Thank you, Bernd, Thank you, Rafael!
It is a helpfull discussion - is not it?
Espesially for me - there is not too match to improving in my hull.
With best regards
Anatoly
Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Moderators: MartinJQuinn, JIM BAUMANN, HMAS, Tiny69, Dave Wooley
-
Guest
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi, everybody!
Thank you, Bernd, Thank you, Rafael!
It is a helpfull discussion - is not it?
Espesially for me - there is not too match to improving in my hull.
With best regards
Anatoly
Thank you, Bernd, Thank you, Rafael!
It is a helpfull discussion - is not it?
Espesially for me - there is not too match to improving in my hull.
With best regards
Anatoly
-
109
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Yes, good discussion and hull model!
Keep us updated, anatoly! 
Keep us updated, anatoly!
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings).
-
Rafael
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:34 pm
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi guys!
Yes indeed. It is an interesting subject, everyday I learn more about Bismarck. On the other hand, I think I was misunderstood. The MES cable was unknown for me until Anatoly mentionned. The only point I was not in agreement with you guys, is about the picture of the wreck. The line that Anatoly says is the MES is too low to be that cable. Anatoly's last picture of the Bismarck in the drydock show a clear line that I am ready to accept that it is the MES, but this line is not the same as the one shown in the wreck picture. Look at the close position of the V-strut regarding to that line. The bottom edge of the rear 80 mm armor is higher.
Bernd, I read somewhere that the armor plates were backed up by teak wood, being screwed up to it and then welded together, for me it was reasonable, otherwise you would have tons of thick and hard armor screwed to a chewing gum-like teak wood. Having a key between the main armor and citadel armor would not be enough to keep the armor plates tight because, what happend with the sides and bottom edge of the armor plates ? they would relay in the Panzerboltzen. For them it would be no problem but the weakest link would be the teak wood. The self breaking screws is a practical mean to secure the plates leaving the external surface of the armor plate smooth, almost no trace of the screw once grinding them up. We use very often this type of bolts in the construction of hydraulic turbines... Probably you mean that the armor was not welded to the hull plating. If they have protected the wood with special black resin and at the same time the back of the armor plate was also protected from corrosion and the armor plates were welded together, they didn't need to weld the armor to the ship's hull. In this case I would agree. Otherwise it would be hard for me accept it. Or may be I didn't catch the whole idea and missed the point.
Anatoly, my concern about corrosion in the armor plates was not for the plates itself but for the welding. A corroded welding seam is weak and prone to crack. The welding is submited to stresses that promote corrosion and cracks and this is a no-no condition in steel pipe constructions, for example. Welding should be protected from corrosion as much as possible.
I think Anatoly was talking about the thicker plate on the bow of the Bismarck. The 6 mm in difference too thick to be a welding ? A plate of 20 mm thick needs a larger welding seam to be a fully penetrated one, I would say about 25 to 30 mm wide if we consider the chanfrein of 40� in both plates to be welded.
Anyway, in conclusion I would say that the MES on Bismarck would be installed in the lower end of the armor as you said, but was it all the way around as in Prinz Eugen or only all along the hull sides. How much was the protrusion of the armor plate regarding to the hull plating? 50 mm ? this would give a good protection for the cable and easy to be fixed. Would you agree ?
Please update your models and keep posting pictures. My model is so inacurate because of the lack of original information and incomplete that it does not deserve to be posted as yours.
Kind regards.
Rafael
Yes indeed. It is an interesting subject, everyday I learn more about Bismarck. On the other hand, I think I was misunderstood. The MES cable was unknown for me until Anatoly mentionned. The only point I was not in agreement with you guys, is about the picture of the wreck. The line that Anatoly says is the MES is too low to be that cable. Anatoly's last picture of the Bismarck in the drydock show a clear line that I am ready to accept that it is the MES, but this line is not the same as the one shown in the wreck picture. Look at the close position of the V-strut regarding to that line. The bottom edge of the rear 80 mm armor is higher.
