The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Copenhagen
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
not only Admiral Hipper had that camo, also Gneisenau, Nurnberg and as said Z5 and Z6, all of them only when anchored into Trondheim Fjord.

Funny - you had refused before any comparison with Gneisenau always pointing out that here camouflage history was different :D

Now the comparison with the other ships is suddenly your main argument...!?

Do you have any proof that the other ships had a coastal type camouflage???
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
More, that camo is very dark, and you know that in Norway during that period there is not night fall especially at high latitudes, plus the KM warships in Trondheim were attacked by RAF airplanes many times.

I do not get this argument. The camouflage is very dark and in Norway during these months it is not dark at all?

For me the camouflage is not dark, but rich in contrasts.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Now you can update your list of what we know/do not know

No. All the questions are still open.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 208
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) Italia
Ciao all,

@ Maxim,

I always only told you not to confuse Adm Hipper and Gneisenau after June 20th, 1940, as you were forcing the dazzle camo comparison of GU with Adm Hipper.

My arguments are not changed, go up and read them.

You wanted this camo to be while sailing up north, well on north it was daylight almost 24 hours a day, a dark camo is a nonsense consequently.

You still have to accept a camouflage while at anchor in Trondheim Fjord, exactly like all photos do show.

Nurnberg operation now tells you when it was painted on one of those 3 warships in there simoultaneously.

Bye Antonio :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Copenhagen
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
You wanted this camo to be while sailing up north, well on north it was daylight almost 24 hours a day, a dark camo is a nonsense consequently.

No, I have no information regarding the purpose of the camouflage and when it was in use.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Nurnberg operation now tells you when it was painted on one of those 3 warships in there simoultaneously.

You had mentioned that the Nürnberg camouflage was applied before a mission to Elvegårdsmoen - and that is not in Trondheim. Therefore this pattern was applied for a sea travel c. 1000 km long!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 208
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) Italia
Ciao all,

@ Maxim,

I do not have very precise and official evidences either, but with those Kriegsmarine warships it is always like this on most cases, the KTB does not contain the camouflage used colours neither the dates when it was applied, just like the "fliegersichtzeichen" top turret colour infos for Luftwaffe air recognition identification, they were GEHEIM ( Secret-Confidential ) infos.

I have to admit this is the biggest part of the interesting activity on working on the historical researches on them since 38 years from my side.

So you have to study ships. operations and places to try to discover it, running the risk to fail in order to get close to reality, if you are lucky one day something will show up and confirm your theory, but with time you get used to understand the logic driving them and with the real places knowledge everything becomes more easy to be realized.

You are right, between Trondheim and Elvegårdsmoen ( which is into OfotFjord north of Narvik ) there are more than 1.000 km, but the warships were supposed to sail very close to the coast and not very fast, in most cases between the islands and the fjord entrance.
I did that travel either with car on the main road and by ship with the Hurtigruten ferry boat doing exactly the same trip north out of Trondheim.

If you have a coastal type camouflage it is just perfect and you will not take it out of your ship, most of the KM tankers doing fuel support for the main warships on that area were camouflaged that way and we have colour photos of them.
I can confirm you that while coming back from that Nora operation, Nurnberg was having the full coastal type camo on her, a bit different than Adm Hipper as she had also some lighter areas ( and Gneisenau was a bit different too ), so the Koop/Schmolke book photo was taken before the operation Nora from Levante as said and the camo was under paint.

But if Nurnberg did an operation with that camo on her, we have not yet any evidence of Gneisenau and Admiral Hipper sailing out of the Trondheim Fjord with that camo on them.
In reality I have something about Gneisenau I am currently working on ....... but this is still... GEHEIM .... :cool_2:

Between 10 of june and 25 of july 1940, which are 45 calendar days, Adm Hipper only try to sail out of Trondheim fjord was on June 20 with Gneisenau escorted by Z20 Karl Galster, but Gneisenau was torpedoed just out of the fjord and all warships went back immediately into Trondheim fjord.

