HMS Hood revelations

[MikeR]

5 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Barham (even though her scheme wasn't contentious until Mal Wright's latest drawing posted online)

 

 

Oooh - I'm intrigued by this. Where do I need to look?

 

Mike.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

31 minutes ago, MikeR said:

Oooh - I'm intrigued by this. Where do I need to look?

 

Mike.

 

It was posted here very recently.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/132740624081712

[MikeR]

Gah, Facebook! Trust me to do Twitter rather than that one!!

 

Anyway, to diverge off the Hood, what did Mal Wright turn up about the Barham? When I did my own model I had a really good look at the photos I gathered and it seemed to me that the colour demarcation on the bridge structure was rather different to what the various colour profiles of her showed.

 

Mike.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

He's essentially come up with a 3 tone scheme that everyone else is confident didn't exist (she was in a 2 tone "Alexandria" scheme in 1941), and has it under the heading of the action at Dakar in 1940 before Barham had been painted in any camouflage pattern - instead she was photographed in overall Home Fleet Grey at Dakar.

[MikeR]

That's certainly an odd claim - I have a copy of that photo in one of my books and Barham's definitely not in camo.

 

Mike.

[mdesaxe]

On 12/4/2020 at 12:48 AM, dickrd said:

Jamie has kindly uploaded my little paper on RN ships' bottoms to his site where it can be found here:

 

https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/british-royal-navy-colour-schemes

For what it may be worth, I happened to be looking through my copy of the late David Lyons' book The First Destroyers. In the section "Colours and visibility" he notes "The protective compositions applied below the waterline of destroyers at this time seem usually to have been black in colour. For example, in March 1899 Hayes' black protective composition was used on Teazer, Wizard and Conflict." citing Cover 128A/228. He noted that C-in-C Portsmouth, Admiral Charles Hotham, wrote on 19 January 1901 to the Admiralty: "destroyers should be painted same colour and bottoms black before delivery from contractors." Hotham also complained that "Myrmidon arriving here from Jarrow had a broad white waterline which had to be scraped out." Citing Cover 165/118, Lyons also noted "The bottoms to be black antifouling (Rahtjen's or Stephenson's)."

 

Maurice

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by mdesaxe
delete duplication

[dickrd]

10 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

For what it may be worth, I happened to be looking through my copy of the late David Lyons' book The First Destroyers. In the section "Colours and visibility" he notes "The protective compositions applied below the waterline of destroyers at this time seem usually to have been black in colour. For example, in March 1899 Hayes' black protective composition was used on Teazer, Wizard and Conflict." citing Cover 128A/228. He noted that C-in-C Portsmouth, Admiral Charles Hotham, wrote on 19 January 1901 to the Admiralty: "destroyers should be painted same colour and bottoms black before delivery from contractors." Hotham also complained that "Myrmidon arriving here from Jarrow had a broad white waterline which had to be scraped out." Citing Cover 165/118, Lyons also noted "The bottoms to be black antifouling (Rahtjen's or Stephenson's)."

 

Maurice

 

Thank you for this Maurice. I have that book and shall have another look at it. For various reasons I did not want to take the detailed story back before 1914 in my short paper. In particular I did not want to base anything on modern/secondhand information/references. I wanted to use only first hand, original source material that I had personally seen. There is already enough misinformation out there re RN paints/schemes and I had no wish to add to it. However Lyon was in a rather special situation, was working from source material and was meticulous in quoting the file/cover numbers. You are not the only person who has been kind enough to make contact since I wrote that paper with further information (including some other pre-1914 stuff) confirming what I wrote, and in some cases providing additional source material which will all be very helpful when I update it. Thank you again.  

Edited December 21, 2020 by dickrd

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

With Flyhawk's kit released I'm getting lots of questions now. Sometimes @dickrd and I are asked to help with the kit paint guides at Flyhawk but this time they only dealt with Frank Allen of the HMS Hood Association (which is perfectly sound - Frank isn't daft). What Frank may have intended as not overstating the known truth appears to have been interpreted as ambiguity as far as HMS Hood's anti-fouling paint goes, with some on the big wide internet deciding that "it's still an open debate" about whether the anti-fouling paint was actually grey or not. I've even seen two people decide that the HMS Hood Association website's information only cites grey from 1920-1925.

 

What Frank actually wrote on the HMS Hood Association website was:

Quote

Below Waterline: Precise information is lacking. The only confirmed colour is Peacocks & Buchan's antifouling grey in 1920 and 1925. For the remainder of the time period, no colour was specified. Additional details follow below.

