Calling all Scharnhorst and Gneisenau fans!

[David Gatt]

G'day people, I have a couple questions.

The area on the foredeck under the anchor chain is depicted on the dragon kit as timber. Patterned differently to the deck. Should this area, as is in other ships be metal plate? Or should it be timber and painted dark grey?

Second, does anyone know what part number K 59 is in the dragon kit? It's a large square that isn't anywhere on the instructions, nor does it seem to fit anywhere.

Thanks in advance, Oh she's almost done, I'll be sure to post pics when she is.

[California Bound]

David,

It looks like part# K59 is used to plug the square hole in the bottom of the upper hull.

Dan.

[David Gatt]

Cool Dan makes total sense, just incase a tiny army of little people try and break into the ship


Thanks
David Gatt

[Olaf Held]

@ David ~ The cable tracks on the f'c'sle were planked. As far as I know they used thicker and broader planks when compared to the main deck planking. No dark grey paint on them, just bare teak. Straight from memory, I have yet to see a ship where they used steel for the cable tracks.

I'm looking forward to seeing progress on your build.

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[David Gatt]

Thanks Olaf, great timing too as I was about to start masking the area this evening. Yes the deck planking in this area appears to be moulded wider than the rest of the deck and run in a pattern under where the chain is.

No worries I'll be posting pics ASAP. In the mean time I have some progress pics posted here: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=59538&start=40

One Thing I've noticed. There are two or three other builds being posted of the Dragon 1/350 Kit on the Picture Post section. They have filled in a depression/fault which is at the bow area of the vessel. I personally believe that this depression is a representation of the ships original bow, and therefore I have left it. Any thoughts?

[cerberusjf]

One Thing I've noticed. There are two or three other builds being posted of the Dragon 1/350 Kit on the Picture Post section. They have filled in a depression/fault which is at the bow area of the vessel. I personally believe that this depression is a representation of the ships original bow, and therefore I have left it. Any thoughts?

I am not an expert on these ships, but I have never seen this depression in any photo of the real ship. There are some fine shots of the bow here and I think the depression would show up if it was there. Instead, the side looks completely smooth to me.

http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnh ... refit.html

http://bismarck-class-forum.dk/thread.php?threadid=4658

The bow of a ship is one of the most important areas to me and it is one of the reasons I am not buying this kit. I'm not an expert so I think it is up to the kit designer and the Dragon representatives to explain the presence of the depression in the bow.

[dick wood]

Good Afternoon:

I am just starting to undertake the 1/350 Dragon kit of the Scharnhorst, and I intend to do her as she appeared in operation Paderborn, 1943. I am having trouble coordinating the color call outs in the Kriegsmarine Colors vol. 1 with thoses of the WEM color coats terminology. Can any one give me a heads up on this? Also whic is the correct hull red to use, was it the Schiffsbodenfarb III Rot 5? ( One has to love how German uses such short words!)

Thanks in advance

Dick Wood

[Timmy C]

The bow of a ship is one of the most important areas to me and it is one of the reasons I am not buying this kit. I'm not an expert so I think it is up to the kit designer and the Dragon representatives to explain the presence of the depression in the bow.

I think that this is a result of the cooling rate in the plastic at that area, which is thicker than the surrounding - it also appears to be the area where the bow tip joins the main hull (see the seam on the inside of the hull), which also creates some problems in this regard. So it's more of a technical issue than one of choice.

[cerberusjf]

I think that this is a result of the cooling rate in the plastic at that area, which is thicker than the surrounding - it also appears to be the area where the bow tip joins the main hull (see the seam on the inside of the hull), which also creates some problems in this regard. So it's more of a technical issue than one of choice.

I see what you mean. When I first saw the depression I thought it could be either warped due to this area not being supported and distorting or shrinkage caused by a bulkhead. The problems with these ideas are that there is no bulkhead there and the upper hull has a solid base at the waterline, where the depression is worst by the look of it. So I think warping must be ruled out, I think the depression must be part of the designed shape of the casting.

edit-see herehttp://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... rst-Te.jpg

[kubaro]

Gday all.

I�m planning my Dragon�s Scharnhorst built and i�m quite confused about light AA armament configuration in Ostfront opperation.

As far as 20 mm guns, what were the correct type mounted? 20mm/65 C/30 early type or the 20mm/65 C/38 Late type?
As far as 37 mms, was the 37mm/83 SK C/30 , the correct one?

Which were the exact amount of single/twin/quadruple mounts, on each caliber?

Thanks in advance.....

Best,

Kuba

[Olaf Held]

During 'Ostfront' she carried ten 20 mm singles plus five 20 mm Flakvierling (quadruple). The sixth Flakvierling on turret Bruno was there only during the Channel Dash. The initial ten 20 mm C/30 singles were replaced by ten 20 mm C/38 singles in 1941.

The 37 mm were the C/30, correct. I don't think that they ever replaced them with the better M42 on Scharnhorst, but I may be wrong. She carried 8 twin mounts throughout her lifetime.

I'm still waiting for my kit but I think it represents the correct number of AA mounts. There's just one thing I'm still wondering about, why are there two types of the 20 mm Flakvierling in the kit? Navy and army carriage maybe? I may have asked this before, can't recall the answer to this ...

