The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:10 pm
Posts: 966
Yeah, but I don't like wooden decks, and I do like rivets.

I know the rivets are over scale, but I take a different philosophy from most of the modelers on this board.

I mean, come on guys, everything's over scale. the planks are over scale, the spaces between them are over scale, the railings are over scale— even if you get the thinnest PE you can find they'll be over scale. The splinter shields are overscale, the anchors are too thick, the screws, the funnel grill (even in PE) the masts (and by the way, any rigging your using is over scale, not to mention lacking the appropriate wound cable detail) the aircraft are completely over scale, the bow will be too thick, the fore top off in some dimension the doors, the grills, the lights the whistles the doodads and everything else... It's All Over Scale! A good model company might get the actual length, beam and height right, but beyond that, in terms of dimensionality virtually EVERYTHING in a plastic or resin model is too thick, too wide, etc.

To me, what's important is that there were rivets on the turrets, and when you look at my model you can see little tiny rivets on the turrets. If they were somehow magically reproduced in scale you probably wouldn't be able to see them with the naked eye. The only problem on that issue I see is whether or not there actually were rivets on the GS's turrets. If there were no rivets, then that of course is a mistake, and -10 pts for Trumpeter. But if it had rivets, and they're well cast, I want to see 'em. Just like I'd rather see planks in scale or otherwise than nothing, for that matter, plating as well. The model ought to suggest the real thing in its details as much as possible.

My 2c

_________________
Pessimists see the world as it truly is...
Optimists change the world.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1028
Location: Porto, Portugal
The more I look at the picks the more I know something: should Dragon make a third Graf Spee, the turret would look nothing like either one of those and of the three would probably be the only one that wouldn't leave me sad.

I mean... I KNOW the rivets are there, but Jesus, Mary and Joseph: Tamiya's old 1/700 KGV turrets have more realistic rivets than those. What's with the sudden influx of gigantic rivets?

It looks like they were upscaled from an already bad 1/700 tool. They really don't have to be that overscale Callen, as you would see from 1/72 scale aircraft with engraved rivets. Such huge lumps of plastic are just carelessness; representations 1/3 as big with 3x more represented are well within the capabilities of today's technology.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:51 pm
Posts: 18
I am going have to agree with callen on this one. In order to represent rivets, this about the only way to do it. If you look at May's ship kit review of Dragon's U.S.S. Gearing there is a close up of a 5"/38 dual turret where you can see that the rivet representation is over done. I have seen the real things up close and they are no where as blown up as these. Besides with a couple layers of paint and primer the look will be vastly improved.

Thanks Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:10 pm
Posts: 966
Hi Marco.

You don't think the apparent size of the rivets has to do with the size of the pic? How big would the actual 350th scale turret be in my hand?

I'm going to reserve judgement till I see the actual kit.

Having said that, I'm all for a Dragon Graf Spee. A Smart Kit Spee would put both of these kits in the toy bin!

Frankly I don't know why Trumpeter doesn't turn their 350th Division over to Pit Road. The only Trumpeter Ship kits that can compete with the likes of Dragon, Tamiya and Hasegawa are the Pit Road people. I was so disappointed about the Richelieu, (which I'd waited for for three years, having botched a Heller 400th build) that I couldn't even bring myself to buy it, even though it was cheap, had a great painting on the front (love the Bedouin in the foreground) and was a favorite subject of mine.

_________________
Pessimists see the world as it truly is...
Optimists change the world.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1028
Location: Porto, Portugal
callen wrote:
Hi Marco.

You don't think the apparent size of the rivets has to do with the size of the pic? How big would the actual 350th scale turret be in my hand?


Callen, I'm actually "rivet counting"; the rivets are so big in proportion to the turret that there are clearly too few of them:

Image

I count 7 vertical rivets (left front side of the turret) whereas the Trumpeter turret shows four. They are far too large and I know from 1/72 aircraft and vehicle modeling that rivets 1/4th that size are possible. Rivets 1/10th are possible too and Trumpeter could have done what might actually pass for a more realistic representation of the rows of rivets.