If you want to play investigation you can look at Z20 Karl Galster photos in Trondheim during june 1940 on Tore Eggan website, look for Adm Hipper on the photos taken from the ground :cool_2:

http://krigsbilder.net/coppermine/thumb ... hp?album=8

Adm Hipper :

http://krigsbilder.net/coppermine/displ ... m=8&pos=48


http://krigsbilder.net/coppermine/displ ... m=8&pos=38

and a tanker with Trondheim on the background :

http://krigsbilder.net/coppermine/displ ... m=8&pos=37

So they kept that camo for a long period into Trondheim fjord changing many anchorages, and I can only see one reason they kept it on the warship, because it helped hiding the ship with the surrounding area colours.

Which colours would you choose to try to hide a cruiser into a Norwegian fjord on june july period ?

We have many answers to that either from Tirpitz on 1942 as well as from tankers, not to forget Z5 and Z6, Nurnberg and Gneisenau.

Closing, been a modeler myself I would like to tell you that the camo was completely painted on the ship covering all the base paint making the warship a lot darker overall, so no base RAL 7000 or RAL 7001 grey's were left neither on the hull nor on the upperwork. So before continuing applying painture on your model, you better realize how you want to proceed on this.

Bye Antonio :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Copenhagen
There is an interesting aspect of the photo of the tanker you have linked and also of the photos of Hipper herself:

these are high contrast patterns! The tanker has a very light colour and very dark one - something, which is not useful at all to blend in a green hilly background. The dark and light parts would be always easily visible!

If you check the Hipper photos carefully, you will see that the darkest colour is identical with the colour of the waterline - it is a very dark grey!

I guess the lightest colour at the hull is the pre-war hull grey. The other colours are difficult to determine, but if they are greens and/or browns the overall pattern is still not useful to hide near the coast.

The same is true for the tanker camouflage (http://krigsbilder.net/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=8&pos=37).

These are both patterns which try to prevent identification and course/speed determination.

In contrast the patterns which I know of contain green and brown are most LOW contrast patterns... Only in winter, if the hills were covered with snow, high contrast patterns could help - because there is a high contrast between the snow and e.g. rocks. The tanker patterns appear only to be a little useful, because the background are no green hills, but the houses of Trondheim!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 208
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) Italia
Ciao all,

@ Maxim,

ok, I see you got the point.

Now I think I gave you more than enough informations about the whole situation and camouflages of those ships on that period, now you can make your own guess and act accordingly on your model.

Unfortunately, as usual, from my side this costed me some disclosure of personal researched informations that now are public with my reasoning putting them together after years of study.

Surely just like happened in the past somebody will take advantage from it, but that is ok, it already happened on several KM warships as everybody realized lately.

The big difference compared to the first time this happened is that now everybody knows who leads the research and who is only copying after.

Bye and happy modeling Antonio :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 5:53 pm
Posts: 507
Location: DERBYSHIRE UK
Gents,

Just to resurrect & clarify couple of issues concerning Trumpeter's 1/350 Admiral Hipper kit -

1)The mast - it was noted previously that the mast lacks some parts of the upperworks -
Gas this been confirmed?

Quote:
Also..take a VERY CLOSE look at the main mast. Looks like Trumpeter forgot the top part of the main mast entirely?! It shouldn't be hard to scratch build. I'm looking at my Koop/Schmolke book on the Hipper class right now and see several pictures with the top mast missing {lowered down? did this ship have telescoping main mast and foremast?}



2) The question of the position where Trumpeter have split the hull to enable waterline or full-hull display - is it correct or not?

Maxim wrote:
Quote:
There is a problem with Trumpeter's hull of the Admiral Hipper!

It shows the hull not loaded. Compared to the fully loaded state it is 4 mm too high - which is clearly visible, if you compare the model with photos of the real ship.

The hull appears to be correct, if depicted in the full hull version, but the waterline is at the position of the waterline as designed (Konstruktionswasserlinie) - and therefore completely unrealistic.


