The Ship Model Forum

I was reading through Gary Staff's "German Battleships 1914–18 (2)" last night and one of the photos was captioned that the rear funnel on High Seas units were painted red during fleet actions as a recognition device. The black and white photo certainly showed a very dark color on the funnel. It further mentioned that the funnel would be painted grey on the return voyage.

This is the first I've ever heard of this and I can't recall seeing any other photos where the rear funnel was such a dark shade.

Can anyone please elaborate on this. Thanks.

Paul

_________________
"There's something wrong with our bloody ships today" - Admiral Beatty

Yes, the story is certainly true. And since it was considered a military secret, there aren't many pictures around showing it: the red paint was put on after the ship went to sea, and grey was applied back when returning to harbour. And as there weren't many photographers allowed on the ships (no handy's or mobiles back then!) this feature remained an enigma for decades.

Also, the photographic film back then was often 'monochromatic', meaning that one of the primary colours, mostly the red, was over-exposing and creating a very dark image. So you really can't estimate the darkness of the red from a black-and-white picture. The best guide are the equally rare paintings from naval artists of the period, Claus Bergen being the most famous. But a quick google search now didn't bring clear examples to light, sorry.

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor

For those looking for RAL 8013, AK International makes it.

AK731 - Schiffsbodenfarbe III rot 5
or
RC066 - RAL 8013 (jar)

I've read through this thread, and it seems like people are looking for RAL 8013 or a suitable substitute. No idea if the AK International paints came out after those entries since this thread goes back several years.

_________________
On the workbench:
Bandai 1/1000 Gelvades Class Astro Carrier

Recently completed:
Bandai 1/1000 Guipellion Class Astro Carrier
Bandai 1/72
TIE Fighter
Advanced TIE Fighter
TIE Interceptor
A-Wing
B-Wing
X-Wing
Y-Wing

Can someone please indicate the overall height of this kit, from the bottom of the hull to the top of the tallest mast?

Hello, anyone can guide me of how exactly the boat cranes where stored, lowered when not in use/in action. Thanks in advance.

Hello my friends
ICM offers Grosser Kurfurst in 1/700 in a 1915 version with the thin pole mast and torpedo nets.
Wanna ask you guys, ICM offers Grosser Kurfurst with an extra level of bridge that I cant find an evidence in the pictures available. Can anyone point me out if this correct from ICM did the extra level added later before the large cage mast ? Or ICM somehow mess this up ?
The red circle is the extra bridge level in the ICM model, the orange circle is the real ship. You can see the real ship didnt had that extra bridge level. Well at least all the pictures of Grosser Kurfurst early war seems to luck this extra bridge level.






Thanks in advance

Just guessing, but the photo of Grosser Kurfurst still has torpedo nets and booms - maybe an earlier date, and the model with the enclosed bridge was from a later date?

Sorry the ICM model in the picture is without torpedo nets cause it might be a test model but the actual released model has torpedo nets and state that is a 1915 SMS Grosser Kurfurst.

I believe ICM's remdition with the extra bridge is incorrect. Markgraf may have had the upper bridge added around 1917, but I do not believe Grosser Kurfurst ever had it.

Thanks for the answer, I feared that and I have to remove this extra level now without damage to my already finished model...thanks ICM.

Edit:Strange enough ICM's artwork depicts Гроссер Курфюрст with correct bridge shape.

I've already mounted my finished waterline version of the 1/700 ICM Grosser Kurfurst in faux water, but as near as I can tell it's about 7 cm from the flat hull baseplate bottom to the top of the tallest mast. Hope that helps. If you want the dimensions for the full hull build, then someone else will have to chime in.

Dave

If the ICM kit is accurate, then the boat crane booms have to lay on the deck or the middle 12" turret guns can't swing out to either side. That appears to be the case in the photo that Atma posted.

Dave

Yes that's right. The crane boom was laid on the deck during combat or exerises. The small boats where also left in harbour, as the would interfer with the guns.

