Model Boat Mayhem - Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: INVINCIBLE Too!  (Read 13082 times)

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #50 on: April 03, 2018, 05:54:07 PM »

Colin,

Thank you - I have the book but as you say its difficult to see what you are looking at!

Cheers

Geoff
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,225
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2018, 06:24:45 PM »

My impression is that it is a steel deck, it is after all labelled 'boat deck' and the crew would have needed to have access all round the boats to lash down covers etc. It is of course almost completely hidden by the hulls of the boats so you are unlikely to be challenged on it. The after arrangements for the boats do show the beams supporting them above the boat deck.

These little details are always interesting. It's also sobering to reflect that all that constructional intricacy was blown to pieces when the ship's magazines exploded.

Colin
Logged

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #52 on: April 03, 2018, 08:03:43 PM »




It echos what is going on on the Warrior class Armoured Cruisers. I will double check my plans but I recall that the structure below the boat deck of Cochrane (Warrior class) is an electric coal hoist shown (one of three or four.)


As Invincible is coal fired, a number, depending in how many boiler rooms there were, would have been fitted depending on disposition of the turrets. Warrior and her younger sisters the Minotaurs didn't have turrets that could fire across the deck, so the issue of where to put hoists and deck houses would be less of an issue.


I was looking on line to check that the Invincibles were indeed coal fired and see that they had an AA armament of Hotchkiss 3Pdrs on Mk Ic HA mountings! It is a Wiki reference but I will look up the Ic mount and see what it looks like. It might use the pintle of the low angle weapon with a cheeks fabricated like the early 6Pdr AA. Invincible mounted them from 1914 to 1917 according to the reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_battlecruiser


A further look suggests the AA weapons are 6Pdrs on Mounting Ic, but I am not sure until I look in the Buxton bible to see if these are the same as the small gun monitors initially carried. Sorry to gibber on your topic Geoff, there is lots of interesting stuff going on!


A quick question Geoff, Do you make your funnels from halves of tube with flat styrene in between? And, are the funnel caps solid or carefully measured ovoids of thin plastic?

Logged
Pond weed is your enemy

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2018, 01:41:23 PM »

The funnels are made from plastic tube and flat styrene sheet in between. In practice I found some electrical tube from B&Q a good source but it was still too narrow. I cut a piece lengthwise and forced this over a metal pipe this giving me the correct outside diameter. This was then dropped in a pan of boiling water for 5 mins and then dropped into cold water. The heat and natural spring in the plastic pipe moulded itself to the correct diameter. After cleaning up two layers of flat sheet (one overlapping on the inside) were used to form the side of the funnel.


John Roberts, British Battlecrusiers contains fold out copies of Invincible with the side elevation drawn to 1/192 scale. This gives me details as to where there were ladders between the superstructure decks and therefore deck openings. An interesting discovery was that the leg spacing on the fore and aft tripods are different at the same deck level. In hindsight this is obvious because the fore tripod was used to provide a steady platform for the rangefinder and director firing gear. The aft tripod was a secondary rangefinder position and used for the main derrick - at full boom stretch the weight of a 50 foot steam launch would have been considerable hence the wider leg spacing.


On another note in my quest to figure out if I can get all turrets to fire on the beam - you can if you move them in pairs in the right order provided the starboard turret faces forwards and the port turret faces aft. This is different from most pictures which puzzled me. In building the model if the turrets face this way the clearance at the rear between the turret overhang and the superstructure is quite tight and would have impeded normal crew movement so this was the normal default position. However when going into action I believe it would have been reversed as this would reduce the time it takes for a turret to change deployment.


I have done some more work on the superstructure but progress is slow as its really quite an awkward structure as with the guns in partial case-mates the rears can be seen at certain angles so you have to build out the interior. A difficult thing is to find out the width of the deck above the guns as it does not attach to the funnel. It can't be closed in as the main boiler vents are on that deck so would need access to fresh air. If the case-mates were fully closed there would be no way to get air to the boilers so I have concluded they were really screens (have a look at the aft battery in Lion - fully open at the rear).


Flying deck structure - further examination of various material confirms this was indeed just beams and not a solid deck, but there were narrow walkways between the boats for access. Its all really quite awkward!


I now have the rough tripods balanced in place all in brass. The central strut is 11.1mm in diameter with the legs 9mm - again awkward!


Cheers


Geoff




Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,225
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2018, 03:20:46 PM »

Interesting re the boat support Geoff, must have been tricky to confirm that. I thought that there had to be all round access to the boats though.

I wonder how many other models of this class got that detail right?

Colin
Logged

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #55 on: April 11, 2018, 03:24:48 PM »

Once you have a copy of the original plans you can figure it out. Interestingly some of the walkways are triangular at each end and narrower in the middle so from a direct above view the deck could appear solid. I guess it makes sense as it saves top-weight and gives easy access for water egress when the boats are lifted on.

