1:350 Gneisenau, Op Weser�bung Apr 9th 1940

[Guest]

Yes my dear "guest"! I am.
I addition to "German Capital Ship",the Kagero book and "German Naval Camoflage" this seems to be correct and in line with original photo documentation.
I'll give you right in asking about verification of sources as it happens quite often that an error commonly is repeated over and over again i books and publications.

Yes, it is a problem. I spotted some mistakes in the Kagero "Scharnhorst" book, so I was doubtful about their "Gneisenau" book. I spotted a couple of simple mistakes in it, but it seems to have a lot of the details correct. For example the bow anchors should be on "wedges" ( I don't know how else to describe it). This is similar to Prinz Eugen, Admiral Hipper and others. The Kagero book seems to have them lying flat on the deck, like "Scharnhorst" and "Tirpitz" (as completed). Also the bulkhead in front of the 37mm guns under the bridge is a different shape.


I think the "Gneisenau" in "German naval camouflage" is an incomplete alteration of "Scharnhorst" as some of the details are from "Scharnhorst", not "Gneisenau".

Hovever: Take a good look at this welknown, scanned picture showing Gneisenau in Brest 1941, and you can easilly see a planked battery deck (although the deck is painted to conceal the ship from allied bombers.

Stein

Thanks for this, it is an interesting photo. It looks a lot like planking, but I saw another photo of "Scharnhorst" exhibiting a similar pattern on the battery deck, but was told it was the anti-skid pattern creating an artifact. It would be nice to see closer photos of these decks to know for sure.

[Stein Gildberg]

Yes, I agree with you Guest!
When I built my SCHARNHORST, I painted "planking" around barbettes of the 105mm AA- guns.
After having read more about this and studied photos, I have to admit that this probably was incorrect, and that the "planking" in SCHARNHORST probably is steel, welded in a pattern to provide stability/anti-skid for the gun-crew.
This "planking" - pattern has however no similarity with the planked deck you can spot in Gneisenau.

In GNEISENAU, it seems what looks like planking really is planking: They are covering the whole of the deck area (not only around the barbettes), and all of them are laid in the same direction and with a width similar to deck planks.
I therefore believe, that when you see something that looks like a planked deck, it most likely is.

If you or anyone else can provide photo showing something else, I will gladly submit to the evidence!

This is the deck we are talking about (from the Scharnhorst kit). As you can see, the surface is made to look like steel. You can also see the "planking" - welded steel ribs, surrounding the barbettes.
All of this needs to go, and you better remove all details before laying the wooden deck flat onto the surface in one piece all the way back to the rear rangefinder - area.
This cutting is a tedious and time-consuming activity: First - make a paper template, adjust, mark, THINK AGAIN and finally: cut!

Stein

[Stein Gildberg]

Sorry Hallis, I lost your comment:

Yea, I own a bit of Tirpitz. Actually several pieces, including a teak deck plank that I have cut into pieces for modelling use - displays, name plates etc.

Actually nothing special about this. Tirpitz was sunk in shallow water in Northern Norway, and after the war the hull was broken at the spot. Lots of "scrap" is still there and divers are having a great time rescuing bit and pieces even today at a depth of only 12-20 meters.

Armour plates are still in use in Oslo by road construtors. An armour plate of the side armour was sold to Sweeden and has been used in a Firing Range there to catch shells during div tests.
I was in this business myself some years ago. The picture in taken (not by me) at the Range is Sweden as a 155 HE-shell impacts into the Tirpitz armour. Not a scratch as we fired ca 10 such rounds onto it!

[Hallis]

That's absolutely awesome. I might have to see if I can convince you to find me a small piece for my German WWII memoribelia.

[Stein Gildberg]

Superstructure: The more you study photo and drawing, the more you see that SCH and GN were not exactly identical:
I made up the decision to remove/scrape off (almost) all detail on the side of the bulkheads, fill in doors in wrong position etc.

