HMS Bramham & Talybont build log. From IBG 1/700 Hunt type II. --Bramham version 1 finished--

[ArnoldAmbrose]

1 hour ago, Ngantek said:

What are you planning to use as a 'donor' kit? I would guess (without any real knowledge) that the Hunts are rather shorter (or much longer!) than most available subjects in 1/600?

Gidday again, A Hotspur kit would give me a suitable hull that I could shorten but I haven't seen one in the shops here for years. But having been able to modify a Cossack kit hull for HMS Onslow recently I might be able to modify a Tribal hull as I've got a few. Otherwise it'll be a total scratch build, hull and all.     Regards, Jeff.

[Ngantek]

5 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday again, A Hotspur kit would give me a suitable hull that I could shorten but I haven't seen one in the shops here for years. But having been able to modify a Cossack kit hull for HMS Onslow recently I might be able to modify a Tribal hull as I've got a few. Otherwise it'll be a total scratch build, hull and all.     Regards, Jeff.

I guess that (relatively) more recent boxing of 'Naval Destroyers' is perfect for you? Those are still popping up on ebay over here it seems.

 

[Ngantek]

6 hours ago, mark.au said:

Thank you for the comment on the site, it's a labour of love which combines a passion for writing, an enjoyment of modelling and my interest in history, especially the personal experiences in it.

It's really well written. Just spend the afternoon procrastinating from work down a wikipedia hole after reading your dieppe raid spitfire V article! 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

10 minutes ago, Ngantek said:

I guess that (relatively) more recent boxing of 'Naval Destroyers' is perfect for you?

Actually, that's what I've been using, I've bought four sets to date, but not seen any here for years now. And I'm rather old fashioned, I've never bought anything from E-bay although my son has. The Hotspur kit is really the only one I'd need now, as I still have a Campbeltown and Z28 kit left and two Cossacks, plus three other (Mistercraft) Tribals. A Hotspur kit on its own would be good but I think I can now get by with a Tribal.     Regards, Jeff.

[Ngantek]

Quick update, added some railing and finished off most of the assembly. A surprisingly large amount of work between this and the last photo, amazingly. The thing is getting steadily more delicate and the chances of it surviving many more sessions are growing slimmer each minute! I was debating putting down the matt cote after the rigging to save on cleaing up any resulting shiny CA blobs, but perhaps it's sensible to do it in two steps. Also not sure how to apply the decals; either on matt paint or matt varnish, neither of which seem particularly appealing.

 

 

 

Actually thinking about it, I might have screwed myself on the rigging job. Ahh well, good luck with that, future me!

 

Cheers,

Andy

[ArnoldAmbrose]

1 hour ago, Ngantek said:

The thing is getting steadily more delicate and the chances of it surviving many more sessions are growing slimmer each minute!

Gidday Andy, that's one of the reasons why I screw model ships to blocks of wood while I build them, to avoid handling the model itself. I screw up through counter-sunk holes in the bottom of the wood then into the underside of the hull, where the holes won't be seen once the screws are removed.

     And she IS looking very good now. It would be a shame to accidently damage that delicate PE work you've done.       Regards, Jeff.

[mark.au]

Nice work on the PE, looks really good.  
 

I’d stick it to a piece of wood or something with blutack now, that will hold it steady while you rig.  I did my rigging before the final PE on the Wren, it was still nerve wracking….  As for the decals, apply them with Future/Klear, that will avoid silvering them.  And last, don’t worry about shiny bits of CA, they can be covered with a small brush and flat clear, just dab it on the shiny and it’ll disappear.

[robgizlu]

Hi Andy - she's looking great.  Applying decals onto any matt surface invites silvering and horror 

Best to gloss it with varnish/Future/Klear - apply onto a very shiney surface then matt varnish after.

And how do I know this.............................................................

 

She's hugely detailed for such a tiny vessel

Rob

 

[Ngantek]

On 18/08/2022 at 01:36, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday Andy, that's one of the reasons why I screw model ships to blocks of wood while I build them, to avoid handling the model itself. I screw up through counter-sunk holes in the bottom of the wood then into the underside of the hull, where the holes won't be seen once the screws are removed.

     And she IS looking very good now. It would be a shame to accidently damage that delicate PE work you've done.       Regards, Jeff.

Good idea, Jeff. I'm not sure I have the cohones to try and screw into it at this late stage but will remember for future.

