Calling all Bismarck and Tirpitz fans

[Admhawk]

Jim, I'm not sure if this helps, but if I'm translating correctly, these are the movement rates for each gun

38cm
horizontal: 5.4deg/sec
vertical: 6deg/sec

15cm
horizontal: 9deg/sec
vertical: 8deg/sec

10.5cm (some contradictory info from two different sources)
Die deutsche Kriegsmarine: Vor 50 Jahren: Schlachtschiff Bismarck : eine technikgeschichtliche Dokumentation / Siegfried Breyer ; Gerhard Koop ISBN 3790903973, German text
horizontal: 8deg/sec electric, 1.5deg/sec by hand
vertical: 1.33deg/sec

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_4 ... mountnote9
Forward mountings (4): Dop. L. C/31d
Aft mountings (4): Dop. L. C/37
The mountings were trained via electrically driven hydraulic gear while the elevation and cross-leveling gear were all electric
The mixing of Dop. L. C/31 and Dop. L. C/37 mountings on Bismarck may partially account for her poor showing against British aircraft during her only operational sortie. These mounts had different training and elevating characteristics that were apparently not accounted for in her AA fire control systems.

3.7cm
horizontal: 3deg/sec by hand
vertical: 4deg/sec by hand

[DougC]

The pilot's comment was that the flak was "accurate" except that there was too much lead. This indicates that the problem was with the predictor.

I don't remember off hand which of the many books I have read about the event that mentioned this.

[just some dude]

The pilot's comment was that the flak was "accurate" except that there was too much lead. This indicates that the problem was with the predictor.

I don't remember off hand which of the many books I have read about the event that mentioned this.

To me, this asks more questions than it answers.

How many pilots had this opinion?
Did the pilots from Ark Royal and Victorious have the same opinion?
If not, then was there something unique about 1 of the attacks, but not the other?
Might this reflect human error vs a hardware error?

Whenever an opinion is transformed into the gospel truth, I wonder if in fact it really is the truth, especially given how many myths there have been regarding the Bismarck.

[bigjimslade]

The pilot's comment was that the flak was "accurate" except that there was too much lead. This indicates that the problem was with the predictor.

...

Whenever an opinion is transformed into the gospel truth, I wonder if in fact it really is the truth, especially given how many myths there have been regarding the Bismarck.

You can see why this has puzzled me. The "moves too slow" explanation made no sense to me. Yet it is repeated constantly. A fire control computer problem makes sense. The U.S. discovered major problems in their fire control computers when testing with drones before the war.

[MartinJQuinn]

This is on navweaps.com, regarding the 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 (emphasis added):

This weapon was used primarily as AAA on cruisers and capital ships, although it could be used against surface targets. A reasonably good weapon, but the training and elevation rates of their mountings were rather slow. Replaced the older 8.8 cm (3.5") SK C/31 on newer ships.

It also has this in the notes:

The mixing of Dop. L. C/31 and Dop. L. C/37 mountings on Bismarck may partially account for her poor showing against British aircraft during her only operational sortie. These mounts had different training and elevating characteristics that were apparently not accounted for in her AA fire control systems.

[Iceman 29]

Is there finally a definitive general agreement about Bismarck camouflage scheme during The Battle of the Denmark Strait and used colors?

There is a lot of contradicting information to be found across the web, confusing variations of used shades of dark and light gray on finished models, was waterline black or black-gray, what is correct shade of hull red, Swastikas over-painted or not, false painted waves, turret tops color etc ... so, please, help.

There are plenty of photos available on the internet searches that show the false bow wave still present when the ship was photographed leaving Norway. It stands to reason that it would not have been over painted during a high speed sea run to enter the Atlantic. The swastikas are present on the wreck. I am pretty sure I read that they were covered over with canvas.

As for the tarpaulin on the bow to hide the cross, I don't really believe it: on the deck at bow level, a tarpaulin doesn't hold for an hour at sea, wind, ship's speed, waves, in the North Sea...

Probably the area has been repainted in grey in a hurry to make it hold up a bit.

Excerpt from the Bismarck's logbook of 22 May 1941 at 13:07:



The system of aerial identification tarpaulins stretched, here yellow, over the turrets of the Prinz Eugen, photo taken on 18 May 1941 in Gotenhaven. The Bismarck used the same system.



Interesting aerial photos because you can see the top of the deck:

[rvuorenr]

A screenshot from the movie taken onboard Prinz Eugen, where they cover the swastika with tarpaulin. Just to prove, it was possible, but of course no proof that this was done in Bismarck too. Also not fully sure when this happened, but looks like on their way to Norway.

[DougC]

Of all the books that I've read on the subject, there was only one pilot that was quoted. The author did not give a cite so I don't know if it was from a after action report or from an interview with a surviving pilot after the war or from the pilot's private papers.

