The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:00 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 459 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

Include three, twin 15-inch turrets as an option?
Yes 71%  71%  [ 135 ]
No 29%  29%  [ 56 ]
Total votes : 191
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:33 pm
Posts: 1420
Are there good diagrams of hull plating on Scharnhorst/Gneisenau class? Any full hull distinguishing features one must keep in mind?

_________________
It's never too late for a great childhood!

Follow my work on Instagram at @shipific


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:05 am 
According to Profile Warship No 33, "German Battlecruisers (sic) SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU" written by Fregattenkapitän a. D. Paul Schmalenbach and published April 1973, both ships were welded throughout. So as regards a shell expansion plan, it should not make any difference. If there are any then they are likely to be confined to the positions of booms and screw guards etc and the scuttles.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:33 pm
Posts: 1420
Thank you "Guest", so you are saying no hull plating on the hull to speak of?

What also makes me curious about the hull build:
- Are there any boooms on Scharnhorst in 1943 North Cape? Aft and stern (Stern I guess I mean the screw guards deployed in port, so they are there probably, but forward?). Or did they remove them as time went by?

_________________
It's never too late for a great childhood!

Follow my work on Instagram at @shipific


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:27 pm
Posts: 305
Hi all,

I have a question that no doubt some of you will answer in a second. It's concerning the Atlantic bow on Scharnhorst.

I have recently bought and reviewed the Trumpeter 1/200 Scharnhorst on my YouTube channel and have noticed an issue with the bow/stem. The overall length at deck level is spot on according to my references, however, Trumpeter have moulded a "flat" at the top of the stem, whereas I believe it should be "pointed" forming an acute angle with the deck at its uppermost point?

I have a couple of followers who have commented that they feel the kit could be correct for a certain time frame but I cannot find any info or images to show that the Atlantic bow was itself modified after being fitted in 1939. There is also suggestion that the bulges around the prop shafts were modified at some point after 1939 also?

Can anyone please put me straight on this?

The video is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCPPZSa_hBU

_________________
Regards

Nigel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:05 pm
Posts: 407
Watched your video and you mention that the hull is imprinted with Gneisenau. This may be the cause of the bow issue, as she and Scharnhorst had different bow shapes. I think your fix for Scharnhorst’s bow will work as long as the cutting edge does not end up to blunt and wide. After reshaping, the bow needs to be sanded to a sharp edge, so as not to be too blunt. Don’t know about the prop bulges, the could have been reshaped some after the torpedo hit on her by Acasta during the battle with Glorious


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7504
Location: New Jersey
Those sink marks in the hull are very disappointing. Also surprised there are no intake and discharge vents on the underside of the hull.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:05 pm
Posts: 407
I recall a similar discussion about the intake/outlets on the hull when Dragon came out with their 1/350 kit, and at that time there were no photos or plans showing their shape and locations. So Dragon decided to leave them off. The new 1/200 might be a carry forward from that. Assuming they were the same as Bismarck is logical, but may be wrong. So it doesn’t bother me that they were left off. The new Anatomy of a Ship book shows them, but again, where is the documentation?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:29 am 
Pascalemod,

Re: Your post of 2.31pm Friday 26 Feb.

First sentence: no, I am not. Do you know what a Shell Expansion Plan or Drawing is?

Second part: illustrations in the Reference I quoted (Schmalenbach) indicate that the screw guards would have been in place in late 1943. As these were intended to be a permanent feature in German warships of the period, I would see no reason to remove them just for the sake of one operation: if ever. The same goes for what the Germans termed "Backsperre (n)" (literally "back" or "forecastle spar (s)"). These were fitted abreast "A" turret and were the equivalent of the British guest warp or lower booms; which appear to have been kept permanently fitted in capital ships. The artwork in the Reference indicates that these were still permanent fittings in SCHARNHORST in 1941. Rasmussen J and Leon E (2012): "German Naval Camouflage: Volume 1 1939 - 1941" contains a photograph of the ship at sea taken in 1941, which shows a quarter boom in position on the starboard quarter of the ship. Note, the same photograph appears in "Schmalenbach" and is dated 1943!