On 18/08/2022 at 22:33, mark.au said:

Nice work on the PE, looks really good.  
 

I’d stick it to a piece of wood or something with blutack now, that will hold it steady while you rig.  I did my rigging before the final PE on the Wren, it was still nerve wracking….  As for the decals, apply them with Future/Klear, that will avoid silvering them.  And last, don’t worry about shiny bits of CA, they can be covered with a small brush and flat clear, just dab it on the shiny and it’ll disappear.

Two expert opinions telling me to make a wood handling base, which I very sensibly have proceeded to ignore, at least for the next update! I'm lazily putting off sawing up a chunk of wood, which absolutely, certainly won't come back to bite me of course. I've so far been saved by how tiny the model is, weighing next to nothing, allowing me to manoeuvre the model to the part or paintbrush. I can't imagine how you guys do these massive 1/350 battleships. But yeah it'll definitely be necessary before rigging.

 

I'd read about applying with klear, seen numerous posts here from people who now do it exclusively, so will store that one up in my pile of good ideas to try next time. Instead, this being before your post, I brushed a quick single layer of klear over the patch before application.

 

On 18/08/2022 at 23:15, robgizlu said:

Hi Andy - she's looking great.  Applying decals onto any matt surface invites silvering and horror 

Best to gloss it with varnish/Future/Klear - apply onto a very shiney surface then matt varnish after.

And how do I know this.............................................................

 

She's hugely detailed for such a tiny vessel

Rob

 

Thanks Rob, yes I've been forewarned! It's a nice kit, but the nice bits of PE do highlight the chunkiness of the plastic, particularly the side rails and turret spray shields (?). I think with the next generation of kits (G, H and I classes), IBG sensibly included these as PE parts. 

 

 

So decals went on and then everything got a coat of gunze flat varnish, which hid a lot of my dodgy CA work. I realised at the last minute there was a third pennant number on the stern but having used all the appropriate numbers from the Starling generic set, the stern one is bodged from the kit decals in a slightly different tone and font. Again this being a 'practice' model is enabling my laziness!

 

The bridge (which I'd lazily overlaid with a bit of paper to avoid filling the seams) was looking a little bare, as was the type 285 radar dome. So a rough compass binnacle and conning post came from sterling's detail set, along with a 'bulkhead' from cut up unused gun bits. Likewise the 285 aerials from unused PE oerlikon barrels and side rails. It's pretty rough but good practice at least!

 The Shelf oddity PE set solves all these issues much more tidily, buy I'm saving that for the next build.

 

Not much left. Detail and weathering washes and rigging. About 3 months then!

 

Cheers,

Andy

[Ngantek]

Okay some washes, weathering and rigging I think mostly done. Was a bit heavy handed with the weathering at the start (starboard bow) and the matt varnish unfortunately soaked it all up. Rigging I've had a bit of a guess from the model scheme and various low-res images; it clearly differs not insubstantially ship-to-ship in this class. Man it is fiiiiiidly!

 

I'll have another look when I get the chance, do a bit of tidying, removing CA stains (thanks for the tip @mark.au) and then might get around to an RFI at some point! Pretty blotchy here and there, but lots learned for next time, and it's been great fun overall.

 

 

Cheers,

Andy

[Rob-700]

On 15/07/2022 at 09:20, Ngantek said:

Right! August is fast approaching and with it the 80th anniversary of Operation Pedestal. I figured now might be a fitting time to have a go at the Bramham. As to whether I go OOB build or with all the trimmings, I'm still somewhat undecided. I think I'll have a go at some of the aftermarket and if it's all terrible, will revert to the 'easy' (er) stuff.

 

A care package arrived from Starling the other day, mostly extra stuff that I'm not sure I'll even use, but also a few bits that'll be needed for HMS Talybont (which was the first to get twin oerlikon mounts). The torpedo tubes will have to be trimmed down to 2 but I figure that's a better starting point than any scratch rubbish that I can come up with.

 

I can be thankful the boxes are so oversized for this kit! Mostly it was because the generic hull numbers were in stock and I kinda went to town. I'm treating this as experience in resin aftermarket and tiny bits and pieces of this scale.

 

So I've made a bit of a start, I began with the bridge, and found myself amazed at how difficult a relatively large part of the build was to tidy up and assemble. You ship builders are nutcases! I could fill the bridge or maybe trim it back and use the nice Shelf oddity additions. Still undecided. Needs a tidy in any case.

struggling with the easiest parts, it could only get worse! I had a hack at the various 4" turret options available to me.

