The Ship Model Forum

Good morning!

There is some new wreck footage on youtube - and more to come announced.
https://youtu.be/-nBgfzw-P1s?si=z_uBr4CnHHZatt5L

best regards from cold Wetzlar!
Joachim

OK, I got my answer to my question about the structure located at the foot of the bow:
It is a Bug-Schallanlage, in other words, an active sonar.
You can clearly see the openings in this original plan of the Tirpitz's hull development:



Seems Bismarck also carried the same equipment...

Comparing Flyhawk DKM Bismarck (2018) and Tirpitz (2025) they introduced new previously unseen features on underwater body.

First: on this picture (Bismarck, top, Tirpitz, bottom on all pictures) in addition to the passive sound detector (horseshoe) one can notice on the left two small protruding edges which mark the forward end of the flat bottom. This is perfectly visible on official plans but never has been reproduced on any kit before AFAIK.



Second: on the aft end the central skeg on Tirpitz is larger and triangular shaped, closely and better matching the pictures of the real ship wreck in 1945



Third: here comes my question. On Tirpitz stem bottom Flyhawk reproduced a recessed feature which looks like another sound detection device, but I've been unable to find pictures of the real equipment and official 1939 plans only show a flush stem;
So is this feature real or not?





BTW, Flyhawk pushed accuracy to represent the numerous openings on hull bottom as per the plan... a rivet-counter aimed feature as 99.9% of assembled kits won't show them:



_Bruno

Afternoon

Spenr a while going through my large book collection. Both Bismarck and Tirpitz had them as permanent fixtures. In the Super 3D drawing book, they seem to show the shadow of a binocular stand. So they appear to be a shelter for lookouts?

Can someone help?

Building Tamiyas Tirpitz with the Eduard PE and have just made up the two sentry boxs, Bismarck had them too.

Were they permanent or just used in port??

Thanks in advance
Bob

Thegreenmachine,

You will need someone better versed in the practices of the Kriegsmarine (a German) than I but with the best will what follows might help:

Re: Question 1. The date on which Luetjens (Sorry, can't find the u umlaut) and his staff finally moved onboard BISMARCK to take command of the "battle group" is known. You will find it on the bismarck.org website. That date together with that of hoisting his flag will be good enough for a model. The problem is: what was the German practice? Theoretically, the admiral could shift his flag between a ship and his shore office as and when he saw fit.

Re: Question 2. It is difficult to be precise. BISMARCK hoisted her Reichskriegflagge at the ensign staff (stern) when she formally commissioned. However, if she followed the practice used by the Royal Navy, it would have been shifted to the mainmast gaff once outside pilotage waters whereupon the ensign staff and its metal frame would have been unshipped. That would be the peacetime practice but in war the Royal Navy hoisted the ensign at the mainmast and left it flying at all times of the day and night. The Kriegsmarine seems to have followed the same practice. BUT and there always is one, that did not stop the Royal Navy shifting the White Ensign back to the ensign staff for ceremonial/propaganda purposes occasionally. The Kriegsmarine seems to have done the same thing too: think of the wartime photograph of ADMIRAL SCHEER under weigh after her large refit; which saw her fitted with a capped funnel.

Re: Question 3. The bow draught marks (Ahmings) are known to have been painted up whilst the ship was still in her '96 Grey scheme. They were in Arabic numerals and appear to have been either white or light grey. I have seen no photographs of them in place with the ship in the Baltic scheme (no one seems to have bothered to photograph them specifically) so it's a case of paint them up and be damned! However, they are just as likely to have been painted over: provided the numerals were separate to the hull and fixed there (welding?), painting over them should not have caused a problem. I think that the Royal Navy's practice was only to formally record the draught marks just before going to sea.

I hope this helps, however, I am prepared to stand corrected.

Your last message re the location of the ensign, hoisting of admirals flag and draught marks appears to have got lost in the"hiatus." Can you repeat it please?

Sorry for being a bit late: I was asking at what point did Admiral Lütjens took command of the battlegroup - and when did his admirals flag appear on the ships mast?

As for the large Reichkriegsflagge: I assume it was hoisted on the main mast when the stern flagpole was taken off - but when was the stern flagpole used and when was it taken off? Was it just used in peacetime/parade or also during training?

Last question was on the depth markings: Were these overpainted when Bismarck received its baltic scheme with the false bow or was it reapplied after the paintwork was done?

Green Machine,

Your last message re the location of the ensign, hoisting of admirals flag and draught marks appears to have got lost in the"hiatus." Can you repeat it please?

pascalemod wrote: We for long time painted Tirpitz in grey tones but now green is being added all over the place (which looks strange to me that they would paint her green and sortie out to Arctive after PQ17 with that green paint.. but i digress).
.
The deck is a puzzling point! And Bonomi's explanation makes sense but who knows.

