Jump to content

HMS Hermes (1919); Aoshima 1/700; RN's first propah carriarr


Ngantek

Recommended Posts

@NgantekInteresting coming back at this after an interval of a few years.

 

My thoughts on your comments are:

 

Hermes 1942 cxv - Copy

 

A.      If this is the dark band at the top of the funnel that you are referring to then I think that this is shadow of the funnel cap. (I don’t agree fully with the sun angle you mention in the next bullet point. I read the sun as very slightly ahead and to port of the ship, but the ship being down by the bow and listing to port, the funnel is pointing more or less directly at the sun. )   

B.      As I recall we debated this dark endlessly. Various interpretations are possible. It’s very tricky given no clear photos of this area. We were going from what can be seen in Morgan’s photo from well aft of the island. Clearly there was something forward of what Raven drew in his WP illustration and we tried to make sense of what we saw. It’s much smaller than the bulky fighting top above and the 507C either side of it is clearly in sunlight hence we did not think it was shadow.

C.      You could be right. It would be helpful if @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies could draw the carley rafts on as I think that the inner elbow is somewhere in the region of the gap between the first and second raft.    

D.      Yes, but with a bit of shadow at the top of it.

 

Re the director on the fighting top:

 

Hermes 1942 4 9 cb

 

I don’t think that X is a round shape.  It seems to have various angles to its edge?

 

I’ve never been able to make sense of the flat Y at the front in this photo. Is it a flaw in the original photo or has something been blown onto the fighting top from below? It even seems to touch up to the homing beacon, but then why do we not see it doing so in the photo taken from the flight deck below?   

 

It is interesting how a Japanese version of this photo, which may be closer to the original, shows a big, dark circular something there!

 

Hermes 1942 4 9 c a

 

Finally a curveball. Looking at some versions of the photo I do sometimes wonder if there might have been a bit of patterning on the flight deck, for example the dark from the starboard hull being brought across diagonally at Z? Or is it just discolouration caused by fires below?! We shall probably never know.

Edited by dickrd
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

@NgantekInteresting coming back at this after an interval of a few years.

 

My thoughts on your comments are:

Thanks for taking the time to look back at these, and for such a detailed and comprehensive answer!

Probably easier to look at each of these points in turn.

 

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

 

Hermes 1942 cxv - Copy

 

A.      If this is the dark band at the top of the funnel that you are referring to then I think that this is shadow of the funnel cap. (I don’t agree fully with the sun angle you mention in the next bullet point. I read the sun as very slightly ahead and to port of the ship, but the ship being down by the bow and listing to port, the funnel is pointing more or less directly at the sun. )   

  • Shadow vs stain: Yeah that was definitely something I considered, as a shadow. The thing that put me off that, is that the shadow curls downwards round the aft end and s'brd side of the funnel. You can see it here a bit, but it's more clear from the photo taken further aft. For ease of reference, since I don't have Hermes Adventure, I'll refer to the photos on PDF page 5 of the wreck survey report, in this case the third photo on the right side. This however, is one of those that I'm treating as academic since I can't see it in the s'brd photo from before her sinking, I'll assume it's one or the other.
  • Sun angle. Yeah, your interpretation makes more sense re:the sun. It should've been somewhat inclined due west, and what with the heading in that photo looking to be north westish, with the heel for'ard and to port, that would square with being directly down towards the deck. The 'from aft and port' slant I took from the photoset, 2nd photo on the left, where the chap's shadow is casting for'ard and to s'brd, but the land makes the course look more northerly there, and the curved wake in the top right picture suggests that assuming the heading is constant in all photos is probably erroneous (I haven't found much about the specific manoeuvres and frankly I wouldn't imagine many people involved had a great idea). Again no major points to me made here, other than your interpretation fits the data better.

 

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

B.      As I recall we debated this dark endlessly. Various interpretations are possible. It’s very tricky given no clear photos of this area. We were going from what can be seen in Morgan’s photo from well aft of the island. Clearly there was something forward of what Raven drew in his WP illustration and we tried to make sense of what we saw. It’s much smaller than the bulky fighting top above and the 507C either side of it is clearly in sunlight hence we did not think it was shadow.

  • When you refer to the 'well aft' photo, d'you mean the cover one you've posted or the one in the photoset further aft? The copy of the latter in the wreck report is low enough resolution that any band seems lost in the pixels from what I can make out.
  • Regards to the possible shadow, I had a think about this. The overhanging section (and therefore part that has line of sight to conceivably cast shadow onto the island side) is basically any part outboard of the supporting strut and fighting top sidewall. That's mostly just the well for the range finder, the boom of the rangefinder itself (which in the picture is ponting at the port quarter), and the yards sticking out, not much else and not the fighting top itself. Altogether quite slender. I struggled to think how they might cast a shadow, and in any case, that characteristic 'square finger pointing for'ard' mark on the island (at the lower B pointer) does look very paint like and not so much shadowy. Basically overall I agree with the paint interpretation, just making arguments for the shadow defence.
21 hours ago, dickrd said:

C.      You could be right. It would be helpful if @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies could draw the carley rafts on as I think that the inner elbow is somewhere in the region of the gap between the first and second raft.   