 

The Starling ones are nice, and pretty quick and easy to fettle and assemble. The barrels are well protected on the casting:

 

The flyhawk ones are completely nuts. I really thought the barrels were just strands of fine wire until I realised they were not only graded but hollowed as well. Nuts! Here's the assembly, already somewhat mangled:

 

Which, if you're an incompetent oaf with two left hands like myself, turns into this:

 

 

Compared with the model version (which I rather buggered up taking off the sprue; I'm not sure I'll bother to rectify since I don't think it's worth using them by comparison!

 

Clearly the skyhawk ones offer a lot of detail, but if you're a complete newbie to photo etch like myself, they'll probably end up looking worse than the simpler alternatives!

 

Like I said, I can't imagine how you ship builders do all this crazy tiny work!

 

Anyway not much of a start, but we're off the mark at least!

 

By the way, one question (which will no doubt open a can of worms)... any ideas what kind of deck coating (and therefore colour) would likely have been used? Greenish semtex? gray asphalt?

 

Cheers,

Andy

 

 

 

I agree with your comments about PE in 1/700. I attempted (and am still attempting) to fit PE details to a Flyhawk Type VIIC U-Boat kit. Horrendous! Having said that I also find that in such a small scale, a lot of the details is lost to the naked eye. As an alternative to your PE gun mounts, have you investigated Micro Masters 3D printed parts. They do a great range of parts for RN and Commonwealth ships including in 1/700. I have used 8-inch County Class turrets, 4-inch HA DP single mounts, dual powered 20mm Oerlikon mounts, 0.5-inch Vickers quad machine guns and Type 285 multiple pom-pom radars. As for PE, some of the fine detail (and there is a lot!) on the Oerlikons, the Vickers and the radars is too fine to be seen when viewing the completed model. The advantage though is that the overall dimensions are accurate and therefore are often better looking on the finished model than the kit parts. Check out MicroMaster.co.nz for their range.

Regards,

Rob

[Ngantek]

1 hour ago, Rob-700 said:

I agree with your comments about PE in 1/700. I attempted (and am still attempting) to fit PE details to a Flyhawk Type VIIC U-Boat kit. Horrendous! Having said that I also find that in such a small scale, a lot of the details is lost to the naked eye. As an alternative to your PE gun mounts, have you investigated Micro Masters 3D printed parts. They do a great range of parts for RN and Commonwealth ships including in 1/700. I have used 8-inch County Class turrets, 4-inch HA DP single mounts, dual powered 20mm Oerlikon mounts, 0.5-inch Vickers quad machine guns and Type 285 multiple pom-pom radars. As for PE, some of the fine detail (and there is a lot!) on the Oerlikons, the Vickers and the radars is too fine to be seen when viewing the completed model. The advantage though is that the overall dimensions are accurate and therefore are often better looking on the finished model than the kit parts. Check out MicroMaster.co.nz for their range.

Regards,

Rob

Thanks, I will check those out. PE at 1/700 is on that cusp of 'sometimes it works sometimes not' with my skill level, and certainly the starling models resin parts took a lot of those issues away for a pretty good result at this scale. I'll definitely check out micromaster (though am tempering my expectations, given achievable 3d print resolution), I hadn't realised when I got started, what a range of finely detailed AM options there were for ship modelling at this scale. It's a bit of a rabbit hole though I'm discovering! In the world of aircraft modelling, I don't tend to have much difficulty avoiding the allure of infinite aftermarket detail (I tend to think it's often a lot of cost and faff on things that will never get noticed), but in this ship scale, injection moulding can't be expected to pick up even some fairly major ship details. The bridge and director, for example, are just a little too abstract straight out of the box, to the point that it doesn't even quite look like the thing it's modelling. The HF/DF aerial in this case, and the protruding rim around the front face of the bridge are both significant in the overall look, but neither are even close to achievable without some very fine detail, even on a PE scale (the shelf oddity additions don't add this rim, for example).

 

So yeah thanks for the link and for looking in.

 

 

Incidentally I never got around to updating this thread. Bramham version 1 is 'finished' (or at least not going to get any more work done on it), the RFI is here.