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[kubaro]

Thanks, Olaf. Then i�ll get the c/38 sea master barrells (2 bags of 20 each).

Do you think that replacing the kit�s main and secundary barrels with metal ones worth it?


Best

[rtwpsom2]

Olaf, there are approximately 3 variety's of quad mount for the 20mm's that were used by the German Navy that I have found so far.

The naval variant is mounted on a gimbal to accommodate ship roll. The two gun mounts on the catapult pedestal are naval variants.

There are two army variants (commonly called flakvierlings). The true army setup has no shielding and stowage for 8 magazines on each side of the base. The naval vierling as I have taken to call has shielding and stowage for 5 magazines on each side of the base.

The two mounts on top of the forward 150mm's are of the standard army flakvierling variety.

The mount on the funnel platform has proven elusive. I cannot find any truly conclusive pictures in my stash that will identify what variety it was, so I had to assume it was the same as the ones on the 150's, because that is what the drawings seem to show. I am fairly certain it is a flakvierling variant of some sort, but I am not sure which.

As a side note, I still ended up having to model the shielded naval vierling later on because thats what Z39 carried.

Kubaro, One thing Sean Hert pointed out to me (because I haven't assembles the kit completely) is that the kit single 20mm's are much taller than the ones I modeled. Dragon had to scale them up considerably due to their small size. So my opinion is that some things were done as well as we could but just aren't perfect, so I won't feel bad if they get replaced by after-market stuff. Sean says he has received some lovely brass barrels for the primary and secondaries, you might ask him how they turned out.

[kubaro]

I�ll do. Thanks Rob

[USS California BB44]

Does anyone know if the assembly "A"in the dragon kit are the same as the PE replacements? I am just totally confused as there are so many types of AA used on these ships.

[David Gatt]

I believe they are. The Dragon ones are way over scaled and look totally incorrect to any picture I've seen of the guns used on the ship. I didn't use the Photo etched ones, as I don't like my guns looking like they've been flattened by a steam roller. I've posted some images of the guns here:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=59538&start=40

The ship is finished now except for rigging and then finally weathering. Now that she is done, I'm not overly concerned by them, however if I do find replacement guns of the correct size that look appropriate I'll probably change them. Pity, as there is quit a bit of work involved in building them.

David Gatt

[Olaf Held]

Rob, many thanks for your reply. Did I get it right that we have one Navy and two army variants, and that there are naval versions of the army variants? The latter are not mounted on gimbal. So, the two on the 150mm are 'navalised' army versions? Where's their shielding then? And, I only see a bulwark around them with 14 (!) boxes attached (at least on your 3D renderings as I don't have the kit yet).

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

@ Rob and Olaf,

Scharnhorst did have 3 type's of 20 mm flak vierlings according to my personal opinion.

on the 150 mm turrets I am positive about the standard mount with no shields for sure ( only doubt I have they can be navy modified ones with rangefinder on the bottom, like the ones they added on the hangar side )

on the funnel platform a Gdynia taken photo from a crane at Seebanhof seems to prove a shielded flak, I assume a standad one, no navy version.


on the 2 platforms aside the hangar for sure 2 navy modified ones with a front bottom rangefinder and no shields.

Bye Antonio

[rtwpsom2]

To help you understand the differences I made this quick little tutorial. Here are the three variants.

1. The regular army flakvierling. The only modification the navy made to it was to add a taller circular base.
2. The naval vierling. This was an army vierling that was modified to reduce the workload on the gun trainers. The change in seating arrangement also necessitated the removal of the last three magazine slots to make room for the gunners feet.
3. The naval mount was completely different from the army variant, it had a rangefinder and a gimbal that swiveled to accommodate the roll of the ship.




Here is the naval mount on the catapult pedestal. Note the guard rail around the platform and the crane cables in the background.


Here is the best picture I have of the one mounted on top of the 150mm turret. It can only be a flackvierling because the bar that folds down on the front was removed from the navy vierling to make way for a shield on the front.


A couple notes about my models. When I opened the naval vierling file the sights were missing, I must have moved them in my file structure and I don't have time to dig up where I moved them. Also, keep in mind that my models are not as detailed as I would like them to be. I would certainly like to have more time to detail them out, add wires and bits and bobbins, but that will have to wait until I am not doing this for a living.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Rob and all,

congratulation for you detailed work on the 20 mm flakvierling, especially for the correct explanation on the naval mount version with a lot of modifications and the rangefinder on the bottom front part that enabled the removal of the upper strong arm on the base werhmacht version vierling.

Only addittional info I like to add is that the one you called base flak+naval shield's ( Army naval Vierling ) was only used on Prinz Eugen as far as I recall currently, surely never on Scharnhorst.

In fact there was a 4th model/version you are missing here, that is the base with the werhmacht shield's on her mounted on the cilinder ( taller circular base ), and you can see this vierling been used on several Kriegsmarine units, more than the one you listed in the middle of your 3d being used only on Prinz Eugen as I anticipated.

As far as I can say today, on the Scharnhorst funnel platform there was exactly this latest one, a base vierling with a standard werhmacht shields, not the naval modified shields that became available only on late 1944 on Prinz Eugen as said.

Hope my explanation helps you. Bye Antonio