And I say this realizing that ANY rivet will always be over represented. It's a matter of how much.

Edit.: come to think of it, the openings for the cannons appear too large on the ceiling in Trumpeter's turret...

Quote:
Frankly I don't know why Trumpeter doesn't turn their 350th Division over to Pit Road. The only Trumpeter Ship kits that can compete with the likes of Dragon, Tamiya and Hasegawa are the Pit Road people. I was so disappointed about the Richelieu, (which I'd waited for for three years, having botched a Heller 400th build) that I couldn't even bring myself to buy it, even though it was cheap, had a great painting on the front (love the Bedouin in the foreground) and was a favorite subject of mine.


I'm all up for supporting Trumpeter, but sometimes they are sloppy and I can't understand why. It's like their CAD's are made by manic-depressives who can put out a Hornet and a Saratoga/Lexington, a Tirpitz and a Richelieu.

I mean... they are certainly not using the same people to make the tools; they don't even try to standardise the 1.1" guns are twice as large as those on the Hornet!?

This being of course just one of the more than ten examples where Trumpeter represents the same gun in two or three different ways.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
In Burkhardt's photo of the prototype turret, the rivets cannot be seen. In Marco's picture, they can be seen, but barely. In the photo of the Trumpy turret, taken at about the same distance in scale as the two prototype pictures, the rivets are huge. They would be as big as soup bowls or larger in scale.

One could, of course, use the Trumpy turrets and simply sand the rivets off. But why pay twice as much for a model that needs that kind of reworking? Better use the Academy turrets and sand the chevrons off.

The overscale ladders on either model don't matter, as they should be replaced with PE ladders anyway.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10824
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Trumpeter's also has hatches and thinner periscope(?) housings than the Academy kit, which lacks the former entirely.

If one were to paint the Trumpeter turrets and not do a wash, I doubt the rivets would be too visible.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1028
Location: Porto, Portugal
Gentlemen, I would draw your attention to this picture from navweapons.com:

Image

As you can see, the rivets are plainly visible, but again they are at least half the size with at least twice the number as seen on Trumpeter's turret. This is not beyond the capabilities of current technology, nor beyond Trumpeter's own capabilities and perfectly replicable reasonably in scale.

I'm not going to bash the model only based on that, but I also don't like the gun openings or the "periscopes" which in reality have a clear step where they join the turret roof, which Revell represented pretty well on their Bismarck.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:52 am
Posts: 558
Bolts not rivets !


(I know the phrase "rivet counter")

.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 2:17 am
Posts: 854
Location: Kingston-upon-Hull Yorkshire England
The Academy Turrets fit almost flush to the deck,whereas they should stand above the deck by about scale 4 feet.I haven`t seen the Trumpy version yet,so I don`t know what their`s are like,but on the old Heller kit,this is done accurately.

Regards Phil

_________________
" If your going though Hell ,keep going!" Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1028
Location: Porto, Portugal
Actually what I meant that I was surprised about was that, regardless of the "detail", the turrets are different in many aspects.

1 - The slots for the telemeters are quite different in curvature at the lower part which may indicate or not that the parts themselves will be different;
2 - The "periscopes" have a more or less proper "lip" in Trumpeter's turret, but not in Academy's;
3 - Trumpeter's gun openings extend far too much on the turret's ceiling;
4 - The distance between the outmost gun slots and the point where the ceiling meets the sloping sides is much narrower on Academy's;
5 - This is because the angle on the sloping sides is not the same on both models and the trapeze shape of the ceiling plate is a lot more pronounced on Trumpeter's example, which, looking at pictures, got it right and Academy dead wrong;


The same goes for the secondaries: the gun openings are completely different. Trumpeter's right up to the top of the turret, while Academy's is set much lower and again the angle at which the faceplate is set looks a lot more pronounced on Trumpeter's example, with the result that its sides are clearly more trapezoid in shape. Looking at pictures, Trumpeter's gun opening is wrong in extending to the topmost part of the faceplate.

