The Ship Model Forum

Nice documentary on the Scharnhorst on this page, just scroll down and You will fin it:

http://www.youtube.com/user/GermanWarFiles/videos?sort=dd&view=u&page=13

Cheers!

Patrick

Please, If somebody can help:

How many raised hatches did Gneisenau had per side in the bow area?
5, 6 or 7?
I have many different information from a lot of sources.



Thank you very much:
Jimmy

_________________
Make your influence positive!

"Oh Lord thy sea is so great and my boat is so small."
Breton Fisherman's Prayer

Thanks! That was a nice one!

According to what I can spot on photos, there were five on either side.

Then, there were at least three (four or five maybe?) on either side of the aft superstructure, between the aft secondary turrets and turret C.

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

Hi Scharnhorst fans,

I have not seen this particular painting issue addressed yet for the Dragon 1:350 kit. I'm modeling the ship as in late December 1943 but am uncertain as to what color to paint the blast bags for the 11-in. and 6-in. guns. The kit bags are flesh-colored (beige), which doesn't seem correct. Dragon's assembly instructions don't state one way or the other and their images of the ship's camouflage patterns don't show the blast bags in place. I've seen various modelers use white, off-white, reddish-brown or other colors. What's the consensus on what color these (presumably canvas) blast bags were at the time of Scharnhorst's sinking?

On the few photos I kow, the blast bags appear quite light in colour. I would paint them a light beig-ish colour.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

Hi,

Can anyone tell me a price on the Conway Battleship Scharnhorst book by Gerhard Koop? I have seen some crazy prices over $40.00.

Thanks,

Larry

Does anyone have some good reference photos of Scharnhorst hangar circa 1938-1939. I'm really trying my best to construct it accurately.

_________________

Gentlemen I'm in the process of building my second 1/350 Scharnhorst. I've noticed that some modellers that have posted images of their work on this web site have painted the round gun bases midships in timber colour surrounded with grey painted metal on the decks. Can anyone confirm if this is correct? Was the, what looks like timber planking arranged in a circular pattern, raw timber.

Thanks.

I can have a look, but I don't have much ...


I bet Rob will chime in on this one, as I think he disagrees with me.
We had it a couple of pages ago, I believe there was steel plus maybe some kind of rubber material (strips bolted to the deck). If it was wood, I believe it was painted to match the surrounding steel deck. I have one or two photos showing no difference in colour at all (but, as a backdoor to sneak out ... those images are close-ups and could be taken on GU, not SH ... ).

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

Thanks Olaf for your reply. I'm close to needing a decision on the circles and my thoughts are to agree with you. I've been trying to figure out why there would be timber benieth the gun and can't think of any reason except to allow the spent shells a 'softer surface to land on once they are ejected.

Well, I think you have to reconsider your statement Antonio...
Please take a look at the picture enclosed showing Scharnhorst's bow flagpost up and running! .
As I take it you are aware of - the flag post could, and often was, "folded" - prior to battle a.o.
This is one of three photos snatched from e-bay and used as a ref when I built my Scharnhorst (PicPost, Completed models today - and coming to the Gallery)
Picture is taken after Op Scizilien, probably late Sept/early Oct. In my PicPost you will find a different photo in the same series showing a little, but not much snow on the mountains. Based on the photo, and the fact that I have been living up there some years ago.

On more remark to the topic of material around the 105mm guns: I have studied photos of the planking (?) too, and do not have the final answer to what material was used- wood, rubber or steel. But I do have experience as a Field Artillery Officer in Northern Norway, and believe me - in that climate (this goes for all of the "Northern Theatre of Operations" as well), the last thing you would want is to be standing on steel plates in the winter...

_________________
Ultima ratio regum

Hi Stein, i absolutely agree with you in these facts.
I´ve also seen some pictures in the Warship picturial 'Scharnhorst' booklet where it can be clearly seen that the material below the 105mm AA is rougher and of a other texture as the arrounding steel. In my opinion it was planked with wood or a kind of linoleum - maybe colored in 'Schiffsbodenfarbe' similar to the steeldecks.

For my build i've chosen to realize it wood-like. (follow this link to my build)
http://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=39782.0

, Daniel

Sehr schön Daniel!
It seems you are seeking to implement as many details as possible, and make them correct. I like that approach!

