Calling all Kriegsmarine Deutschland-class (Panzerschiffe) fans

[maxim]

For those building Admiral Scheer after the conversion: I would recommend to do more research on the conversion of the bow - as written above. At least, it would be good to clarify, if really only the extreme bow was modified - or if the modification was more extreme as described in most books. I had bought because of the description a kit designed to depict Admiral Scheer after the conversion (HP Models).

[Miguel]

For those building Admiral Scheer after the conversion: I would recommend to do more research on the conversion of the bow - as written above. At least, it would be good to clarify, if really only the extreme bow was modified - or if the modification was more extreme as described in most books. I had bought because of the description a kit designed to depict Admiral Scheer after the conversion (HP Models).

Thanks Lars for the suggestion ,but I don't see too much trouble on the Bow,I think I have enough material
The first photo is already after the conversion and the second is final fit ,you can see the difference in the position of the anchors.

[maxim]

Yes, but the question is not only them stem and the anchors, but the shape of the forward part of the hull above water including the shape of the deck. Most publications write that hull sides were converted to bend more outward ("gr��erer Spantenausfall" in German). That would also enlarge the deck area. Your first photo indicates exactly that.

[Miguel]

I have already notice that ,will try to depict as the image below ,which the Scheer is the middle one

[Miguel]

, note the boat boom/derrick

Good catch Bill

Since the starboard crane was removed ,they added an starboard derrick

[maxim]

I have already notice that ,will try to depict as the image below ,which the Scheer is the middle one

But they did not had the same length, better scale them to the width.

[Miguel]

I have already notice that ,will try to depict as the image below ,which the Scheer is the middle one

But they did not had the same length, better scale them to the width.

You are right Lars..but the truth ,nobody will notice that ,so I will keep the things simple and make the best in my capacity,even I have a couple of books , I can't find an exact profile of the bow and about your case even I won't trust those guys from HP Models as reference, so man, is just a hobby ,let's enjoy.

[maxim]

I mention the HP Models kit not as a reference, but what I had bought as starting point for future model. My guess is that many people know that Admiral Scheer's conversion was more extensive than L�tzow's - but the question is, if it is visible in case of a model. I also do not know any better drawings than the one already mentioned - and those provide only indications.

[Bill Clarke]

Yes, but the question is not only them stem and the anchors, but the shape of the forward part of the hull above water including the shape of the deck. Most publications write that hull sides were converted to bend more outward ("gr��erer Spantenausfall" in German). That would also enlarge the deck area. Your first photo indicates exactly that.

Well, that blows it for me, I'm not going to be able to do that kind of surgery to the kit, and, widen the bow insert too.

[Miguel]

Yes, but the question is not only them stem and the anchors, but the shape of the forward part of the hull above water including the shape of the deck. Most publications write that hull sides were converted to bend more outward ("gr��erer Spantenausfall" in German). That would also enlarge the deck area. Your first photo indicates exactly that.

Well, that blows it for me, I'm not going to be able to do that kind of surgery to the kit, and, widen the bow insert too.

I am looking at the photo I posted earlier and IMO ,the deck is not wider,is the same profile as the Lutzow,just the stem is very thin ,so the trick here is to sand the excess of material to make the stem much narrower.

[maxim]

What is the evidence that the deck is not wider? It was designed to have more flare. How it cannot be wider? Around the anchor the flare is clearly visible, also visible a long distance behind the anchors.

[Miguel]

What is the evidence that the deck is not wider? It was designed to have more flare. How it cannot be wider? Around the anchor the flare is clearly visible, also visible a long distance behind the anchors.

Unless You have some information ,which I love to see,the horizontal profile in both Lutzow and Scheer AFAIK is the same ,and the Lutzow had the normal anchor flares, I know they are not the best ,but my two polish Monografies of the Class ,show that.

[maxim]

Here are the drawings in German Naval Camouflage, Volume One:



Top 1935, bottom 1940. Both adjusted to the same scale.

I added two lines so that it is easier to see. You can measure yourself. For sure, I am do not know, if these drawings are right.

[Miguel]

Here are the drawings in German Naval Camouflage, Volume One:

Top 1935, bottom 1940. Both adjusted to the same scale.

I added two lines so that it is easier to see. You can measure yourself. For sure, I am do not know, if these drawings are right.

The drawings are wrong
just check the distance from the external part of the turret to the side and are not equal ,it is in a different scale ,so maybe that is misguiding you.