To sum it up, regardless of the detail sets and preferences (and limiting myself to main and secondary armament), you can only achieve an accurate Graf Spee by kitbashing both models, while on both ships the turrets will need clear surgery and reshaping.

So my real confusion stems from what should be dead simple - angles, distances, areas - are wrong on several accounts and this is not even "rivet counting", they are clearly wrong to the naked eye.

Looking at this, knowing that the mast has also been blundered, plus other details left out, I am wondering where else will these models turn ugly.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 47
Antonio,
Can you send me the link to your great website with camo info on the KM heavy ships. I lost mine when switching providers. Please send the link to my regular email of lsfricke@msn.com

Thank you.

St. Paul, Minnesota
USA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

@ Len,

here it is :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1221

Please say Hello from me to the Twin Cities, and the Metrodome were the Vikings are doing great with QB Brett Favre this year.

I have lived 4 years of my life on snowing Minnesota, .. and traveled there for 20 years, ... so a good piece of me lives there in Rochester-MN.

Bye Antonio :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sydlitz
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 47
Antonio,
Thanks for responding to my message and good to hear from you. The person who inquired through SteelNavy appreciated your help.
Congratulations on your book now for sale on Amazon.com

I did notice something on you have on the web (www.kbismarck.org/forum/)about the WWII Seydlitz that you might want to consider. I have a friend who grew up in Germany. His family owned the Schicheau shipyard (in what is now Poland) before losing it after WWII. He now lives in the USA and I visited him at his home and I speak with him all the time about the Kriegsmarine. He says the Seylidtz was a separate class from Hipper/Prinz Eugen. Books he read by Breyer and Dr Mrva support this position. He has actually spoken to Dr. Mrva about this subject. Apparently there were many differences between Seylidtz and the Lutzow and the first three ships. The differences are more then just being 2.5 meters shorter. The Seylidtz was supposed to have four triple turrets with 15 cm guns - as the British did for their modern heavy cruisers such as the Belfast. May also have been designed to have two catapults for aircraft. I thought you might be interested in this information as he says it is best to list these ships as "Seylidtz class" cruisers. My friend played a large role in convincing HP Models to produce their never-built cruiser Berlin as well as the model of the planned upgrade for the Scharnhorst with 12.8 cm multi-purpose turrets rather then the 15 and 10.5 cm guns - and of course the 38 CM main guns and longer bow planned for the Gneisenau .

Let me know if you ever plan to be in Minnesota in the future as my wife and I would like to invite you to dinner. We live right on the Mississippi River and, as you know, are not far from Rochester.

Regards,

Len


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

many thanks for the nice compliments and the very interesting infos.

I will try to get more about those Seydlitz ones, so maybe we can get those off-side thru personal mails.

Be sure that if I come again to Minnesota I will get in touch with you first,.... no plans so far soon unfortunately :thumbs_up_1:

Bye Antonio :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9860
Location: EG48
Let's talk boat booms!

Looking at photos from
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-f ... f-spee.htm and
http://www.deutschland-class.dk/admiral ... _menu.html