I agree the appearance of green is interesting. I have heard it suggested that this is due to eyewitness testimony. But who knows? Eyewitnesses could be mixing it up with her spring 1942 colour scheme from Faettenfjord where she definitely was green, tan and brown to blend with the fjord and forests? As is proven by a colour photo.

Curiously there are plenty of colour photos of her starboard side in the 1942 splinter scheme. But there do not seem to be any of her port side. Frustratingly.

As regards the 1944 scheme I'd say both AdmHawk and Bonomi are correct. The deck splotches are too perfect and too regular to be oil or settlement from a bomb near miss. But equally the decks must have been badly stained and discoloured from said bomb near misses. So probably both items at once.

Hi all, I'm close to completing my 1/350 bismarck.

Next step is rigging.
I have Stefan Draminski's book + super drawings 3D.

Is there any other source to get for the rigging pictures??

Thanks
Edoardo

Admhawk wrote:I doubt anybody knows for sure, but this recce photo from July 1944 has splotches on deck.
I think they are too regular and well defined to be oil or dirt stains.
I believe they are painted camo. No idea what color.

I am referring to 1944 where she was painted like so: And the commentary by Antonio Bonomi from here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

"To be noticed are the full configuration on 20 mm quadruple flakvierlings on the ship and the absence of any air recognition symbols as well as the deck painted on same hull dark grey. This was done after a trial on KaaFjord with some dazzle painting ( during July 1944 )."

A.Bonomi has written books on few ships from Kriegsmarine. his comment above on his own model is noteworthy. It is a pretty basic illustrative model, and for sure the research since have probably moved on. Still, this is what peaked my interest.

We for long time painted Tirpitz in grey tones but now green is being added all over the place (which looks strange to me that they would paint her green and sortie out to Arctive after PQ17 with that green paint.. but i digress).

I ask as I recently scored revell tirpitz 1/700 scale, a ship I long after was hunting on classifieds, after finishing Bismarck 5 years ago from same company. And I am now contemplating to paint her in her final configuration, a very rarely seen camo on models.

The deck is a puzzling point! And Bonomi's explanation makes sense but who knows.

I doubt anybody knows for sure, but this recce photo from July 1944 has splotches on deck.
I think they are too regular and well defined to be oil or dirt stains.
I believe they are painted camo. No idea what color.

How was Tirpitz decks before she was lost?

1) painted grey same as ship?
2) left to natural color with those gray stains (some say they were result of all the oil and dirt on deck from explosions and difficult to remove, others a camouflage attempt to make her look like fjord coast).

Bonomi's model shows here as dark grey on deck and lower freeboard and deck in grey (option 1), but others (Leon and Asmussen) show her deck with spotted deck (option 2).

Do we know? whats a good most recent source on Tirpitz?

Many thanks both, appreciated

Bob

109 wrote:It should probably read Heiz�l�bernahmeraum ... fuel tranfer room.

I think you're correct.

Admhawk wrote:

Bob the Stug wrote:Noticed what appear to be rectangular blocks on the upper hull, above the armour belt and almost adjacent to B and C main battery guns. I can't find any information as to what these are? Can anybody tell me please?

Thanks Bob

There are rectangular Scuttles (or hatches) with hinges along the top edge that are sometimes opened, most likely for ventilation.
Deck plans show a room at each location titled Heizbl�bernahmeraum, which translates to Heating transfer room. Possibly heat exchangers for air conditioning?

It should probably read Heiz�l�bernahmeraum ... fuel tranfer room.

Bob the Stug wrote:Noticed what appear to be rectangular blocks on the upper hull, above the armour belt and almost adjacent to B and C main battery guns. I can't find any information as to what these are? Can anybody tell me please?

Thanks Bob

There are rectangular Scuttles (or hatches) with hinges along the top edge that are sometimes opened, most likely for ventilation.
Deck plans show a room at each location titled Heizbl�bernahmeraum, which translates to Heating transfer room. Possibly heat exchangers for air conditioning?

Noticed what appear to be rectangular blocks on the upper hull, above the armour belt and almost adjacent to B and C main battery guns. I can't find any information as to what these are? Can anybody tell me please?

Thanks Bob

rvuorenr wrote: Very plausible, here's another pic to corroroborate. Wonder how come this hasn't been discussed before, or maybe it's just me with poorly scanning the references.

Yes not at all discussed. Much like that dark grey strip below anchor on that side as they couldnt repaint it well when in port, so the bow has a hitler moustache if you like. At least on that side, not sure if same on the other...

Confirm, the ladder exists from the beginning. Maybe in the pictures it's few visible.