The Ship Model Forum

I fired up the good old light box and took some shots on one of my temporary bases of where I am at the moment. I do this sometimes because I want to know how the model looks overall - does it feel right.

Here is the result. I can tell colors need to be lighter, deck awnings will be changed (have since based on evidence but they were still unpainted, and these are so..). I thinkthe correct color is actually grey, as steel decks were.

Masts I see need to be thicker certaintly, as they were not steel but wooden. So I need to use something thicker, but also / not sure about the taper. Are they always tapering, or they are all straight just thinner as you go up...

Im also pretty sure I have to rebuild the main fighting platform superstructure and figure out / improvise some of the way it sits there. Plans show it is triangular, and pictures arent clear. I think they expanded it down the road, added sand bags to protect it, further obscuring it from view, and there is at some point an awing on the top that gives a for sure square appearance.. There are ladders up front and then there are not later. I think I will go for triangular version as its appearance checks out. I also am doing an early version of the ship, and as I lack data on small gun placements (Hotchkiss?) doing an early naked version seems most reasonable. But that is for later.

So the deck mystery is finally getting less and less mysterious.
With kind help of @Haze_Grey_History I now have images that show Turenne's deck in more detail with crew shots and everything. These are wonderful, and give much more insight into how those upper decks around guns looked like.

[quote]Now that's an interesting subject! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:
I'm following![/quote]
:thumbs_up_1:

Now that's an interesting subject! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:
I'm following!

I have started to play a bit with the hull weathering.

As for the deck, this is probably v 0.9 as my next one will be from paper and CA glue for the blast shields or whatever those awnings are. Im not sure on color, or if they are wooden decked. Paintings imply wood, so probably thats why I picked wood.

Coppper hull should be greener, I plan to do another pass with oils to see what result I get. Im going for a bit fowled hull here, experimenting.

[quote="JIM BAUMANN"]similar ship, similare era

REDOUBTABLE

scratch built 1/384 scale by John Prothero -Thomas

might be useful or inspiring!

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=49617&mode=view[/img]

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=49618&mode=view[/img]

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=49616&mode=view[/img]

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=8102&mode=view[/img][/quote]

Redoubable is my favourite warship ever? Courbet, Devastation, Colbert... all are amazing too.
So this is a lovely model to see, especially the colors and so on. I cant help but notice the green antifouling paint. Very beautiful. Never seen it, great find, thanks!

I am now at a phase where I have to decide how to weather the copper bottom in a beautiful manner. Already asked Marijn about it, he felt green above, dark copper below is most logical if we build a ship thats plucked out of water and not just sitting in dry dock being repaired (then it would be all pretty green).

[quote="wefalck"]It's a bit late, indeed, but making the stem-keel-stern-piece from brass could be nice for a display model on pedestals, as early iron-clads sometimes did have bronze stem and stern-posts so as not to be subject electrolytic corrosion from the copper-plating.

Some 40 years ago I made a (larger) model of an iron steamship of that period with a brass backbone and brass bulkheads, the spaces infilled with hard foamboard.[/quote]

[quote="hypno7"]I missed the beginning of this thread. It is a coming along very good!

The lower hull looks great! I know its late in the construction and the hull is already done, but what helps with deformation and the epoxy separating from the polystyrene frames (it happened to me a lot in my experiments) is to make holes on the polystyrene frames, so epoxy will cure together between sections. Also for the bow and stern, a thin brass sheet will keep it sharp and more difficult to deform when sanding. Also the "keel" can be done with something more robust, like a thicker plastic beam or even steel (i haven't tried that).

I did something similar here: [url]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=171299[/url][/quote]

I have your unused lower hull actually, I think you sent that to me a while ago. I tried to use it but it reacted with the actual kit of Chen Yuen, MELTING it. haha. So this is attempt 2.
I learned a lot doing this lower hull myself, you learn a lot when you screw up. I have plans to do few more of these, so fingers crossed this is a trial that ends well.

When I realized I was seeing a warped keel and so on, I have at least did a major surger on the bow and fixed with a thicker plastic card that was sharpened along the edge. I for sure looks better. Not perfect, but not bad.