I'll be taking a break from this project for a little while, although I seem to have acquired another 4 ship kits at this scale since starting this one (expect lots of destroyers and carriers at some point!), so I'd suggest the bug has been well and truly caught. In any case, I'll be getting a third IBG hunt, and I think between the Badsworth and Krakowiak, I should have most of the relevant options to build both another Bramham (with all the trimmings this time) and a Talybont.  

 

cheers,

Andy

[ArnoldAmbrose]

8 minutes ago, Ngantek said:

expect lots of destroyers and carriers

👍       Regards, Jeff.

[Alpha Juliet]

Absolutely fascinating research and a cracking model - well done Andy! 👍

[Ngantek]

On 15/07/2022 at 00:30, Ngantek said:

As an aside, I know I'm building HMS Bramham right now, but I was looking into the Talybont the other day. It appears around 1943 it looks something like this

 

You can make out the twin oerlion mount on the starboard wing and some non-descript thingy I can't make out fore of the bridge. There are supposed to be 3 twin mounts, so where the 3rd is, I'm not quite sure.

The scheme, I'm assuming, is this one (source Man'o'war 4, Raven and Roberts):

 

I wanted to just circle back onto HMS Talybont, whose construction in various forms (L'arsenal 1/350; IBG 1/700 conversion as above; and 1/96 Dean's Marine sailing model (!)) I'm slowly beginning to consider. I thought I might cheekily tag @mark.au on the off chance that there's a photo from his Grandfather's time on her.

 

Talybont in '43 had the standard 'light admiralty pattern', but it seems, as @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies suggested, to have been modified.

 

For the discussion, I'll start with start with the basic pattern, which I believe was unchanged on, for example, HMS Tanatside and Stevenstone. The hull is 507C; the superstructure and light patch on the bows, MS4A; the darker patch under the pennant number MS3; and the dark stripe towards the stern, 507A. In B&W this is how it looks:

HMS Tanatside:

 

HMS Stevenstone:

 

HMS Blean apparently uses MS2 for the darker patches, but the same 507C/MS4A combination on the bow and superstructure.

 

Immediately apparent, the MS4A and 507C are very difficult to differentiate; and the MS3 and 507A there's a small but noticeable difference in shade.

 

HMS Talybont on the other hand:

 

 

• The bow patch looks noticeably darker and provides more contrast to the MS4A in the above examples; Man'o'war 4 suggests this patch is to countershade the bow flare, which kinda is the opposite to what is happening on Talybont
• It's hard to be sure, but to me superstructure does not appear to match this shade as does in the standard scheme
• The patch under the pennant number, I'm inclined to agree, darker than the one aft. Jamie suggests it definitely not MS3.

With that in mind, and armed only with my neophyte's reading of Sovereign Hobbies' 'A brief history of RN paint', some possible suggestions then:

• The bow patch is clearly lighter than MS3 on the standard scheme. That leaves, (between 507C and MS3), MS4 or B6. The guide suggests "Interestingly, no swatch of B6 was provided nor did it feature in any of the standardised designs for small ships", which would make MS4 the likely contender. I wonder if MS4 would look darker though. 
• I suppose an outside counter to that would be, 'is there any chance the hull is white rather than 507C?'
• The darker patches look not dissimilar in shade to MS3 and 507A in the standard examples to me, reversed of course. Perhaps a simple answer might be just that.
• Still a question that arises is 'why does Talybont use non-standard colours in the first place?'. If it were due to lack of available paint at the time, that would throw the 'reversed colours' argument out the window. Perhaps then 507A and MS1? Could B5 wangle its way in there somewhere? I'm assuming Talybont held this scheme from launch in Feb '43 at J Samuel White in Cowes. Of course that led down the rabbit hole of looking into whether HMS Swift and HMS Virago (the ships launched chronologically adjacent to Talybont at this yard) had non-standard colours, but my knowledge of the light admiralty standard pattern for War emergency classes that these two appear to display, is sadly too limited to draw any conclusions.

 

Anyway, just posted this on off chance someone might have theories, but as much to document my thinking for when I inevitably forget it in a week's time. Apologies for the random thread necro.

Andy

 

 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Hi Andy,

 

I think Tanatside is in the standard design, but Stevenstone may not be - specifically the dark patch behind the pendant number could be a darker shade but lighter than 507A i.e. B5 by default.

 

Now to Talybont in particular. I think the paint behind the pendant number definitely isn't MS3 (MS2 perhaps?), but I don't think I meant the reversed countershade colour under the bow flare. That possibly could be MS3 and indeed that may be the best candidate for it?

