Trumpeter 1:200 Titanic

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Hear hear. I have cabinet envy now.

Colin used his razor sharp wit to cut the bottom of his ones….

Ashley

[Richard SimpsonParticipant @richardsimpson88330]

You're not too far behind Ashley!

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Dear All

This subject has created a flurry of PMs asking where I got the models and how much I paid.

After a long search on the interweb I found a company selling them for £270 (inc the lighting kit) a short negotiation by email resulted in buying their last two for £500.

I paid slightly more than £270 for the one from Facebook but it did come with a lot of extras, tools, paints etc.

They are still sat on a shelf in my garage and won't get started until November.

Paul

[redpmgParticipant @redpmg]

Hate to be Mother Grundy Paul – but never understood the fascination with Titanic. It was claimed as unsinkable – seem to remember the designer went down with the ship – somewhat Ironic .

There have been far bigger catastrophes like the sinking of the the Hood as she had carried the flag for so many years – but the Admiralty knew her weakness and despite that sent her after the Bismarck together with an untried battleship – the loss of lives was far greater and was it was a more bitter blow to the public than the Titanic. ,

There was also the German ship lost in the Baltic in WW2 – over 5000 casualties I seem to remember – a lot of them women & children as it was a passenger liner evacuating a city……….

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

It is true that there have been far worse maritime disasters, as far as the Hood is concerned it should never have been sent out against the Bismark, the Hood was a product of WW1 design and suffered from lack of upgrades and refits, especially deck armour.

The sinking of the Titanic came at a pivotal point in history where engineering projects seemed to be breaking records everyday.

The shock of the sinking reverberated throughout the entire world and made the public realise that huge engineering projects could be fallible, the event forced engineers and governments to reevaluate design and safety constraints.

The design failures of the Titanic are still taught to naval architects as a example of human hubris.

So in answer to your question, it wasn't the sinking of the ship itself but what the event meant to mankind's belief in its ability to control the natural world.

Paul

[redpmgParticipant @redpmg]

Thanks for that explanation Paul – never thought of it that way – bit like the rotten early system on ejection seats for the early supersonic Jets which turned two pilots into quadraplegics before the designers had a rethink.

Think the sinking of the Hood must have been the low point of WW2 for the British public – certainly had an effect on my father who had been aboard and knew some of the crew.

Edited By redpmg on 19/06/2021 11:06:57

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

The Hood was another ship that was considered to be invincible and its dramatic demise had a huge effect on morale,

Known as the Mighty Hood it was a victim of the Sea Lords blind belief that the ship was to big to sink, it was a very large ship and held the record of the largest British warship until the QE Aircraft carrier was built.

Sadly the belief in its invulnerability and a cutback in military spending during the mid 1930s meant that Hood missed a couple of major refits including the crucial strengthening of the deck armour to counter the piercing effect of high trajectory shells.

Some naval architects have speculated that a single high trajectory shell from Bismark entered a magazine ventilation shaft adjacent to the Admirals day cabin and exploded in the magazine.

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Paul,

I don't think the 'Sea Lords' thought Hood was too big to sink. On the contrary, they deemed her to be worryingly vulnerable. As originally designed she was intended to be a fast version of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, one of four vessels. She was on the stocks when the Battle of Jutland took place and that forced a serious rethink. The other three ships were cancelled but Hood was too far along to be stopped but the design was reworked to incorporate improvements and more protection which meant that she completed rather heavier than intended. The proposed recontruction of the 1930s would have remedied some of her flaws by removing some of the upper belt armour and increasing deck protection.

In the Bismarck engagement, Admiral Holland was well aware of she ship's deck armour vulnerability whch is why he tried to close Bismarck to keep fire trajectories low, the belt armour on both ships was effectively broadly similar.

It has been argued that it would have been better for Prince of Wales to have been in the lead as she was much more heavily arnoured than Bismark but of course she was not fully worked up and was suffering from mechanical problems with her main armament. Nevertheless she could have drawn Bismack's fire allowing the more efficient Hood to shoot more effectively. Life is ful of 'what ifs'!

Colin

[Richard SimpsonParticipant @richardsimpson88330]

To Paul's point, I wonder if the Titanic made considerably more press because it was A) Peacetime and B) Civilian casualties.