1920-1936: As commissioned, Hood's bottom, to include the propeller shafts and rudder was anti-fouling grey (per ADM 136/13). Painting details are scarce, but she is also known to have had grey bottom paint in 1925. Based on the manufacturer used, we assume she remained grey, but we cannot rule out the possibility that Hood may have also had a black bottom during some periods. We are fairly confident that she was not red below her waterline.

Wartime/As Sunk: We have no confirmed colour information. We assume Hood was still using anti-fouling grey based on her previous history and her wreck (the stern appears dark grey/faded black underneath and shows no sign of red). There is anecdotal evidence to suggest black was used, but its also possible that it was dark grey.

Detailing Suggestion: Although she tended to have her bottom re-coated annually, the coating did get very worn over the course of the year. As a result, unless you are modelling Hood as "freshly painted" you might want to slightly lighten and/or weather the underside with a bit of grey. You can also add worn spots as well as chipping, barnacles and sea grasses if you so fancy.

 

My bold. This is where a small amount of knowledge is dangerous, and I'm not referring to Frank! Whilst most of the D.495s do not specifically name a colour, they do specifically name the manufacturer of the paint, and that manufacturer only made it in grey or black! That the person filling in the D.495s didn't specifically write "grey" every time doesn't mean red is a possibility of equal likelihood, however black cannot be ruled out as Peacock & Buchan's did offer that choice.

 

Frank originally shared these images of the 1937, 1938 and 1939-40 D.495 Docking Forms on Shipmodels.info's Calling All Ship Fans/Battleships and Battlecruisers/HMS Hood thread Page 36 (http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4702&start=700) in November 2020 when he first noticed something that didn't match what he like everyone else alive today thought they knew:

1937

 

1938

 

1939-1940

 

They all still name Peacock & Buchan's, albeit abbreviated to "Peacock's".

 

Richard then shared this excerpt from the Rate Book of Naval Stores:

 

 

You can see that in most cases the hull was given two coats of "protective" paint which guarded against corrosion in contrasting colours so you could see bits where it had worn through followed by one coat of anti-fouling paint in a different colour again for the same reason. To help folks visualise this, I've drawn a picture as is my way.

 

 

So in summary, if you know what colours Peacock & Buchan's actually offered, red isn't really on the cards at all as the external finish for HMS Hood despite what modellers expect and want to see.

 

If you haven't seen it, Richard drafted a very interesting article on what he had to date and it's hosted on my site. The good news is that he's gathered a h:eap more since the National Archives opened again and is planning a redraft. I don't know yet if there are any errors in the current version he intends to straighten out, but I do know there is a lot of modeller-useable information he plans to add to it.

https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-anti-fouling-and-boot-topping-colours

 

[foeth]

All communication with Flyhawk appears to run through the universal translator and we erred (ie, prefer to) on the side of caution. Also, paint guides are easier to update than the kit, especially with new information surfacing during the final stages of the kit's development. We did try to get every ounce of the latest info into the kit, and Flyhawk was most commited. IIRC, the final hull colour of the kit is Slate, (steel) boat deck corticine & semtex (light gray as our best bet).

Edited July 26, 2021 by foeth

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Hi Evert Jan,

 

I didn't know if you were directly involved, although it made sense that you did. I had been contacted by Yang Chen about something else who name dropped Frank only in passing. I haven't even seen the kit yet but Flyhawk generally do as suggested fairly well - I expect this is just consumers hearing what they want to hear unencumbered by the contextual implications Flyhawk cannot spell out in full on the back of a model kit box!

[foeth]

I have Frank under the proverbial speed dial for all things Hood and we're in frequent contact. I did my part in reviewing and correcting the various versions of the model kit design; I think Flyhawk filed me as Hood Association so no OTS mention (and that's ok as I am a Hood association member).

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

5 hours ago, foeth said:

 

 

5 hours ago, foeth said:

I have Frank under the proverbial speed dial for all things Hood and we're in frequent contact. I did my part in reviewing and correcting the various versions of the model kit design; I think Flyhawk filed me as Hood Association so no OTS mention (and that's ok as I am a Hood association member).

 

You're one of those rare individuals who have forgotten more about a particular subject than most ever knew blockquote widgetbockquote widget

[ERK]

Thank you Jamie for all the research  (and everyone else)   its an interesting subject  not so much if the bottom was Dark Grey  - but why?   as all the other ships in RN  had anti fouling Red  - why was Hood different  - what motivated the difference.

