Attachment:
56 Bismarck MW_edited-1.jpg [ 149.88 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Attachment:
57 Bismarck MW_edited-1.jpg [ 144.85 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Attachment:
58 bismarck MW.jpg [ 144.29 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Attachment:
59 Bismarck MW.jpg [ 141.87 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Attachment:
60 Bismarck MW.jpg [ 99.06 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Eduard breakwater. Fiddly but excellent!
Attachment:
61 Bismarck MW.jpg [ 114.06 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Note the Veteran Models signal lamp
Attachment:
62 Bismarck MW.jpg [ 111.33 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
Attachment:
63 Bismarck MW.jpg [ 101.73 KiB | Viewed 3738 times ]
What have i learned from this build?
1) The Revell Bismarck, although light years ahead from the Tamiya offering, still has quite a few inaccuracies which are obvious when you do some research. The most glaring is the absence of planking detail in the bow, between the anchor chains (provided as a PE part by Eduard). The walls of the various superstructure levels are also overly simplified.
2) References: The Anatomy book is indispensible, and the Kaiser book is a rather comprehensive photographic reference. I did not like the Classic Warships book, but I guess everything depends on the amount you are prepared to pay for a reference book.
I almost forgot to mention the "Calling All Bismarck Fans" topic on this website. It is a must, and I always look forward to the comments of Olaf Held and Antonio Bonomi in particular, as they always add to my knowledge. Those gentlemen will note that I have indeed attempted to represent the Army 20mm AA and their ammunition boxes!
3) Wooden decks are fine if you build out of the box. If you begin adding accessories and especially if you are making corrections, you might find yourself with unpleasnt surprises, such as un-needed holes that have to be somehow covered. You might also encounter fit problems -at least I did. The KA deck was also noticeably thick, but I have yet to try other brands. I do intend to try a ScaleDecks product in the future, as they are the only company providing un-cut decks for more advanced modelers.
4) The method of building the superstructure in subassemblies has drawbacks. If painting and detailing decks separately, one has to be very careful not to miss any vertical surfaces that are higher than one deck and should appear continuous, or you will be making painful corrections!
5) Veteran Models parts are excellent, but need research when placing them
6) The Orange Models rafts were not a particularly noticeable improvement over the kit parts. PE bottoms. is it worth it?
7) I left the PE sets for last. I will start with the WEM set. Being intended for the Tamiya kit, the majority of the parts are either redundant or unusable on the Revell kit. It does have quite a few lovely fine details, including scuttles, but due to its price its a luxury for the Revell kit. You would be much better off buying the specific Kriegsmarine parts WEM produces, such as doors and scuttles, as they are sold at a much lower price.
I have very mixed feelings about the Eduard set. First of all, I have to confess that I used two sets to complete my build, as I managed to screw up some key parts because of the confusing instructions. It is indeed a very comprehensive set, but has some annoying quirks:the best example is Eduard's insistence of deeper etching of railings at corners. This is supposed to make life easier, but doesn't, as once again if you place them a fraction of a millimeter wrong they don't fit, spoiling the intention, while they are far too delicate and break off if you don't manage to fit them right the first time.. Moreover, I would personally assume that there would have to be a stanchion at the corner... I have never seen the Lionroar set, so I cannot comment. I heard that it has funnel handrails, which should be interesting, even if overcale.
There, I vented! I hope you have enjoyed my journey so far. I intend to take a short break before I start the final lap, but I promise to update this thread whenever I progress.