Yeah I see in some ways how the interpretation is different. Part of it is me seeing the 507C spot between carleys 1 and 2 (1 being the one most for'ard) as possibly being the 'inner elbow', giving a sharp corner with the lower portion parallel to the deck. The shadows from the rafts make it significantly guesswork. one interpretation might be a horizontal strip of B5 running from float 1 to the rear open area (crane control?). I do think the raft positions on the profile Morskie drawing (which I believe @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies suggested was significantly a product of Alan Raven's sketches?) are too far aft if they're representing the same position as the Hermes Adventure photo.

 

Again this is a case of your sketch being as good as any other inferred shape. I'm kinda splitting hairs here, it's more that I find it interesting hearing how you guys have interpreted the picture.

 

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

Re the director on the fighting top:

 

Hermes 1942 4 9 cb

 

I don’t think that X is a round shape.  It seems to have various angles to its edge?

You're right and the Japanese picture brings it into focus better I think.

 

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

I’ve never been able to make sense of the flat Y at the front in this photo. Is it a flaw in the original photo or has something been blown onto the fighting top from below? It even seems to touch up to the homing beacon, but then why do we not see it doing so in the photo taken from the flight deck below?   

I'm glad to see someone else as puzzled by this. I thought the flat area looks a bit out of square so thought maybe a plate bent out of shape possibly. The homing beacon looks odd, but I think that's a trick of the angle, you can seen the boom below it and the flat plate is I think, behind and below it where it should be. All this is moot of course, given the new photo you provided (thanks!) clears it up nicely!

 

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

 

It is interesting how a Japanese version of this photo, which may be closer to the original, shows a big, dark circular something there!

 

Hermes 1942 4 9 c a

That's it surely. I wonder if the more common version was damaged or even edited or someting. I'd interpret that as the exposed hole through which the rangefinder fits. The starboard side picture shows a lighter bulge there, suggesting 507C to me, so I suspect the cover has been blown off? Ahh I keep referring to it, I'm going to post it here even if that's a bit shabby, otherwise it'll just get confusing:

Hermes_1942

Credit: David Hobbs (British Aircraft Carriers)

 

Thanks so much for that better quality picture, it opens up a lot of things! One of which is, it may be possible to see some of the port side island scheme a little perhaps, with the improved contrast, since the carley rafts seem to have gone, 2 can be seen on the deck (though some survivor recollections talk of not finding any in the water, save one split in half). One interpretation might be the B5 stripe down the funnel, moving for'ard, joins a horizonal stripe, which has that vertical dark stripe splitting off just a'fore of the fighting top support, with the other split curving down towards the deck, eventually terminating as that 'square finger' bit. I've noticed a lot of my theories push the B5 forward a lot, which leaves the question, 'is that then MS1'? The fighting top and structure looks clearly dark, as do some other parts, but was there any particular 'light reflectance' measurements that swung that decision one way or the other? Again I dunno why I'm labouring the point other than self indulgence! I just find it interesting, and I'm still resolved to go with your scheme!

 

But more interesting about that new photo:

 

21 hours ago, dickrd said:

Finally a curveball. Looking at some versions of the photo I do sometimes wonder if there might have been a bit of patterning on the flight deck, for example the dark from the starboard hull being brought across diagonally at Z? Or is it just discolouration caused by fires below?! We shall probably never know.

Yeah that beam-wise striping has confused me from the start, along with that darker stripe along the starboard side. There are quite a few features to pick out I think

  • The striping alongside the island aft of the lift (just to clear up because it confused me the first time I saw it), is exposed framework with the deck torn away and is visible in the Hermes Adventure set (left hand 2nd and 3rd photos). The lift was supposedly blown into the air and the resulting hole seems relatively unambiguous. That's some of the striping.
  • The dark stripe at Z. I suspected that was water or something washing down the deck. The angle slightly for'ard seems consistent with the list of the ship. The issue I've had with all the other striping was that it's very well aligned beam-wise, which doesn't make sense if it's fluids running (no angle towards the bows).  (and at the time it was early enough into this that I wasn't sure if Hermes didn't have an planked US-direction wooden deck!). The higher resolution though, makes this striping look less obvious and, to me, less difficult to explain.
  • Theres a big black 'y shaped' tear in the deck on the starboard quarter, just in front of the aft 'hump'. I think one can see this in the Hermes Adventure set, 3rd on the right (looking at the island from way aft). That photo shows a lot of deck buckling, which might go some way to explain some of the beamwise striping, given the beamwise underlying structure that the buckling deck is pressed against.
  • The darker, and well delineated starboard side has been bugging me from the start. Could there be smoke rising from a seam all along the long axis of the deck? is it a shadow? Discolouration due to heat below, as you say? Is it a recent darker painted 'fly park' area? It extends, seemingly, fore of the island too.  I think when one looks at the 'other' sinking photo I posted (actually reposted here for ease, since it's on the last thread page), taken a further distance to port, once can see a suggestion of that darker area there too. And in both cases, the dark area on the hump round down at the stern, and on the aft lift, is also visible in similar contrast. On the basis of this 'agreement', I'm inclined to theorise that maybe these are not just some trick of the light or the smoke. Are they damage-inflicted though? Again given the round down and lift have a similar shade, and are more believably 'deliberate', I'm inclined to paint mine with those areas of the deck in a darker shade. It adds 'interest' if nothing else. Would a darker Bronze green be sensible? 507A? MS1? Semtex!?
  • EDIT: been thinking about the 'heat cooked the area to darker shade' theory. Sounded about right, being on the high side the fumes and heat would collect there if it were a separate compartment from the hangar. However, looking at the plans, the hangar wall follows the curve of the hull; there's no compartment that follows the straight fore aft line of the dark area. So again, I think I'll treat it as a different deck shade in that area.

