Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[grendel]

ships logs are in catalogue ADM53 in the national archives at kew, there must be some available online. ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=156&CATLN=3&accessmethod=5 )
Grendel

[mudway]

 The logs are available and you can see them by using this link.
http://www.naval-history.net/OWShips-LogBooksWW1.htm
It will take you to a site which has summaries of each day’s log and a link below it which will take you to a scan of the actual log which is what I did. If you rummage around, you will also find the service records of famous naval officers including Tufnell’s which is where I got his dates from.
Kent came into Devonport on 4^{[font=]th[/font]} June, went into dry dock and did not leave it until after Tufnell had left for Grimsby. So I’m not sure he was there. If Kent was painted in this camouflage scheme whilst in dry dock, she must have still been wearing it in 1919 as the only entry concerning painting in the log book is on 17th April 1919 > “Hands employed painting mess deck”. The attached photo of her in Vladivostok in 1919 shows here in an overall grey colour.
 
If you do an image search using his name, many paintings come up where he could not have been there at the time. These include the Battle of The River Plate, Malta Convoys etc. He was interpreting events quite often on commission. There are a few of the Monmouth Class amongst his paintings. May be the Kent painting was inspired by the one attached by Charles Pears of HMS Ramillies in 1917 and painted in 1917.
One thing I’ve attached is the log for Cumberland on 5th February 1918 where it states ship camouflaged. I can’t find any photos of the ship itself in camo but the IWM does have a model in what appears to be a Norman Wilkinson camouflage scheme. No other logs for the Monmouths mentions camouflage.
 
BTW I did ask the sellers about if they knew the date of the painting and how did they know it was Kent. Their response was that it was undated but they “[font=]would put it to around 1920”.[/font] As yet, no comment about how they knew the ship’s name.
I’ll have another bash at loading the 1/72 model of too.

[Arrow5]

Not exactly related to HMS Kent or indeed Royal Navy ships but hours of reading on the subject of disruptive  and dazzle painted ships and camouflage in general  http://www.bobolinkbooks.com/Camoupedia/DazzleCamouflage.html    and camoupedia.blogspot.co.uk  loads of illustrations, history and biographies of designers. Hours of reading and interesting use of "camo"see picture.  Of course modern developments in paint would have made the ship painters job a bit easier (see pic)     OOPs  Bob Link Books link didnt work.

[mudway]

The logs are available and you can see them by using this link.
http://www.naval-history.net/OWShips-LogBooksWW1.htm
It will take you to a site which has summaries of each day’s log and a link below it which will take you to a scan of the actual log which is what I did. If you rummage around, you will also find the service records of famous naval officers including Tufnell’s which is where I got his dates from.
Kent came into Devonport on 4th June, went into dry dock and did not leave it until after Tufnell had left for Grimsby. So I’m not sure he was there. If Kent was painted in this camouflage scheme whilst in dry dock, she must have still been wearing it in 1919 as the only entry concerning painting in the log book is on 17th April 1919 > “Hands employed painting mess deck”. The attached photo of her in Vladivostok in 1919 shows here in an overall grey colour.
 
If you do an image search using his name, many paintings come up where he could not have been there at the time. These include the Battle of The River Plate, Malta Convoys etc. He was interpreting events quite often on commission. There are a few of the Monmouth Class amongst his paintings. May be the Kent painting was inspired by the one attached by Charles Pears of HMS Ramillies in 1917 and painted in 1917.
One thing I’ve attached is the log for Cumberland on 5th February 1918 where it states ship camouflaged. I can’t find any photos of the ship itself in camo but the IWM does have a model in what appears to be a Norman Wilkinson camouflage scheme. No other logs for the Monmouths mentions camouflage.
 
BTW I did ask the sellers about if they knew the date of the painting and how did they know it was Kent. Their response was that it was undated but they “would put it to around 1920”. As yet, no comment about how they knew the ship’s name.
I’ll have another bash at loading the 1/72 model of too.

I hasve received a reply as to how the un-named picture is actually HMS Kent > "I know my ships being based in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard"
 

[tigertiger]

Just a thought, ref the logs.


It is possible that painting, as a routine, might not be in the ships log on all occasions  Especially if the log on the day they did the painting is full of other more important matters. I don't know if a ship's log has to be full and complete.


I remember filling in Army logs (not naval). Usually just a small number of lines outlining routine activities. Then one day we had an incident and the log was full to overflowing with the necessary CMA (cover my ***) entries. Other routine stuff was omitted.

[mudway]

_{I wondered that until I had a look through most of the log books. Then boredom set in. They rarely have more than a few lines completed on them and are quite mundane. Painting ship even the mess deck or lockers seems to have been a big occasion for them.}

[dreadnought72]

Reading his biography Tuffnell's paintings were (largely) painted on commission for members of a particular ship's crew. As RN himself, I suspect he'd attempt to depict reality, maybe based on personal experience (in this case - anti-submarine work in the Channel during the correct timeframe) and reminicences of the buyer.

