Trumpeter HMS Kent

[spanner570]

Andy, keep in mind it's your model, your rules. As long as it's summat like right, no one has the grounds to question your choice of paint/shade.

The colours are specified on paper - but was all the paint available?, was it mixed up properly? were the surfaces clean? I always take the attitude that if it looks OK, then it's right! Even if all the colours were applied correctly - then a few weeks' exposure to sea, salt & wind would degrade them - so near enough is good enough - heresy to some modelers I know................
Dave

Dave I totally agree.

Where paint shades are concerned "near enough is good enough" To me, the same applies to aircraft, armour, you name it!

Different paint manufacturers given a specific colour could well come up with slightly differing shades. Even before the elements get a grip! That is why paints, ceramic tiles and wall paper etc. all have a batch number.......

U.S. Army clothing is a top example of shade differences. Different sub-contractors, different cloth shades.

Tin hats on everyone!

 

[andy55]

Put my tin hat on and a flash mask when I posted about the colours. lol
Agree entirely. She was painted at Chatham, but as you say was all the paint available.

 

[Waspie]

Just thinking, would a torpedo hitting in the stern make 10800 odd tonnes jump a bit... hummm

In short - yes!

 

[Waspie]

Put my tin hat on and a flash mask when I posted about the colours. lol
Agree entirely. She was painted at Chatham, but as you say was all the paint available.

I think you have to remember how warships were painted once they left the wall.
Immaculate in home port, then?.
Then the sea gets to her. So, usually the 1st Lt, (the 'Jimmy' or 'Jimmy the one' as he is sometimes called). Will elect to put a party over the side and paint the rusty bits or just make sure any bare metal is coated. No-one checks batch numbers or checks if the paint matches - sailors just throw the stuff at the parts needing painting. Seamen are nicknamed 'Dabbers' for a reason!!.
Every day on board can be a painting day or as the 'orficers' like to say - ships husbandry. Warships can look like a bit of a bodge up when looked at closely, but from a distance look 'grey'.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Seeing Ron’s post, it’s time to post these again…..


These were all once the same Colour….and that’s using modern computer matched paint. Anything painted before the ninteen nineties, when paint was matched by eye, would show even more variation.

 

[andy55]

OMG don't think a tin hat is enough. Maybe a fallout shelter. lol

 

[Tworrs]

I think you have to remember how warships were painted once they left the wall.
Immaculate in home port, then?.
Then the sea gets to her. So, usually the 1st Lt, (the 'Jimmy' or 'Jimmy the one' as he is sometimes called). Will elect to put a party over the side and paint the rusty bits or just make sure any bare metal is coated. No-one checks batch numbers or checks if the paint matches - sailors just throw the stuff at the parts needing painting. Seamen are nicknamed 'Dabbers' for a reason!!.
Every day on board can be a painting day or as the 'orficers' like to say - ships husbandry. Warships can look like a bit of a bodge up when looked at closely, but from a distance look 'grey'.

Haha Doug, we used to call them orifices.

 

[andy55]

In short - yes!

May have to rethink where I waterline her. Find out just where she was hit. Read it some where. Could of been the site Dave mentioned.

 

[Waspie]

May have to rethink where I waterline her. Find out just where she was hit. Read it some where. Could of been the site Dave mentioned.

Andy, just to give you an idea of how a submarine launched torpedo can impact on a floating vessel. These were taken when a now old weapon at point of impact on a 1000 ton plus target in one of the UK ranges. I was in the helicopter close(ish) to the target taking lethality images for the scientists to evaluate.
It took 40 seconds from impact to totally gone. The weapon hit the designated point, broke the vessel in half and all that remained after 2 minutes was a boiler or water tank!!
You may be able to see the water at the stern, that was the result of the whole boat being lifted out of the water and dropping back in!!

Bang or Kerrump would be more accurate!!


Here you can see by the angle of the bow in comparison to the stern exactly how much damage was caused!!
The angle iron you may spot in lower left of the SK's rotors actually went over the top and splashed down behind us!!! Maybe we were a tad too close??

 

[andy55]

Too damn close by a long way. Certainly wouldn't have done the rotors a lot of good. Really good photos though. Certainly lifted the stern by a long way. Might have to rethink this. Some one will say won't know till you try but wondering if I can do the incident justice, thats a bloody big bang...

 

[Tim Marlow]

Don’t know about torpedos, but this is what happens when a twelve inch shell hits a 20,000 ton battle cruiser….

It goes from this….

To this…..

 

[andy55]

Guessing straight into the magazine.

 

[Dave Ward]

The loss of the RN battlecruisers at Jutland in 1916 was not due to the shells in the magazine exploding, but the cordite propellant. Too light armour, and poor operational practices were major factors. Dives on the wrecks have shown unexploded shells everwhere - they're War Graves so dives are very rare.
Arm a lightly armoured fast ship with battleship guns, and it's inevitable that they'll eventually be regarded as proper battleships - 'eggshells armed with hammers' - HMS Hood was the final victim of this flawed design line
Dave

 

[Tim Marlow]

Guessing straight into the magazine.