HMS_Hermes_(95)_sinking_1942.jpg

 

20 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

The picture I drew of Hermes is a bit rubbish so it could probably do with a revisit in general. The same applies to the KGV class ones to be honest. I was very inexperienced then!

Not at all they're incredibly useful, in fact I think many ways the simpler the better with these things. All I can say is thanks for the work you put into them and making them readily available. For the large number of us who have no idea about colours, history of RN paints, and no experience on which to fall back to make educated guesses, all the resources you make available are godsend. What I've found very interesting is that the more you delve into these things, the more you can trace the origins of the various inaccuracies (or at least design and scheme decisions) that branch out and become standardised in modelling. One can find so many fantastic Hermes builds online for example, of a standard that I will never be able to achieve, but modellers will generally follow the instructions and paint guide, and in a subject as poorly documented as this, one doesn't immediately realise how much guesswork went into those 'accepted standards'. The port side hull scheme being a very obvious example.

 

Anyway sorry I've really gone off the rails on this one! As I say it's a massive self indulgence really. As a newcomer to ship modelling, I'm finding all this reverse engineering and 'detective' work fascinating. All I can say is thanks so much for taking the time to help guys!

 

Andy

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaaand I didn't even get around to a progress log. Or at least it wouldn't be one without very little progress and very large amounts of faffing around on the internet. So here's the latest one:

 

More reading to do:

20230121_190507

My Polish is er... not... so really it's for the pretty pictures.

 

More fiddly Swordfishery

20230121_190440

 

And the punchline cometh! I was going to baste these all in Sky type S; it being early 1942; such that even on the eastern station I would think that the early 1941 change from sky grey to sky type S would've filtered over the sea by then. However there's this, which IWM attribute to Hermes in 1942. My understanding (or inference) is that she must've had her final camouflage scheme throughout 1942, since it appears her last refit was completed early that year (although she did spend extended periods at Trincomalee), which would therefore suggest the dating is incorrect.

 

Anyway, while there's no colour, the fins of those stringbags are the light underside shade, which would suggest an earlier sky grey scheme to me. So two bits of info that don't add up, Hermes in '1942' but I don't think so because of the hull paint scheme, and that FAA aircraft generally shouldn't have had that scheme in '42? Still, flip side, the sky grey does seem more 'iconic' to me as how a stringbag should look.

 

I really suck a decisions don't I? Perhaps I should buy myself one of those fortune teller bowling balls.

 

Andy

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ngantek I don't think I had that Japanese version photo at the time we did the illustration and you make a good spot about the camouflage on the port side of the island there. I'm now beginning to wonder if another explanation for part of what we see at my B at the end of the lower arm of my Y shape is a bomb entry hole and the superstructure above blackened by fire and smoke?! Do we know exactly where all the bomb hits on Hermes were? Also, was the fighting top hit which would account for any off squareness of the roof up there?

 

You make lots of good points and raise a number questions all of which I want to take a bit of time to consider before replying to. I'm going to go through all the photos I have of Hermes again as I have more now than I did then. I can already see a partial answer re the rectangular darks on the flight deck.

 

But one immediate quickie. The IWM date on that photo of Hermes with Dorsetshire is indeed wrong, very wrong. Note no homing beacon on Hermes.  True date was June 1940 off West Africa.  (She is uncamouflaged but it is interesting to see that vertical 'dark' shadow (?) on the port side of the island forward of the carley raft just where we are debating 'B'!) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/01/2023 at 09:26, dickrd said:

@Ngantek I don't think I had that Japanese version photo at the time we did the illustration and you make a good spot about the camouflage on the port side of the island there. I'm now beginning to wonder if another explanation for part of what we see at my B at the end of the lower arm of my Y shape is a bomb entry hole and the superstructure above blackened by fire and smoke?! 

 

Ah a good point. The lift and panel astern of it are certainly alongside that area.

 

On 22/01/2023 at 09:26, dickrd said:

Do we know exactly where all the bomb hits on Hermes were? Also, was the fighting top hit which would account for any off squareness of the roof up there?

