Still wonder, how the model from Australian museum, made by POW from Emden crew,
which is said to be truly accurate can have such a fade of underwater hull...
In my country (without sea) we dont have many available literature.
Does somebody know who were producing these paints?
As Nobel company was quite active both in Austro-Hungary and Russia before WW1 i guess it was them.
Both navies had same colour. But its just speculation:-) And sorry for offtopic.
There were several big chemical companies in Germany producing paints, e.g. the name of BASF is derived from that. It would be very unlikely that the colours would been imported in a time, when then German chemical industry was one of the leading ones worldwide and the German military bought most equipment from German companies or made them itself. I do not think that Austria and Russia used the colours from the same company.
@ Maarten:
ok, you are proofing that the conversion to Leipzig works! I have also these plans of Danzig. But I will probably not try the conversion of a resin kit, either scratch built her or wait for a kit.
I'm new to forum but been building model ships for 40plus years.i'll never be able to equal the quality of the models I see here but I still enjoy it very much.am currently building SMS Konig from Aoshima but I have SMS Emden and Dresden from Revell to build later.My question that I've not been able to find an answer to is why are the port and starboard 4.1 in guns not included for the hull. The shape is there like forward but not guns or shields. Was these removed and plated over or is the model not correct. Thanks for any info.
WilhelmII wrote:My question that I've not been able to find an answer to is why are the port and starboard 4.1 in guns not included for the hull. The shape is there like forward but not guns or shields. Was these removed and plated over or is the model not correct. Thanks for any info.
I think the answer must be: these side guns emplacements were very rarely shown in the open position, you can hardly find any pictures of those. Revell chose to open the forward set of emplacements but to display the rear ones closed. Probably even the guns were removed entirely at some moment in time.
So watch closely at the pictures you can find, if you see a gun barrel protruding from the plating, then the gun is still there. If there isn't, then it's no use opening up the emplacement shutters.
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell" Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023
I've come across this picture which was taken in a town called Utete in Tanzania. The concrete support was placed near the District Administration offices. Although there appears to have been a nameplate attached to the concrete at one time, there is no indication of i'ts origen today..... the steel door may well originate from the SMS Konigsberg which was destroyed by the Royal Navy while hiding in the delta of the Rufiji river during WW1 (1915).
The 'door' looks a lot like the torpedo hatch discussed in this thread previously.
What do the experts think....can this be a torpedo hatch from the Konigsberg, sistership of the Emden??
Unfortunately the plans of the K�nigsberg class I have do not show the torpedo tubes. The plans of Dresden and Emden, which I have, show different shapes of the lids of the tubes not fitting to the one shown. But I had not even expected the shape to be different for Dresden and Emden...
The propellers supplied with Revell's 1/350 Emden look all wrong. Are they? What was the actual diameter?
Model props are 0.48" diameter. It works out to 14' @ 1:1.
The Revell propeller shafts stick out wide and down, at an odd angle. Historical reference show prop shafts extending directly aft parallel with longitudinal center line.
I have a set of blueprints @ 1/100 drawn back in the 70's. The notes say diameter was 4.3M (14 ft). But in the same drawing print, the diameter is 7.7'.
The truth is that there is no way the Emden swung a 14' prop on shafts extending normally. Propeller blade sweep would have extend below the keel and also sliced into the hull.
Wish Revell would have gotten this right. One of my gripes about the kit.
One of Emdens props is still existent at the wreck site, North Keeling Island. One blade is fully exposed vertically. I have not been able to reach any divers who have been there and can tells the reality.
The attachment IMG_0973 (640x480).jpg is no longer available
The propellers supplied with Revell's 1/350 Emden look all wrong. Are they? What was the actual diameter?
Model props are 0.48" diameter. It works out to 14' @ 1:1.
The Revell propeller shafts stick out wide and down, at an odd angle. Historical reference show prop shafts extending directly aft parallel with longitudinal center line.
I have a set of blueprints @ 1/100 drawn back in the 70's. The notes say diameter was 4.3M (14 ft). But in the same drawing print, the diameter is 7.7'.
