Calling all Scharnhorst and Gneisenau fans!

[mermaid]

" .... Attachment (1) only for registered members visible. "

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

sorry, ... haven't thought about it .... my fault ...

Here it is .....

Question to you : can you see the drawings here in even if NOT registered ?

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

Bye Antonio

[Bill Gormley]

Phenomenal information in this thread. I've got two questions about the Scharnhorst that I'm hoping someone can help me with:

1. I'm starting to do background research to build the Dragon kit and I'd like to pick up a couple print reference books to supplement what I can read online. Any suggestions? Would the Classic Warships and Kagero books be the best place to start? And is the Kagero book generally considered to be an accurate guide?
2. Antonio Bonomi's latest representation of the Scharnhorst in the Baltic camouflage scheme (if that's the right term) triggered a long standing question. Am I correct that it was for identification rather than camouflage purposes?

Thanks for any help.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Gormley,

good selection the Dragon Scharnhorst 1/350 kit, I love this warship.

YES, both the Classic Warships and the Kagero books are very good, but still some things could be covered better, it depends on which version you want to build the Scharnhorst.

You wrote :
"Antonio Bonomi's latest representation of the Scharnhorst in the Baltic camouflage scheme (if that's the right term) triggered a long standing question. Am I correct that it was for identification rather than camouflage purposes? "
YES, you are correct.

Feel free to ask anything you need to know more.

Bye Antonio

[Olaf Held]

YES, you are correct.

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that one...

The term *camouflage* doesn't necessarily mean *hide* ...

But this would fit in a separate thread ...


Happy topic-starting ~ Olaf!

[Bill Gormley]

Olaf: Good point - I should have been more explicit. Based on Antonio's response, it sounds like the Baltic scheme was used as an identification aid. Is there anything that suggests the German navy thought it would help conceal the ship's speed and heading?

Antonio: I've got a lot of background reading to do, but I'll definitely have some questions for you. My plan is to pick up the Classic Warships/Kagero books, then make my way through the posts here and at KBismarck.org, and then relate all of that to the Dragon kit. Would you suggest any other books, blogs or websites? And one general question - would major surgery be required to backdate the Dragon kit to show the Scharnhorst in the Baltic scheme?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello,

you are right Olaf, ..... not only to hide,.... maybe to confuse spotters ..... and/or gets identified better ...

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Gormley,

you wrote :

" Antonio: I've got a lot of background reading to do, but I'll definitely have some questions for you. My plan is to pick up the Classic Warships/Kagero books, then make my way through the posts here and at KBismarck.org, and then relate all of that to the Dragon kit. Would you suggest any other books, blogs or websites? And one general question - would major surgery be required to backdate the Dragon kit to show the Scharnhorst in the Baltic scheme? "

Those 2 books are really well done, you will find them very helpful.

Than there is my friend Philippe Caresse Scharnhorst good book, but it is in France language.

You can find my Scharnhorst drawings here in :

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

http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=450

Of course in order to backdate Scharnhorst from December 1943 to December 1940 a lot of work is required on the Dragon kit, you can take a look at the major differences on my drawings.

But feel free to ask,..we are here to help you .

Bye Antonio

[Olaf Held]

Bill's question regarding the scenario Scharnhorst against Force 1 was moved to HISTORY.

Happy discussing ~ Olaf!

[navydavesof]

Hey, Guys!

I was talking with a friend of mine on Facebook the other day, and we were talking about the mods Gneisenau were scheduled to receive. We know the bow as to be lengthened 10m or so to offset the extra weight of the 15" turrets and to improve seakeeping, and I once heard that the bow's shape was to be a copy of the Tirpitz. Can anyone clear this up?

Thanks so much!

[sirpaul]

Thats about right. I believe the bow was to be 32-33 feet longer and would have an Atlantic bow which would look the same as the Bismarck class. I recently built one of these for someone and will see if i still have some pic's. Note the mast was also moved aft like her sistership and there is add structure behind the stack and a few other small details.

[navydavesof]

Fascinating.

Say that if some one would build one of these, I imagine that they would use a Sharnhorst and replace its bow with a bow from either Bismarck or Tirpitz. I am thinking that the hard part would be to figure out where the best place to cut the Bismarck class bow to add it to the Sharnhorst hull.

So, where should the Bismarck/Tirpitz bow be added to the original Sharnhorst hull to properly depict the Gneisenau's modified bow?

[sirpaul]

I used plastic card and out lined the Bismarcks bow. It's a tad over a half inch add. Plus you just put it on, Then sand it till its flush with the hull. Then i used filler on the top of the add and pressed a treaded piece of pe to the fill while it was drying and it gave a great affect. I used the trumpeter turrets that i had left after building a few Tirpitz's. I also used plastic strips on the b Barrbette for ducts.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

I think those 2 drawings and details can provide you some help making that Gneisenau refit ( proposal ) model.

Enjoy .... Bye Antonio

[Olaf Held]

Your gigantic FuMO27 looks more like a 26 ...

Happy drawing ~ Olaf!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,


... you are right Olaf, ... I am getting older ... it is a FuMO 26 ! .....

... but look how beautiful my " inventions - creativity " on those 2 camouflages made the Gneisenau ...


Bye Antonio

[rtwpsom2]

Antonio, I think I should point out that the Sch and Gn both did have 105mm Sk/C 33's, the one pictured is of the variety used aboard the Bismarck class. Sch's didn't have the high raised guard behind the guns.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Rob,

you are right my friend, I was just pointing out that sulery the refitted Gneisenau was going to have last model of 105 mm guns ....

But according to my personal opinion it was going to end up in this way with all 105, 37, and 20 mm single removed and only 20 mm Vierling and 40 mm bofors used as A/A guns.

Bye Antonio

[navydavesof]

But according to my personal opinion it was going to end up in this way with all 105, 37, and 20 mm single removed and only 20 mm Vierling and 40 mm bofors used as A/A guns.

Bye Antonio

That's fascinating. Would the 40mm Bofors be arranged in quad mounts like the Americans arranged them? Would the Germans have shielded them inside gun tubs like the Americans did as well?

[Cliffy B]

The Germans never installed anything larger than single 40mm Bofors to the best of my knowledge and I want to say their 37mm guns were the same weapons just re-chambered. Both were shielded but I'm not sure if they were in tubs or not. The Germans and most other European countries never put as much emphasis on AA batteries as we did because the air threat was much less when compared to the Pacific. That was one area the Brits had to really beef up when they sent a bunch of their ships to the Pacific near the end of the war. If the tables had ever turned and we started flooding the Atlantic with fleet carriers and large clashes had occurred the Germans would have found themselves with the short end of the stick in the AA department.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4c ... 2_pics.htm

2nd to last photo shows a single 40mm on the Prinz Eugen. I'm not sure if its sitting in a tub or if that's just the bulwark.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-69_mk42.htm

Here's their 37mm Bofors, notice the resemblance. They had a twin mount version of these as well as a single.