1/350 HMS Kent County Class Cruiser 1941

[robgizlu]

It's confession time (though I half forgot I had this)

I bought it from Woody IOW.  Kent has the 273 radar fitted aft which was done in 1942.  I discarded it as evidence as I assumed that this scheme without MS1 mid ship represented a LATER scheme.  Jamie - I think your Port side interpreatation nails it - 2 out of 3 of the IWM pics suggest a non MS1 mid ship camo block and the third is a very over-exposed pic taken at Plymouth immediately post refit.  Good Call that man!!!

 

 

I have spent Far too long looking at the available pics   and if we don;'t stop debating and start building soon I'm clearly going to  be in trouble with @longshanks

 

I have changed my thinking over the last 48 hours and I feel that Starboard 3 also nails it with a centre block of MS4.  However I really feel that the bow section is B5 and matches the tone of the 2nd from rear end block as per the profile in #38

Unless Dick strongly contradicts - this is the way I'm heading.

Jamie - sincere thanks for your excellent profiles - I've come on a journey - it was important to me to get this as right as possible from the start considering the time I'll be investing in the build

I really didn't imagine we'd up with the schemes above

Dick - my sincerest thanks to you for your insights and documentary evidence re MS4.

 

And now - what about the turrets........................(half joking !!)

Rob

[Chewbacca]

This is a great thread.  I think I'll have to do mine in the earlier China Station colour scheme just to be different!

[robgizlu]

7 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

This is a great thread.  I think I'll have to do mine in the earlier China Station colour scheme just to be different!

It's a corker Chewbacca.

I originally set out to d Berwick in Mountbatten Pink but it would be too similar to Anchusa

Rob

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

The turrets may be 507C. The reason I hesitate slightly is that I've seen photos of ships in all over one-colour which give an impression of lighter upperworks just because of different weathering mechanisms and shadow/light fall. I'd still value Richard's thoughts in due course.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

3 hours ago, longshanks said:

 Gin!  I've run out of wine .....  

Kev

Only a monster could claim that a trip to the wine merchant wasn’t “essential”

[dickrd]

Rob,

 

Your Woody IoW photo off the port quarter is one of a series of Kent leaving Liverpool on 7th November 1942.  Whilst the design of the camouflage pattern remained the same, the arrangement of colours was changed from what went before both port and starboard. Amongst other things, on the portside hull the large Tone A (MS1) panel amidships was changed to Tone B.

 

There do seem to be remarkably few photos of the portside of HMS Kent in the period we are after ie September 1941 to April 1942 but the generally available image is this September 1941 one which features in various publications:

 

 

It features on page 36 of Man O’ War 1 which I see you have. To prove the paint scheme is different to that in your Woody IoW photo look at the draught marks. In the Woody IoW photo they are dark and extend quite a way up the hull. If you take a magnifying glass to the photo on page 36 on Man O’ War you will see that they are light and only extend just above the top of the low, aftmost camouflage panel into the light Tone D stripe above. Although of poor quality, here is another view of that area and those draught marks dated 23 May 1942:

 

 

Jamie’s early depictions of the portside are what we need to go back to. 

 

My current impression is that the turrets were Tone C September 1941 – April 1942.

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Oh dear. This complicates matters a bit! Back to the drawing boards for me then!

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

41 minutes ago, dickrd said:

Jamie’s early depictions of the portside are what we need to go back to. 

 

My current impression is that the turrets were Tone C September 1941 – April 1942.

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard

 

Dear Richard,

 

That was a gaff on my part mixing up the fits. I may have lost one version of the earlier ones, but they all had blue turrets apart from the MS3 version anyway, so I've given this a fresh number:

 

[robgizlu]

Thanks Dick & Jamie - I'm going with this though I'm certain that the Stbd bow tone is identical to the 2nd from aft section

I'm adopting Dick's designation:

MS1 = Tone A

B5    = Tone B

MS4 = Tone C

507C= Tone D

I believe the stbd bow section is Tone B

I'm happy that the turrets are in Tone C With top surfaces on X & Y a darker shade

 

 

The B turret appears to have a colour division running longitudinally which is not shadow.  The 20mm Oerlikon shields are noticeably dark, not as Tone A but apparently darker than Tone B.  ?MS2/507A

Turret A appears to have no camo - there is a colour anomaly transversely over the rear quarter which accords with the structure.

 

There is an IWM Collection video from July/Aug 1939 of Kent in the Far East https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060009592.

There are many views of the view - especially showing the bow section which is unequivocally steel plate.