Bernd, I read somewhere that the armor plates were backed up by teak wood, being screwed up to it and then welded together, for me it was reasonable, otherwise you would have tons of thick and hard armor screwed to a chewing gum-like teak wood. Having a key between the main armor and citadel armor would not be enough to keep the armor plates tight because, what happend with the sides and bottom edge of the armor plates ? they would relay in the Panzerboltzen. For them it would be no problem but the weakest link would be the teak wood. The self breaking screws is a practical mean to secure the plates leaving the external surface of the armor plate smooth, almost no trace of the screw once grinding them up. We use very often this type of bolts in the construction of hydraulic turbines... Probably you mean that the armor was not welded to the hull plating. If they have protected the wood with special black resin and at the same time the back of the armor plate was also protected from corrosion and the armor plates were welded together, they didn't need to weld the armor to the ship's hull. In this case I would agree. Otherwise it would be hard for me accept it. Or may be I didn't catch the whole idea and missed the point.
Anatoly, my concern about corrosion in the armor plates was not for the plates itself but for the welding. A corroded welding seam is weak and prone to crack. The welding is submited to stresses that promote corrosion and cracks and this is a no-no condition in steel pipe constructions, for example. Welding should be protected from corrosion as much as possible.
I think Anatoly was talking about the thicker plate on the bow of the Bismarck. The 6 mm in difference too thick to be a welding ? A plate of 20 mm thick needs a larger welding seam to be a fully penetrated one, I would say about 25 to 30 mm wide if we consider the chanfrein of 40� in both plates to be welded.
Anyway, in conclusion I would say that the MES on Bismarck would be installed in the lower end of the armor as you said, but was it all the way around as in Prinz Eugen or only all along the hull sides. How much was the protrusion of the armor plate regarding to the hull plating? 50 mm ? this would give a good protection for the cable and easy to be fixed. Would you agree ?
Please update your models and keep posting pictures. My model is so inacurate because of the lack of original information and incomplete that it does not deserve to be posted as yours.
Kind regards.
Rafael
-
Mickosh3
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:17 am
- Location: The Peter, Russia
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi, Rafael!
Let me try to answer on some of your question
You wrote: � �.but this line is not the same as the one shown in the wreck picture. Look at the close position of the V-strut regarding to that line. The bottom edge of the rear 80 mm armor is higher�.�
Please, have a look at the place on my model :
My MES-line comes right parallel the keel, above it on 38 mm (7600 on real ) � but it is a lower edge of armor belts. My picture looks like a wreck�s one (the Devil!...) Yes, there are some distortions- unfortunately, I took the Hachette kit as a base � and the kit consist of distortions only�.
You wrote: ��the armor plates were backed up by teak wood, being screwed up to it and then welded together��
I think, in those times there wasn�t a possibility to weld the 80 mm armor. And no need! The hull deforms and �plays� a little bit during the exploitation � from a wave-load, from temperature and so on.. The welded armor belt can crush the hull! Why you are confused by the wood substrate and the hard screws? On my opinion, it is a good solution�
You wrote: � I think Anatoly was talking about the thicker plate on the bow of the Bismarck�
Yes, I meant the thin line on the Gneisenau picture- I named it as a �remains of the MES� . The line is too thick for welding line and for 6mm difference!
You wrote: �but was it all the way around as in Prinz Eugen or only all along the hull sides�
I am sure, that the cable should pass around the whole hull. If somewhere it will be �cutted� by a steel, the steel shorts the magnetic field!
By the way, Rafael, if I take you right, you are planning to make the housing of your model like a drydock? So, you will stand your model on keelblocks (wooden foots) Please, be careful with dockkeels ! The Gally�s drawing has a mistake in the area! It is very easy to prove by measure!..
With best regards,
Anatoly
Let me try to answer on some of your question
You wrote: � �.but this line is not the same as the one shown in the wreck picture. Look at the close position of the V-strut regarding to that line. The bottom edge of the rear 80 mm armor is higher�.�
Please, have a look at the place on my model :
My MES-line comes right parallel the keel, above it on 38 mm (7600 on real ) � but it is a lower edge of armor belts. My picture looks like a wreck�s one (the Devil!...) Yes, there are some distortions- unfortunately, I took the Hachette kit as a base � and the kit consist of distortions only�.
