HMS Duke of York, 1/350, Tamiya/Pontos conversion

[Kev The Modeller]

Superb build, museum standard for sure  

[Rob 1]

Agreed, top rate ship building, looks superb!

[Murdo]

Absolutely stunning work there. Sheer museum class!!!

 

[Kris B]

Well done, on the last photo if you photoshop the hull with water could be mistaken for real one.

[sohoppy]

Once again, the kind comments are all appreciated.

 

One thing I forgot to mention is what appears to be a flaw with the model itself. The bilge keels - the curved 'fins' on the hull - are too long. They extend about 3/4" or 2cm too far aft. I only found out about this after her completion and have no plans to correct it for now - although may get round to it later. It doesn't make much difference to the overall appearance but then its not hard to correct either, if you have the right drawings to hand.

 

Also here is a picture from HMS Belfast showing the hawse pipe covers - the same as for the DoY, just smaller.

[Dave Swindell]

5 hours ago, sohoppy said:

Also here is a picture from HMS Belfast showing the hawse pipe covers

Them's the spurling pipe covers, the hawse pipe covers are about either side of where the photographer is standing.

Hawse pipe = tube through which the anchor chain runs  between the anchor and the windlass/cable lifter

Spurling pipe = tube through which the anchor chain runs  between the windlass/cable lifter and the chain locker

[sohoppy]

Quite so, my mistake. Many thanks, Inigo

[foeth]

14 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

Them's the spurling pipe covers

I thought they were called Navel bonnets? (or also called )

[Dave Swindell]

4 hours ago, foeth said:

I thought they were called Navel bonnets? (or also called )

In the context of the model and ship in question, yes, you're right. Navel Bonnets, and Navel Pipes which they cover, are the terms that would be used by the Admiralty. However, outside of Grey Funnel Line, I've only ever heard of them referred to as spurling pipes & covers.

[sohoppy]

Well, I've never crewed, navigated or skippered anything with an engine much larger than what you might find in a tractor - so all this kind of information most interesting and welcome!

[sohoppy]

Hi there,

While we are doing 'naming of parts', anyone got any idea what this sort of tub on the HACS tower was? Or what was in it? Could never find a clear pic.

 

Made me think of those lookout barrels on whalers - but in the seas where DoY spent most of her time, this position would have been all but uninhabitable for a few minutes - let alone a whole watch. Reached on icy rungs and exposed to sub zero temperatures and 60kt winds. Not for the faint-hearted.

[foeth]

DoY initally had a pompom director there, but it appears it was repurposed as an aerial trunk later (> November 1943 at least). There's a similar tub on the aft director structure as well. It appears by the same time (>November 1943) the pompom director was removed from that position as well. Later pics (when there are 2 quad pompoms on the quarterdeck) show a director again (now with radar).

Edited March 3, 2020 by foeth

[sohoppy]

You may well be right - it would explain the small brass nothing-in-particular supplied by Pontos to go in the forward one.

 

I put a pom-pom director in the aft one because there seems to be something in these slightly indistinct pictures from the IWM below and, as you say, there definitely was one the following year. But I am now not so sure I did the right thing.

 

This one is December '43, apparently, taken in Iceland.

 

And this one of the well-known Rosyth series from March that year. (N.B. Some of these are mirror images which is a bit tiresome.)

 

 

...also irritated to see that the railings I put round the little platform in front of the tub were probably mistaken...

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by sohoppy

[foeth]

THis pic from November 1943 that shows the top of the bridge quite clearly. I do not have a high-res version to see exactly what's going on there though.

 

HMS DUKE OF YORK AS SEEN FROM THE TOP OF A 100-TON CRANE. 1 NOVEMBER 1943, DRY DOCK AT ROSYTH.. © IWM (A 20168) IWM Non Commercial License

 

The same view during the build in e.g. "the building of HMS Duke of York" by Ian Buxton (Warship Intl) shows a pompom director there (and as this site does not allow uploads...)

[sohoppy]

That's probably the answer for the forward one then. There doesn't appear to be anything much in the picture you show so the director was either removed for repairs or gone altogether before or during the March refit.

 

Looking at DoY and KGV at various stages, it seems there was no direct correspondence between the number of pom-pom directors and the gun installations they laid/trained. I understand that by mid-war many pop-poms had remote control mounts and one or more could be slaved to a director as required.

 

That said, it seems sensible to have one at the stern as they can 'see' better there without funnnels and general top-hamper in the way. So, at a guess, the stern tub holds either something we simply can't identify... or the pictures are too grainy to tell... or it has an earlier director without a radar set... or a director whose radar has been temporarily removed for repairs. On balance, the latter might be the most probable as why fit radars to the four around the superstructure and not the remaining fifth one at the stern? I'll leave my model the way it is for present.