Sadly Trumpeter have supplied the deck section as a common component from HMS Cornwall, the earlier Trumpeter iteration, which is modelled as planked all the way to the bow

 

 

Not an easy thing to correct 

 

Which brings us semlessly to deck colour.  There was a move to paint decks dark grey - and this is very prominent on HMS Berwick one of her sister ships

 

 

 

 

 

I see no such dark contrast in Kent pictures, and I've ringed the pic above which to me suggests the metal plate was painted dark grey and stopped just after the anchor chain "bits".  The deck beyond is noticeably lighter than Tones A & B and of course there is the "Hockey" pic ....dated on the IWM site as Oct 1941

 

 

 

The Tones on the roof of the gun turrets are darker than the deck and are themeselves likely to be Tones B+/or C.  On the evidence that I see Kent did not have painted decks in 1941.  Dick did mention that the situation was slightly more complicated with different stains etc.  I wasn't going to....but there's now a wooden deck available and I've ordered one from  China with the inevitable 2-3 week delivery delay 

It strikes me that one solution for the plated steel foredeck will be to "sand" the raised detail flat on the appropriate wood section 

 

However I am now getting nearer to a definitive painting scheme 

Please feel free to disagree with any of the above!

Rob

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Hi Rob,

 

I've taken sample blocks from the highlighted areas and pasted them on the stbd bow (ok they've been stretched and squashed as I've moved them). It's your model etc and I'm glad we can discuss on this forum without it descending into a bun fight like on some (US based) forums. I still think you're being deceived by the shear of the bow and its shadow effect. The change in tone of the MS1 panel below the bridge to just under the back end of A-turret demonstrates the shear coming in.

 

[robgizlu]

Jamie - I love a rational and reasoned debate.  Thanks for the above - I'm finally won over!

That was a neat move 

Almost everything I know about Ship Modelling has come from this site and I truly value the knowledge and expertise of you All!

 

Any thoughts about the deck colour?  

Do my assertions hold up?

Rob

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Richard uploaded this photo to Modelwarships.com late last year:

 

 

In your hockey photo there appears to be a demarcation towards the stern at the bottom right. I believe this is just visible on the photo you've ringed too. If it's a stain rather than a paint, then that could just be a well diluted black.

 

 

N.B. the above photo was when she was painted in the previous scheme of 507A/C with (presumably) 50/50 mix medium grey stripes. I think that narrow paint of chalk lines may be a continuation of the medium grey stripe.

[Modelholic]

In the 'hockey' pic is there a stripe around the base of 'Y' turret's barbette and along the edge of the after superstructure?

Tom

[Terry1954]

Amazing stuff on the paint scheme  .............. page 3 already .................. and no construction yet either!

 

😂

 

Terry

[dickrd]

The deck being painted photo (still form a bit of film) of mine that Jamie posted above is dated 16 August 1940 and relates to the camouflage scheme Kent was wearing when torpedoed in the Med. Someone on Kent must have liked patterning the decks as this was done again with her new late 1941 scheme. My current impression is that the wooden decks were Tone C with patterns of Tone A and Tone B carried up from the hull sides across the deck. Tone D was not taken up across the deck. The darker of the two tones visible on the quarterdeck in the hockey photo is Tone B carried up from the starboard side there. Aft of that was Tone C. The Tone A starboard hull panel was carried onto the deck along the whole length of that Tone A panel as can be seen in this later (radar now fitted aft) photo.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/75/a8001875.shtml

 

Being upward facing in summer sun the tone here appears lighter than the tone on the side of the hull but I have other photos from the period we are interested in not taken in strong sunlight where it appears just a dark as the hull and superstructure. I need a bit of time to go through what I have and see if I can come back to you with something more detailed. I also want to think through the portside colours again.

Edited April 10, 2020 by dickrd

[robgizlu]

Thanks Dick 

That aerial photo really is the key.  Damn - I now have a wooden deck surplus to requirement  

I really appreciate your time and involvement.

The painting plan is really forming up and is a considerable distance away from that I may have set out to do!

Rob

[robgizlu]

15 hours ago, Modelholic said:

In the 'hockey' pic is there a stripe around the base of 'Y' turret's barbette and along the edge of the after superstructure?

Tom

Thanks Tom - it's fascinating insn't it?  The more you look, the more you see.

 

13 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

Amazing stuff on the paint scheme  .............. page 3 already .................. and no construction yet either!

😂

Terry

I think I'm taking a few hits from this Terry 

But........."6 Ps" and all that!!!!

I knew there'd be a lot of revisionist debate which I hugely welcome.

Rob

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

On 4/8/2020 at 9:47 AM, dickrd said:

 

There do seem to be remarkably few photos of the portside of HMS Kent in the period we are after ie September 1941 to April 1942 but the generally available image is this September 1941 one which features in various publications:

 

I have the same issue with pictures of Ark Royal in Spring 41; I have reasonable coverage for the starboard side, but not much for the port.

 

And that lovely picture of Kent is in Guzz (Devonport), just inside the breakwater.  I’d recognise that wall anywhere!