Also seems we have both used the same main reference sources. For "HW" I used Lion Roar + MKdesign instead of Flyhawk, but I believe there are not too great differences between them.

My Scharnhorst also has an extensive build tread in the Norwegian IPMS forum also dealing with some custom built part and changes: http://www.ipmsnorge.org/forum/index.php?topic=12986.0 (I'm not sure wether you have to log in, but give it a try!)
Some more pictures of the finished ship will also soon appear in the Gallery of this forum in a not too distant future.

One small detail I noted that may improve you model (not much to improve!): Ref Warship Pictorial 36 p. 54: The stern boat boom shall be positioned ABOVE the anti-magnetic cable. I made the same mistake for a start, from a source found in a build tread in the Internet, so this again proves that nothing is better then using the original sources - if the exist that is!

Happy modelling!

_________________
Ultima ratio regum

Hi Stein,

your right - its a mistake... i think the mountingpositions on the dragon model are also not 100% correct.
As you can see on the following pictures the "MES-Schleife" goes in the middle of the upper and the lower Line of portholes. But if i root the MES-Schleife below the mountingpoints on the modelkit this relation won´t exist.
In my opinion the correct decision is, cut off the mountingpoints and replace them above the MES-Schleife.


Source: http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnh ... brest.html

Source:http://www.tankwerkz.com/ (refer to Dragonmodel)

Anyway, thanks for the advice.

Daniel

Unfortunately it isn´t possible to see the pictures for not registered users and my norwegian is not the best
(even worse than my english)

Hello Stein,

I have no problems to admit that once in a while at anchor some Kriegsmarine warships during wartime put back on the flag post's, especially on special days or ceremony.

It was a " standard rule " for all of them that they were NOT having the flag post on usually during wartime, they removed the davits of the side boats, they removed the eagles on the stern and the gothic name from the ship, the coat of arms, and the name from the sailors cap .... just to list some things, .....

Exceptions,.... of course YES, ... many .....and this is part of the fascinating history of those ships.

Bye Antonio

Sorry, but to put it the hard way: this is utterly nonsense. The rule back then was the very same as it is today. Bow and stern flag poles folded down or removed during time spent at sea. When at anchor, the poles were normally erected, with bow flag (*Gösch*) and stern flag flying. Even during transit in coastal waters (in German called *Revierfahrt*, can't find the English expression for it), those flag poles can be seen in place (not always), sometimes even with flags flying.

@ Daniel ~ I hate to ask, but how comes you opted for Dunkelgrau 51? I wonder that nobody on MB came up with this question...


Happy modelling (my line! ) ~ Olaf!

Hello Olaf,

YES my friend, I agree with you,..but as you know well like I do .... during wartime the KM war flag was placed on another position on all warships, .. usually on the aft small mast with several exceptions...like Scharnhorst ... or Bismarck ...... so unless special occasions,.... I see no reasons why the were going to put back on the flag post's,.... in fact it was done very seldom,..and only on some ships,..not on all of them.

Bye Antonio

Yes, I know and I agree Antonio!
However:

- It took some time to remove eagles and other marking - Blücher and the destroyers in Narvik, the Torpedoboats in Kristiansand that I remebmer right now, all had their eagles in place - at the stern or at the bridge. But, as you say, the eagles and the gothic names and shields gradually "disappered" during the first year of the war or so.

- Flags however, is much more confusing. I think you are right about the flagging - normally from a flagpost in the main mast, at the rear mast in destoyers or at the pole at the aft rangefinder in some vessels.
I have read somewhere (I think in a survivors notes from the Narvik detroyer battles) that in battle, the Kriegsmarine flag was hoisted in the "main mast", whatever that may implicate.

- And to Olaf - I'm absolutly sure that, as you say, normally the poles were up at anchor also in wartime, but only seldom you can spot flags in the poles, also at anchor, in wartime. In peacetime however, I think you are quite right!

Tirpitz is shown in the book "Tirpitz, Hitlers siste slagskip" in wartime hoisting a large Kriegsmarine flag at the stern post on the occation of the ship beeing put into service in 1941 (This post used only (?) for "special occations" such as visit from Admirals, Hitlers Birthday etc - my guess), at the main mast at anchor and under speed and at the rear rangefinder's pole under speed.
As I said: Confusing.

I would be nice to hear if anyone out there should have knowledge of any flagging regulation. Must surely be a German handbook covering this.

_________________
Ultima ratio regum