The Ship Model Forum

Hi guys,

I don't mean to intrude, but I was wondering if this "hull form issue" on Dragon's Z-39 has been resolved. I'm quite concerned as I have her in my stash and plan to build her later as full hull but now I'm having second thoughts due to the discussion started in this earlier thread:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6980&hilit=narvik&start=60

Is there no primary source or plan to resolve this issue? thanks

If I remember correctly, the development of the dragon Z-39 kit was supervised by 2 veteran modelers known for their passion of achieving historical accuracy, and it is my personal belief that they would settle for nothing short of original plans in designing this kit.

I previously read two write-ups by Howard Irving Chapelle, a well known modeler, naval architect, and curator of maritime history at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., regarding what boat/ship models ought to be built and what models ought not to be built. Here, he emphasized that accurate ship models can only be made using contemporary/primary plans. Those interested in further reading can see the links below:

http://www.thenrg.org/models-that-shoul ... hapell.php

http://www.thenrg.org/models-that-shoul ... apelle.php

While the discussions above focused on sailing ships, the principles therein are very much applicable to more recent models. A model can only be considered to have an accurately shaped hull if her lines were developed using original plans. In other words, while the books stated in the earlier discussions provide some nice looking plans that show lines differing from the Dragon kit, we should always remember that these are only secondary references and any data given by secondary references must always be taken with a grain of salt.

As an example, the hull of the Brig Badger kit in my signature was designed using the adjacent original 18th Century draughts from the National Maritime Museum. If modelers are able to get hold of these plans made way back in the 18th Century, then it is certainly not impossible to get hold of original plans of the Z-39 destroyer built just several decades ago.

I believe that the designers of the kit conducted thorough research and used primary sources in developing the hull of this kit. On the other hand, if someone could show me an original Z-39 plan showing a hull shape that differs from that of the kit, then I would gladly bash my kit's hull to correspond to that plan.

Hopefully, the designers could chime in to finally close this long standing argument.

_________________
-Aldo

Where the insides of the open single gun mounts on the Zerstörer's painted the same color as the outside, or where they a different color?

_________________
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

I don't think you'll ever find a definitive answer to that question. For over 25 years I've been interested in this class of warship, and heard nothing about it despite checking out everything I can lay my hands on. I've never even seen a very useful photo of the inside of the shield. Those few I have seen from the rear of the piece were in black and white with lighting casting the entire inside of the mount into shadow.

But there's no real reason for them not to be the same as the rest of the gun and shield considering that preventing corrosion was one of the main reasons for painting everything and that German destroyers were notoriously wet ships.

I've also scoured many museum sites. All that I can say is that wherever I've found a shielded naval mount for any nation, the inside is painted the same as the outside minus bright-work.

_________________
stash:
1/350 Grosser Kurfurst by ICM
1/350 Seydlitz

I've seen photos of Italian ships with the insides of the open gun mounts a darker color, so I wasn't sure. But the same color works for me - makes it easier to paint too! Thanks.

_________________
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

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not stepping on that landmine again. Take it or leave it or modify it to your hearts content.

An interesting site about the battle of Narvik with one or two photos with interesting detail. Most of the language is Norwegian( I think) with some in English.

http://www.bjerkvik.gs.nl.no/historie.htm

_________________
stash:
1/350 Grosser Kurfurst by ICM
1/350 Seydlitz

anyone do 1/72 stuff like weapons plans etc for a narvik class..

thomas

Returning to Z-39 Dragon kit hull discussion, I observed another doubt about it's stern. Comparing it with 1936A(Mob) plans published at Okrety Swiata 11 and Vom Original Zum Modell - Die Deutschen Zerstorer 1935-1945, beside the fact other hull measures match plans, I observed it's stern is 2,00 mm narrowest than plans measures. It's easy to see comparing Dragon hull with a Trumpeter Z-30 hull, Trumpeter hull is about 1,5 mm wider than Dragons at all hull extension, but at stern difference is more than 3,5mm.

Howdy all. A "know nothin' about ships" question. Just picked up the Dragon 1/350 Z-31 kits cuz it was at a good price... FREE! Now as I look around for info seems that when I search for it the Z-39 seems to take over the search results. Probably to long of an answer as to why that is. If its' like aircraft or armor it's may be simply the 39 is the more popular ship. Of course there's a "Why?" question that can be tacked on there too.

I find AM stuff for the 39 but can't' see anything for the 31. Is there stuff available foe the 31? Are the 31 & 39 close enough hat some will work for both or or they so vastly different that's not the case. Either way, I may get the 39 as well and can't wait to start 1 of 'em. Did I just say that out loud about a ship model?