The truth is that there is no way the Emden swung a 14' prop on shafts extending normally. Propeller blade sweep would have extend below the keel and also sliced into the hull.
Wish Revell would have gotten this right. One of my gripes about the kit.
One of Emdens props is still existent at the wreck site, North Keeling Island. One blade is fully exposed vertically. I have not been able to reach any divers who have been there and can tells the reality.
According to the most authoritative source (Erich Gr�ner - Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945) encyclopedia, the diameter of Emden's props were indeed 4.3 metres, so 14.1 feet in British measurements. Revell's props are exactly spot on at 12.3mm or 0.48 inch. So that's all quite in order. Also the prop shafts and A-brackets are all right.
Revell made an error though making the prop shaft guides on the hull far too small, this causing the prop shafts only to be mounted at an awkward angle, not at all realistic. In my view these shaft guides should be replaced by Evergreen .100" tubing, and an appropriate sliver of plastic added to make them sit at the right distance. In fact I glued the shafts/brackets ad the Evergreen tubes together first, nicely lined up, and the plastic sliver last. Then it all looks like this (Dresden kit unaltered shown for comparison):
One of Emdens props is still existent at the wreck site, North Keeling Island. One blade is fully exposed vertically. I have not been able to reach any divers who have been there and can tells the reality.
As far as can be guessed from the photos the prop blade stands about a man's length tall, so about 6-7 feet. That's perfect in line with the diameter of 14 feet, as should be expected. No need to find a diver to go down with a tape measure. The problem doesn't lie with the props, but with the hull and shaft guides as described above.
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell" Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023
Thanks. I am 80% convinced you are correct. Not 100% I have the same drawing set you referred to. How do I reconcile the hull profile (here, the top photo, same drawing set) showing a smaller propeller diameter and narrower shaft spacing than would allow 14' propellers? Should I believe the hull profile or the 4.3M note. I served on a Gearing class Can back in the 60's. Twice the horse power, 75% faster, much smaller 4 blade screw diameter. ....so I requested a diver from The Cocos / Keeling dive shop to take measurements next time on the wreck. Then we will know.
IMG_0973 (640x480).jpg (32.28 KiB) Viewed 9190 times
PME wrote:
...
I have a set of blueprints @ 1/100 drawn back in the 70's. The notes say diameter was 4.3M (14 ft). But in the same drawing print, the diameter is 7.7'.
The truth is that there is no way the Emden swung a 14' prop on shafts extending normally. Propeller blade sweep would have extend below the keel and also sliced into the hull....
Hi Phil,
I took a closer look at the drawing you included, and there is really something wrong with it. The prop circle shown is 2.3 metres in diameter (as can be seen from the rectangular grid over the plan), but that is the prop diameter of Emden's half-sister Dresden! How come?
Well, I think I found the answer to that:
This plan I found years ago, with the weapon crest of Emden and all, but with FOUR props of Dresden size.
I see many similarities with your plan, and it seems someone simply erased the two outer props. So then the props and the brackets on your are plan are way too small.
Satisfied? I also include here a clipping from a set of Emden construction plans showing the correct brackets.
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell" Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023
I served on a Gearing class Can back in the 60's. Twice the horse power, 75% faster, much smaller 4 blade screw diameter.
So, you can compare the layout of a Gearing class much better with Dresden than with Emden. But with half the horse power and a much less efficient hull shape. Remember, Dresden was one of the first German cruisers using steam turbines (like the Gearing) whilst Emden still had to rely on reciprocating steam engines.
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell" Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023
Anyone have information regarding dresden conception stage? I founded some on emdem but not on him and I also founded a weird drawing who mention 12 10,5cm gun instead of 10.
thebunkerparodie wrote:Anyone have information regarding dresden conception stage? I founded some on emdem but not on him and I also founded a weird drawing who mention 12 10,5cm gun instead of 10.
Why do you expect different designs for sister ships, which differed only in regard propulsion, because Dresden was used to test turbines? And which were anyway gradual improvements of the earlier classes, which were very similar?
12 guns were used on the next class, the Kolberg class. Perhaps somebody mixed up the Dresden and Kolberg class, because the later had originally a very similar bridge?