I agree that it was a time of incredibly fast development and innovation but I have always seen the Titanic as standing for the arrogance that technological advancement can generate. No-one thought the Titanic could sink therefore she didn't need lifeboats. Just to follow this forward, the sinking of the Titanic eventually led to the creation of the IMO and the first SOLAS. This decreed that a ship should have the full passenger capacity in lifeboats on either side of the ship to ensure there would always be full boat capacity available no matter which way the ship sank. This has remained in place until only very recently when SOLAS was changed and now the full capacity can be shared between the two sides. The argument was that, with cross flooding arrangements and current stability regulations a ship is now designed to sink in an upright attitude therefore all boats on both sides will be available.

And then we think of the Costa Concordia! Are we going round the same circle yet again and allowing technical arrogance to support financial considerations? I tend to think we are.

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

Holland should have manoeuvred the ships up to split the from the Bismark, but in any event, as Paul says, theHood should have been scrapped years before that.

Mustn’t forget the designers of the Titanic wanted to put more lifeboats On originally but White Star management wanted less because it looked better (apparently). 

Ashley

Edited By ashley needham on 19/06/2021 17:52:11

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I agree that there is probably another accident waiting to happen. The biggest cruise ships now have over 5,000 people on board, most are passengers and a good proportion of those are elderly and not as agile as they might be. Safe evacuation in an emergency would be very problematical. On top of this, larger ships are now venturing down to the Antarctic and to other remote regions where search and rescue support is limited or non existent.

I found this very interesting video which claims to explain why Costa Concordia did not settle upright but capsized once she touched the bottom. I'd be interested in your comments Richard.

**LINK**

I wonder if this was also a factor in the final sinking of the Wahine which was presumably floating on her tank tops after the outer hull was comprehensively breached.

Colin

[Richard SimpsonParticipant @richardsimpson88330]

I think that is pretty much how I have always understood it. I have also heard an argument that because she was moving and touched the starboard side first the momentum of the ship pushed her over, which then allowed the free surface effect to push her a lot further. What doesn't seem to be taken into consideration with the argument regarding cross flooding and hence lifeboat numbers is the fact that the free surface effect will be considerable in a completely cross flooded compartment. Ships are now designed to remain afloat with any two compartments flooded, she had three and they were adjacent.

Basically if she had not touched the rocks on the starboard side she may have sunk in an upright attitude however she may well have then gone down completely with a lot more loss of life. The same saving grace as The Herald Of Free Enterprise.

I think that allowing full ships capacity in the lifeboats on both sides is a significant worry and has not really been made public nor openly discussed. The Concordia was a huge warning that we have so far ignored.

I suspect the Wahine suffered similarly to the Herald with a very large open car deck allowing a free surface effect capable of capsizing her.

It is an interesting experiment when you get your hands on a new fibreglass hull before you start a build. Place the required amount of solid ballast in it to bring it down to its marks in a bath full of water. Push the hull around and get a feel for its stability. Then replace the solid ballast with a similar weight of water and pour it into the hull. Push it around again. The difference is really surprising.

Added to your comments above with regards to the 5000+ passenger ships, the crew in charge of lifeboat stations are invariably non seafaring, very young and completely incapable of directing a large number of very agitated passengers.  Also take into consideration that they are in the process of developing a 370 man lifeboat.  Can you imagine a team of very young restaurant staff controlling that number of passengers as they board a single lifeboat? 

Edited By Richard Simpson on 19/06/2021 19:46:30

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hi Colin

To take the discussion further, the Hood was the showpiece of the Royal Navy and if the Admiralty had been concerned about its increasing vulnerability then surely they wouldn't have cancelled its refits especially the vitally important 1939 refit as, on the eve of war you would think it critical to update the largest ship in the Royal Navy.

If Holland knew about the problems with deck armour why didn't he close the range during the night, he had the element of surprise and could decide upon the best time to attack. Norfolk and Suffolk were shadowing Bismark so Holland knew exactly where his target would be.

I know these are mute points and the subject has been discussed and dissected ever since the sinking but from my own point of view the deaths of the 1418 crew could have been alleviated or avoided altogether if the Sea Lords and Holland had acted more responsibly.

Paul

[redpmgParticipant @redpmg]

Agree with Colin & Richard on the probability of another maritime disaster . The sensible cargo ships seem mostly to have the ramp launched modern lifeboats which can be launched easily. – crew probably feel safer with those – know I would.

Watched a video of the latest Brittany Ferries ship – seems to have only two lifeboats per side – far fewer than would be needed for passengers & crew surely ?- and she is designed to handle the Bay of Biscay in bad weather – (Captains claim) – but s–d's law say is anything happens its going to be at the worst time – potential disaster waiting to happen ? – hope not.