Thanks

Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:15 pm
Posts: 1430
Location: State of Denial
Keep in mind that manufacturers have to battle several issues when deciding where "the" waterline is exactly. First off, the design waterline is almost never right because the weight will vary by several tons by the time the ship is actually commissioned. Then you have the issue of loaded or unloaded. You also have to battle "modelers will" and the modelers base thickness. So trying to definitively say the waterline should be at any one particular point is a waste of time. When Dragon is trying to calculate waterline, we generally just give them the design waterline. There are two reasons for this. The first is that most modelers who actually use the waterline will be adding it to an acrylic "water" base where the model will sit several mm's below the surface, thus giving it a fully loaded appearance. The other reason is that a modeler can remove some material if he desires, but it would be far harder to add material.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 5:53 pm
Posts: 507
Location: DERBYSHIRE UK
Thanks Rob,

Yes there are some shortcomings when it comes to deriving an exact position but having just compared the Eugen hull with the Hipper hull I can see what 'Maxim' means by his observation.

I was just wondering how Trumpeter got one correct and the other a bit out.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 892
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Again and again and again. There is nothing wrong the way Trumpy did the Hipper hull. The hull is split at the lower edge of the boot topping on the Hipper kit, while on the Prinz kit it is split on the upper edge. Remember, on the actual ships, esp. on the heavy cruisers, the boot topping was 2.5 m in width (when freshly applied), this is 50 cm more than on the KM battleships. I highly assume it is the same on the smaller 1/700 kit, where the boot-topping needs to be 3.5 mm in width. Half of it should stick in the modelled 'water' surface. If you just put the Hipper waterline-modell flat on a glass plate, it is no wonder that it appears riding high.

Hipper mast ~ At some point in the ship's career it seem to have looked this way. Or the upper part really was just lowered down - if this was possible, I have no clue. The box art of the 1/350 states '1941' but this is not quite true in every detail of the ship, maybe the mast is one of them ...


Happy modelling ~ Olaf!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Copenhagen
Olaf Held wrote:
Again and again and again. There is nothing wrong the way Trumpy did the Hipper hull. The hull is split at the lower edge of the boot topping on the Hipper kit, while on the Prinz kit it is split on the upper edge.
[...] If you just put the Hipper waterline-modell flat on a glass plate, it is no wonder that it appears riding high.


I do not now any other 1/700 waterline kit, which I have to sink 4 mm into the "water" to get a realistic impression of hull. The split of the hull at the low edge of the boot topping is wrong, if you want to build a waterline model. It is necessary either to remove parts of the hull or to use a special waterline plate. It is necessary to correct this mistake.

Image

Unfortunately, I have realised this too late and therefore my Admiral Hipper is riding too high in the water.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 892
Location: Flensburg, Germany
I fully understand what you're saying. I just have the opinion that, what others claim to be a mistake, is what they did on purpose as I believe they thought that most modellers will indeed 'sink' their waterline model in 'water' - btw, you would need to sink only 2 mm into the water, not 4 mm. The CWL was (in theory) located 1 m below the upper edge of the boot-topping (and 1,5 m above the lower edge) - what Í don't expect most modellers will take care for.

What are you doing with your model now? Having fun with the saw or putting it into water? (Well, I even put a (WIP) full-hull 1/350 Pinz Eugen into modelled water ...)

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!


Attachments:
DSC00126.JPG
DSC00126.JPG [ 89.12 KiB | Viewed 4098 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Rigging the Prinz Eugen
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:46 am
Posts: 102
Greetings fellow modelers! I am in the midst of building Trumpeter's 1/350th scale Prinz Eugen and I am trying to find CLEAR reference photos of her rigging. I'm not having much success. Does anyone know of a book, magazine , or on-line source for this info? Maybe a rigging diagram, or plans? Please help! I am going to attach the rigging to the forward superstructure before I mount it to the hull, and I'm at a standstill until I do.
Thank you for any help
Mark


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 892
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Hi Mark ~ Depending on the time frame, you have too choices:

1. 1944-ish fit: http://www.prinzeugen.com/PGplans.htm

2. 1940-ish fit, quite general and schematic: http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/KM_Prinz_Eugen_1940//langsschnitt_100dpi.jpg
(allow some time to load)

I highly recommend doing the rigging as late as possible, when all the bigger and smaller sub-assemblies are attached to the hull. Please share photos of your build (if you already haven't done so ...) ... :wave_1:

Happy rigging ~ Olaf!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:46 am
Posts: 102
Olaf Held - Thank you for your reply! The plan view is helpful, and the Prinz Eugen site is good, too! What I really want to see is the forward superstructure - aerials and where the flag lines attach. Oh, here's a pic of the upper works:
Image
I thought it might be easier to attach the lines to the bridge structure before I mount it to the upper deck, but I think I'm going to just proceed with the assembly and rig later. Again, thank you for your reply!
Mark


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:49 pm
Posts: 372
Olaf,

So if I understand you correctly, you think the bow and stern might be light gray, and the two tone camo is medium and dark grays? I did notice on one picture that the color on one of the range finders is apparently wrong and that the crane was only half dark gray and half a lighter color.

Dan.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 892
Location: Flensburg, Germany
For all just not 'with us': We're talking about the cammouflage pattern, the Prinz wore when he was on his way back to Germany to receive a new stern section.

I only have very few images showing this, and all are of bad quality, the normal ones we all know from books. Much of the superstructure lies in shadow. It appears very dark when compared to the hull.

The moved the ship up to Norway, shortly after the Channel Dash, together with Admiral Scheer, if I recall correctly. The camouflage pattern on the superstructure is a mystery to me. It appears to be similar to the one during the Dash (although I've read that the small blotches were in green, red, brown, yellow, everything etc, not just dark grey). The hull is quite different, the painted on large areas and smaller stripes (zig-zag and crosses) in dark grey onto the regular medium grey painted hull. With this camouflage he received the torpedo hit aft. During the temporary repairs in Norway, the superstructure seems to have been repainted in the regular light grey, while the hull (minus the stern) kept its weird pattern. Then, during the trials (testing the jury rudder), the hull was medium grey with just the bow and aft part of the ship painted dark grey. After that, for the transit back to Germany, Operation 'Zauberflöte', the hull camouflage changed again - to the one you would like to represent.

The aft part of the ship and the bow do not appear particular lighter than the rest of the lighter parts of the hull. The superstructure looks pretty dark, but this can be due to shadow and lighting. Aerial imagery of the ship without stern do show light main turrets (tops?) while the rest appears somehow dirtier.

To sum it up: I don't know. Maybe others can chime in ... Antonio maybe? :cool_2:

Happy painting ~ Olaf!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:49 pm
Posts: 372
I don't have any pics any more. After finishing the 1/350, I deleted them because I never intended to then build the 1/700. The one photo I do remember, was posted by Antonio. It looked like there was a clear change of color on the crane boom, like it had been pointing forward when painted. And more correctly, not one of the end range finders, but one of the domed side things, the dome seemed lighter than the dark area, and the support shaft seemed even lighter. If I remember correctly.

Dan.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 208
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) Italia
Ciao all,

so we are talking here now my discovered Operation Zauberflote camouflage, the one Prinz Eugen had on her during her voyage back from Norway to Germany, with the " cutted " stern and manual rudder.

You can see it here on May 1942.

http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=470

and more here :

http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 093.0.html

http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 305.0.html

What do you need to know about it, .. please tell me, I am here.

Bye Antonio :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 892
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
What do you need to know about it, .. please tell me, I am here.


Thanks for your reply. The question I'm trying to find an answer for is about the bow and aft part of the ship. Really white? I know many KM vessels had this for certain periods, but on the very few photos I know these portions of the ship do not look any lighter than the other light areas of the hull.

Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that hull and superstructure were painted the same grey during the repair period. Lofjord in April? No greens and browns anywhere?

I think there is still much more to be learned... :cool_2:

Happy painting ~ Olaf!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group