You wrote: ��the armor plates were backed up by teak wood, being screwed up to it and then welded together��
I think, in those times there wasn�t a possibility to weld the 80 mm armor. And no need! The hull deforms and �plays� a little bit during the exploitation � from a wave-load, from temperature and so on.. The welded armor belt can crush the hull! Why you are confused by the wood substrate and the hard screws? On my opinion, it is a good solution�
You wrote: � I think Anatoly was talking about the thicker plate on the bow of the Bismarck�
Yes, I meant the thin line on the Gneisenau picture- I named it as a �remains of the MES� . The line is too thick for welding line and for 6mm difference!
You wrote: �but was it all the way around as in Prinz Eugen or only all along the hull sides�
I am sure, that the cable should pass around the whole hull. If somewhere it will be �cutted� by a steel, the steel shorts the magnetic field!
By the way, Rafael, if I take you right, you are planning to make the housing of your model like a drydock? So, you will stand your model on keelblocks (wooden foots) Please, be careful with dockkeels ! The Gally�s drawing has a mistake in the area! It is very easy to prove by measure!..
With best regards,
Anatoly
-
Rafael
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:34 pm
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Anatoly,
Many thanks for your explanation. Looking closely at your model finally I agree. You said that MES was installed at 38 mm from keel and it is correct 7600 mm in the original. It looks as in the wreck picture, and the position is the important thing not the picture of the wreck.
By the way your riveting representation looks very realistic.
Concerning the armor plate welding, in the book of Ulrich Elfarth and Bodo Herzog called "The Battleship Bismarck" ISBN 0-88740-221-6, page 92 it is written "The foundation of the side armor is a 50 mm blocks of teakwood. To these, the armor plates are mounted (light armor plates) by being screwed onto the wood blocks and welded together. In the belt armor area additional armor plates (darck color)are welded first to the side armor and then to each other." The picture related to that quote shows the wooden blocks with rows of thread holes with steel light armor plates at side.
In the same book in page 89 there is a picture of a welding sample to be tested metallurgically. I quote : " The new armor steels that were used place high demands on the technique of welding. Lasting firmness, especially in the highly stressed parts of the ship requires constant checking. Here a pice of two welded armor plates has been cut out. The welded seam has been opened longitudinally and is now ready for metallurgical testing." So Germans had developped at that time a proper welding procedure to weld hard steel plates. It is amazing how they have done it because, Today, welding special steels requires very sophisticated methodes for welding and for testing.
Concerning the screwing the armor plates to the teakwood, I am not confused but I have not the complete picture either. I have the idea that the screws are intended to support the plates during assembly and the welding do the rest. The wood would absorve part of the energy of the incoming shell and the armor plate would avoid penetration. The load is shared and distributed in the framing and the hull will not crush after impact. I mean not Yamato's shells of course.
Seems to me logical your explanation concerning the MES cable all the way around the hull. In the aforementionned book there are several pictures of the hull showing the MES area, and even it is not clear that the MES cable turns around the stem, there are bright lines that could be the "C" clamps for it. It is a pity that by now I can not scan those pictures and post them.
Regarding the docking keels, yes my intention is to reproduce the hull as much as possible like the original. Being a monster of 5 m long the details are very very important. Since I am not very good with my hands like you or Bernd, I've chose to do the model in the computer first and then cut the pieces by a CNC machine, in this way the accuracy is warranted and the only thing I have to do is weld or glue all the parts together like in a plastic kit ! But it is a hard and long way to go. On the other hand, I have already noticed that the Gally plan is not accurate in that area, but didn't know what frames are really represented. Thanks for clarify the point. Also in the flat bottom those frames does not coincide with the edge of it and needs to be adjusted. I'm working on that very slowly indeed.
Bye
Rafael
Many thanks for your explanation. Looking closely at your model finally I agree. You said that MES was installed at 38 mm from keel and it is correct 7600 mm in the original. It looks as in the wreck picture, and the position is the important thing not the picture of the wreck.
By the way your riveting representation looks very realistic.