The first picture shows bulkheads at the aft superstructure. The green lines are showing where I later cut and made an opening on both sides in the plastic � there was a �passageway� through the superstructure at this spot.

Second picture, the forward superstructure: As you can see, almost all detail are reshaped by PE (I mainly used bits and pieces from a complete LionRoar Scharnhorst kit as well as leftover PE from a LionRoar Bismarck kit I used when building my Tirpitz).
Everything is different from the SCH: Portholes, ventilation hatches, position of doors etc. Also the deck house (in green circle) has a different shape and needs to be altered (cutting + white styrene).

Last picture, closeup of the 37mm AA platform below the Admirals Bridge: Same here. The area between the gun positions is different, and while SCH has an open area here with posibility to walk from stb to port, the area in GN is separated by bulkheads. Also doors and ventilators below this area are also somewhat different (last picture).

My reference for all this is mainly the Kagero book, but luckily I also have a few good pictures of some of these areas which all confirm that Kagero�s drawing are correct �at least as far as I can �judge�.

[PetrolGator]

Nice PE work. I honestly could not scrape off all of a DML kit's detail without cringing.

[Guest]

Superstructure: The more you study photo and drawing, the more you see that SCH and GN were not exactly identical:
...My reference for all this is mainly the Kagero book, but luckily I also have a few good pictures of some of these areas which all confirm that Kagero�s drawing are correct �at least as far as I can �judge�.

Great work!! I don't know if you know this or are interested, but Gneisenau had mesh covering the large (boiler room?) vents that exit on the aft side of the forward superstructure (at least while she had steel decks). The model has these open.. Not sure if you're interested.

[Guest]

Yes, I agree with you Guest!
When I built my SCHARNHORST, I painted "planking" around barbettes of the 105mm AA- guns.
After having read more about this and studied photos, I have to admit that this probably was incorrect, and that the "planking" in SCHARNHORST probably is steel, welded in a pattern to provide stability/anti-skid for the gun-crew.
This "planking" - pattern has however no similarity with the planked deck you can spot in Gneisenau.

Hi Stein,
just to clarify, I wasn't actually referring to the radial pattern under the 105mm guns. There is a photo of Scharnhorst that has similar stripes running along the deck that look like typical planking. It was taken after the railings around the forward 105mm guns had been chnaged to a solid bulwark. It is in the Classic Warship photo book on Scharnhorst, page 60 or 50 I think and in some other books. There are also a few photos of Gneisenau in this book too in case you don't know.

[Stein Gildberg]

OK Guest!
I cannot find any such paper in the book you are referring to.
There is however a picture in page 65 were it is absolutely clear that there is a steel deck in SCH, and that the surface is the same as in the Dragon set.

Regarding the solid bulwark: The last rework of Scharnhorst happened early 1943. Thereafter the ship was transferred to Norway.
In pictures from March the same year (in Norway) you can clearly see the battery deck with the standard handrails with lattice at the lower part around the platform.
There is another picture at page 65 of this very same handrail that really looks like solid bulwark � and maybe it is? If so, this must have been fitted in Langfjord/Altafjord in Norway mid 1943 or later. This I find not very likely as the Kriegsmarine had very few facilities available for such work in these remote fjords (yes, I know about Huascaran, but repairs carried out at remote anchorages were emergency repairs, not for smaller modifications like bulwarks).
Therefore, my assumption is that what looks like bulwarks is solid canvas attached to the railing.
If you or anyone else has more info on this, I�ll be glad to hear about it!
Gneisenau got such solid bulwarks (as you can spot in some of the wreck photos from Gdynia). These were fitted as part of the never completed job to rebuild the ship with 381mm guns.
SECOND THOUGHT: It may look like solid bullwark actually was in place when SCH arrived in Norway (from different photo), but only around the forward 105mm AA both sides!