G
Logged

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #56 on: April 11, 2018, 09:48:02 PM »

I was looking to use suitable model rail for the girders making up the flying deck on Cochrane, but it depends on how easy it is to file the bottom flange to match the width of the rail top. How are you going to make your flying deck Geoff?
Logged
Pond weed is your enemy

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,650
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #57 on: April 11, 2018, 11:04:58 PM »

Hi Geoff


This is my understanding of the boat support areas so far. I think it is very similar to Dreadnoughts layout with regards to walkways. I need to add my thin walkways but this my girder work so far.


A0_FFCA79_9_A1_A_4_C4_E_9_D4_C_8_CEC926_DAF13" border="0 F2_CE70_E9_E34_D_4840_B9_BD_466778661744" border="0 12072_CF9_F6_BA_4512_B2_BC_F780297_DABB4" border="0 F22_DB6_BE_26_F9_42_BB_B460_DEFC1_D0_EEDC9" border="0 11084_D65_3_D3_C_42_CD_951_D_F5738_F2_F0_B1_E" border="0 512_D06_BB_F451_425_D_8_E7_F_46851_F841070" border="0
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2018, 08:50:53 AM »

Nick,

Looking good. I see the girder work is in plastrut  which is what I was planning on using as well unless I can find a source of 1/8" I section brass as this would be inherently stronger - maybe a mixture of the two?

If I may make an observation, you have painted the decks a leather brown for the courtecine covering which I was also planning on doing. Courtecine was actually glued to the decks and the edges fixed down with brass strip which were riveted to the deck and then hammered down over the edge. It makes a nice addition to detail if this is represented. I did this on Iron Duke using very thin gold self-adhesive pinstripe. I don't know what the maximum size was but one can make an educated guess. It's not difficult to do and adds detail and creates a nice effect particularly as the edges of the deck would then be grey so it frames the whole lot. I then matt varnish over the lot to ensure it all stays in place.

My Invincible is beginning to look like a ship now that I have the rudimentary tripods in place. I'll post some pictures shortly.


Cheers

Geoff
Logged

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #59 on: April 12, 2018, 01:35:27 PM »

I meant to add for the funnels the top and bottom "lips" are made using a shelf of plastic card with the triangular shape then filled with car body filler and sanded to shape.


Geoff
Logged

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2018, 10:10:49 PM »

Thanks Geoff  :-))
Logged
Pond weed is your enemy

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,650
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #61 on: April 13, 2018, 07:43:34 PM »

Hi Geoff


Thanks for the info about the courtecine deck, I was thinking that it looked too 'bland', the brass strips will break it up and be accurate for the ship. I was wondering when you mentioned the non-symmetrical fore-mast tripod where you were measuring from as I had left my copy of British Battlecruisers at home and now I look its massively obvious! Good thing I haven't drilled out my 9mm supporting struts yet!
On my Dreadnought I got my I-beam brass on ebay, if I find the supplier again I will message you with the details. I've just run out of my plastic I-beam strut so I'm looking for some more at the moment but if the brass turns up I'm going to replace it as like you say its a lot stronger and there are a lot of resin boats to sit on them.
Keep up th good work, I'm hopefully having a ballast trial this weekend at Wicksteed if the rain holds off!
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2018, 08:55:58 PM »

I hope your test went well Nick?
Logged
Pond weed is your enemy

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,650
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2018, 09:13:10 PM »

Hi Ian


Unfortunately I didnít go as I was rather unwell this morning but not due to anything alcoholic! Fingers crossed for next weekend. :-))
Iíve been looking for some brass for the I-beams and I think Iíve found some:


https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/I-beam-profile-milled-brass-section-for-model-making-in-26-sizes-330mm-long/162871318954?var=461914118566&hash=item25ebe319aa:m:m64HADWipYlIvyGimaH2dDQ
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2018, 09:24:05 PM »

Hm, a soldered structure will be stronger in the long term than a styrene one, and probably more cost effective in the same period as well.
Logged
Pond weed is your enemy

dlancast

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,393
  • Location: Bellingham, Washington USA
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #65 on: April 16, 2018, 04:03:45 AM »

I am humbled to be among you fine craftsmen.  Magistic work indeed!  Dennis
Logged

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #66 on: April 17, 2018, 08:45:58 AM »

More progress over the weekend - tripods in place and work on forward superstructure and side armour in place.


I have discovered a discrepancy in the plans as the forward bridge is in line with the conning tower on some and a bit aft in others - a puzzle but its clear from the original plans it should be in line but the Sambrook plans  show its not!


Cheers


Geoff
Logged

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #67 on: April 17, 2018, 08:51:02 AM »

I should add that all the superstructure has yet to be plated in plastic card to finish off but I'm a long way from that as I have to build out the interior parts that will be visible, ladders and railings etc.