[Yancey101]

Hey guys, I have seen these dots on the scuttle covers and the vent covers maybe a thousand times but have just now noticed them. They are not present on all covers but most. Does anyone know what these were for and just for giggles what color!?

[chazi]

The marked covers had to be closed during the battle.

[Yancey101]

Thanks so much. That makes sense.

[Doolish]

I apologies that this is a question that has probably come up many many times but I cannot get the search to give me a sensible answer.
I am starting a Trumpeter 1/200 Bismarck and have got the paints they suggest and they are awful. I have found suggestions for Tamiya XF53 for hull and xf19 for superstructure but think the dark grey is too brown! Other suggestions are XF66 for the hull but that is, in my opinion, too dark.
I know there are comments about colourcoats but I really cannot get on with spraying enamel would much prefer a lacquer but Mr Color C13, as suggested, for both is just wrong.
Not being able to get to a model shop and browse the various paints also makes life difficult.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[pascalemod]

I apologies that this is a question that has probably come up many many times but I cannot get the search to give me a sensible answer.
I am starting a Trumpeter 1/200 Bismarck and have got the paints they suggest and they are awful. I have found suggestions for Tamiya XF53 for hull and xf19 for superstructure but think the dark grey is too brown! Other suggestions are XF66 for the hull but that is, in my opinion, too dark.
I know there are comments about colourcoats but I really cannot get on with spraying enamel would much prefer a lacquer but Mr Color C13, as suggested, for both is just wrong.
Not being able to get to a model shop and browse the various paints also makes life difficult.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

XF53 is "too brown"? May be you have some issue with the paint but by no means it is any shade of brown. XF24 is usually advised for the dark grey. XF19 for superstructures. I dont know what trumpeter tells you for 1/200 of course.

I painted my Bismark in XF19+XF2 (50:50) and the hull was XF19+XF24 (like 4:1 ratio). You can also do XF53 (it is not brown!) and see what that gives you, buy a new jar and see if you just got bad batch. In my experience the lighter the better. In your scale Xf53 lightened up might work of course. You really have to experiment but first find a model that to you looks right visually, then try to replicate the paint. I think out of the jar it is hard to find from Tamiya anything that works well. XF66, XF82 are similar bluish greys that would work, XF24 is dark grey that works for the darker parts, but might still be too dark (IMHO).

Here is my Bismarck in 1/700 with custom mix tamiya paints.

[Cag]

Hi All,

Just a post to remember those lost from Bismarck on the 80th anniversary of the sinking, together with all the fallen from Rhein�bung on ships Hood, Prince of Wales, Sheffield, Mashona and those FAA pilots also lost.

Best wishes
Cag.

[ArthurN]

Agreed. 80 years ago today. Those sailors and airmen truly experienced hell on earth. They will never be forgotten

[Dan Banks]

As most know who have bought the 1/350 or 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck models, the lower bow section is a separate piece, made of two halves glued together and the glued to the lower bow cutout section. The original explanation for this was that the bulbous bow had to be done as a separate piece because of the way the hull section had to be removed from the mould. With the release of their new Scharnhorst, this is either not the case or there is another reason, as the SH is mounded complete in one hull section. If anyone has seen the new 1/350 or 1/200 Tirpitz due for release this year, I think that cut out section might include the sonic device, that looked like a groove in the lower bulbous bow?

[pascalemod]

As most know who have bought the 1/350 or 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck models, the lower bow section is a separate piece, made of two halves glued together and the glued to the lower bow cutout section. The original explanation for this was that the bulbous bow had to be done as a separate piece because of the way the hull section had to be removed from the mould. With the release of their new Scharnhorst, this is either not the case or there is another reason, as the SH is mounded complete in one hull section. If anyone has seen the new 1/350 or 1/200 Tirpitz due for release this year, I think that cut out section might include the sonic device, that looked like a groove in the lower bulbous bow?

AFAIK Scharnhorst bow caused some people to criticize it actually, so perhaps you're looking at this from another angle and the original explanation was valid after all. Rear section of SH is also off, albeit as some said it is pretty damn good for Trumpeter.

[Dan Banks]

Either I wasn�t making myself clear, or your response pertains to other issues. The problem with the bow and stern have nothing to do with what I was talking about. The lower portion of the bow, referred to as a bulbous bow, is cut out in both Trumpeter Bismarck kits, it is not cut out on the 1/200 Scharnhorst. My question is why, if anyone has seen the new TR Tirpitz, in either 1/350 or 1/200, and that separate piece has the groove for the sound equipment, that will answer my question

[Timmy C]

Dan, doesn't look like the 1/350 Trumpy Tirpitz will be released until at least July for North America, and September for Japan (where Hobby Search should be scanning and posting the instructions to confirm your suspicion). For what it's worth, the bow halves are on the same sprue as the nameplate, so that's one argument in favour of the bow halves being ship-specific.

[Dan Banks]

Good to hear, thanks