The Ship Model Forum

brooksbz,

Thanks. That gave my naval German a "work-out!" The colour scheme described on the drawings appears to describe GEORGE THIELE's peace-time scheme; which Eric Gröner's work describes as "'96er Grau."

German aficionados note: there are no RAL numbers given, which may seem a little odd.

I have decided to work on the 1/350 Zvesda Z-17. I read that the kit was slightly underscale. I measured the kit and the length appear to be within 1mm of the scale measurements. I just want to confirm my conclusion here in this forum. Any help would be nice? Thank you.

Apparently I said that here: viewtopic.php?f=84&t=155130

But as that was almost 6 years ago, I can't recall where I got the hull dimensions. Most likely Wikipedia.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Roger. I measure the overall length stem to stern post as 35.1mm. I only ask because I am about to split the hull to add 2mm? Seems dumb but unfortunately I am a bit crazy about this sort of thing,... Sigh. I just did this on my 1/240 USS Ward four stacker kit to add about 2 inches required for the scale length. Getting back to Z-17 I probably won't,...

I didn't, and I think the model looks fine as is.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Thank you for answering my questions.

Please don't have a discussion about the USS Ward here. Take it over to the 4 piper topic or send a private message.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Roger. I posted there. Back to my Z17!!!

I noted what looks like an error in the Dragon Z-26 kit (1:350) - the two anchor cables (chains) on the foc'sle are positioned as a mirrored arrangement in the kit, including the entry point through the deck to the cable locker moulded accordingly, but it appears that all the 'Z' destroyers had the chains arrangement both the same hand, ie the chain from the hawsepipe to the capstain both to the port side and chain to cable locker entry to the starboard side.

Incidentally, after looking at the reviews, Trumpeter seem to have got this correct on their Z-25 kit.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Annoying, as I've painted the deck up, and now have to correct this. Otherwise, the Dragon kit is top rate!

FYI. I will use these plans for my Z-17 Class ship. I did not see these plans posted on this thread so I hope others may find them useful.

FYI. I will use these plans for my Z-17 Class ship. I did not see these plans posted on this thread so I hope others may find them useful. Also a picture of the Z-39 foc'sle anchor chain arrangement for reference.

I've been wondering which 1/350 kit would be the best to use as a base to build a model of Z23 in her post 1942 look - with the twin 150mm forward gun turret (and two additional quadruple 2mm AA guns).

Also - finding any pictures with the placement of those additional AA guns seems problematic. I think I can make out one of those between main guns 2 and 3 but I can't figure out where's the other one.

So far I think my best bet would be to convert Z31 - as her armament was mostly the same (I'd be lacking one of those quadruple AA guns but there might be a spare) compared to other kits that'd lack the twin turret and/or one turret in general (Z25 kit has only 3 main guns fit for her 1942 looks).

Is there much of a difference between earlier units and the "mob" units of this class? I read earlier in this thread about them "having a taller, curved forward funnel cap" but for the life of me I can't make out the difference from the drawings found on the Internet (those are rather small).

Z23's second quadruple 20mm mounting was fitted on the shelter deck forward of the bridge.
The three Type 1936A(Mob) units had higher forefunnel caps, with a curved forward side in profile. See, for example, Z39 in US hands at http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0593910.jpg, compared with Z23 (admittedly with single 15cm gun forward) at https://i-com.cdn.gaijin.net/monthly_20 ... 674228.jpg

Thank you for the quick reply. Those photos are superb and I now know what I'll be working with. I'll be saving those for future reference.

I'll try to replace those funnel caps with either a 3d print or a greenstuff sculpt.

Hi Gentlemen

I am planning to start a project including pre-war DKM Konigsberg and a destroyer in Kiel Canal diorama next year, and doing some preliminary research now.

Initially I planned to use Type35 torpedo boat T1 from L'Arsenal. However after I posted a Q&A in a German naval model forum (used Google translator), I was told T1 was not a good candidate.
https://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/i ... v.html#top

Then I asked about Z-7 & Z-21 since Trumpeter makes kits about them, then I was told again there was no stay of them in Kiel Canal in 1939, but the moderator kindly suggested Z-8 as Z-8 was almost identical to Z-7 and it was around Baltic sea in 1939. So I decided to convert the Trumpeter Z-7 to Z-8. I have three book references here.

German Destroyers by Robert Brown
German Destroyers 1939-1945 by Osprey Publishing
German Naval Camouflage Volume 1 1939-1941

However, by reading through this post, I would like to double check if my plan will work. As Dick J mentioned, Z-7 was built with rounded bridge, but all upper bridges were squared by 1938.



A. Are there any more noticeable differences between Z-7 and Z-8 besides bridge?
B. Is there any aftermarket part can convert the fore bridge to an angular one?
C. I am not sure about the mast, can anyone please enlighten me here?

1. what is this tube-shaped thing?
2. Is this a crows nest, is the mast going through it or behind it?
3. What is this?
4. Is this some sort of early radar antenna?
5. Is this pole right behind the tip of main mast?

Your help on this matter will be much appreciated

The Maass class destroyers can be divided up several ways. Z-1 to Z-4 were type 1934 and had the rounded deck edge on the forecastle (turtleback). Z-5 to Z-16 were type 1934A with a squared off deck edge. Z-1 to Z-8 had Wagner boilers while Z-9 to Z-16 had the higher pressure Benson types. This affected the steam pipe configurations on the funnels. Z-1 to Z-4 were built by Deutsche Werke, Z-5 to Z-8 by Deschimag, Z-9 to Z-13 by Germainiawerft, and Z-14 to Z-16 by Blohm and Voss. Within each builder's group, design details were consistent, and Z-7 and Z-8 were part of the same batch. The upper bridge on the first completed units was rounded while the pilothouse below was squared off. This was changed to having the open, upper bridge conform to the shape of the pilothouse, and the later units completed to this standard. By 1939, all had the squared upper bridge, so Z-7 and Z-8 would have been virtually identical at that time. When completed, Z-8 briefly tested the 5.9" guns later installed on the Z-23 class ships, but by the outbreak of the war, she shipped the standard 5" guns.

Thank you for the detailed information, Dick J.

Do you think you can help me on the mast too?

While I can't specifically address all of your numbers, I can give you this. The ships generally had crow's nests on the masts, and all were required by international law to carry navigation lights. This could account for some of the objects.

Thank you Dick J. Happy New Year

hj1985

Re: Your post of Dec 19

You appear to have found www.forum-marinearchiv.de. I suggest that you pose your questions there as well.

However, for what this is worth: 1. Is possibly some form of aerial screen. 2. The foremast will be behind it. What the item actually is may be debated. It may have been intended to be what the Germans termed a "fleckerstand" or gunfire spotting position that doubled as a crow's nest. 3. I don't know. 4. Ditto but it is unlikely to be an early RADAR aerial. 5. The staff will be behind the foretopmast. There appears to be the flotilla or squadron's senior officer's penn(d)ant flying from it in one of your pictures.

Do try the aforementioned website though.

81542