I don't have a huge amount of information on it, and it seems the flight deck has 'collapsed in on itself' in the wreck. She seems to have taken a huge number of direct hits, and generally most seem to have pierced the deck and exploded underneath. The forward lift was blasted into the air early on (possibly the lift and panel astern are a result of the same bomb?) 

 

Quote

The forward lift rose into the air to a height of approximately twenty feet, snapped its hydraulic stem, dropped half back onto the flight deck, half down the lift well, to wipe out all those in the hangar who had been blown forward by the blast. (source "The most dangerous moment",  Michael Tomlinson)

Quote

One of the first casualties was our forward lift, it received a direct hit, was blown 10ft in the air to land upside down on the flight deck eventually sliding into the sea, all personnel in that area were instantly killed. Source

Various sources all say that the bridge took a direct hit, which should probably colour our interpretation of the photos. (Aside, the bridge I always assumed is the top for'ard part of the island rather than in the tops?)

 

 

On 22/01/2023 at 09:26, dickrd said:

 

You make lots of good points and raise a number questions all of which I want to take a bit of time to consider before replying to. I'm going to go through all the photos I have of Hermes again as I have more now than I did then. I can already see a partial answer re the rectangular darks on the flight deck.

Thanks for having a look, sorry to trigger off this discussion!

 

 

On 22/01/2023 at 09:26, dickrd said:

 

But one immediate quickie. The IWM date on that photo of Hermes with Dorsetshire is indeed wrong, very wrong. Note no homing beacon on Hermes.  True date was June 1940 off West Africa.  (She is uncamouflaged but it is interesting to see that vertical 'dark' shadow (?) on the port side of the island forward of the carley raft just where we are debating 'B'!) 

Thanks for that, I didn't even look hard enough to notice the lack of beacon. I haven't done a lot of looking into her camouflage and fit at earlier stages of the war. That vertical shadow though... I didn't notice it, but it seems astern of where the ladder is, which is the only vertical structure I've generally seen in that area. Very interesting! I can't find many good pictures of her starboard island at all, let alone in wartime. I will have another dig around. 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 4:46 PM, Ngantek said:

Aaaand I didn't even get around to a progress log. Or at least it wouldn't be one without very little progress and very large amounts of faffing around on the internet. So here's the latest one:

 

More reading to do:

20230121_190507

 

 

 

Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but the Indian Ocean Raid is a subject of immense interest to me, and when I was trying to get into graduate school, I did some archival research on it, synthesized here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWdnK7-LuU2CVnK78Gj3R5YO20N22ggajHW3LOeref0/edit?usp=sharing

 

I have the advantage of some newer information than Tomlinson.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure you know this already but I seem to remember reading that Hermes had left all her planes on shore for some reason when she sailed to meet her fate - not that Swordfish would have ben of much use but a few Fulmars might have distracted the Japanese bombers, though against Zeros they would have been sitting ducks I guess.

 

Pete

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, PeterB said:

I am sure you know this already but I seem to remember reading that Hermes had left all her planes on shore for some reason when she sailed to meet her fate - not that Swordfish would have ben of much use but a few Fulmars might have distracted the Japanese bombers, though against Zeros they would have been sitting ducks I guess.

 

She had. Due to her slow speed and the weather conditions at the time, there wouldn't have been enough wind over the deck for an armed Swordfish to take off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Procopius said:

 

Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but the Indian Ocean Raid is a subject of immense interest to me, and when I was trying to get into graduate school, I did some archival research on it, synthesized here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWdnK7-LuU2CVnK78Gj3R5YO20N22ggajHW3LOeref0/edit?usp=sharing

 

I have the advantage of some newer information than Tomlinson.

 

 

Wow what a fantastic stroke of luck for me, many thanks PC. It is (as, I suspect, with many others less ignorant than I), a subject I know very little about, and there's a morbid kind of fascination what potentially could have happened given the vast mismatch in capability at that time an place in the war. I look forward very much to reading it.

 

1 hour ago, PeterB said:

I am sure you know this already but I seem to remember reading that Hermes had left all her planes on shore for some reason when she sailed to meet her fate - not that Swordfish would have ben of much use but a few Fulmars might have distracted the Japanese bombers, though against Zeros they would have been sitting ducks I guess.

 

Pete

 

1 hour ago, Procopius said:

 

She had. Due to her slow speed and the weather conditions at the time, there wouldn't have been enough wind over the deck for an armed Swordfish to take off.

 

Ah I didn't know that was the reason for the absence. The chances were that they would've achieved little but to get themselves shot down or sunk with the ship, so perhaps it was a blessing. Hermes did not carry fighters at the time (nor I believe at any point in the war). A flight of shore-based Fulmars did arrive but too late to have any influence on the attack.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ngantek said:

Ah I didn't know that was the reason for the absence. The chances were that they would've achieved little but to get themselves shot down or sunk with the ship, so perhaps it was a blessing. Hermes did not carry fighters at the time (nor I believe at any point in the war). A flight of shore-based Fulmars did arrive but too late to have any influence on the attack.