Apart from what appears to be some form of semi-circular "strip" of an unknown purpose, fitted for'ard and aft of the belt armour there seem to be no other "appendages" fitted to the above water part of the hull.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:28 am
Posts: 395
Location: alton hampshire uk
guys
bismarcks water intakes must be wrong he only had 3 shafts so 2 s/board and 1 port same as it shows on the scharnhorst plans
cheers
gary r


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:27 pm
Posts: 305
bismarck builder wrote:
guys
bismarcks water intakes must be wrong he only had 3 shafts so 2 s/board and 1 port same as it shows on the scharnhorst plans
cheers
gary r


Sorry.. I don't understand??

Bismarck has 3 shafts

Scharnhorst has 3 shafts

Are you implying that all the plans we have of Bismarck are also wrong??

_________________
Regards

Nigel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:27 pm
Posts: 305
Dan Banks wrote:
Watched your video and you mention that the hull is imprinted with Gneisenau. This may be the cause of the bow issue, as she and Scharnhorst had different bow shapes. I think your fix for Scharnhorst’s bow will work as long as the cutting edge does not end up to blunt and wide. After reshaping, the bow needs to be sanded to a sharp edge, so as not to be too blunt. Don’t know about the prop bulges, the could have been reshaped some after the torpedo hit on her by Acasta during the battle with Glorious


Thank you so very much for putting this to bed for me Dan.

So.. Are we saying that Scharnhorst NEVER had that Bow form and went straight from vertical to Atlantic Bow with "pointed" stem. Your opinion on the bulges also makes perfect sense! Think I'll go with the AOTS book on this one, yeah, it may not be 100% but it'll be closer than it currently is.

I must say, I am very surprised that Trumpeter got this wrong :lol_3: :lol_3:

_________________
Regards

Nigel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:05 pm
Posts: 407
Hey Nigel, Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Tirpitz all had similar bow configurations after they were fitted with Atlantic bows. Their bows had a little bit of flare at the deck level to accommodate the fairleads, and hawse opening for the bow anchor. Gneisenau had no bow anchor and the fair leads were two grooves at the point of the bow. This made the plan view of GN sharper, but made the round down look more like an Iowa, as you’ve stated, from side view. I have Scharnhorst coming, so I havent seen for sure, but I would bet they used the plans for GN, and assumed it would be the same for SN. Looking forward to checking it out


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:27 pm
Posts: 305
Dan Banks wrote:
Hey Nigel, Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Tirpitz all had similar bow configurations after they were fitted with Atlantic bows. Their bows had a little bit of flare at the deck level to accommodate the fairleads, and hawse opening for the bow anchor. Gneisenau had no bow anchor and the fair leads were two grooves at the point of the bow. This made the plan view of GN sharper, but made the round down look more like an Iowa, as you’ve stated, from side view. I have Scharnhorst coming, so I havent seen for sure, but I would bet they used the plans for GN, and assumed it would be the same for SN. Looking forward to checking it out



Good to hear Dan, thank you.

I made a new video tonight and gave you a shout out.

_________________
Regards

Nigel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:28 am
Posts: 395
Location: alton hampshire uk
NigelR32
no mate im saying that scharnhorst bismarck both have 3 shafts but bismarck has the same number of openings both sides bismarck scharnhorst should have 2 major openings starboard and 1 to port
gary r

_________________
a bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 308
As mentioned a while back in an earlier post, my old Tamiya 1/700 Scharnhorst (built to represent the Feb 1942 Channel Dash/Operation Cerberus) has given up the ghost and I'm interested in replacing it with the new Flyhawk kit (using elements of both the 1940 and 1943 kits).

In the earlier post I had asked if anyone had any ideas as to the specific shade of blue used for the turret tops during the Channel Dash. Mr Church noted that since Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had both previously used other vibrant aerial recognition colours, a vibrant blue wouldn't necessarily have been out of the question. That made perfect sense to me. So, I'm thinking of using a slightly muted/dulled Tamiya C-14 for my "turmdecken."

This leads me to the next obvious set of colour questions: do we have any idea what her base hull and superstructure colours would/should have been by February 1942 and do we know the extent of "flecking" (the mottled-looking dark “splotches”) on her superstructure?

1. Hull Colour- I assume she maintained a base colour of Dunkelgrau 51 (with a dark grey "stripe" down each side and numerous vertical streaks (I'm assuming these were due to weathering)?

