HMS Hood revelations

[S-boat 55]

2 hours ago, dickrd said:

 

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): 

 

 

Dickrd, can I just echo that thanks of others for the efforts you've put into this subject,

 

From what you've found I'm wondering if Repulse and Warspite would similarly have been a grey anti fouling as well, it would seem likely,

 

[dickrd]

12 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

Dickrd, can I just echo that thanks of others for the efforts you've put into this subject,

 

From what you've found I'm wondering if Repulse and Warspite would similarly have been a grey anti fouling as well, it would seem likely,

 

 Thank you!

 

Re Repulse and Warspite, it's tempting to think so given everything, but we cannot be sure. Their Ship's Books do not survive and I have not yet come across any reference to their bottoms in any other documentation. I am unaware of any Builder's Models of them. The only suggestion I have come across is re Warspite from a 1958 Eagle magazine coloured cutaway illustration which, interestingly, features a grey bottom. For 1958 it is a striking choice of colour. Did someone on the Eagle team actually know something? Or is the drawing a reprint of something done in 1937 in which case it is even more interesting!:      

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by dickrd

[S-boat 55]

The plot thickens, I think I'll go grey, as you say it's looking increasingly likely, but does mean my cabinet will look increasingly dull lol, 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

25 minutes ago, S-boat 55 said:

I think I'll go grey, as you say it's looking increasingly likely, but does mean my cabinet will look increasingly dull lol, 

Gidday, I guess that's one of the benefits of dazzle camo in warships. I've found that it can slow down a build but liven up the display cabinet somewhat. Regards, Jeff.

[Ships doc]

15 hours ago, dickrd said:

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.

Thanks Richard that makes sense - I guess in 1938 there would have been much less chance to visit the ship than a model maker would do now. They may have been using black & white photos for reference! 

[dickrd]

22 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

 

 

From what you've found I'm wondering if Repulse and Warspite would similarly have been a grey anti fouling as well, it would seem likely,

 

I have done some digging re Repulse and come across an account of her sinking by her First Lieutenant Lt Cdr Buckley on page 133 of Arthur Nicholson's book "Hostages to Fortune" in which Buckley describes how Repulse turned over with her forefoot high in the air showing "her clean red hull". 

[S-boat 55]

4 minutes ago, dickrd said:

I have done some digging re Repulse and come across an account of her sinking by her First Lieutenant Lt Cdr Buckley on page 133 of Arthur Nicholson's book "Hostages to Fortune" in which Buckley describes how Repulse turned over with her forefoot high in the air showing "her clean red hull". 

Ah okay, thanks for looking that out, I was looking at picking that  book up by coincidence,  I may get to do a red one after all, I'm hoping to back date trumpys kit to 1940 but that's by the by for the antifouling, 

[S-boat 55]

Just stumbled back across this thread, thibking on it that's very interesting re Repulse as she was built in the same yard as Hood you'd of expected her to have been the same as Hood really especially as I think Hood was laid down a matter of weeks after Repulses launch, 

[dickrd]

22 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

Just stumbled back across this thread, thibking on it that's very interesting re Repulse as she was built in the same yard as Hood you'd of expected her to have been the same as Hood really especially as I think Hood was laid down a matter of weeks after Repulses launch, 

 

Since I wrote my original paper (Royal Navy Anti-fouling and Boot Topping Colours– Sovereign Hobbies) in December 2020 I have continued my research to enable an updated version in due course.

 

Now that I have consulted a much wider range of records I can say that my original thought that shipbuilders might have sourced bottom paints from local suppliers has proved unfounded. It now appears that the paint to be used on any given significant ship was dictated centrally by the Admiralty. So when cross-referencing ships’ bottom paints back to a particular shipbuilder the picture that emerges is one of variety, albeit with some significant biases, rather than uniformity.

 

In the specific case of Repulse when built Zocus paint was used on her bottom, so definitely not the same as Hood. In the WW1 era their antifouling came in red, black and grey (but in grey only by WW2). Given AFO 1972/16 she should therefore have had a grey bottom when completed. Unfortunately I have not (so far) found any record of what was used on Repulse at any time after she left John Brown’s but I suspect that at one of Repulse’s major refits interwar she may well have been changed from Zocus. Zocus seems to have gone out of favour with Admiralty sometime after WW1. (And of course if her 1st Lt was accurate in reporting her red bottom when sunk it cannot have been Zocus then.)

[S-boat 55]

5 hours ago, dickrd said:

 

Since I wrote my original paper (Royal Navy Anti-fouling and Boot Topping Colours– Sovereign Hobbies) in December 2020 I have continued my research to enable an updated version in due course.

 

Now that I have consulted a much wider range of records I can say that my original thought that shipbuilders might have sourced bottom paints from local suppliers has proved unfounded. It now appears that the paint to be used on any given significant ship was dictated centrally by the Admiralty. So when cross-referencing ships’ bottom paints back to a particular shipbuilder the picture that emerges is one of variety, albeit with some significant biases, rather than uniformity.