 

 

Indeed; Swordfish of 788 Squadron NAS were caught up in the attack on Colombo during a ferry flight, and all six were shot down. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ngantek  

 

Andy, I’ve looked at the port side of the island question first. Having gone through all my photos I think I now see that we were misled. Two dark verticals were visible on the island in the 1940 photo of Hermes with Dorsetshire.  They are more clearly visible in this 1941 photo: 

Hermes a 1941

 

Going back through all my photos the aftmost and faintest of the two (A) seems to have been boxlike trunking up to the fighting top presumably housing some cabling/services. It is there in the very first photos of Hermes back in 1923. I don’t think that this features in the Aoshima kit. This is a 1925 image: 

 

Hermes b 1925 trunking

 

 

The more prominent dark (B) runs from the signal deck’s deck level down to a point just above the flight deck between two bulkhead doorways (C). To my great surprise this is the ‘transverse bridge’. This was deployed when in harbour to enable bridge personnel to see more clearly over the port side of the ship: 

Hermes c transverse bridge

 

I have come across this on other RN carriers folding back horizontally, alongside the funnel, but surprisingly on Hermes it hinged vertically at H as shown in this photo of it in its stowed position:

Hermes d transverse bridge stowed

 

 

 

I don’t think that it features in the Aoshima kit and in my Flyhawk (1942) kit it is an optional piece to glue on in its deployed position but with no indication/option of it in its stowed position. The As Fitted’s show that it was added at Malta in 1926.

 

Because the transverse bridge is hinged on a protrusion out from the side of the bridge it angles inwards towards its lower end in its stowed position. This has implications for the shadow it casts giving rise to triangular shaped affairs in some photos.  

 

The photo of the cover of Morgan’s book that you provided is, despite the writing, a sharper image than the version we were working from as in my earlier posting:

Hermes e 1942 4 9 sinking - Copy

 

Bearing in mind what can be seen in the Japanese version of the sinking photo that I shared, I now believe that the various darks can be interpreted as follows:

 

A - the trunking up to the fighting top.

B - the transverse bridge itself in its stowed position.

C - shadow of signal deck protrusion that the transverse bridge hinges from.

D - shadows from the curved overhanging wind deflecting top edges of the surrounds to the compass platform/signal deck.

E & F - unsure. Horizonal bottom edge so not fire damage. Maybe shadow of the port protrusion of the fighting top above?

G - forward extension of camouflage paint panel coming down from the funnel/across from behind the carley floats.

H - is this somehow the shadow of the transverse bridge?

J - or is this an upwards branch offshoot of the camouflage extension G as perhaps suggested in the Japanese photo (or a bit of both!)? 

Hermes f 1942 4 9 Japanese

 

I've dropped the idea of bomb/fire/smoke damage.

 

Jamie @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies is kindly working on a revised illustration of what I think we can be sure of as an aid our further discussion.

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard

Edited by dickrd
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, dickrd said:

@Ngantek  

 

Andy, I’ve looked at the port side of the island question first...

 

This is fantastic work! Thanks so much, and it makes so much more sense now! The transverse bridge, I'd seen in Flyhawk builds of the kit, fully extended in some '37 builds and as a stub some '42 ones. Aoshima, as you say, has neither. I had assumed that it was an 'old school' feature that was simply trimmed off sometime around the start of the War. The stub and barrier that protrudes at the right-most arrow of your 'C' has had me scratching my head no end of times, since it looks like the compass platform 'blister' but is in the wrong place; and had me going down all kinds of theories about some foreshortening effect of the camera angle. Amred with the knowledge, I can't decide if we're seeing the platform stub with the flat guard barrier behind it, or whether the barrier too sticks out follow the stub (as I thought I was seeing).

 

That close up picture of the port side island is great, and shows it all so clearly. I thought I'd not found anything showing detail there, but turns out there is one low resolution from a similar angle with a (probably Demon?) taking off, that does also show the platform stowed, I just didn't know what to make of it at such low res.

 

 

19 hours ago, dickrd said:

The photo of the cover of Morgan’s book that you provided is, despite the writing, a sharper image than the version we were working from as in my earlier posting:

 

Bearing in mind what can be seen in the Japanese version of the sinking photo that I shared, I now believe that the various darks can be interpreted as follows:

 

A - the trunking up to the fighting top.

B - the transverse bridge itself in its stowed position.

C - shadow of signal deck protrusion that the transverse bridge hinges from.

H - is this somehow the shadow of the transverse bridge?

 

Yep I'm totally convinced of all of these.

 

 

19 hours ago, dickrd said:

D - shadows from the curved overhanging wind deflecting top edges of the surrounds to the compass platform/signal deck.

Seems reasonable given the comparable shade and scale with 'obvious' shadows, such as under the ridge 1/3 way up the funnel, or beside the crane; on that note, I still suspect that bar that can be seen below the aft spotlight is paint, since you can see shadows over it?

 

 

19 hours ago, dickrd said:

E & F - unsure. Horizonal bottom edge so not fire damage. Maybe shadow of the port protrusion of the fighting top above?

 

19 hours ago, dickrd said:

G - forward extension of camouflage paint panel coming down from the funnel/across from behind the carley floats.