Well, enough Scharnhorst. This thread in anyhow about Gneisenau.
In the picture you can see 3 distinct differences between SCH and GN:
- The Admirals bridge: While SCH has 3 side windows of equal size starboard and 2 of equal size to port, GN has the same number of windows, but the forward one on both sides is much smaller than the others.

- The Rangefinder for the heavy AA has got a pointed base while the one in SCH is flattened.
When is first made this pointed base (picture), I overlooked the fact that the base in GN is longer (4,5mm) too! So later I had to rework the base again, cutting it in two to insert the 4,5 mm.
The result is OK I think, although the pointed part of the base should have been a little longer - more pointed.

- The crane is a totally different design from the ones in SCH. This will be dealt with later.

[Stein Gildberg]

Here you can see what the rangefinder base looks like when installed (but not glued). The green arrow points to the point where the lowest, pointed part should have been.

Also, you can see support elements underneath the boats crane on both sides (I cannot find any such thing in any SCH photo).
The bulwark is not solid all around the rear part of the platform (as in SCH), and rear part of the side bulwark is foldable (outwards-down).
Another green ring marks the reworked �deck-house� attached to the superstructure.

The two small rings mark �small boxes�. There are plenty of these around, and I don�t know what they are�.
Does anybody know? They are not to be found in SCH. They might well be loudspeakers, but �standard� loudspeakers similar to the ones in SCH and other Kriegsmarine vessels are also installed in similar positions as can be found in SCH.
Anyhow, there certainly are a sort of devices there � and you can clearly see them in original photos too, so I made such items from white styrene and leftover PE-parts.

[Guest]

Hi Stein,
Yes, Scharnhorst had a solid bulwark around the forward 105 mm guns, it can be seen in photos of her in Brest.

Onto Gneisenau, I thought you might like to see this video if you haven't seen it already. It is of Gneisenau, whatever it says in the title.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mjawZ0arkSQ

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rs5lYDLJsgw

You can see there is a boat cradle just aft of the port aft most 105 mm gun, the deck is metal with antiskid surface, the forward rangefinder hood top is the same as the sides and there is no bulkhead between the conning tower and bulwark as there was on Scharnhorst.

Of course, some of the footage could have been shot at any time before.

[Stein Gildberg]

Interesting films! I think I have seen the first one before. It makes one realize that many years have passed since this was �shot�.
Most of the film is probably from the early years up to winter of 39/40 (air recognition marking on B-turret).

Also, the film clearly is a good example to just how easy it is to be tricked: While most of the footage IS from Gneisenau, suddenly one sequence shows part of the conning tower of a Panzerschiff! (Graf Spee or Admiral Scheer � I did not count the windows).

Regarding the battery deck in the film: Yes, it is steel. No doubt about it. And it is Gneisenau (boat cradle and ventilation tower). And there is no contradiction in this as Gneisenau was built with a steel-surfaced battery-deck.
It is also clear that the deck was planked in Brest 1941. Question is now: when did this happen?
Bonomi in his �A Ships History� show us a steel deck all along, while Asmussen/Leon in their book on camouflage show the steel deck in 1938 and later a planked deck.
Wish someone could provide more photos on this�

You have a lot of knowledge about Gneisenau Guest.
I have already asked a couple of question in the thread, but unfortunately I�ve got no answers yet.
If you have information that I can use to improve my model, I be glad to have it � hopefully before it is finished
Photo documentation on GN is scarce, so if you have anything that is not in any of the ref books or Internet, I would be glad if you would share it with me.

One question I would like to discuss: Did GN have the ships boats forward of the no 1 Starboard and Port 150mm turrets still in place in April 1940?
Both Bonomi and Asmussen/Leon claim that they were, but I cannot spot them or their cradles in any of my photos.

[Guest]

One question I would like to discuss: Did GN have the ships boats forward of the no 1 Starboard and Port 150mm turrets still in place in April 1940?
Both Bonomi and Asmussen/Leon claim that they were, but I cannot spot them or their cradles in any of my photos.