Yep, HMS Invincible at Jutland. One 12” shell from either Lutzow or Derfflinger hit her on the Q turret and she sank in 90 seconds. Exactly the same issue that caused HMS Hood’s sinking 25 years later. Weirdly, HMS Invincible was flagship of the third battle cruiser squadron, and the Admiral in command was Admiral Hood! He was the great great grandson of the admiral hood that HMS hood was named after. In fact, HMS Hood was launched by his widow……

 

[Waspie]

The loss of the RN battlecruisers at Jutland in 1916 was not due to the shells in the magazine exploding, but the cordite propellant. Too light armour, and poor operational practices were major factors. Dives on the wrecks have shown unexploded shells everwhere - they're War Graves so dives are very rare.
Arm a lightly armoured fast ship with battleship guns, and it's inevitable that they'll eventually be regarded as proper battleships - 'eggshells armed with hammers' - HMS Hood was the final victim of this flawed design line
Dave

I was always told the Hoods demise was to poor damage control during action. They failed to close fire doors when loading the cordite bags to make for faster loading of the main guns. A German shell exploded and caused a chain reaction with the devastating results we all know!! Had the fire doors been closed then the explosion would have been contained.

 

[Tim Marlow]

The loss of the RN battlecruisers at Jutland in 1916 was not due to the shells in the magazine exploding, but the cordite propellant. Too light armour, and poor operational practices were major factors. Dives on the wrecks have shown unexploded shells everwhere - they're War Graves so dives are very rare.
Arm a lightly armoured fast ship with battleship guns, and it's inevitable that they'll eventually be regarded as proper battleships - 'eggshells armed with hammers' - HMS Hood was the final victim of this flawed design line
Dave

Too many were stored around the turret and lift areas. Fast firing had become the rule…..get more shells out than the enemy……our ship design was flawed as well though. Derfflinger took 17 heavy calibre hits and survived…..we lost Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible to the same cause as Hood…..

 

[andy55]

Yes, heard that as well, that doors were left open to allow a greater rate of fire. Heard that it was common practice. How right that is, don't know

 

[Waspie]

Yes, heard that as well, that doors were left open to allow a greater rate of fire. Heard that it was common practice. How right that is, don't know

Well, I was told about it during basic training at HMS Ganges and by coincidence we had a survivor of the Hood on the training staff although he wasn't our instructor!!

 

[Dave Ward]

The battlecruisers were stationed at Rosyth - where there were no facilities for full-bore target practice - they, as a consequence weren't that fire effective, this was known & upping the rate of fire to compensate was normal practice. This however was achieved by stockpiling shells & propellant charges, and by-passing flash doors, causing a fatal path for fire.
Full bore firing was carried out off Scapa Flow, and the battlecruiser squadrons were rotated in turn to give them practice - hence the 3rd Battle Cruisers were with the Grand Fleet at Jutland & the 5th Battle squadron ( Warspite etc ) were with the battlecruisers
Although the German High Seas Fleet claimed a victory, they never attempted another major sortie - an American journalist said that ' the prisoners had assaulted their jailers, but now were back in jail '
Dave

 

[Tim Marlow]

The battlecruisers were stationed at Rosyth - where there were no facilities for full-bore target practice - they, as a consequence weren't that fire effective, this was known & upping the rate of fire to compensate was normal practice. This however was achieved by stockpiling shells & propellant charges, and by-passing flash doors, causing a fatal path for fire.
Full bore firing was carried out off Scapa Flow, and the battlecruiser squadrons were rotated in turn to give them practice - hence the 3rd Battle Cruisers were with the Grand Fleet at Jutland & the 5th Battle squadron ( Warspite etc ) were with the battlecruisers
Although the German High Seas Fleet claimed a victory, they never attempted another major sortie - an American journalist said that ' the prisoners had assaulted their jailers, but now were back in jail '
Dave

Spot on Dave. The next day the Grand fleet sailed on patrol, but the High seas fleet never came out again except to surrender. The grand fleet were in uncontested control of the field of battle, so were unquestionably the winners.
Jellico would have had an overwhelming victory if he had had just a little more luck. Scheer used the battle turn away tactic twice (basically his fleet was in line astern and the tactic allowed them to carry out a U turn, a manoeuvre not practiced by any other navy in the world) when Jellico crossed his T, saving his fleet from destruction. In addition, poor signals discipline meant that Jellico wasn’t told the Germans were passing a couple of hundred yards south of him during the night action. Just a couple of points turn would have had him crossing the T again, probably at dawn, which, allowing for night visibility and sunrise silhouetting the enemy fleet, would have allowed him to annihilate the German fleet, especially as he would have been between them and the safety of their home port.