I agree, I always thought that looked very 'painty'. It's unclear because of the carleys from the Morgan photo how it joins with the funnel; I'm inclined to guess as per the Japanese version of the sinking photo; after a horizontal-ish section before curving down..

 

The alternative remains of course, that combined with the panel at E and F, is a shadow as you say, with the difference from before being that there's no need to account for all that vertical stuff that's been so confusing. I still can't see an obvious way in which the overhang of the tops creates this pattern, particularly with the rangefinder boom in line pointing to the port stern quarter. One might even think the top portion (E,F) is visible in the sinking photo (a separate black blob B under the protruding compass platform blister, seemingly ending a fair way down (towards the deck)); it's almost like it's hidden under a lighter grey bit with a white dot on it.

 

If E and F are paint, it's almost like there's a stripe running angled down and for'ard (the point of E is the patch one can see between the bridge extension and the island), and it continues to terminate in a horizontal edge. The upward line on the sinking photo seems in the right place to be the bridge extension, and its similarity in look to that first 1941 photo does draw attention. Having said that, it's hard to be sure whether there's a clear 507C area where the folded bridge should extend below the horizontal 'camouflage?' line at point A, or whether it's lost in the photographic fuzz.

 

52640237445_1cb62576b7_o_annotate

 

 

 

19 hours ago, dickrd said:

I've dropped the idea of bomb/fire/smoke damage.

 

Jamie @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies is kindly working on a revised illustration of what I think we can be sure of as an aid our further discussion.

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard

 

Nice. Thanks very much both of you! I've stuck some tentative guesswork into CAD. The alignment points are a bit vague, particularly in the Morgan photo, since the perspective means that vertical lines are not parallel. But here's some guess work. The blue is what we can see in Morgan, the green random speculation that's obscured by shadows or line of sight. But the lower deck level band of colour that's visible between the Carleys doesn't seem that compatible with a central strip that may or not be what we're seeing in the sinking photo; it seems like it would require two stripes like I've randomly shown for discussion.  Someone who knew what they were doing with image processing could probably project, unroll and overlay these perspectives in a proper unhandwavy manner.

 

Align1

 

align2 align3

 

 

One thing though.. where's my lovely MS1 band! I wanna paint MS1.

 

Andy

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ngantek Great. We seem to be in a fair amount of agreement. @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies has worked his magic and kindly produced this which shows what I currently think we can be fairly sure of so far. We may want to fine tune the exact shape of the pattern on the island below the funnel when we add the carley rafts later, but can we leave that and the positioning, shape and size of the carley rafts for now?

 

Hermes 1942 island port ba

 

As you have highlighted, in the Japanese aerial photo the rafts have been taken down and are on the flight deck so we get an impression of what is on the island itself. The key point where I diverge from you is that to my mind the Japanese aerial photo clearly shows paint extension G as linking back to pattern below the funnel. This is not incompatible with what is in the Morgan photo as the forwardmost carley raft hides a proper view of the link-up area. But I think that I can just about make out paint demarcations on the raft itself that support this link-up also.

 

On the question of the lower dark down towards the flight deck visible in the Morgan photo and also perhaps in the Japanese photo, I have marked up how I see this linking in at M:

Hermes 1942 island port bb

 

I agree with you about uncertainty re the possible branch extension J seen in the Japanese photo versus it being the transverse bridge with its bottom end (your ‘A’) for some reason not being really visible in the Japanese photo due to photographic fuzz due to the quality of the image.  All I can say is that a branch like this  would be an unusual sort of shape for the designers at Leamington to have used. Hermes was Leamington Job No. 42. You can see their general design style at that time in other schemes they were producing then such as Eagle (Job No. 41) and Roberts (Job No. 46). So I’d be inclined to leave J out pending further photographic evidence?

 

On the question of the possible bit of pattern E/F.  I agree with you that it does not work as shadow from fighting top above. The sun/shadow angle is wrong with the ‘dark’ being well forward of the fighting top side protrusions. You could also perhaps argue (indeed I think you are suggesting this) that the small triangle of ‘double’ darkness at X visible in the Morgan photo is a ‘dark’ further darkened by shadow from the bridge wind deflectors. The shadowed 507C just aft of this ‘triangle’ is less dark:

Hermes 1942 4 9 sinking x

 

E/F has a flat bottom edge and curved forward and lower right edges in the Morgan photo. There is a dark dark in exactly that position in the Japanese photo.  One could even speculate that this patch E/F was MS1, in the designer’s eye coming down from the fighting top above.  Although it doesn’t feel like a fit to the general Leamington design style of the time, pending further photographic evidence I think I’d be inclined to speculatively include a patch E/F and indeed make it MS1?

 

Up at ‘B’, having had another hard stare at my photos, I now see that the original 1926 small stump extension that the transverse bridge was hinged onto was extended almost as far aft as the cable/services trunking running up to the fighting top. The signal deck surrounds were brought out to its edge so creating an oblong ‘blister’ in that area. It is hard to pin down exactly when this work was carried out. It was not there at the time of the 1937 Coronation Fleet Review but was there by mid 1940. This explains the extra large shadow  immediately beneath it in the Morgan photo. I think that neither Aoshima or Flyhawk (properly) model this feature.