[dickrd]

I hope everyone has had as pleasant an Easter as was possible in the circumstances. As I suspected, I did not have very many photos of the port side of Kent for the period we are interested in (Sep 41- Apr 42) but I do want to suggest a small change to Jamie's illustration above.  None of the photos widely available show any vertical demarcation at the stern between the tone of the aft-most camouflage panel on the starboard side and whatever you can see of the aft-most camouflage panel on the port side. Nor does the very poor quality photo of that area I posted higher up this page show anything either.  I suspect it was the same colour both sides that wrapped around the stern ie the aft-most panel on the port side was Tone C not Tone B as in Jamie's drawing above. This seems to me to be confirmed by this image (dated 12th April 1942):

 

 

 

I can see no actual vertical demarcation in the painting of the portside of B turret. A straight vertical there would in any case seem to have no place in this curvaceous scheme. 

 

 

 

I suspect that what might be showing there in the photo that seems to show something is some sort of water staining/run-off. Perhaps it had been raining - the sky looks cloudy/grey enough?

 

I'll come back on the decks in another post once we have thrashed this one around.

 

One question from me: I can locate 4 of the 6 Oerlikons said to be on Kent in this period (2 on B, 2 on X). The tub on the quarterdeck seems to be empty . Where are  Nos 5 & 6? 

Edited April 13, 2020 by dickrd

[Terry1954]

On 4/10/2020 at 10:14 AM, robgizlu said:

But........."6 Ps" and all that!!!!

Of course Rob, and indeed tis the approach I am taking with my Vosper ................!

 

Terry

[robgizlu]

Thanks Dick 

Grateful for that input re aft panel in tone C.

My anatomical description has failed me on this occasion - I was referring to the turret top or roof on turret B where there is an area of altered tone that runs longitudinally  (fore - aft or Sagitally) rather than the turret side-wall.  My inaccuracy.

 

Should I refer to the aft turrets as "C" and "D" or "X" "Y" - what is the accepted convention? 

The kit has you place 2 extra 20mm Oerlikons as per Mr Leon's placement

 

 

Thanks again

Rob

[dickrd]

Re C & D v X & Y, sorry, an early morning brain failure - getting my tones and turrets muddled - I will correct that!

 

Thanks for the pointer to those other 20mm - I see them now.   

Edited April 13, 2020 by dickrd

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

2 hours ago, dickrd said:

I hope everyone has had as pleasant an Easter as was possible in the circumstances. As I suspected, I did not have very many photos of the port side of Kent for the period we are interested in (Sep 41- Apr 42) but I do want to suggest a small change to Jamie's illustration above.  None of the photos widely available show any vertical demarcation at the stern between the tone of the aft-most camouflage panel on the starboard side and whatever you can see of the aft-most camouflage panel on the port side. Nor does the very poor quality photo of that area I posted higher up this page show anything either.  I suspect it was the same colour both sides that wrapped around the stern ie the aft-most panel on the port side was Tone C not Tone B as in Jamie's drawing above. This seems to me to be confirmed by this image (dated 12th April 1942):

 

 

Dear Richard,

 

Does this reflect your thoughts on the scheme?

 

 

Also, if we get this to a good place I may as well top and tail it and host it online. I'd need to add some of the main furniture on the deck plus the crane etc. How do you feel about the following text block?

"This suggested colour scheme has been developed by reference to numerous black & white photographs to map the design of the scheme and its relative tones and contrasts. The darkest tone gives a relative confidence that this was MS1 which appears consistent with other known applications. It is known from an Admiralty Reference Sheet dated 25th August 1941 that Leamington Spa Job No.71 relating to the camouflage designed for HMS Kent that the ship had MS4 applied to the port bow in lieu of MS4A as designed. The context of this correspondence was in stating that MS4A had been avoided here as being overly light. Using these two paints and the given context, along with the relative proximity to the Job No. for HMS Nelson’s camouflage and the remarkable similarity to the appearance of that ship, we, the authors, suggest the same colour palette for HMS Kent which reconciles nicely with the photographic and circumstancial evidence available.

It should be noted that whilst HMS Kent retained a similar camouflage pattern for longer than the time window denoted, there were some significant changes to the paints colours placement within the general pattern."

 

I'd propose the foot note reads as "Sovereign Hobbies in collaboration with R.D. and R.M." (names in full if you're happy to be identified - I know you always have been hitherto Richard, but I don't want to presume for Rob!)

[robgizlu]

Hi Jamie

More than happy - I'm Rob Matthews and half regret having used Robgizlu  ( Giz= my wife and Lu my daughter , used as an orignal Email name) as a tag on originally joining.

I'd be very proud to be associated with this.

Rob

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Hi Rob, I knew you were Rob Matthews - I was able to match the name to the same tag on one of our customers' delivery details