I therefore think it's likely (more than not) that this is HMS Kent and that the painting is generally accurate.

That said, even a b&w photo would be welcome as supporting information.

Andy

[tigertiger]

I can imagine a conversation in an alternative universe.


'Hey Tuffy old chap. Can you paint my old tub? You can, great. And when you do, can you sex the picture up a bit and put the old gal in 'dazzle' style'.'

[mudway]

It would be nice if someone could find a photo of her in this scheme. I'm surprised there are so few photos of her and her sisters around.

[tigertiger]

Perhaps wartime is not a good time to walk around photographing ships. It would be interesting to see how many photos are taken in peacetime compared to wartime.

[Bob K]

Reading his biography Tuffnell's paintings were (largely) painted on commission for members of a particular ship's crew. As RN himself, I suspect he'd attempt to depict reality, maybe based on personal experience (in this case - anti-submarine work in the Channel during the correct timeframe) and reminicences of the buyer.

I therefore think it's likely (more than not) that this is HMS Kent and that the painting is generally accurate.

That said, even a b&w photo would be welcome as supporting information.

Andy

As Andy says, Tuffnell would hardly have painted this watercolour at that time, for someone from that ship, unless it was a fair rendition - any more that I would paint a current picture of HMS Astute in Mr Blobby pink with yellow spots.  No doubt discussions would then follow that I had the spots the wrong diameter or in an incorrect shade of yellow.
 
Had he any doubt he would have rendered it in plain grey.

[Arrow5]

Perhaps wartime is not a good time to walk around photographing ships. It would be interesting to see how many photos are taken in peacetime compared to wartime.

       Photography was forbidden during WWII if I remember.   Family snaps  on a beach could be showing defences or landing areas etc.

[grendel]

would the navy work records be available for the drydocks, showing what work was done? a repaint would certainly be on the job list if any work was carried out I would have thought.
Grendel

[Netleyned]

Most ships paintwork was done afloat using paint cats
and staging pontoons.
Drydock would be the last place to do it as staging
would have to be erected from the dock bottom.
Stages were also hung from the deck. Much safer to
Fall into the sea than the dock bottom.
Ned

[Colin Bishop]

Photography was forbidden during WWII if I remember.

I don't think serving personnel were allowed to take photos in WW1 either although of course some did.
 
Colin

[TailUK]

I found these but I don't know if they help or just cause more confusion

[Colin Bishop]

The lower one is almost certainly a prewar shot, I have several similar postcards myself of other ships.
 
Colin

[raflaunches]

Now I'm really looking forward to building her in the dazzle scheme
I'm enjoying reading the replies, especially regarding Tufnell. I only hope I can do some justice to the painting! I really do enjoy researching unusual ships or colour schemes, after all its half the fun!

[dreadnought72]

The thing about dazzle is that (in a world pre-radar) it seems to work.



 

Andy

[derekwarner]

That's amazing dreadnought72    ...& if some teckno boffin requested the same today ...they would say it could only be created on a PC with Paintshop ........Derek 

[Beagle1831]

There are some colour profiles of WW1 ship camouflage in Burt's British battleships of world war one- on p80 (of the recent edition) there is one of Ramilles 1917-18 which has some colours in common with your picture of HMS Kent. It also mentions that paints were mixed locally according to guidelines, so no two ships would have exactly the same green, pink etc.


Hope this helps,


James

[mudway]

Reading David Williams book on camouflage, he says the originals of the designs for individual ships for WW1 are held by the Department of Documents (sounds very Yes Minster that title) at the IWM. Colours were apparently "matched" to Methuen colours and a colour chart was issued. 
I posted a 1917 painting by Charles Pears of Ramillies in an earlier post in this section.

[raflaunches]

Thanks James, I've got a copy of that book, I'll have a look.


Hi mudway, I'll see if I can find this 'Department for Documents', might be worth investigating, you never know what the IWM have hidden away!

[raflaunches]

Well I have found the Department of Documents and sent an email asking that most interesting of questions, did HMS Kent have a dazzle scheme!
I'll update everyone when I get a reply.

[dodes]

Hi RFA, may be of interest to , have just found a small pic of battle damage to the Kent from the Falklands battle. She has a hole punched through her side close to one of her low outboard gun placements. The pic is a B/W but her paintwork is very close to matching sea spray, so as she was on the China station just be before the war she may have been sent there before a repaint. The book is SeaWarfare by Robert Jackson, so that may be available from a decent library. I like the Dazzle paint system in your picture, unusual to get a colour ref, You build her to your usual standard, I will enjoy seeing her on the water. Have just been reading a small book on Warship Camouflage, an the dazzle system is not a camouflage but a system to confuse a rangefinder operator, apart from odd vessels the only flotilla to operate as a whole was the 10th cruiser squadron. But that painting looks great, adds something to the vessel.