 

Erk.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

52 minutes ago, ERK said:

Thank you Jamie for all the research  (and everyone else)   its an interesting subject  not so much if the bottom was Dark Grey  - but why?   as all the other ships in RN  had anti fouling Red  - why was Hood different  - what motivated the difference.

 

Erk.

 

When @dickrd completes his planned rewrite of the paper linked at the bottom of the above post, it will become perhaps painfully apparent that HMS Hood was mundanely normal and that most RN ships were grey or black, not red. At least not until well into WWII anyway. The appendix Richard included at the back of his first draft makes uncomfortable reading from the perspective of someone with a large collection of finished Royal Navy models with red bottoms. Of the 17 suppliers of Admiralty Quality anti-fouling paint he has identified, most didn't supply the stuff in red. The everything red myth may either be an imported American idea, or may originate from post-war sailors who excel at assuming the Royal Navy always did things exactly the way they did them sometimes decades later... They can be a source of authoritative sounding bum-steers sometimes. Always well meant, I'm sure, but like everyone they don't know what they don't know.

[Ray S]

26 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

When @dickrd completes his planned rewrite of the paper linked at the bottom of the above post, it will become perhaps painfully apparent that HMS Hood was mundanely normal and that most RN ships were grey or black, not red.

 

This explains why Airfix suggested a black underwater section on some of their WWII destroyer paint guides. I, like many others, did mine red as that was what was 'right'.

 

Thanks for all the work on this, I will like to get the Flyhawk Hood at some point, and she will look the part with the grey/black underwater section.

 

All the best,

 

Ray

[ArnoldAmbrose]

9 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

makes uncomfortable reading from the perspective of someone with a large collection of finished Royal Navy models with red bottoms.

'gulp'  -  err, that's me, for one. 😟 I've got about thirty. Well, at least I got my latest HMS Hood correct as much is as known (thanks Jamie and Richard), and HMS Manxman. And I guess my 16-gun HMS Belfast. The rest have blushing red bottoms, admittedly not bright red. My current model I might redo but the rest I think I'll leave as is, bravely shoulder the forthcoming accusations of "Philistine", and cry myself to sleep each night. 😁

      I appreciate the continued research of all of you, even if it does turn cherished past beliefs on their heads from time to time. I suppose next you'll be telling us that the world is round, not flat, absurd as this may seem! 🤣    But seriously, many thanks. Regards, Jeff.

[Chewbacca]

On 26/07/2021 at 18:19, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

When @dickrd completes his planned rewrite of the paper linked at the bottom of the above post, it will become perhaps painfully apparent that HMS Hood was mundanely normal and that most RN ships were grey or black, not red. 

It's only after reading this thread that I've started to notice the large number of shipbuilders' models from the interwar and early WW2 period that have a dark grey or black anti-fouling.  I'd always assumed it was wrong...

[dickrd]

On 7/26/2021 at 8:45 AM, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

If you haven't seen it, Richard drafted a very interesting article on what he had to date and it's hosted on my site. The good news is that he's gathered a h:eap more since the National Archives opened again and is planning a redraft. I don't know yet if there are any errors in the current version he intends to straighten out, but I do know there is a lot of modeller-useable information he plans to add to it.

https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-anti-fouling-and-boot-topping-colours

 

No actual mistakes as such I am pleased to be able to say!

 

I have found that in late 1940 four other manufacturers’ boot topping became Admiralty quality authorized for use so Peacock and Buchan’s lost that monopoly. Otherwise everything I have found recently simply confirms what I suspected and so enables me to fill out the story and generally to be more certain about particular practices and dates. 

 

The big difference however is that I have now consulted most of surviving Ship Books/D495s at The National Archives and also found a considerable number of Fleet Orders specifying which bottom composition was used on particular ships. In some cases the D495s state the colour of the paints used on a ship’s bottom; in other cases knowing the name of the manufacturer and knowing the limited number of colours in which they supplied their anti-fouling it is possible to deduce their bottom colour even from black and white photos.  (If we know that a manufacturer’s anti-fouling came in, say, black or grey only and if in a photo of a ship known to be using that manufacturer’s paint there is a good contrast between the tone of the boot topping and the hull below then we can say it was grey rather than black etc). I will do a ship-by-ship list.