When I was discussing the possibility of sailing to Britain from Capetown in a 30ft gaff rigged cutter my fisherman friend tried to reassure me by saying 30ft or 60ft the liferaft is the same size ………… Not a very convincing argument needless to say……..

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Paul,

The fact that the Hood was the showpiece of the RN meant she was in almost continuous commission, often showing the flag and thus not available for a major upgrade. As you say, she was due for a major reconstruction (in 1941) following the three QE class and the Renown but on the outbreak of war every ship was needed and taking Hood out of service for 2-3 years before the KGVs arrived (the first in 1940) would have removed one of the few fast capital ships in the RN. It would also have tied up shipbuilding resources at a time when new smaller vessels were needed in large numbers for convoy escort etc. The war simply came along at the wrong time for her.

As regards the battle itself, Suffolk lost contact with Bismarck shortly before the ships sighted each other with the following result (Wicki)

Just before 03:00, Suffolk regained contact with Bismarck. Hood and Prince of Wales were 35 mi (30 nmi; 56 km) away, slightly ahead of the Germans. Holland signalled to steer toward the Germans and increased speed to 28 kn (32 mph; 52 km/h). Suffolk's loss of contact had placed the British at a disadvantage. Instead of the swiftly closing head-on approach Holland had envisioned, he would have to converge at a wider angle, much more slowly. This would leave Hood vulnerable to Bismarck's plunging shells for a much longer period. The situation worsened further when, at 03:20, Suffolk reported that the Germans had made a further course alteration to the west, placing the German and British squadrons almost abeam of each other.

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hi Colin

My understanding was that Suffolk was in heavy fog when she regained radar contact with Bismarck but waited until they had a visual confirmation before reporting the contact and position to Hood.

The reporting was 3 hours before the sinking giving Holland ample time to refine his strategy, knowing Bismarcks position was a huge advantage and he could have quickly closed the range and opted for a bow on attack rather than a broadside position.

It was Hollands choice to stand off by 10 miles and attack using the traditional broadside, I understand about this tactic allowing the use of all four major turrets but it also offered the Bismarck the best possible target for high trajectory bombardment.

Holland could have use Hoods speed to his advantage by opting for a high speed forward attack and concentrating the firepower from his two forward turrets, this would have very quickly closed the range and been a far more difficult target for the German guns.

I accept that it is easy to second guess these decisions and to cherry pick the alternative strategies, all of which are blessed with hindsight and the knowledge of battleship tactics gleaned since 1941, but even without these advantages I still think that the Admiralty threw the Hood away in a mission that had less than a 30% chance of success and that Holland sealed its fate by choosing the wrong method of attack.

Usual Ashley style disclaimer about this being my own opinion and in no way detracts from the bravery shown by all crews involved.

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I agree that Holland's tactics were probably a mistake but the mission actually succeeded in that the hits by PoW forced Bismarck to abandon her raiding sortie and try to reach a safe port in France.

Hood was very unlucky, as was Bismarck when the torpedo hit on her rudder sealed her fate.

Very interesting video on the possible direct cause of Hood's loss here.

**LINK**

We seem to have got rather off topic but it has been interesting.

Colin

[Richard SimpsonParticipant @richardsimpson88330]

I want to get back to watching Paul build the Titanic and her sisters!

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

In November…

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Its a long time until November and I am still in the process of building a couple of float planes to upset the local wildlife.

A Hawker Monsoon (Typhoon variant) and a de Havilland Mosquito (Yes a single prototype was produced)

I have an 8ft span Zero that I want to turn into a float variant and a Catalina that is waiting for me to build a working undercarriage.

Also have a large model yacht to restore for next season.

Paul

[The Long BuildParticipant @thelongbuild]

Only just over 4 Months away ..& Then Christmas !!

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

I would love see some progress on your Titanic project. please

We can`t possibly wait till November!

Give us something to talk about please?

A sub assembly for instance…..eh?

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Sorry Bob but the workshop is full of planes and I have nowhere to put them until they are finished.

[Bob Abell 2Participant @bobabell2]

OK Paul. I understand

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

I have bought another 1:200 Titanic so now I have four.

This unopened one came up for £160, which was just to good to miss, so I have a load of spares or a complete kit to sell when the other three are finished.

Sorry Bob as its not much of a progress report.

[Author]

Posts