Unless the Scheer was based in a totally different hull ,and I am pretty sure was basically the same as the Lutzow and the Spee, they just modified the bow as the Atlantic bow

[maxim]

Ok, lets us recapitulate the literature:

All the big German ships were designed with a bow with a straight stem and not much flare (outward bending frames forward). All of them except of two, L�tzow and Admiral Graf Spee, got the Atlantikbug (Atlantic bow) to improve their seakeeping and make them less wet forward. Although some of the ships got the Atlantikbug before being completed, several were converted afterwards. These conversion had according to the literature also the feature that the frames were bend more outward (vergr��erter Spantenausfall). See e.g. Wikipedia:

Auch dieses Schiff wurde (wie die Deutschland) im Winter 1939/40 zum Schweren Kreuzer umklassifiziert. Gleichzeitig wurde ein umfangreicher Umbau vorgenommen. Das Vorschiff wurde verl�ngert und bekam einen gr��eren Spantenausfall. Au�erdem wurde der gro�e Gefechtsturm �ber der Br�cke ausgebaut und durch einen schlanken R�hrenmast ersetzt, und damit dem der L�tzow (dem vorherigen Panzerschiff Deutschland) angeglichen.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Scheer

This was part of a conversion, which should have been executed for all three ships of the Deutschland class. The purpose of the conversion was to reduce top-hamper, to improve the seakeeping and to overhaul the diesel (see e.g. Die Panzerschiffe der Kriegsmarine by Siegfried Breyer). Because of the war that conversion was not executed as planed, but it was executed for Admiral Scheer, because her engines required an urgent overhaul (therefore she could not be deployed at the start of the war). During this conversion also the foreship was modified and she got the Atlantikbug. Her sistership L�tzow was not converted to the same extend, e.g. she did not got the Atlantikbug, but only a much more limited modification of the stem. That is visible by two characteristics: the amount of flare (outward bending of the frames; not only of the stem!) and the position of the anchors.

What kind of evidence do we have that the modification was more extensive than just the modification of the stem? Obvious are the anchors. And obviously the frames bend outward as seen at the photo linked by Miguel:


The bow looks very similar to other ships, which got the Atlantikbug, e.g. Admiral Hipper, Bl�cher, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, and Tirpitz.

If the frames bend more outward, the expectation would be that the deck is wider. And that is exactly what we see on the drawings by Eric Leon in German Naval Camouflage Volume One 1939-1941:

(top Admiral Scheer 1935, bottom Admiral Scheer 1940)

Here is the deck wider. Miguel wrote that I scaled the drawings wrong. Ok, but please check the width of the hull midships on both drawings and the dimensions of the forward 28 cm turret. It is the hull, which was modified and this modification was extensive, even though it was executed in a very short time. But that was the execution of a modification, which was planed anyway and which was also done for most other bigger German ships.

By the way: the hull of all three ships of the Deutschland class was different. All had different beam and side armour. And all had a different bow in their last fit: L�tzow only got a modified stem, Admiral Scheer got a Atlantikbug, and Admiral Graf Spee was never modified.

[Miguel]

My dear Lars ,this taking us nowhere , your drawings are wrong and what I checked the vertical profile on Lutzow and Scheer were almost identical in the front part of the ship and the Graf Spee only was shorter by about 2 mts due to the lack of Atlantic bow .
I hope that somebody can en light us ,because your references are not reliable ,neither mine what I can see in the photo I provided ,the flange was more radical ,but the width is the same or maybe just a few centimeter wider,but I think the profile can be accomplish in the plastic model by just removing material from the sides of the bow in the red curve lines

[maxim]

Why are these drawings wrong and the other correct? To simply claim that these are not reliable does not really help. I would consider these more reliable than the ones included in the Monografie Morskie volumes. The drawings in German Naval Camouflage Volume One 1939-1941 fit to descriptions in the literature and to the photo of the bow.

To repeat myself: the literature writes about increased flare, more outward bend frames and that would increase the deck as shown in the drawings in German Naval Camouflage Volume One 1939-1941.

The conversions of Admiral Scheer and L�tzow are clearly different.

[Miguel]

We will not know until some valid proof appears, all I can say is the Scheer was different in the flange profile ,but otherwise the horizontal profile was the same I found another source and as told earlier the Lutzow and Scheer were identical in size and the horizontal profile also matches ,so I have no doubts .

The point is simple for me because I am not scratch building the ship ,just modifying the Trump Spee,so my homework is to give the bow a more radical flange and that's it .

[maxim]

For sure, it is your model and you can claim that you have used the drawings in Monografie Morskie. But please do not claim the drawings in German Naval Camouflage Volume One 1939-1941 are wrong without providing better evidence.

Unfortunately, I have not found any photos showing Admiral Scheer before the conversion and L�tzow after the conversion from the same angle as the one of Admiral Scheer after conversion already posted by Miguel.

Here a comparison 1935 vs. 1941:


It is not optimal, because the photos are not made from the same angle. The frames of the foreship look almost straight before conversion. But they look clearly curved after conversion.

Here another photo of Admiral Scheer showing the clearly outward curved hull sides:


Here as comparison the frames of L�tzow after conversion:



The frames are hardly curved outward, the frames appear to be similar to the original fit. That is indication of the much more limited conversion of L�tzow, which also kept the anchors at the original positions. I have not yet found frames of the original fit and Admiral Scheer after conversion.

[Miguel]

I am totally aware that the hull form is different on Scheer,this great picture confirmed the hull has a more curved side in the front part and a super thin stem
but the area at deck level is pretty much the same ,the problem with the drawings in German Naval Camouflage Volume One is showing a beam increase of around 1 mt each side in the Anton turret region ,the data show that all 3 were similar in beam ,IMO that is to much ,so that is why I am saying the drawings are off, certainly I am not sure ,but does not sound logical to me such increase in beam.

This discussion is good ,now I have to profile better the hull ,but not going to increase the beam ,just to make changes on the hull side