Cutting the forward tripod legs at the top bridge level worked very well. With inserts the tripod can be reassembled and keep everything in line.


Cheers


Geoff
Logged

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,691
  • Location: Windsor
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #68 on: April 17, 2018, 09:35:53 AM »

She is looking really great Geoff  :-))

I reckon you must have had to use a jig to solder/braze those tripod platforms accurately.
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #69 on: April 17, 2018, 09:41:30 AM »

I did, the jig was the actual base superstructure. The top plate held everything else in place.

It was actually surprisingly easy to do. I used a 6" grinding wheel to chamfer the legs to the correct angle - trial and error then fitted it to the superstructure (protected with cloth) and after cleaning had a go with a gas blowlamp - no real issues other than making sure the top was tight and in alignment.

Cheers

Geoff
Logged

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #70 on: April 25, 2018, 02:19:46 PM »

Nothing much to report by way of an update. I'm still working on the tripods. I was reading a book called Invincible (By Tarrant I think) all about HMS Invincible's life.


In the book there is the usual anecdotal comments about poor gunnery of Both Invincible and Inflexible at the battle of the Falklands against the crack gunnery ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the number of hits obtained. British counts gave many more hits but German survivors show about 22/23 hits on each of their vessels.


This is held out to be proof of the poor gunnery albeit there was a lot of issues with smoke.


Some thoughts to contest this:


1) Invincible was hit 22 times and Inflexible about 3 times so a total of circa 25 (going from memory) so we have "crack German ship"s hitting 25 times and poor British ships hitting about 44/45 times.


2) The range was obviously the same for each side and the Germans were firing at significantly larger targets.


3) Maybe more British hits were obtained at shorter range and by that time the German ships were not firing so effectively due to damage (which they received at longer range!) Sturdee kept his ships at long range to minimise damage and casualties and was criticised by Fisher as a result!


4) The British ships were very low on ammunition at the end of the action but there is also a report that Gneiseau had run out of ammunition!


5) So does this dispel the allegation of poor hitting by the British? For this battle the statistics do not seem to support this?


6) My belief is that what this action really showed was that it was very difficult for any ships to hit each other at long range particularly when manoeuvring as opposed to a straight line course.


I wonder how much of this was Fishers spite against Sturdee as he had been in the Beresford camp before the war (Fisher and Beresford were arch enemies for some reason) and Fisher never forgot it!


Perhaps this battle should be given another appraisal.


Cheers


Geoff
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,225
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2018, 04:20:35 PM »

Geoff,


Yes, I think you are right in what you are saying. Fisher did detest Sturdee, apparently because he made a hash of planning the earlier Heligoland action.


Also, the fire control arrangements in 1914 and for some time after couldn't keep up with the ranges at which the big guns could fire.


There is also the fact that the RN 12 inch shells weighed 850lb against the 240lb of the German ,8.2s. Armoured cruisers were not built to absorb hits of that calibre.


Colin
Logged

ballastanksian

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Model Boat Mayhem inspires me!
  • Location: Crewkerne
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2018, 08:20:02 PM »

A point made about ammunition supply is relevant because, while the East Asia Squadron had already used up a lot of their ammunition at Coronel, the Squadron sent to deal with them were fully 'Bombed up'.
Logged
Pond weed is your enemy

Geoff

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2018, 10:12:20 AM »

I seem to recall that in practice the rate of ammunition expenditure in action was much higher than any navy anticipated so there was pressure to increase the stowage of ammunition which, in the battlecrusiers, may have led to overfilling the magazines in some ships with more "ready use" ammunition being stowed in inappropriate places!

In general most ships seemed to have carried 80/100 rounds per gun which means Invincible may have been carrying 800 rounds. Its a lot of ammunition which required a lot of space and a lot of weight - just the shell weight would total 85,000 pounds plus probably half again for the cordite so something in the region of 127,500 pounds!
Logged

Akira

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 268
  • Model Boat Mayhem is Great!
  • Location: Hope, Maine USA
Re: INVINCIBLE Too!
« Reply #74 on: April 28, 2018, 03:41:03 PM »

Geoff,
 A wonder job!
A comment about plans/research if I may. I have found that ships were often not built in complete accordance with the original plans. Yards were often given leeway to adjust/modify the original design, while likewise the Navy, be it the RN or the USN,, or whatever, often made changes mid-stride during the build. Hence ships often bore differences from the "official" plans. Another observation, which certainly applied to the USN but perhaps not as much to the RN, was that upon completion and acceptance from the civilian yards,, ships were often moved to navy yards for modifications or the addition for weapons or hardware not available to the builders. Photos are most valuable, but for your time frame harder to find.
An interesting reference for the Invincibles is "British Battleships of World War 1" by R A Burt. It includes two profile plans.
Build on!
Jonathan
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up