Concerning the armor plate welding, in the book of Ulrich Elfarth and Bodo Herzog called "The Battleship Bismarck" ISBN 0-88740-221-6, page 92 it is written "The foundation of the side armor is a 50 mm blocks of teakwood. To these, the armor plates are mounted (light armor plates) by being screwed onto the wood blocks and welded together. In the belt armor area additional armor plates (darck color)are welded first to the side armor and then to each other." The picture related to that quote shows the wooden blocks with rows of thread holes with steel light armor plates at side.
In the same book in page 89 there is a picture of a welding sample to be tested metallurgically. I quote : " The new armor steels that were used place high demands on the technique of welding. Lasting firmness, especially in the highly stressed parts of the ship requires constant checking. Here a pice of two welded armor plates has been cut out. The welded seam has been opened longitudinally and is now ready for metallurgical testing." So Germans had developped at that time a proper welding procedure to weld hard steel plates. It is amazing how they have done it because, Today, welding special steels requires very sophisticated methodes for welding and for testing.
Concerning the screwing the armor plates to the teakwood, I am not confused but I have not the complete picture either. I have the idea that the screws are intended to support the plates during assembly and the welding do the rest. The wood would absorve part of the energy of the incoming shell and the armor plate would avoid penetration. The load is shared and distributed in the framing and the hull will not crush after impact. I mean not Yamato's shells of course.
Seems to me logical your explanation concerning the MES cable all the way around the hull. In the aforementionned book there are several pictures of the hull showing the MES area, and even it is not clear that the MES cable turns around the stem, there are bright lines that could be the "C" clamps for it. It is a pity that by now I can not scan those pictures and post them.
Regarding the docking keels, yes my intention is to reproduce the hull as much as possible like the original. Being a monster of 5 m long the details are very very important. Since I am not very good with my hands like you or Bernd, I've chose to do the model in the computer first and then cut the pieces by a CNC machine, in this way the accuracy is warranted and the only thing I have to do is weld or glue all the parts together like in a plastic kit ! But it is a hard and long way to go. On the other hand, I have already noticed that the Gally plan is not accurate in that area, but didn't know what frames are really represented. Thanks for clarify the point. Also in the flat bottom those frames does not coincide with the edge of it and needs to be adjusted. I'm working on that very slowly indeed.
Bye
Rafael
-
Mickosh3
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:17 am
- Location: The Peter, Russia
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi!
Yes, Rafael, there were some "weldable" sorts of armor (Wh, Wsh, Ww). The stern armour belt was from the Wh steel, and, teoretically, can be welded. The main belt was from the KC steel (very hard to welding) . The "Anatomy of the ship (Bismark)", pp16..18, has no a word about the welding armor belts, also as my Russian books...
Shortly, it is an iterest question . I have to walk in the net and stole the book you mentioned..
With best regards,
Anatoly
Yes, Rafael, there were some "weldable" sorts of armor (Wh, Wsh, Ww). The stern armour belt was from the Wh steel, and, teoretically, can be welded. The main belt was from the KC steel (very hard to welding) . The "Anatomy of the ship (Bismark)", pp16..18, has no a word about the welding armor belts, also as my Russian books...
Shortly, it is an iterest question . I have to walk in the net and stole the book you mentioned..
With best regards,
Anatoly
-
109
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi,
again, armor plating wasn�t welded. The armored shell made of 35mm Wh plating above the stern and bow armor was indeed welded. The main belt and citadell plating wasn�t bolted to the teak but to the hull structure. Each armor plate had no mechanical linkage to its lateral neighbour(s), but had a rebate to its upper or lower neighbour, respectively.
Why not welded?
First, welded joints cannot be released without destruction of the involved parts.
Second, the heat of (i) welding alters the metallurgic properties of the plate (you need a V-shaped joint in a 320 mm plate for welding) and (ii) the vast amounts of the electrode material alters the properties of the armor steel, too. Not to speak about all the problems with cracks, voids and corrosion in such weld seams.
Third, armor plating couldn�t be fixed to the hull that it will withstand a hit from a main battery AP projectile when hit on its rear face. Thus, such a plate will be ripped off the ship. With all armor plates being welded togehter there would be the risk that a plate with failed bolt connections to the hull structure will overload the bolting in its neighbours and thus resulting in a "chain reaction" of loosing even more of the heavy plating.
