Calling all Bismarck and Tirpitz fans

[amiers]

Single 20mm no shield.

[Charlestonguy]

Thanks amiers, I had already mounted the single 20MM and was afraid I messed up.

Just a point of interest, I have the Eduard PE German AA gun set #1721 which has the 20MM guns for most WWII German ships. However, the mags are on the top of the guns not the side. The instructions do not show bending the mag to the side but you may want to do this if you have this set. The instruction does show bending the mags to the side on the quad guns. The 1/350 set is still available but the 1/700 PE set #1720 has been discontinued.

[Viktor]

Hi
Charlestonguy, Warship Pictorial 19 - Bismarck, page 59.

Greeting.
Viktor

[Charlestonguy]

Thanks Viktor for the info, another book I need to buy.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

those 2 guns were Wehrmacht mounting 20 mm Flak C 30 early models mounted on Kiel harbour.
Initially they were on top main turrets flat surface while in the harbour, than fixed back there to reinforce aft A/A gunnery.

You can see some photos here in :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2_cm_Flak_30

No Shields and 3 cylinders under the 3 fixing pedestals in order to elevate a bit the gun mounting, those cylinders are still visible on the wrack of Bismarck .

Even the 2 cart with the wheels were on board Bismarck during the Op. Rheinubung.

Bye Antonio

[USN_Matt]

Well im new to the furoms, I have built quite afew models but i could never build one that looks THAT good!

I built a 1/700 Bismark from Trumpeteer, and looking at ya'lls makes me jealous cause it looks nothing compared to those....

[Olaf Held]

Even the 2 cart with the wheels were on board Bismarck during the Op. Rheinubung.

I wonder if the two trailers (Sd.Kfz. 51) have been found in the debris field - or if they are still in their storage positions on the wreck (beneath the two aftmost searchlight platforms).


Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[Charlestonguy]

Ciao all,

those 2 guns were Wehrmacht mounting 20 mm Flak C 30 early models mounted on Kiel harbour.
Initially they were on top main turrets flat surface while in the harbour, than fixed back there to reinforce aft A/A gunnery.

You can see some photos here in :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2_cm_Flak_30

No Shields and 3 cylinders under the 3 fixing pedestals in order to elevate a bit the gun mounting, those cylinders are still visible on the wrack of Bismarck .

Even the 2 cart with the wheels were on board Bismarck during the Op. Rheinubung.

Bye Antonio

So this was a single barrel version of the quad mount. Great to late to make the fix now
Looks like I'll have to just build another one

[Kiwimedic]

Hi All

Does anyone have a definative list as to what the differences are between

10.5-SKC- 33
&
10.5- SKC-37

Many thanks
Phil

[Charlestonguy]

Antonio Thanks for the information!
�3 cylinders under the 3 fixing pedestals in order to elevate a bit the gun mounting�
I think I found what you were talking about on this website.
I think its picture number 10 on Superstructure Part 2.


http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... marck2.htm

[amiers]

Hi All

Does anyone have a definative list as to what the differences are between

10.5-SKC- 33
&
10.5- SKC-37

Many thanks
Phil

the SK-37 was the newer version. it was slightly different in apperence and had a different barrel design

[Viktor]

Hi.
My 10.5 -33





and -37

[Kiwimedic]

Hi Viktor

thanks very much

Philip

[caramonraistlin]

Greetings:

Perhaps one of the experts could help me out with the following:

On the Bismarck site the overall length for the Tirpitz is 253.6 meters or 832.02 feet. I have the Academy 1/350 scale Tirpitz which has a overall length mesurement of 27.875 inches or approximately 813 feet which works out to around a 19 foot difference! This works out to about .65 inches that the hull is short on the model. I realize that the mold used for the Bismarck and the Tirpitz hull is probably the same (Academy hull is Tamiya copy). If I was going to lengthen the hull does anyone have any suggestions about where this should be done? I notice most people seem to ignore this discrepancy when building their models. I'd appreciate any help or suggestions. Please note I am using the Academy kit as it is the one I have and do not plan to buy a different one such as the Revell version. Could the longer overall length for the Tirpitz be the inclusion of the Atlantic bow which as I understand Tirpitz had but Bismarck did not? Note: I measured my Tamiya Bismarck hull and it measured 28 inches or about 816 feet of the real thing which I believe is a pretty close match. I think the Academy hull shrunk an 1/8 of an inch during molding. Other than this the 2 hulls from these kits are the same. If I use the Tamiya hull then there is only a .548 inch scale difference (832- 816 = 16 ft.). Once again I hope someone can clear this up.

Thank you

Michael Lacey

[Olaf Held]

Hi Michael ~ This is weird. Long time ago I compared the Academy with the Tamiya kit and I do not recall a difference in length - to be fair, I compared the main deck pieces, not the hulls. Both ships featured the Atlantic bow, Bismarck received it during fitting out while on Tirpitz it was already there before she went down the slipway. There was a minor difference in length between the sisters. I'm not sure if the data given on the Asmussen site is 100% correct but as I understand it, the difference in length was due to the slightly different shape of Tirpitz' Atlantic bow.

A hull shrinking during the moulding process? The main deck is now too long and too broad for the hull? Or did every part of the kit shrink?