 

My faith in what builder’s models show has also been strengthened as, so far, in every case where a D495 survives for a ship for which there is a builder’s model I have found that the builder’s model faithfully represents what the D495s record re a ship’s bottom as it left the builders. However a note of caution as things are never entirely straightforward. I have found that some ships left their builders in their protective coating with no anti fouling painted on at that stage (KGV, DoY, Anson, and Howe are all examples of this having their anti-fouling painted on at their first docking at Rosyth immediately after leaving their builders). A builder’s model may therefore not always be a guide to the colour of a ship’s bottom once in service.

 

KGV’s builder’s model at Greenwich features a brownish red bottom yet her D495’s show that she used bottom paints manufactured by Moravia from 1938 – 1945. Their anti fouling came in black or grey. Wartime photos clearly show her bottom was lighter than her boot topping so we can say that in wartime service her bottom was grey. Why then is the bottom of her builder’s model a brownish red? Her D495 tells us that she left her builders in protective only with no anti fouling. Moravia’s protective came in grey or red and that red must be what we see represented on the model.

 

Indomitable’s builder’s model at Yeovilton @iangis perhaps another example of this. I am told and photos seem to show that her model’s bottom is a slightly greenish grey. Her D495s tell us that she left her builders in her second protective coating with no anti fouling applied to her hull bottom and that the manufacturer of the bottom paints used on her then was Peacock and Buchan’s. Their second protective was “Slate” which was a greenish grey.  (Indomitable received her Peacock and Buchan’s anti fouling at her first docking which was at Liverpool, September 1941, after trials and leaving her builders but before working up.)

Edited July 28, 2021 by dickrd

[Ships doc]

Thanks Richard & Jamie for all this work! 

 

Apologies if this has been posted before but I noticed this model whilst looking for something else, showing Hood with a dark grey/black antifouling 

 

https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/393666

 

Built pre-1943 if the website is correct, I guess in Australia but the builder may have seen Hood when she visited? (though I don't think / know if she was ever drydocked there?) 

 

James 

[foeth]

 

This model also has Corticine on the entire forward shelterdeck as we recently rediscovered.

Edited July 30, 2021 by foeth

[dhogue]

I'm glad my RN ships are waterlined

[S-boat 55]

On 04/12/2020 at 12:06, Iceman 29 said:

A colour film about the Hood in the fleet which has not been retouched, we can hardly see the Boot topping of the "submarine" .

On the other hand, it is interesting to watch the other ships next to her at sea at anti-fouling level.

 

Some captures of the video:

 

 

 

 

If I'm not mistaken several of those ships are French, the second still looks to be one of their cruisers and at about 14:05 in the video Hood appears to be astern either Dunkerque or Strasbourg 

[Ships doc]

Could I ask what people's thoughts are on the 'builders model' of Hood in the Glasgow Museum, with the red antifouling? The HMS Hood website notes that it may have been built for an exhibition later. 

 

Also spotted these photos of HMS Jervis, which looks to be black, particularly on the undamaged side: https://imgur.com/gallery/89G9r 

(Maybe a separate thread is needed for collecting these examples, rather than hijacking the Hood one though) 

 

James 

[S-boat 55]

1 hour ago, Ships doc said:

Could I ask what people's thoughts are on the 'builders model' of Hood in the Glasgow Museum, with the red antifouling? The HMS Hood website notes that it may have been built for an exhibition later. 

 

Also spotted these photos of HMS Jervis, which looks to be black, particularly on the undamaged side: https://imgur.com/gallery/89G9r 

(Maybe a separate thread is needed for collecting these examples, rather than hijacking the Hood one though) 

 

James 

I'd guess from what dickrd has found that it's likely as you say, and a model built later based on assumptions about predominantly used colours 

[dickrd]

On 8/6/2021 at 2:36 PM, Ships doc said:

Could I ask what people's thoughts are on the 'builders model' of Hood in the Glasgow Museum, with the red antifouling? The HMS Hood website notes that it may have been built for an exhibition later. 

 

 

I am fairly certain that the model in the Glasgow Museum is not a John Brown 'builder's model' ie a model built at the same time as the ship herself either by apprentices in the shipyard or by the shipyard's own dedicated model builder. Photos of the model in the Glasgow Museum show that it shares numerous details with those to be seen in a photo of the Bassett-Lowke model which was made 18 years later and in Northampton 346 miles away. There can be no question but that the bottom should have been grey on a model depicting Hood as she entered service in early 1920.   The colour of the two coats of antifouling bottom paint applied to her in February 1920 is recorded in her Ship's Book (ADM 136/13 at the National Archives): 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by dickrd