Bye now!
again, armor plating wasn�t welded. The armored shell made of 35mm Wh plating above the stern and bow armor was indeed welded. The main belt and citadell plating wasn�t bolted to the teak but to the hull structure. Each armor plate had no mechanical linkage to its lateral neighbour(s), but had a rebate to its upper or lower neighbour, respectively.
Why not welded?
First, welded joints cannot be released without destruction of the involved parts.
Second, the heat of (i) welding alters the metallurgic properties of the plate (you need a V-shaped joint in a 320 mm plate for welding) and (ii) the vast amounts of the electrode material alters the properties of the armor steel, too. Not to speak about all the problems with cracks, voids and corrosion in such weld seams.
Third, armor plating couldn�t be fixed to the hull that it will withstand a hit from a main battery AP projectile when hit on its rear face. Thus, such a plate will be ripped off the ship. With all armor plates being welded togehter there would be the risk that a plate with failed bolt connections to the hull structure will overload the bolting in its neighbours and thus resulting in a "chain reaction" of loosing even more of the heavy plating.
Bye now!
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings).
-
Rafael
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:34 pm
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi Bernd and Anatoly,
thanks for your explanations. Again my lack of information leads me to wrong conclusions. Since Bernd has the original drawings and engineering knowledge to talk about that subject properly I am ready to accept that probably I misunderstood Bodo Herzog and Ulrich Elfarth when they talk about about this subject.
If the heavy armor plates (Krupp cementite) were welded and they got damaged, destroying parts that are already damages is not a problem. You always can cut the plate away from the thermal afected zone and welded again. But now I know they were not welded.
The heat of the welding alters the property of the material, it is true, for this reason temperature control and preheating as well as heat treatment after welding are necessary for special alloy steels. As much as I think about welding this huges plates I realised that your are completely right; V-shape chanfers are absolute necessary and the large mount of welding to fill the gap would create a lot of distortion and tension between plates. Cracks and voids could be avoided using proper technics, but they need to be developped for that specific steel and welding position. I think I had in mind what was written in the book I have mentionned before and my wrong interpretation of it, sorry.
So, the armor plates are intended to avoid penetration of incoming shell but the hull structure should withstand the impact. If the plates are bolted to the hull structure why they needed to use self breaking bolts or "Panzerbolzen", why do not use normal bolts from inside of the hull and the thread hole in the plate ? It is not necessary to drill a hole all the way throu the armor. This detail is important for me because I intend to do the same in my model. Could you please clarify Bernd ?
Regards.
Rafael
thanks for your explanations. Again my lack of information leads me to wrong conclusions. Since Bernd has the original drawings and engineering knowledge to talk about that subject properly I am ready to accept that probably I misunderstood Bodo Herzog and Ulrich Elfarth when they talk about about this subject.
If the heavy armor plates (Krupp cementite) were welded and they got damaged, destroying parts that are already damages is not a problem. You always can cut the plate away from the thermal afected zone and welded again. But now I know they were not welded.
The heat of the welding alters the property of the material, it is true, for this reason temperature control and preheating as well as heat treatment after welding are necessary for special alloy steels. As much as I think about welding this huges plates I realised that your are completely right; V-shape chanfers are absolute necessary and the large mount of welding to fill the gap would create a lot of distortion and tension between plates. Cracks and voids could be avoided using proper technics, but they need to be developped for that specific steel and welding position. I think I had in mind what was written in the book I have mentionned before and my wrong interpretation of it, sorry.
So, the armor plates are intended to avoid penetration of incoming shell but the hull structure should withstand the impact. If the plates are bolted to the hull structure why they needed to use self breaking bolts or "Panzerbolzen", why do not use normal bolts from inside of the hull and the thread hole in the plate ? It is not necessary to drill a hole all the way throu the armor. This detail is important for me because I intend to do the same in my model. Could you please clarify Bernd ?
Regards.