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[caramonraistlin]

Olaf, greetings:

Thank you for the response. I believe the deck also shrunk on my copy. I haven't fitted all 3 pieces but the rear part fits correctly as does the bow section. What started me down this path was I wanted to do the camo represented with the red/orange turret tops (shown as Sept. 42). I figured I would copy the drawings and make masks from the pictures for painting. I figured if I knew the overall length then I could size the pictures in a graphics program to this dimension and then print them out. I decided to measure the model's hull just to be sure and found it was 27 and 7/8 inches long. I converted this back to the length of the real ship as listed on the site and found out something was wrong! What I've decided to do is use most of the parts of the Tamiya Bismarck kit (hull included) and the parts from the Academy kit such as the torpedo tubes and the changes/addition of the raised deck where the cranes were moved to which would convert it to the Tirpitz. I've already dry fitted these to the Tamiya middle deck section and they fit perfectly. I've decided not to concern myself with what appears to be the slightly longer length of the Tirpitz hull. This may seem like a weird conversion but awhile back I bought the Eduard super set for the Tirpitz, the WEM pe set, additional Eduard aa pe set and a complete set of brass barrels for the kit. Ideally I should just buy the Tamiya Tirpitz or the Revell but being presently unemployed I have to work with what I have. I'm curious as to the length of the Revell Tirpitz hull. Do you know how long it is or is it the same as their Bismarck? Once again thank you for your help. Yesterday I printed out the pictures I mentioned (sized to 28 inches in hull length) and plan to start on painting the hull today. This should be fun!

Michael Lacey

[Olaf Held]

Michael, funny, that you mention how the Revell Bismarck and Tirpitz would compare. I never saw a comparison of the hulls on the internet, only a comparison of Trumpeters Prinz Eugen to Admiral Hipper.

I don't have the Revell Tirpitz, "just" the Bismarck. I know that they changed A LOT from Bismarck to Tirpitz, such as the different layout of the vents and skylights on the quarterdeck, but the hull? I don't know, sorry.

You fitted the additional Academy-Tirpitz-"deckhouse" to the middle setion of the Tamiya-Bismarck and it fitted perfectly? Did you compare the two hulls side by side? However, since the Academy kits are copies from the Tamiya ones, I doubt there will be a big difference in length. At least Tamiya used one and the same hull for both ships. Another thing is, the Tamiya kit is generally accepted as being very good when it comes to the overall proportions of hull, decks, superstructure, etc. The main gun turrets are a bit off, the Revell turrets are better, btw. However, if your proposed method of transferring the camouflage pattern from the illustrations to the model will not work, then one of the two, model or illustration, is wrong, if not both. The colours of the illustrations are a bit off. Same applies to the time frames - at least, this is what I have heard. The orange on the one illustration is tempting, but not confirmed. First of all, I believe it is an attempt to add "scale" to the colour of red. Compare this orange with the colour of the "red" band around the swasticas on the main deck. See what I mean?

If you really want to use the illustrations as a paint guide, dryfit your superstructure, put it onto your hull and take photographs of it, from the sides at 90 degrees. Put them into your paint software and draw in your camouflage pattern according to the illustrations. This way you have the chance to nibble a bit here and there, making slightly corrections at starting and end points, angles, etc. Go for a good overall effect than for a 100%-match of wrong illustrations! When done, print out and use THIS as your guide for the model.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

[caramonraistlin]

Olaf:

Greetings. I plan to paint the turret tops as you suggest as a red such as the one with the swastika shown on the deck. In regards to the deck house section you are correct. The Academy parts fit perfectly. I'm sure this kit is an exact copy of the Tamiya one except maybe a cheaper or different grade of plastic was used in the molds. I don't know if Tamiya ran the parts for Academy who then just put them in a box with their name or if they leased the molds and ran them themselves. I tried all 3 sections of the deck on the Academy kit and ended with an 1/8 inch gap between 2 sections. It looks like the plastic may have shrunk lengthwise on the larger parts but the width is okay. There is no gap at the sides of the deck sections. I suspect that the deck house section fits because Tamiya did the same thing originally when they made a Tirpitz from their Bismarck. I'll have to review the vents/skylight differences you mention as I hadn't thought about those. I may use your idea about taking pictures of the dry fitted parts/hull and then deriving the pattern in a paint program. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. So far I've only gotten as far as removing a prominent seam on the hull and have added the housings to the hull that the propellor shafts exit through. I'll then check the porthole arrangements and then drill them out tonight. Guess I wont get around to any actual hull masking/painting until tomorrow which is okay as like I said I presently have plenty of time on my hands.

Thank you!

Michael Lacey

[Thomas E. Johnson]

On the Revell 1/350 Bismarck and Tirpitz kits: The hull, the guns and turrets (except for Bruno) and the 6 inch guns/turrets, flak guns, and small AA guns, are identical. Other than that, all the decks, superstructure bulkheads, fittings, etc, are all diffrent tooled parts than the Bismarck kit. The Tirpitz kit is essentially an 80% new tooling.

[Olaf Held]

Oh, I had hoped that the Tirpitz hull with its different stem shape, different porthole configuration and different seawater openings would be moulded more correctly. Maybe this was too much to ask for, HA! (And I'm still curious about their announced 1/700 versions ... even if we already have so many Bismarck/Tirpitz kits around ...)

Thanks for the information.

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!