 

In the specific case of Repulse when built Zocus paint was used on her bottom, so definitely not the same as Hood. In the WW1 era their antifouling came in red, black and grey (but in grey only by WW2). Given AFO 1972/16 she should therefore have had a grey bottom when completed. Unfortunately I have not (so far) found any record of what was used on Repulse at any time after she left John Brown’s but I suspect that at one of Repulse’s major refits interwar she may well have been changed from Zocus. Zocus seems to have gone out of favour with Admiralty sometime after WW1. (And of course if her 1st Lt was accurate in reporting her red bottom when sunk it cannot have been Zocus then.)

Thanks @dickrd, as ever you've been a source of very in depth info. It makes me me wonder what decision process the Admiralty followed for which ship would have which paint, but either way Repulse likely being red means I know what to purchase, 

 

Thanks for the update on it and sharing your research, much appreciated 

[dickrd]

15 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

 ....It makes me me wonder what decision process the Admiralty followed for which ship would have which paint...,

Me too! Take the KGV Class for example: KGV - Vickers Armstrong, Newcastle - Moravia//PoW - Cammell Laird, Birkenhead - MacArthurs//DoY - John Brown, Glasgow - Clarks//Anson - Swan Hunter, Newcastle - British// Howe - Fairfield, Glasgow - Red Hand.  

 

There must be a quality issue at play as for signficant ships by the WW2 era the Admiralty was restricting its choice to just 7 of the 17 authorised suppliers. But beyond that, is this variety within a single class of ship a feature of a wartime command economy ie were they just spreading the work between the various manufacturers according to their capacity to supply and deliver? 

Edited August 22, 2022 by dickrd

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, dickrd said:

ie were they just spreading the work between the various manufacturers according to their capacity to supply and deliver? 

 

In the absence of any documented rationale this, to me at least, seems not only credible but likely. We face decisions like this every day in my day-job industry.

[S-boat 55]

2 hours ago, dickrd said:

Me too! Take the KGV Class for example: KGV - Vickers Armstrong, Newcastle - Moravia//PoW - Cammell Laird, Birkenhead - MacArthurs//DoY - John Brown, Glasgow - Clarks//Anson - Swan Hunter, Newcastle - British// Howe - Fairfield, Glasgow - Red Hand.  

 

There must be a quality issue at play as for signficant ships by the WW2 era the Admiralty was restricting its choice to just 7 of the 17 authorised suppliers. But beyond that, is this variety within a single class of ship a feature of a wartime command economy ie were they just spreading the work between the various manufacturers according to their capacity to supply and deliver? 

I guess there's something to be said for not having all of ones eggs but that does seem excessive, spreading them across 7-17 suppliers,

 

One must say though that the Admiralty could have been more considerate for the future modeller/amateur historian and cut the choice down a bit. Reading your list on the KGV class would that then mean that they were all different colours or just shades of grey?

Edited August 22, 2022 by S-boat 55

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

21 minutes ago, S-boat 55 said:

I guess there's something to be said for not having all of ones eggs but that does seem excessive, spreading them across 7-17 suppliers,

 

Really it's no different to the Admiralty spreading the ships themselves across 5 different yards although the rationale for that is more obvious. It's almost certain that the directors of e.g. Vickers Armstrong would have fancied a scenario where they built all 5 in series, and nowadays even if not then there would be great efforts to illustrate the "synergies" (popular buzzword" and efficiencies gained from fine-tuning the build sequence for the next ship building upon the experience of the last. Of course, they'd love that as their yard's workforce and order book would be full for the next 12 years which as a business they'd love but as a nation with a defence requirement it's totally unacceptable.

 

There's also a chance that e.g. Moravia's factory gets a bomb dropped through the roof, notwithstanding the human constraints. There are plenty other examples of distributed manufacturing during the war e.g. having components of the de Havilland Mosquito made in furniture shops whereas clearly a massive factory like North American's Inglewood facility in California would have been more efficient.

 

I wholly agree though that it doesn't make it easier for modellers today. There are more opportunities for variety on the display shelf though  

[S-boat 55]

4 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I wholly agree though that it doesn't make it easier for modellers today. There are more opportunities for variety on the display shelf though  

Every cloud 😉

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

28 minutes ago, S-boat 55 said:

Every cloud 😉

 

Every silver lining has one!

[dickrd]

4 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

I guess there's something to be said for not having all of ones eggs but that does seem excessive, spreading them across 7-17 suppliers,

 

One must say though that the Admiralty could have been more considerate for the future modeller/amateur historian and cut the choice down a bit. Reading your list on the KGV class would that then mean that they were all different colours or just shades of grey?

It means that KGV and PoW would have had grey bottoms and the other 3 red bottoms when first entering service. (The actual shade of the greys and the reds of each manufacturer may have differed slightly of course!)  

[dickrd]

5 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

...There's also a chance that e.g. Moravia's factory gets a bomb dropped through the roof, notwithstanding the human constraints....

 Trying to prove/disprove the local supplier theory, I discovered that the big paint manufacturers of these bottom paints often had factories in the various main shipbuilding locations eg  British had factories in London, Liverpool and Newcastle; Red Hand in London, Glasgow, Newcastle and Liverpool etc so correlation was impossible. Then I discovered that the Admiralty dictated things....

Edited August 22, 2022 by dickrd