Rafael
-
Yevgeniy
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:46 am
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
I appologize in advance if my question was answered before but may I ask how on earth you done such great rivets and so many ?Mickosh3 wrote: Please, have a look at the place on my model :
I understand that you riveted (or plan to rivet) all the hull and have some effective (in terms of time and effort) technique. If you may describe it or give a link if you explained it already somewhere. I do not understand how it may be quickly done except drilling and inserting those rivets but this seems unachievable for me on such a big hull.
Thank you in adnvace.
Sincerely,
Yevgeniy
-
Mickosh3
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:17 am
- Location: The Peter, Russia
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi, everybody!
Yes, Yevgeniy, it was a hard work, but not very match.
For the work I used a epoxy glue with one hour lifetime (the russian name - "????") and a sharpened stick for teeth.
When the glue is mixed, I have to wait for 20..30 minutes , till it become "thick" a little bit. Then the glue is ready for "riveting" for 20..25 minutes.
Of cource, the hull should be clean and marked by a pencil.
Unfortunately, I have no a grawing with rivelting lines but only few photos ; so I selected lines for rivelting as "the more important" (the more responsible- as it called in a description)
There were:
- all waterproof walls between sections;
- the torpedoshoft;
- the upper deck;
- the stern (it was a separate assembled part in real);
- the for-stem;
- the each plate of stern and bow armor belts (not the main armor belt!)
I cann't say what time the work took - there were lots of parralel works around the hull- but I think the "clear time" - 30...50 hours... On my "calculation" I made approx. 15 000 rivelts
With best regards
Anatoly
PS: Yevgeniy, I think, you can read Russian. So, you can walk arounds my accounts on
http://model-bismark.spb.ru/forums/blog.php
(my avatar - a cat)
Yes, Yevgeniy, it was a hard work, but not very match.
For the work I used a epoxy glue with one hour lifetime (the russian name - "????") and a sharpened stick for teeth.
When the glue is mixed, I have to wait for 20..30 minutes , till it become "thick" a little bit. Then the glue is ready for "riveting" for 20..25 minutes.
Of cource, the hull should be clean and marked by a pencil.
Unfortunately, I have no a grawing with rivelting lines but only few photos ; so I selected lines for rivelting as "the more important" (the more responsible- as it called in a description)
There were:
- all waterproof walls between sections;
- the torpedoshoft;
- the upper deck;
- the stern (it was a separate assembled part in real);
- the for-stem;
- the each plate of stern and bow armor belts (not the main armor belt!)
I cann't say what time the work took - there were lots of parralel works around the hull- but I think the "clear time" - 30...50 hours... On my "calculation" I made approx. 15 000 rivelts
With best regards
Anatoly
PS: Yevgeniy, I think, you can read Russian. So, you can walk arounds my accounts on
http://model-bismark.spb.ru/forums/blog.php
(my avatar - a cat)
-
Yevgeniy
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:46 am
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Anatoliy, thank you very much for the technique and expanded explanation - I think I can do it and will definitely give a try - as well as for your link in Russian, yes it is my native language
Will be watching your progress here and in your thread - you attention to details and skills make your project very interesting
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Yevgeniy
Will be watching your progress here and in your thread - you attention to details and skills make your project very interesting
Thank you again.Sincerely,
Yevgeniy
-
Guest
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi, everybody!
Just for a interest:
There are few pictures about my last works with the Bismarck.
Details for the deck's assemble:
The interior surfaces of the hull and the deck were water-protected and painted:
The turrets and crane bases were pre-fixed to the deck by screws and alignmented to the deck profile and to the keel (to horizontal surface):
Also - superstructure's skeletons:
There are some additional works with the hull - a beam above the maih armor belt, the new S transmitters and the Leitblech:
......
So, now I have the exact layout of the upper deck.
It is time for wooden planks on it.
My calculation shows, that the plank's size were 5000 x 170 x 50 mm.
Is it correct?
With best regards,
Anatoly
Just for a interest:
There are few pictures about my last works with the Bismarck.
Details for the deck's assemble:
The interior surfaces of the hull and the deck were water-protected and painted:
The turrets and crane bases were pre-fixed to the deck by screws and alignmented to the deck profile and to the keel (to horizontal surface):
Also - superstructure's skeletons:
There are some additional works with the hull - a beam above the maih armor belt, the new S transmitters and the Leitblech:
......