_________________
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

The 39 came out earlier, and is more well-known than the 31. They're of the same class, though you can see there are obvious differences in armament and superstructure platforms. The kit is detailed enough out of the box that you can have a pretty well-detailed model if you only throw on some PE railings: Eduard actually makes a set of pre-measured railings for the 31 kit - http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/Phot ... 1-350.html

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Hey Martin. And here i was thinking that armor was the dark side. Must e a function of tonnage. Tiger I... 54 tons. Zerstörer ... 2,600. That's freakin' dark.

Thanks Tim. I saw that railing set. Now I am going to have to get a set for the -39 too. Just pick that up today becuae of one of these good news/bad news things.

Good news is I am getting amazing deals on a huge pile of kits.
Bad new is that its because my LHS is closing down at the end of the month.

Has anyone here tried to convert one member of the Z31/1936A (Mob) class destroyer to another?

I'm asking because I have a Dragon 1/350 kit of the Z-39 and I want to convert it to Z37 in 1944, when it featured that nice blue, grey and brown dazzle camouflage.

The dazzle camouflage of the Z37 is also depicted on the back drawing of the 1/700 Tamiya Z37-39 kit box, as pictured in the link below.

Tamiya Z-37-Z39 German destroyers, Project Barbara

The one obvious difference I can see between the 2 ships is the reduced AA mounts towards the aft in Z37. Are there any others I have overlooked?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

There are a few differences to note. Both ships were built as part of the same batch and so as built were fairly similar. One difference was the mountings on the outside of the forward hull. German DD's had degausing cables that generally followed the line of the upper deck, starting at forecastle level forward and dropping down to the main deck at the forecastle break. After much time spent in arctic waters, a spray strake was added to the forward hull side, being at main deck level at its after end, abeam the forward turret, and paralleling the sheer line as it moved forward. Z-39 was different, keeping the degausing cable at the main deck level full length and combining that with the spray strake forward, which paralleled the waterline rather than the sheer line. Z-37 had the two as separate pieces, and her degausing cable was at the higher level forward. The Z-31 kit hull would be easier for this part of the change, but since you already have a Z-39, that will have to be altered accordingly.

As built, both ships had 5 5.9" guns, a twin forward and three singles aft. Just behind the twin turret forward, Z-37 had a single 20MM which was later upgraded to a quad. Z-39 started with the quad. Both had a quad aft between the two raised 5.9" singles, and around the after stack, had two twin 37MM and two single 20MM guns. Z-39 was given a "Barbara" program AA upgrade in which the forward single 5.9" (#3 gun) was replaced by additional AA and the platform for the quad 20MM before the bridge was enlarged. I believe the midships single 20MM were made twins, and twins added in the bridge wings. This expanded AA config is the Z-39 kit config. So all of those AA platforms will have to be rebuilt to the former config. The conversion is definitely "doable", just watch for the subtle differences.

In theory you would be quite correct. For the most part, in the case where US and British ship plans have been archived, there is no reason that a fairly accurate model couldn't be made of these. (Although Dragon has been dismal lately producing any accurate model of a post-war tank!) It all depends on whether the plastic company wants to retrieve these files (usually at a modest fee), or to depend on photos (which could be misleading), or secondary sources (which could be just plain wrong). Germany was bombed, burned, and plundered at the end of WWll, and the Nazi's themselves destroyed tons of files, plans, drawings, etc. Although I have seen sectional views of German Z's, with typical Gothic-style text and handwriting, on a Russian site. So possibly these are original.

Dick J,

Thank you very much for your feedback. Still, upon doing a lot more digging on the internet, I decided that I will be instead building the kit as Z-39, but during her stint in the Gulf of Finland.

It's because at the time, she also sported her own unique dazzle camouflage, as shown in the picture below:

Z37 is the top one, Z39 is the bottom one.


Source: Marineart.it

And here's an actual photo of Z39 during her stint in the Gulf of Finland in 1944.



Source: Book: German destroyers of World War II by Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolk

Still, both photos above only show the port side of the ship. Does anyone here know if the starboard side of the ship was identical?

If not, could any of you please point out a source which shows the starboard side?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

I have a Z-43 and I have a question about painting. Upper hull and superstructure were in the same gray color or different?

Here's a picture of Z-39's starboard side from the Osprey Vanguard series book on German destroyers.



As one can see, the starboard side of Z39 was clearly different from her port side camo seen my earlier post above.

Does anyone have a larger or clearer picture?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

is there any scale plans of the z class in 1/72 ?

thomas