 

And in anticipation of Jamie adding the carley rafts, a question. Do we think that the 4th, aftmost and slightly smaller, carley raft was in position on 9th April 1942 and in Morgan’s sinking photo has already been taken down? Perhaps it is what crewmen are gathering around in the obscured bit of the photo beneath where it hung? Are the things dangling down above the strops that secured it? What do we think we see behind Morgan’s right elbow in the earlier flight deck photo?

Hermes 1942 Morgans elbow

 

Edited by dickrd
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, dickrd said:

@Ngantek Great. We seem to be in a fair amount of agreement. @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies has worked his magic and kindly produced this which shows what I currently think we can be fairly sure of so far.

This looks great! Thank you both so much for all the work that's gone into rethinking the camouflage. I think I broadly agree with just about everything you've said!

 

1 hour ago, dickrd said:

The key point where I diverge from you is that to my mind the Japanese aerial photo clearly shows paint extension G as linking back to pattern below the funnel. This in not incompatible with what is in the Morgan photo as the forwardmost carley raft hides a proper view of the link-up area. But I think that I can just about make out paint demarcations on the raft itself that support this link-up also.

Yep I agree. This links in with the points you make later about the 'Leamington style' of which I know nothing, I'm very much of a mind to defer to those who know what they're talking about. I agree the linkup looks to be there in the sinking photo, and really just wasn't sure the extent to which there's shadow or paint. Now you mention it, I can sort of see what you mean by the camouflage stripe on the raft (although I would say, on the starboard side, it doesn't seem like all the rafts that cross a demarcation necessarily have that painted on them).  I think the scheme you've shown, with the 'M' extension seems just right. 

 

1 hour ago, dickrd said:

You can see their general design style at that time in other schemes they were producing then such as Eagle (Job.No.41) and Roberts (Job No.46). So I’d be inclined to leave J out pending further photographic evidence?

Thanks for the info on Leamington. Its entirely new info to me, and it's a subject I really would like to read up on if you have any suggestions. The reason for the similar style to Eagle is a bit of a lightbulb moment. (And HMS Roberts, I've somehow managed to never even hear about before!?). But yes I tend to agree that a branch at J looks a little strange, and what with there being a possible alternative explanation, I would generally leave out also (and entirely selfishly, it'll be hidden by the bridge extension when I build it).

 

E,F and in fact G are ones that I always thought didn't really match the shape language of the starboard side scheme, but had no knowledge of the origin of it, nor any further idea of other similar examples that might inform decisions. Still, having said that, Eagle's doesn't seem adverse to the occasional sharper corner or pointed end of B5. G, I'm pretty happy with, E,F, I'm on the fence. It might make a natural extension from that band of MS1 around the tops as you say; Again I tend to defer! (incidentally, I had also tentatively noted that the blob at my 'B' (==E,F area) looked darker that the B5 stripe)

1 hour ago, dickrd said:

Up at ‘B’, having had another hard stare at my photos, I now see that the original 1926 small stump extension that the transverse bridge was hinged onto was extended almost as far aft as the cable/services trunking running up to the fighting top. The signal deck surrounds were brought out to its edge so creating an oblong ‘blister’ in that area. It is hard to pin down exactly when this work was carried out. It was not there at the time of the 1937 Coronation Fleet Review but was there by mid 1940. This explains the extra large shadow  immediately beneath it in the Morgan photo. I think that neither Aoshima or Flyhawk (properly) model this feature.

Yeah Aoshima have nothing in this area. Your interpretation makes sense, as I say, I've gone back and forward on that one given it's hard to be sure from the Morgan photo what we're seeing.

 

1 hour ago, dickrd said:

And in anticipation of Jamie adding the carley rafts, a question. Do we think that the 4th, aftmost and slightly smaller, carley raft was in position on 9th April 1942 and in Morgan’s sinking photo has already been taken down? Perhaps it is what crewmen are gathering around in the obscured bit of the photo beneath where it hung? Are the things dangling down above the strops that secured it? What do we think we see behind Morgan’s right elbow in the earlier flight deck photo?

That was always my suspicion, in fact I'd kind of assumed all that activity at the bottom of the island was largely work to bring down the rafts. The focus of attention down on the deck in below the 'missing' one suggests to me also that the smaller float has already been brought down and is obscured behind the smoke. The photo you showed (I haven't seen that one in the set) clearly has some kind of shadow in the right location, certainly behind his inner arm. I'd even suggest, given its darkness compared with the stuff hanging down in the main photo, that that is the raft proper. I also think one can make out some rounded stain or discolouration where the raft ought to be in the Morgan photo. Another quick observation is that the smaller one doesn't seem to be in place in the other photo taken from further astern, but I haven't gone to any great lengths to try and correlate the heading and approximate list of the ship to get an rough idea of the sequence of that photoset. But yes for what it's worth, I'd be inclined to include it, since it exists in '41 and there are various things that might suggest it was there.

