The Ship Model Forum

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.

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

Miguel, I have that top 1 & book 7 of Deutschland\Lutzow.

maxim, if you where redoing the real ship, how would you do it? how long did it take to do the upgrades?

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

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

maxim, do you know how long the refit lasted?

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, Lützow 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 (vergrößerter Spantenausfall). See e.g. Wikipedia:

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 Lützow 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, Blücher, 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: Lützow only got a modified stem, Admiral Scheer got a Atlantikbug, and Admiral Graf Spee was never modified.

_________________

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

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

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 Lützow are clearly different.

_________________

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 .

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

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 Lützow 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 Lützow 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 Lützow, which also kept the anchors at the original positions. I have not yet found frames of the original fit and Admiral Scheer after conversion.

_________________

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

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

The drawing in German Naval Camouflage Volume One was scaled to have exactly the same beam. The difference in width of the deck is only in the area which was modified to increase the flare.

How do you think there could be more curved sides, if the deck is not wider? That would require that the hull was narrowed at the waterline - which is extremely unlikely, especially over such an length. That would be an very extensive conversion.

/edit: the drawing I took from German Naval Camouflage Volume One shows Admiral Scheer in 1935 and after the conversion in 1940. It is the same ship. The width midships is identical.

_________________

It is fair enough,just show me some data or pictures about the conversion in broadening the deck in that area and then I will be convinced,for me they just thinned the stem an then the slope of the side of the hull will be more curved and radical, because to increase the deck area on the sides seem to me to much trouble ,will be good to know that on the works from 1939 to 1940 which was the process.

One way to find out in certain level is to check the Heller models of the Scheer ,Lutzow and Graf Spee, they are a serious company and must did some background investigation, will ask a friend of mine who has that models and will post the measurements of the beam size abeam the fwd turret area.

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

The two photos from forward both show that the hull sides of the foreship are curved outward not only at the extreme bow, but much further abaft. As I had written, the conversion did not only cover the stem, but also the sides of the foreship to better deflect the waves - as it was done with other larger Kriegsmarine ships, which also got the Atlantikbug. The photos show that and the drawing reflects that.

If I would have to choose, which reference is more reliable - the Kriegsmarine experts Eric Leon and John Asmussen or a Heller kit from 1974 - I would never even thinking about considering the Heller kit. Heller offers several kits of sailing ships, which never existed. E.g. the sell their Preussen kit as Cap Horn.

_________________

There is a source for plans before and after conversion:
http://sophie-caesar.de/baupl%C3%A4ne/

_________________

Miguel, wouldn't trust the Heller models being correct as their French warship models do not exactly match the French naval plans I have from the hacked French naval site.

Did some job and now is looking better,still some more work to finish it ,the truth Lars is correct ,but still I have my doubts about increasing that much the beam side ,for sure they did it ,to give that proper concave look on the ship's side. The Trumpeter Spee's hull is a fine for it's application ,but for the Scheer conversion is not the best choice ,anyway ,I am not scratch building the hull and will live with the inaccuracies , but I fairly did a good job,at least is not the Spee hull at all.

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it

thin down the front of the bow from below the deck to above the bow foot like in the picture above that says "super thin" & an arrow in red. I do that with mine.

Thanks for the advice ,but bit risky ,I think I'll pass, not much material left in the middle and will break and show the inside,,please post a photo of your Scheer"s bow DavidP

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it