2. Superstructure Colour- I know both she and her sister had once used Hellgrau 50, but in some photos during/after the Channel Dash the vertical surfaces seem a tad dark to me. I'm not referring to the actual "flecks" but the base colour beneath/behind them. I realise it could be the film and exposure of course.

3. Flecks- These seem to have been dark grey (like the "stripe" on the hull), but there seems to be some confusion as to the extent of the "fleck" usage aboard Scharnhorst. Some colour drawings (such as the one from Squadron's old "Kriegsmarine" publication by Stern) show flecks only in certain places (i.e., http://www.kbismarck.com/scharn.gif or http://www.steelnavy.com/images/OS%20Scharnhorst/Scharn3434SchCol42.JPG , whereas others show the entire superstructure as being covered (i.e.,https://rcwarshipcombat.com/media/camo4.3801/full?d=1477948694). Perhaps the latter ones are more based on observations of Gneisenau though, because from what I've seen in the Cerberus movie films and stills, it seems that Scharnhorst was “less flecked”...something more along the lines of the Squadron drawing or the first two examples above. Of course, maybe I've not seen everything or am using poor quality materials and am completely off-base...thus this post.

I realise I'm probably not making much sense and that pictures speak louder than words (sometimes), so here are some photos:

Attachment:
cerberus-CT2.jpg
cerberus-CT2.jpg [ 81.17 KiB | Viewed 1046 times ]

Above- We can see the forward bridge and conning tower...no flecks. The grey (red question mark) seems a bit too dark (to me) to be Hellgrau 50. If its not Hellgrau 50, then what is it? Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Attachment:
cerberus-CT3.jpg
cerberus-CT3.jpg [ 70.08 KiB | Viewed 1046 times ]

Above- A VERY poor screen cap showing the same area...in this view we see that there are no "flecks" on the front of the bridge. Same question as above (but paraphrased): Is this (red question mark) hellgrau 50 (but in shadow or dark due to film/camera settings) or some other grey?

Attachment:
cerberus-CT4.jpg
cerberus-CT4.jpg [ 101.28 KiB | Viewed 1022 times ]

This is another view of the supposed Cerberus film. In this view we can see that the lower bridge and bridge base are monotone grey whereas the outer bulwarks and bridge tower itself are flecked.

Attachment:
cerberus-CT.jpg
cerberus-CT.jpg [ 81.33 KiB | Viewed 1046 times ]

Above- I think this may also be from Cerberus. In this view we can see some flecks on "Bruno" and the bridge side, but the conning tower is plain. I do see something odd going on (red question marks) at the rear of the conning tower though. Its as though someone painted a darker grey over a lighter grey (or vice versa). The lighter colour (which is what I'd expect for Hellgrau 50) is also similar to that shown outboard. Does anyone have any clue as to what's going on here?

Attachment:
Cerberus-after1.jpg
Cerberus-after1.jpg [ 173.33 KiB | Viewed 1046 times ]

Above- This is supposedly just after the completion of the mission. Its a frame from a film that pans up and right showing some of the crew. We can see a dark (presumably flecked) AAA gun, a light grey side to one of the secondary guns (not sure if its a grey or blue bit though, and then we see flecks on the side/rear bulwarks of the bridge (bruckendeck?) and director. The bridge base (oberes mastdeck?) and actual side bulkheads of the lower bridge (both red question marks) seem monotone...but again, they seem rather dark for Hellgrau (at least to me). Is this simply shadow, poor exposure or is it a darker grey (perhaps instead of flecks, they used a solid colour)?

Attachment:
cerberus-RS.jpg
cerberus-RS.jpg [ 84.22 KiB | Viewed 1046 times ]

Above- ThIs is supposedly during the mission. Its obvious that the vormars, funnel and lower mainmast are flecked. I see flecks on the side of one of the secondary turrets as well. I also see something going on (red question mark) around the lower rear superstructure...if that's not paint then perhaps some sort of netting (though it seems that might be a safety hazard). Thoughts anyone?

Many thanks in advance. I'm definitely out of my comfort zone with this one but I'm hoping someone has something they can share (even if the correct answer truly is "we dont really know." Goodness knows, its that way for certain aspects of Hood, so I can believe it being that way with Scharnhorst as well. Speaking of Hood, if any of you have camo questions related to the old girl, please pop over to the Hood thread and fire away!