 

The more general points about raft and camouflage location, I'd been holding a ruler up to the screen to align things; and drawing the lines in CAD is really just the same thing in a more permanent fashion; so I don't put any great store by the alignment points I've shown, it's more a rough guide to aid discussion and, frankly just see if I'm looking a the same approximate location between photos. So it's not really hill I'm going to die on!

 

I'm not even sure what got me started on all of this, I suspect it was just when deciding what to do with the port side hull to match the island! I'm acutely aware of the fact that the shonky quality of the final model is no way going to justify the amount of care an attention you've kindly put into getting the camouflage just right!

 

Andy

 

EDIT: oh one last thing, you said you might have a theory about the darker areas on the deck? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bigbadbadge said:

Crikey, that was a catch up Andy, good to see you have made a start and good work on the deck to hull joint. Look forward to the painting.

 

Chris

Thanks Chris. I have, as you can see, been very busy doing exactly no modelling whatsoever. My deepest apologies if you were unfortunate enough to actually read through the mass of nerdy procrastination! The plan has been slightly to rotate between these three builds on alternate sessions, so the spit-sea-fire has had some entirely excessive interior faffing done to it, and otherwise I've done nothing but obsessively trawl t'interweb trying to avoid making any actual progress work out how to paint and configure the Hermes and the Vampire. Aftermarket has arrived though, so aside from the odd paint, I think I've finally run out of excuses.

Cheers,

Andy

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ngantek said:

nerdy procrastination!

 

There's no need to apologise. I'm sure that some seasoned sailors were enjoying whatever it was you were rambling on about. 

 

A good technique for the less dedicated is to scroll quickly over the old photos until a cutting board appears in the background. No trouble!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there is finally some progress; The stringbags got some Sky. I'll probably brush paint the lowers, and then be in a position to start with the horrific PE struts. A bit on the fence about a few things with Hermes herself actually, and a bit intimidated by the deck and how to get some variation, so at least the air wing can progress.

20230128_121223

Andy

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2023 at 2:15 AM, Ngantek said:

trying to avoid making any actual progress work out how to paint and configure the Hermes and the Vampire. Aftermarket has arrived though, so aside from the odd paint, I think I've finally run out of excuses.

       Gidday Andy, sometimes a part of a model can intimidate me too, and a model stalls because of it. A recent example is the masts I had to do on my HMAS Vampire II. But when you bite-the-bullet and get on with it you become pleased with your progress. And there's nothing wrong with research. I've made mistakes with models, some I can correct, some I can't. I really think prevention is better than cure.

       I love those Swordfish. And I thought those at 1/600 were small. BTW, I noticed that one has a flat tyre. 😁      Regards, Jeff.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

       Gidday Andy, sometimes a part of a model can intimidate me too, and a model stalls because of it. A recent example is the masts I had to do on my HMAS Vampire II. But when you bite-the-bullet and get on with it you become pleased with your progress. And there's nothing wrong with research. I've made mistakes with models, some I can correct, some I can't. I really think prevention is better than cure.

       I love those Swordfish. And I thought those at 1/600 were small. BTW, I noticed that one has a flat tyre. 😁      Regards, Jeff.

 

Hi Jeff, yeah I have a tendency to put off the bad stuff. At the moment I'm getting away with it, since I have so many models on the go, there are infinite less intimidating jobs that need doing. But I agree, it's rarely a bad outcome to just have at the bad bit.

 

Yeah the Flyhawk ones are exquisite, although hugely fiddly and over-engineered! Good spot, I bosched it when painting and figured I'd leave that one for future me. More damage done again unfortunately:

 

20230128_230451

Some dark slate grey. I've painted the etch as well, although I suspect that will get stripped the very millisecond I look at them. Had a go with masking with masking solution... not so good. Then brush painting... a bit rubbish, and then airbrushing hoping 'line of sight' from above would give be a decent demarcation.. Not really but the detail and paint finish was predictibly better. I'll have another look tomorrow to see which worked out best.

 

Andy

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those airplanes look terrifying. 😱

 

And yet it's the flight deck that's holding you back. I wonder if tonal variation is really necessary at 1700 scale? If you go for it, I'd recommend trying to be so subtle that you are not sure whether you can see it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not updated this one for a good long while; there's been bits of not-worth-posting progress here and there (usually a whole session planning to paint, but ending up just getting stuff ready), but mostly just haven't had the time or inclination. A bit more work today. mostly just lots of 507C, in my usual style of 'really really thin' to allow me to build up the paint on the hull with some black based texture; before realising that everything consequently takes 3 passes and 5 hours to paint. As always, I run out of patience and end up with the usual plethora of runs, splodges, buildup on reverse edges and whatnot. One day I'll learn that light colours don't need quite such silly thinning.

 

20230212_213852

 

Anyway, here we are, it's ready for deck colours, the other two tones and whatnot, but I've opted to do them one at a time rather than the usual crawling into bed at 230am, just in time for the kids to wake up.

 

Cheers,

Andy

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...