? http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-50_mk11.php Still whatever the elevation the builds looking spot on. Tom Thanks Tom, I think we may be at cross purposes here, I'm referring to; "Twin 4.7in mounting in X position was replaced by twin 4in HA mounting" Which is how I'm modelling the ship but, The reference to a twin 4.7" HA replacement for X turret actually comes from the HMS Cossack Association page...perhaps a typo, perhaps not. Unfortunately photographs of this area of the ship in the early half of 1941 seem a bit difficult to find... I'm enjoying the build however and learning an awful lot about WW2 Naval ships and hopefully improving my modelling skills...which isn't difficult 😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoldAmbrose Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Gidday Worms, enjoying the build is the most important aspect I think. Learning about the subject and improving modeling skills are added bonuses. And I like your improvements to the guns and torpedo tubes. Regards, Jeff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelholic Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 I was replying to your post #5 quote 'although I have read that Cossack was fitted with a 4.7 turret with modified (increased) elevation' But you're correct in that quite a few Tribal's had X mount replaced by a twin 4" FYI they're not 'turrets' but 'mounts' there was no revolving structure below deck level. Happy modelling Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Ned Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 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). Edited January 7, 2020 by Our Ned 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 Hi Tom, This is the 4.7" HA information I found from https://www.hmscossack.co.uk/portfolio/new-elegance-wine/ 30 April 1940 Arrived at Portsmouth for de-storing 2 May 1940 Arrived at Thorneycroft’s Yard Southampton for repairs for damage sustained at 2nd Battle of Narvik X gun mounting replaced by twin 4.7” HA. (High Angle) Reserve Feed tank and patrol tank compartment repaired Installation of Type 286 RADAR (RAD air to surface RADAR modified for naval use and the first RADAR outfit to be fitted in RN destroyers Hi Ned, thanks for the info. There's also a good photo of the rear funnel and shortened mainmast on the IWM website https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205135964 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 9, 2020 Author Share Posted January 9, 2020 Blimey the Atlantic Models PE is detailed but very fiddly! Some bits coming on, a quad vickers mounted in the amidships AA platform, th quad pom pom and the aft funnel with PE and scratch built pipes. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 11, 2020 Author Share Posted January 11, 2020 A bit more progress! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoldAmbrose Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Gidday Worms, you've got an interesting way of doing things, building up from the deck first. I've never thought of building ships that way, I usually attach the deck very early and then build up from there. I'm interested as to how it works out. Regards, Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worms Posted January 11, 2020 Author Share Posted January 11, 2020 Hi Jeff, none of the superstructure is glued on yet, it's just placed on. The PE is so tiny at this scale that it's much easier to fit it to the individual superstructure components then paint (if it's the same colour) or paint it on the fret and then assemble, e.g. guns. Once the PE is fitted and painted I will tidy up the deck, fit it to the hull and finally glue the superstructure on in conventional fashion...there are also many locating holes off centre on this kit so dummy runs are essential! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoldAmbrose Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 7 minutes ago, Worms said: there are also many locating holes off centre on this kit Gidday Worms, I found that too, and some of the locating holes in the gun mounts. I relocated some of the holes. Regards, Jeff. 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