 

Interestingly, the image above is one of the mirror images I was talking about. Another thing that stikes me is that she appears to be either entering or leaving drydock: so why was contractor type stuff strewn about, some oerlikons missing shields and sections of oerlikon foot stand lying around on deck? Seems rather unshipshape if leaving... or curious that contractors had already started work if she was arriving.

 

 

[foeth]

Initially all pompoms did have their own director, but I suppose it was not possible/needed to keep up this practice (perhaps indeed the RP versions). These units are large are require a relatively large crew (compared to the USN Bofors directors). When the 6 additional quad pompoms were added to the the quarterdeck, bridge wings and next to B-turret one director reappaers in the stern tub (the radar clearly shows), but from what I can tell the tub on the fwd HACS emplacement remained empty (and placing one back without radar would be silly at this stage). If your model is a late 1943 version you could carve that aft director off (but I wouldn't ) as the tub is still empty in December. Haven't checked Raven& Roberts or Burt yet if they mention exact dates... Edit: R&R moention the fwd director was removed (and did have  radar, also shown on some IWM shots) but the date is unknown. They also write "two '282' sets were fitted for new pompom directors and after superstructure'  in the 44-45 refit...

 

HMS DUKE OF YORK IN ICELAND, DECEMBER 1943.. © IWM (A 21125) IWM Non Commercial License

 

This shot of Howe shows an additional pompom director aft of the main crane...

 

THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 28853) IWM Non Commercial License

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by foeth

[sohoppy]

Many thanks. I think I'll take out the extra at pom-pom director when my model comes in for her next 'refit' - and sort out the bilge keels too; unless you find anything that suggests the director should stay. The aim of the project was, after all, to try and produce as accurate a version as possible of how she looked - in terms of general fit and lay out rather than weathering etc - when she put to sea that December. 

 

Meanwhile, yet another variation on the theme of pom-pom splinter shield, in your pic of the Howe. Clearly they couldn't make their minds up. What is odd is how little obvious protection this - or the DoY version - offers compared to the late KGV version.

[sohoppy]

Have recently re-read all of this: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/Royal_Navy_colours_of_World_War_Two_-_The_Pattern_507s_G10_and_G45_206c1b6d-3bb8-47d8-aa5c-2389c903b6f6.pdf?894755808771701005

 

The authors conclusion is that the 'warm' tones of the paint for the upper works  - specified in surviving samples of G45 - is simply an artefact of ageing paint formulas and that the real colour was actually a light, pale grey. They may well be right. I can find no further evidence to confirm or deny this - and their reasoning seems methodical and sound.

 

But, and it is a small but. Very similar shades to the warm version can be seen in colour film and stills from the time. Moreover, and this is the point that interests me most, when I took my model out to photograph on an overcast day I used a sheet of mirror plastic to reflect the actual sky as a backdrop. What struck me then was how perfectly the 'warm' G45 blends in with overcast... which would be handy, to say the least, where DoY was ususally deployed. Real overcast invariably contains a hint of beige - the reason why RAF Nimrods used a curious sort of hemp colour in the 90's.

 

In any event, there is no way on earth I am going to try and re-paint her.

[sohoppy]

Have had some time for a little further reflection on this topic. Light relief from contemplating possible indefinite 'house arest' with the family!

 

The authors of the Soverign Hobbies paper explain the conflict between the 1943 memo ingredients and the Snyder and Short samples by attributing some sort of degradation in the sample owing to the linseed oil in the mix. But this raises a question: since all the receipes include a simlar base with linseed oil, surely all the S&N samples should be obviously too yellow?

 

Then there is the fact that both S&N samples apparently still look the same as each other. I recall from a phase I went through a few years ago restoring old WWII aviation nav instruments like bubble sextants from ebay - to see how their accuracy compared to their maritime equivalents - that the rate at which old plastics and paint finishes deteriorate varies greatly depending on how they had been stored in the intervening 70 years. No two were the same. Thus if the S&N samples had deteriorated because of linseed oil - or whatever - it would be surprising if they looked the same, unless kept in exactly the same way, in the same place.

 

Finally, some months back, I read a really interesting article (online) on the RN and its troubled wartime relationship with camouflage and paint generally - I wish I could remember where - which made clear that the seeming free-for-all in mid-war years, often driven by individual ship's captains preferences or fashion in a particular group, was a source of continued vexation to the ordered minds of staff officers; hence the kinds of memo referred to in the SH article. This one is dated 1943 so it is likely the DoY already had her version of the scheme by the time it was issued. It is then quite possible the memo reflected what ought to have been - rather than what necessarily was.

 

Here's DoY, I'm guessing in late '42 or early '43 because her 284 hasn't yet got the second 'pig trough'. I can't credit the photo sadly as no idea where it orignally comes from, as found it on a sharing site.

[James G]

Excellent model

[trickydicky210]

Wow, that’s a stunning build 👏👏👏