So, now I have the exact layout of the upper deck.
It is time for wooden planks on it.
My calculation shows, that the plank's size were 5000 x 170 x 50 mm.
Is it correct?
With best regards,
Anatoly
-
109
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Nice work! You should start your own thread - we want to see more of your project!
Bye.
You should start your own thread - we want to see more of your project!Bye.
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings).
-
Dave Wooley
- Posts: 4131
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:18 am
- Location: Liverpool
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
I agree with 109 Please please open a new thread and explain in more detail your technique and methodology in the construction of your Bismarck
-
109
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi,
I spent "some" hours refining the stern and port bilge keel area of my Bismarck. Some minor blemishes are still left but I will switch to the starboard side of the hull this weekend ...
Bye,
Bernd.
I spent "some" hours refining the stern and port bilge keel area of my Bismarck. Some minor blemishes are still left but I will switch to the starboard side of the hull this weekend ...
Bye,
Bernd.
- Attachments
-
-
-
- I declare the Barbeque season 2012 is open! :-)
-
- Yummy ribeye ... :-)
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings).
-
russclark
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:12 pm
- Location: campbell river.b.c canada
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
bernd,good to see bismark moving along,that steak looks very good,i can almost taste it
-
109
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
The steak is gone Russ ... how about a Guiness? 
Just 2 snap shots of today�s work ... fine tuning on the lower hull.
Bye!
Just 2 snap shots of today�s work ... fine tuning on the lower hull.
Bye!
- Attachments
-
-
-
- Well deserved reward ;-)
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings).
-
109
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:56 am
- Contact:
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi,
I made some progress on the cooling water intakes, basically they are alomst finished. Grills and some sheet metal on top of the wedge is still missing. I tried to reconstruct the situation of the waterflow for FORWARD and BACKWARD speed of the ship � at least a very basic reconstruction of the waterflow! The wedge seperating the two openings reaches into the free water flow thus redirecting part of it into the sea box where the cooling water pump delivers it to cool the turbine. A flat opening would cause an under pressure in the sea box against which the pump would have to work.
That�s my reconstruction of it - what�s your opinion, please?
Bye!
CIX.
I made some progress on the cooling water intakes, basically they are alomst finished. Grills and some sheet metal on top of the wedge is still missing. I tried to reconstruct the situation of the waterflow for FORWARD and BACKWARD speed of the ship � at least a very basic reconstruction of the waterflow! The wedge seperating the two openings reaches into the free water flow thus redirecting part of it into the sea box where the cooling water pump delivers it to cool the turbine. A flat opening would cause an under pressure in the sea box against which the pump would have to work.
That�s my reconstruction of it - what�s your opinion, please?
Bye!
CIX.
- Attachments
-
-
-
-
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings).
-
bismarck builder
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:28 am
- Location: alton hampshire uk
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
hi
i would love to see these on the real thing any photos of them on say prinz eugen scharnhorst graf spee or even bismarck him self.
i watch your build with interest and as a blue print for a future bismarck build of my own
great build
cheers
gary
i would love to see these on the real thing any photos of them on say prinz eugen scharnhorst graf spee or even bismarck him self.
i watch your build with interest and as a blue print for a future bismarck build of my own
great build
cheers
gary
a bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office
-
Mickosh3
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:17 am
- Location: The Peter, Russia
Re: Reconstruction of hull, Battleship BISMARCK, 1/100 scale
Hi, Bernd!
I add some lines on your picture:
The separating shields are very effective - but only if the ship goes forvard! The Bismarck had separate turbines for backward moving- and the turbines were not able work too long time - due the cooling problem. It was a reason, why the Bismarck could not escape by the backward moving after it's rudders were damaged...
I add some lines on your picture:
The separating shields are very effective - but only if the ship goes forvard! The Bismarck had separate turbines for backward moving- and the turbines were not able work too long time - due the cooling problem. It was a reason, why the Bismarck could not escape by the backward moving after it's rudders were damaged...