It's a bit late, indeed, but making the stem-keel-stern-piece from brass could be nice for a display model on pedestals, as early iron-clads sometimes did have bronze stem and stern-posts so as not to be subject electrolytic corrosion from the copper-plating.

Some 40 years ago I made a (larger) model of an iron steamship of that period with a brass backbone and brass bulkheads, the spaces infilled with hard foamboard.

I missed the beginning of this thread. It is a coming along very good!

The lower hull looks great! I know its late in the construction and the hull is already done, but what helps with deformation and the epoxy separating from the polystyrene frames (it happened to me a lot in my experiments) is to make holes on the polystyrene frames, so epoxy will cure together between sections. Also for the bow and stern, a thin brass sheet will keep it sharp and more difficult to deform when sanding. Also the "keel" can be done with something more robust, like a thicker plastic beam or even steel (i haven't tried that).

I did something similar here: [url]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=171299[/url]

similar ship, similare era

REDOUBTABLE

scratch built 1/384 scale by John Prothero -Thomas

might be useful or inspiring!

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=49617&mode=view[/img]

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=49618&mode=view[/img]

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=49616&mode=view[/img]

[img]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=8102&mode=view[/img]

With black hull it looks more interesting, kind of how it makes sense, more impressive almost.

I need to figure out which colors would be for:

1. Funnel (for Mediterranean squadron, ca 1885 - red? Black? Buff?
2. Superstructures (beneath the funnel, pilot house - white? dirty-beige? Buff? Wood natural?
3. Masts - yellow or buff?
4. Turrets - white or buff?
5. Freeboard (on the inside, whatever it is called) - white (except sides of barbette?

Do we know what was practice for French Navy Ironclads ca 1885 in the Med?

If anyone has ideas please share. Have to start closing up the deck soon... and need to decide on paints. Below is just a prep.



Update: yesterday, which is like months since i started, I finally found (!!!) some kind of plans of the deck. And the call that these are blast shields for main deck seems credible. THe plans show a different layout of the bridge, but in fairness it shows Bayard and not Turenne. All in all, this is somewhat more useful as it confirms at least the deck had these awnings - covers around barbetts. Other arrangements seem also different, and thus, more changes can be made. Never boring!

[quote="wefalck"]The French came up with a somewhat unique solution to protect the barbette-guns and crews from small arms fire and shrapnell. They put a sort of turtle-shell over them, here seen on the Parisian model of L'AMIRAL DUPERRÉ (1879):


The cut-off drawing on the top seems to show such structure.

I gather this only became a viable option, once smokeless powder was introduced.[/quote]

Yes, the gun shileds are another issue and is separate from my deck question. For that, I have to rebuild them from scratch. On the Turenne they were a bit different shape, circular when viewed from top, but more of an oblong shape when viewed side or head on. Strange shape, and the kit includeds something I cant bare to install, so I will scratch build one turret, and redoit in putty 4x, drill out the centers and hopefully it will be ok.

[quote="JIM BAUMANN"]Pascalmod wrote;

" ..... so sacrifices will be made to god of "Good Enough "...

:big_grin: :big_grin: :thumbs_up_1: :heh: :cool_1: :cool_2: :Mad_6: :Mad_6:

Aaaaarghhhh !!!

can you hear my heartbeat recovering after that statement...

heheheh!

Jim Baumann :wave_1:[/quote]

ONLY where I lack references AND knowlege. For example, what goes on the focsle? It is bare today. I can copy another ship, but - that bit is annoyingly empty. Same for this extra deck layer, it feels very hard to understand what Im looking at. :D

[quote="Pieter"]This is the only drawing I have of the structures. It is obviously not planked. Their placement can be seen in a number of drawings of Duguesclin where they follow the maximum traverse angles of the main guns.
I wonder if we are looking at blast shields. The boats that are placed on them would be removed in battle and the boat cradles also look like they could be dismantled if necessary. [/quote]

Yes, I dont know how to read those plans. Yes, there is a cover, and it is not planked. Blast shields? The whole deck is covered? where possible? What about those gantries along the hull, they are walkways along and people walk on them in many pictures, they are obviously not walking on the gunwales or - what are you suggesting, I dont think I follow! :wave_1: Build the upper deck or not? Paint it brown or wood?