It is apparent that there are two locations for boat booms; outboard each of the main battery turrets. What is unclear is how they were used. It appears to me that only one set of the booms was ever mounted, usually forward. It is clear that this set was not in use at the time of her demise, but would they have been pulled in and mounted on the main deck somewhere or were they just landed or tossed overboard once the war started?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:08 am
Posts: 17
Hello folks, been busying myself with Academy's new kit and have some advice to share and a question to ask.
Firstly, a quick rundown on the Academy (ACA) kit and some thoughts on Trumpeters (TR) version. (I do not have this in my hands but the excellent review on site helps here)
The niggles I have with ACA sofar are:
- bad searchlights, TR has them better looking but still not correct.
- Stern eagle is downright hopeless - TR's PE part is a lot better but as I said on another board perhaps best served by replacing with an aftermarket resin part if such a thing comes along.
- Boat detail is clunky and not correct - TR is OK there. The hulls from ACA can be used though.
- Missing the two rather large cowl vents in front of the stack completely - TR has them included.
- Main battery sights in both kits are not great, TR's maybe slightly better.
- Small calibre AA in both kits is very bad! Way too large, the singles especially.
- The torpedo launcher covers are completely smooth - TR has it much better. Might be overstated like the turrets as mentioned in this thread but it sure looks better! The back end should be open but covered by a tarp.
- Door/window configuration on the sides of the bridge tower does not look right. Have no really good plan to check though. TR is different at least.
- Deck around the conning tower has two semi-circular "wells" around two of the instruments standing there, one left and one right. Should have little slats radiating out from the center pedestal. Neither kit has this, should be easy to do if you're so inclined.
- Platform underneath the stack is different between both kits, no definite info yet. TR is more correct probably.
- Main battery barbette height - TR has it right, should be around 3mm high. Thanks to Phil for that info!
- Prop guards should be added to ACA kit - Thanks to Tracy for the info!
- Small deck just aft of rear rangefinder is of a different shape on both kits and drawings. Not sure which is correct yet.
- Parts B2 (bulkheads underneath the 105mm AA) have a symmetrical arrangement of the three portholes. Not correct, TR has them perfect. They are quite visible though, right on the edge of the deck. Easy to fix!
- Main rangefinder (parts D2 and D3) is noticeably too short in height - should total 11 mm give or take a micrometer. Height is missing from both top and bottom.
- "Periscopes" missing on two of the three 105mm AA.
- Arado 196 is honestly best replaced - L'Arsenal has a very nice one. If working with the kit part, at least modify the tail from the kit slab to a more "Arado-ish" shape and remove/replace the float braces and struts.


ACA has some plusses over the TR kit though!
- rear anchor "well" is in the right direction
- rear upper deck (just before the 105mm AA) has a slight step upwards - TR doesn't have that.
- Bow has a cutout with bollard - TR goes straight.
- Crane arms are far better in shape - TR's look like those on Deutschland/Lutzow if anything. The bases on the TR kit are better though.

Well, that's what I've found sofar. That's not to say that either kit is "unbuildable" or "hopeless" if built OOB. Just the kind of things that could be fixed or replaced if you were so inclined. Hope it helps my fellow AMS sufferers :smallsmile:

As for the question, I've noticed ACA has the armored conning tower with three viewports in total, while TR has them running all the way around. The one and only illustration of that area I found happens to be the ACA boxart and that has them all the way around! Does anyone know of an actual photo or a "reliable" set of plans that shows this area? I'm building the ship in "as sunk" configuration if that helps.
I would appreciate any and all input, both on the conning tower and my little list.

Very best regards,
Maarten

EDITED for completeness on 11-25-09
EDITED for completeness on 11-29-09
EDITED for completeness on 12-12-09


Last edited by maarten on Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9860
Location: EG48
Additionally, the Academy kit is missing the propeller guards, although they are easy to add.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 2:17 am
Posts: 854
Location: Kingston-upon-Hull Yorkshire England
I`ve just started to build the Trumpy kit of the G.S.,and the judging by the Polish plans I have,if you wish to do a waterline version(as I`m aiming to do),there is not enough freeboard on the kit.It`s .05" too shallow,quite apart from the incorrect stern anchor angle.At least Trumpy have done the 11" barbettes correctly,whereas ,on the Academy kit these turrets are almost flush with the main deck.All-in-all ,Trumpy has my vote.

Regards Phil

_________________
" If your going though Hell ,keep going!" Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:08 am
Posts: 17
Phil and Tracy, many thanks for your input! Hadn't noticed your points and they are very welcome. Phil, could you please do me a favour and measure the height of the 11" barbettes on the plans or your kit? ACA needs some plastic card anyway since the fit is very loose, adding some height ought to be easy enough. Do your plans indicate anything about the viewports on the armored conning tower?
As an aside, WEM's PE set is out now. Looks very good I have to say! Think I am going to combine with Academys own set as that has all the handrails to go around the stack and bridge tower, as well as some more deck supports.

Best regards,
Maarten


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: oneslim and 45 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