I don't think Gneisenau had these boats there while on active service during wartime. I have only seen one photo that claims it is Gneisenau during Operation Berlin where she has these boats present, but it is clear from her unmodefied top that the photo is pre-war.

Bonomi doesn't include the boats in his rendering

http://kbismarck.com/gneise.gif

Asmussen does, perhaps it was too difficult to change or there are other reasons to include them. Asmussen also misses the skylights on Gneisenau midship and aft. There are some other things from Scharnhorst in Asmussen's Gneisenau...

I don't know if Gneisenau had steel decks in 1940 as the film suggests, it would be good to know when this deck was planked and how much...

[Stein Gildberg]

Command tower and Admirals Bridge:

Originally built as an open bridge, it was closed during winter 39/40.
One difference between GN and SCH already mentioned is the small forward window on both sides in GN, so this I dealt with by cutting correct sized windows in white styrene, glue them and cover the backside with clear plastic. Later I filled the window with "Realistic Water" in order to make the glass look in line with the other (front) windows of the bridge.

All major platforms in GH are different from SCH: Admirals bridge: At this stage (Apr 1940), the bridge-wings were long (cut in half at a later stage - same was done with SCH). Also, the size and the angles that the bridge wing forms with the bridge house are different. The same goes for the rear part of this platform; different angle and size.
The top platform for the artillery observers is also quite different in shape.

So- I had to make quite large modifications / build a new one with styrene. The Kagero Book contains good drawings in 1:350, so it is easy to cut the shapes needed (after checking with photos that the shape is correct, that is). What was a bit tricky was to glue the bulwark to the bottom part - but with good CA-glue and patience anyone can do it! Of course you have to adjust and shape a bit when the glue is cured.
Finally, the small strip all the way around at the top (foldable wind/splash-protecting panels).
A strip this thin can be twisted to shape/angle. Fill the gaps with CA-glue.

The mast is (of cause ) also different� Instead of modifying the plastic part, I built a new one from brass tubing. While the mast is thickest at the bottom and pointed, the brass tubing is not. This is best dealt with using a file: File down for instance a 1mm tube a one end. Open up a larger hole in a 1,3mm tube. Glue together and use the file till the joint is smooth.
File the upper part of the mast as well. Brass is easy meat for a good file!
Do the same with the mast-arms � pointed towards the ends.
Experts often use soldering to fit these parts together � I stick to CA-glue!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Stein,

nice to see you are making this fantastic model, ... I just found it because of my Tirpitz models pics moved here in ...

... if I can be of any help, ... just feel free ... and do not forget that my drawings with Andrea Toller made many years ago, ... just like the ones I made with Abram Joslin soon after, ... were primarily made to show the ship major evolutions and camouflages,... that nobody before had ever researched or published, ... but not surely this level of details you require here.

In this case, the only chance is to have drawings on large scale ( 1/100 ) at the level of Hans Gally for Bismarck and Tirpitz ... or just as you are doing ... relate only to the original photos.

So we are talking Gneisenau on April 1940 during Weserubung here ... I will be checking your progress and feel free to ask ... maybe I can help you ....

If you do not send me to hell ... killing me... I can start correcting something too ... since you posted your model photos .... I am sure you want it as perfect as possible ... being a very good modeler as far as I can see ...

Bye Antonio

[Guest]

Dear Stein,

Antonio Bonomi is an expert and will be able to help you, but maybe I can suggest some things?

I think the Admiral's bridge wing decks were not completely horizontal-they seem to angle upwards at the end. In this period (sorry, I am using an I-pad and can't edit well) This can be seen in the image of damage caused by Renown
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/gneisen ... ubung.html

Also,on the deck below, the forward bulkhead in fron of the 37mm guns is slightly different. If you look at the angled edge, it is much shorter than the horizontal edge that follows it. Scharnhorst was different.