Greetings Christian

_________________
At work:
1/700 Fujimi IJN Shokaku 1941
1/700 Aoshima IJN Hayasui 1944
1/700 Aoshima IJN Yukikaze 1945
1/700 Rainbowmodel Fuyuzuki 1945
1/700 Combrig SMS Albatross

Hello,

I have the ICM 1/350 Konig #S001 and am searching for a wood deck set for it. The only thing I'm able to find is for the kit #S002 Grosser Kurfurst. I vaguely recall being told that each of the four ICM kits are identical but after reading through this topic I didn't see any definitive answer on this. I'm hoping the Kurfurst deck will fit the Konig and wanted to run the question by you guys before I make the purchase.

This is what I'm looking at:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Hunter-1-350-W ... Swd4tUHpzR

Thanks,

Bill

Hi Bill,

The four ICM kits of the ships of the König (the two dots on the o aren't there for nothing in German!) class are virtually identical, only in the masts there are some differences. So you can use one and the same wooden deck to model each of these ships.

If there were any detail differences between the ships on deck level, the references from these ships are so scarce that you are on your own.

The little wooden deck part 2 in your reference is also one of the errors in the kit: this deck was not planked, but laid with the same dark red 'battleship linoleum' as all the higher decks from the superstructure, up to the searchlight platforms.

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor

Maarten,

Thank you so much for confirming my suspicions! Thank you also for the information on the linoleum deck error.

Cheers,

Bill

I have a question regarding the flag hoisting tradition (if that's the correct term) of Imperial German navy. I'm building a 1/700 SMS König to be displayed at mooring.
In this situation, can I have Naval Jack on the bow, a rank flag on the foremast and a war ensign on the main mast? I saw at least a photo of König with what look like the battle ensign flying on the main mast and a vice admiral flag on the foremast, while the ship appeared to be in or departing from the harbor. In another photo, SMS Markgraf is seen with a Naval Jack on the bow and a war ensign on the main mast.

I'm only familiar with IJN and I think their practice is the ensign on the stern when in port and on the main mast when underway. So I would appreciate some lecture on the practice of of Imperial German navy.

Thank you

Nanond

Hi, placing the flags is similar then to other countrys.
On the Bow was the Gösch, it was fly there only in port and for special events like holidays, emperors birthday or inspectations.
The flag on the fore mast signals which is the commanding officer on board. As the König was a flag ship there was usually an admiral flag from Admiral Paul Behncke there.
He was first Konter Admiral, white Flag, black cross, two black dots. And from November 1916 he was promoted to Vize Admiral, white Flag, black cross, one black dot and this depict the flag for the 1917 König from ICM.
And there was also the Imperial War flag wich was at the stern in harbour and at the mizzen mast.
So you have to decide if you model your König at sea or in port.

Greetings Christian

_________________
At work:
1/700 Fujimi IJN Shokaku 1941
1/700 Aoshima IJN Hayasui 1944
1/700 Aoshima IJN Yukikaze 1945
1/700 Rainbowmodel Fuyuzuki 1945
1/700 Combrig SMS Albatross

Exactly the kind of information I'm looking for. Thank you so much Christian.
Then I'll set her in 1917, in the harbour with Gösch on the bow, Vize Admiral flag on the fore mast signals and Imperial War flag at the stern!

I question the relevance of gadcabs' post to the König class thread, but the Nelson class configuration was primarily a result of careful planning to allow the maximum weight of armour to the magazine areas by arranging all three turrets' magazines next to each other, thus making the best use of the displacement allowed under the Washington Treaty, and avoiding the need to have two separate magazines requiring more armour. In theory, the "A" arcs for the 16" guns extended to about 30⁰ either side of dead astern (20⁰ for "B" turret"), but firing thus would have incurred significant blast damage to the bridge superstructure, so would have been avoided if at all possible.