The painting of the Vauban is clear enough showing some kind of cover. Is it that you suggest all of that stuff was temporary erected deck cover to protect deck from blast effect of the guns? So doesnt need to be on the model?

The covered decks seem actually normal and not shown on plans, may be it was always installed after?
[attachment=1]4570ce09246e4a4ee9faeddb13997070.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=2]e04e3406378b68f3a966fb8f5550bebe.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=3]vd9-3904686.jpg[/attachment]

what do you make of this..
[attachment=0]1000_F_298296223_Bi6ye3NEi2cVxTcVK7MHbvVvwp4OjUKk.jpg[/attachment]

Pascalmod wrote;

" ..... so sacrifices will be made to god of "Good Enough "...

:big_grin: :big_grin: :thumbs_up_1: :heh: :cool_1: :cool_2: :Mad_6: :Mad_6:

Aaaaarghhhh !!!

can you hear my heartbeat recovering after that statement...

heheheh!

Jim Baumann :wave_1:

The French came up with a somewhat unique solution to protect the barbette-guns and crews from small arms fire and shrapnell. They put a sort of turtle-shell over them, here seen on the Parisian model of L'AMIRAL DUPERRÉ (1879):

[img]https://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/paris/073717-72.jpg[/img]

[img]https://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/paris/090313-72.jpg[/img]

The cut-off drawing on the top seems to show such structure.

I gather this only became a viable option, once smokeless powder was introduced.

This is the only drawing I have of the structures. It is obviously not planked. Their placement can be seen in a number of drawings of Duguesclin where they follow the maximum traverse angles of the main guns.
I wonder if we are looking at blast shields. The boats that are placed on them would be removed in battle and the boat cradles also look like they could be dismantled if necessary.
[attachment=1]bayardturrets.jpg[/attachment
[attachment=0]duguesclindr.jpg[/attachment]

As I cannot go to museum to check this, here is my approach to rebuilding the top deck (whatever the term is).
[attachment=0]funnel Turenne.jpg[/attachment]


So the kit is modelled with main deck only. I believe that is wrong, as on many images, paintings and photos there are people walking right on the freeboard top. But it is also clear it is not fully flush. I dont understand why it is like this, but it feels like it was a normal thing for the ironclad of this class, and its sisters (Vauban) that had 2 masts. Several images only exist to show rough outline of what the deck situation is.

This is a model , so sacrifices will be made to god of "Good Enough". I am super open to anyone suggesting me the detail of the steering wheel docking bridge in the back - was it on deck or was it elevated? But it is certainly there, just ahead of the Mizzenmast.

Below is the layout with evidence. Original image posted also, for comparison. Did I get it right?

[attachment=5]what to do on Turenne deck.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Bayard topdown.jpg[/attachment]

Details:

I don't want to degrade this into a non-topical discussion, but there are 'messages' and 'messages' ... I am well aware, that every human action carries an implicit 'message' about the originator and the respective socio-cultural, -economic, and -political context. My criticism is, that today the 'message' becomes more important than the artefact in many museums, depriving actually the visitor of the possibility to assess for him-/herself, as there is nothing to base the assessment on, but only a preformatted message to consume.

We should close this discussion, as it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread ...

Every museum, and every decision on how to display its contents, carries a message whether you want to or not. People who deny there is such a thing as a message are the creeps who want you to forget the darker sides of history. "Modern museography" is about being open about the choices you make and why you make them. The move to open depots like this is part of this movement toward transparency.
As a (non maritime) archivist I'm obliged to be clear and transparent about everything I restore , keep or destroy for the same reason.
Please stop using my maritime colleagues as a false strawman.
[quote="wefalck"]Yes, as I said LA GLOIRE is still there. She is of too high historical significance to sacrfice her to modern 'museography' (that tends to disconsider the value of the object per se in favour of societal or political meaning or worse: message) and put her into storage.

In autumn 2022 I think it was, I attended a workshop in the museum's restauration workshop, where they explained the works on LA GLOIRE. Keeping these iron-clads with their bright real iron armour in good shape is not so trivial, as iron obviously is prone to rust due to humidity in the air and acids from the surrounding wood.[/quote]

[quote="wefalck"]Yes, as I said LA GLOIRE is still there..[/quote]

I misunderstood your sentence. sorry!