Gneisenau
http://www.bw-hilchenbach.de/body_gneis_12.html

Scharnhorst

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42117802@N06/4838289347/

I don't know if these differences are important to you, but I thought I would let you know.

There are a couple of other things if you are interested..

[Stein Gildberg]

Hello Guest!

Yes, I know Antonio from contacts over this forum and some direct contact as well.

Antonio!

Thanks for your kind words. Please post you comments too! I have already asked a couple of questions, so if you have any knowledge of this, please let me know.

Bridge wings: OK. I knew about the upward angle and decided to skip it. Too difficult to reshape - at least for me. I do not know if you are a modeller yourself Guest, but after all, we are talking 1:350...
See picture.

Bulkhead: I can not see what you mean out of the pictures, but you sure is right! Anyhow: Too late now.

There are problem areas in this model (as well as in all models) that will be very difficult to change: I suspect the forward superstructure to be ca 1mm + too high (model compared to Kagero's drawings), and I sure know that the deck below the funnel (where the rear rangefinders for the AA is positioned) is 1mm + too high (compared to photos). But what can be done about it?
This Dragon Scharnhorst/GN is probably one of the most accurate 1:350 Kriegsmarine models around.
Modelling has got it's limitations, that's a fact of life!

PS: I would be nice to know you name Guest. If you don't want to disclose it on the Forum, you can always send me a personel message you know!

Stein

[Hallis]

That's some fine scratch building. Surprised you even needed a kit to begin with

[Guest]

Hello Guest!

Bridge wings: OK. I knew about the upward angle and decided to skip it. Too difficult to reshape - at least for me. I do not know if you are a modeller yourself Guest, but after all, we are talking 1:350...
..

Yes of course, I don't know what the Kagero book has or what you are using, it was just for your information.

There are problem areas in this model (as well as in all models) that will be very difficult to change: I suspect the forward superstructure to be ca 1mm + too high (model compared to Kagero's drawings), and I sure know that the deck below the funnel (where the rear rangefinders for the AA is positioned) is 1mm + too high (compared to photos). But what can be done about it?
This Dragon Scharnhorst/GN is probably one of the most accurate 1:350 Kriegsmarine models around.
Modelling has got it's limitations, that's a fact of life!

Yes of course; as you say, no model is perfect and life is too short sometimes. For me, the model is secondary; as long as I know the compromises I'm making I'm happy.

PS: I would be nice to know you name Guest. If you don't want to disclose it on the Forum, you can always send me a personel message you know!

Stein

I'm afraid I can't send you a private message, I'm not a member of this forum. I'm just passing through.

On a final note, I think I have some bad news for you, if it matters to you, take a look at the port holes in the bow. The kit is correct for Scharnhorst, but not Gneisenau. It looks to me that when Scharnhorst got ehr new bow, portholes were placed in the areas where the old anchors used to be. In Gneisenau, no portholes were placed in these areas. Therefore, there is one break in the upper row of portholes on the starboard side and 2 breaks in the port side. The trouble is that Shcarnhorst's new postion for the anchors was just above the old ones, whereas Gneisenau's anchors were moved forward. If you look at a photo of Gneisenau with hause pipes (whether straight bow or atlantic bow), you will see a port hole forward of the forward anchor. I believe this is the same porthole that can be seen aft of the anchor on Gneisenau's atlantic bow with cluse. I'd be interested to know Antonio's views about this. Kagero copied Scharnhorst's anchor and porthole pattern, from what I can see

You are doing a great job of the model and it will still look great whatever you decide to do.

[Guest]

On a final note, I think I have some bad news for you, if it matters to you, take a look at the port holes in the bow. The kit is correct for Scharnhorst, but not Gneisenau. It looks to me that when Scharnhorst got ehr new bow, portholes were placed in the areas where the old anchors used to be.

Sorry, I meant to say the area where the aft port side anchor on Scharnhorst had portholes installed. This area did not have them installed on Gneisenau .