 

MS4 we have many examples of and it can look anywhere between a bit drab to almost like 507C depending on the angle and brightness of the sun when the photograph was taken. HMS Kent, Prince of Wales, Rodney, Nelson, King George V, Anson and Howe all wore it (plus many more) prior to 1943. It would be hard to rule out B6, but also perhaps difficult to justify in with so few confirmed examples of it on small ships.

[robgizlu]

Hi Andy - mindful of Jamie's comments - I'm sitting here looking at my HMS Kent which features a lot of MS4 along the hull and it's suprise how dark it is compared to 507C that accompanies it.  I think to my mind the bow is MS4 and 507c below but as Jamie infers.............you kind have had to be there   I've painted my funnel MS3 on HMCS Eyebright if you care to check it out and it's really quite dark

In situations like this it's going to be a toss of the coin and no-one is going to critiscise

Rob

[Ngantek]

51 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Hi Andy,

 

I think Tanatside is in the standard design, but Stevenstone may not be - specifically the dark patch behind the pendant number could be a darker shade but lighter than 507A i.e. B5 by default.

 

Now to Talybont in particular. I think the paint behind the pendant number definitely isn't MS3, but I don't think I meant the reversed countershade colour under the bow flare. That possibly could be MS3 and indeed that may be the best candidate for it?

 

MS4 we have many examples of and it can look anywhere between a bit drab to almost like 507C depending on the angle and brightness of the sun when the photograph was taken. HMS Kent, Prince of Wales, Rodney, Nelson, King George V, Anson and Howe all wore it (plus many more) prior to 1943. It would be hard to rule out B6, but also perhaps difficult to justify in with so few confirmed examples of it on small ships.

 

Cheers for your help Jamie.

 

Interesting, with what you say about Stevenstone; and therefore looking between Talybont and Tanatside, I can see MS3 is not as unlikely for that bow patch as I first thought. My concern was that even MS4 might look darker but as you say, looking at Howe and Rodney in '42, it often seems lighter than the contrast on Talybont. Depending upon the picture I look at, there are examples of both having comparable contrasts with 507C. Thanks very much, those (in retrospect right in front of my nose!) comparative references give me a lot to work with. 

 

I dunno how you're able to deal with such wide ranges of contrasts in photos; I was looking at HMS Jamaica, for example, pondering possible paints for HMAS Vampire, and the 507C/B5/MS1 boundary can look very different from picture to picture (B5 in particular seems to vary wildly between 'just off 507C' to 'slightly faded MS1' for the same patch of paint in different photos, and not just for Jamaica; though having not followed the references, it's possible there are repaints separating the photos).

 

I'm sure I read somewhere something about different film types skewing the shades of bluish and greenish colours in different directions or something, where the 'mid tone greys' are relatively unaffected. I really need to write more stuff down rather than reading it once in random can't-sleep-3-in-the-morning-google-rabbit-holes.

 

Andy

 

[Ngantek]

28 minutes ago, robgizlu said:

Hi Andy - mindful of Jamie's comments - I'm sitting here looking at my HMS Kent which features a lot of MS4 along the hull and it's suprise how dark it is compared to 507C that accompanies it.  I think to my mind the bow is MS4 and 507c below but as Jamie infers.............you kind have had to be there   I've painted my funnel MS3 on HMCS Eyebright if you care to check it out and it's really quite dark

In situations like this it's going to be a toss of the coin and no-one is going to critisicise

Rob

Thanks for help Rob. As you say, it's probably sensible to get an idea and then just pick one and be happy with it! I see what you mean about MS3 (and indeed MS4) looking quite dark in 'real colour' (incidentally, I'd not stumbled on your Eyebright since before paint. No surprise being your work of course, but nonetheless with all that rust it's looking astonishingly good). Seeing the colours on real models is very helpful, thank you (my brain seems to struggle to extrapolate swatches and colour matrices onto full-on schemes). 

 

The superstructure colour is going to have me head scratching for a bit, but thanks so much, it's very helpful to narrow in on the reasonable choices. I guess as long as I am able to eliminate the obviously-wrong ideas, that's about as close as I'm going to get!

 

Cheers,
Andy

 

 

[mark.au]

13 hours ago, Ngantek said:

I thought I might cheekily tag @mark.au on the off chance that there's a photo from his Grandfather's time on her.

Unfortunately no, but I look forward to seeing how you go on this one nonetheless.