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:52 am
Posts: 35
Frank,

I can't provide any precise answers to your last post but I would advise you to get hold of a copy of Leon and Asmussen's
(L and A) "German Naval Camouflage Volume 2 1942 - 1945." Page 43 shows port and starboard side views of the "Cereberus" scheme for SCHARNHORST in colour. Within the constraints of the scale of the images, they give a good idea of the extents and limits of the various areas with and without "flecking."

The paint scheme seen, by the way, appears to be the one applied while the ship was in Brest as a "harbour" camouflage scheme.
With the exception of painting the crowns of the main and secondary armament gun houses what I will call a shade of "cyan" and enhancing the close range AA armament, no other changes appear to have been carried out specially for the "Dash." That said, a more knowledgeable German may know differently.

Concerning the shades/hues of paint employed, "there's the rub" as the Bard of Avon would say. L and A quote a number of German archival sources concerning the matter but it is probably easier to say that they also refer to the work carried out by Short and Snyder in this regard: at least in Volume 1 of their work on the subject. Short and Snyder produced "chips" for the paint used and I believe, a commercial range: Sovereign Hobbies may do the same. I suppose that you could use the illustration in L and A as a guide and mix your own, while remembering the proviso that the published shades shown may differ from the actual.

81542


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 308
81542 wrote:
I can't provide any precise answers to your last post but I would advise you to get hold of a copy of Leon and Asmussen's
(L and A) "German Naval Camouflage Volume 2 1942 - 1945." Page 43 shows port and starboard side views of the "Cereberus" scheme for SCHARNHORST in colour. Within the constraints of the scale of the images, they give a good idea of the extents and limits of the various areas with and without "flecking."


Many thanks 81542!
That appears to be a very nice reference/source.

All the best,

Frank

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 367
Frank,

The best photos I have seen of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's Brest and Operation Cerberus camouflage schemes (apart from the German Naval Camouflage book already mentioned above) are in the Warship Pictorial books number 36 and 39:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/warship-pictorial/wp-36/cw-review.html

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/warship-pictorial/wp-39/wp-review.html

Of course there may be additional German language publications that I am not aware of?

It is a camouflage scheme that interests me also as I intend to model it at some point. It is a dockyard camouflage intended for use while in drydock or moored at a quayside to blend unto the landscape behind. It seems to be very sloppily applied and not applied at all to not normally visible parts of the ship like the inboard sides of the secondary turrets etc. I presume the Kriegsmarine top brass knew this at the time but could not repaint the ships into a camouflage more suitable for at-sea conditions. As to do so would be a surefire indication to local spies and to British Intelligence that a mission was imminent. And the Germans went to great lengths to conceal the true destination and the departure date.

The fourth photo you posted above is sometimes described as being the departure for Operation Cerberus. But that to me seems unlikely. The ships departed Brest around 22:00 on February 11th 1942, at which time of the year it would have been pitch dark in Northern France. And once out into the Channel the ships worked up to 28 knots and would not have been steaming slowly behind a 'Sperrbrecher' as appears to be the case in the photo. I'd guess it was taken beforehand during one of the brief working up sorties off the French coast before Operation Cerberus. The camouflage should be pretty similar though.

All in all it is a far from pretty camouflage scheme, but a very interesting and historical one nonetheless.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:05 pm
Posts: 407
Hello Frank, just wondering how your “fleck” painting was coming. I have tried it before on small models, Neptune’s 1/1250, and Tamiya’s Prinz Eugen. Neither turned out well. Trying to paint with a small tip brush, like dots, didn’t look right. I did get a better result with an airbrush on a 1/350 PE, but I can’t remember exactly how I did it. It would be interesting to know how the Germans actually did it. Most books refer to it as sloppily applied, but what was the process? Few left to tell. Looks kind of like it was applied with a mop?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:46 pm 
Dan,

The scheme was probably applied simply, by German matelots just dabbing or short stroking a loaded two inch (or similar) paint brush onto the lighter or darker surface: rather time consuming. That would work at a scale of 1:1 but it would be difficult to achieve the right effect at small scales. "Scumbling" could be tried but it is likely to be impossible to control the size of the "dots." One might also try an almost dry, short bristled brush "jabbed" on or a fine spray applied from a distance.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 459 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group