The Ship Model Forum

PetrolGator wrote:Good God. This build has entered Beast Mode. I have no idea what that means but, it seems right.

Bismarck fever is tearing a swath of destruction across the forum. Careful, it's highly contagious!

yeah the false bow waves.

Ok so i'm putting the superstructure to one side for now and finishing up the painting and weathering for the hull, and then the deck details. There's still a lot to do with her.

I've added the MES along the hull and given the antifouling it's final coat which is just a shade darker. The false bow wave on the port bow has been added with the white remains from the stripes on the boot topping. The dark grey on the bow and stern, which like the stripes on the hull were painted over has yet to be added. I've giving the antifouling it's first stage of weathering. I'll be focusing most of weathering on the hull, above and particularly below the waterline. The above decks will get some shading and oil stains mostly as a sailors most important duty was to clean after all! hahaha

See what you guys think.

Looks great Anton. Would you like to show us all the route of the MES?

May I ask, why is your boot topping so wide??

the boot topping was well... depends on what various information you want to take into account. There are various thoughts on this. from 2m following 1940 regulations, 2.5m which is what the Tirpitz had and- 2.7m in width. The 2.7m width works with photographic evidence from the wreck so this is what i went for. The upper edge of the boot topping is at 10.5m from the keel and the CWL is at 9.5m so you have the option to make you're own minds up

Olaf is the expert in this so can fill you in with more details.

The MES runs the full length of the hull, parallel to the keel at 38mm above from the keel on the model. This is 7.6m on the real ship, hence why its just below my boot topping as my boot topping starts at 7.8m as I went for the 2.7m Boot topping theory.

Perth_shipyard wrote:the boot topping was well... depends on what various information you want to take into account. There are various thoughts on this. from 2m following 1940 regulations, 2.5m which is what the Tirpitz had and- 2.7m in width. The 2.7m width works with photographic evidence from the wreck so this is what i went for. The upper edge of the boot topping is at 10.5m from the keel and the CWL is at 9.5m so you have the option to make you're own minds up

Olaf is the expert in this so can fill you in with more details.

The CWL is at 9.3 m.

Just noticed the photo's haven't reproduced the colour on my model as it really is, damn fluro lights! so here's another pic which is how the hull looks at the moment.

109 wrote:

Perth_shipyard wrote:the boot topping was well... depends on what various information you want to take into account. There are various thoughts on this. from 2m following 1940 regulations, 2.5m which is what the Tirpitz had and- 2.7m in width. The 2.7m width works with photographic evidence from the wreck so this is what i went for. The upper edge of the boot topping is at 10.5m from the keel and the CWL is at 9.5m so you have the option to make you're own minds up

Olaf is the expert in this so can fill you in with more details.

The CWL is at 9.3 m.

sorry but this is something i don't agree with as 9.5m is on the hull lines plan. Yes k-bismarck etc have 9.3 and also 9.33 is in AOTS. This has been discussed and argued.

From an earlier forum topic
"There is photographic evidence that the upper edge of the b/t is at the upper edge of the 10.4m mark of the bow draught marking. Since the lower edge of that number marks 10.4m above keel level (minus shellplating) and since the numbers are 10cm in height, the upper edge of the b/t is at 10.5m (well, maybe 10.522m if you count in the shell plating). This is consistent with the CWL which is (according to my source) at 9.5m above keel level (remember: the b/t should be 1m above CWL, and value X below it"

This I agree with but as mentioned you guys can make up your own minds.

Just eyeballing it compared to Bismarck photos I'd say Perth's boot line is correct. She just had a huge thick black boot top in real life!

I'm gonna do a thinner line on my Bismarck just for appearances though... I think we *might* be carrying things to extremes when we start counting measurements that translate into tenths of a millimeter!

I like accuracy and crazy detail too, but I'd venture to guess that very few of our Trumpy Bismarcks will ever show up in a museum. Is it just me or is the rivet-counting getting to be a bit too much?

It's only "too much" when you stop enjoying it. If the builder likes to be this precise about things and likes it, what's the problem?

Timmy C wrote:It's only "too much" when you stop enjoying it. If the builder likes to be this precise about things and likes it, what's the problem?

I guess I'm not having fun anymore then.

NigelR32 wrote:Are you talking about the white paint here guys??

Yes Nigel.

I fell on the first image too, and the second one doesn't count in as there is still the Baltic camo visible. In my believe it is down to a trick of hull curvature, angle of view and distance.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

EDIT: Quote added so that everyone knows who I'm talking to...

Olaf Held wrote:

NigelR32 wrote:Are you talking about the white paint here guys??

Yes Nigel.

I fell on the first image too, and the second one doesn't count in as there is still the Baltic camo visible. In my believe it is down to a trick of hull curvature, angle of view and distance.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

EDIT: Quote added so that everyone knows who I'm talking to...

I realised later that you can just see the stripes on the hull in the second picture. I'm think I may agree with your conclusion with the rounding off and not do it to the stbd. I have to say the white stubs of what is left of the stripes on the boot topping annoy me now... I might have to paint them over ...

109 wrote:

Perth_shipyard wrote:the boot topping was well... depends on what various information you want to take into account. There are various thoughts on this. from 2m following 1940 regulations, 2.5m which is what the Tirpitz had and- 2.7m in width. The 2.7m width works with photographic evidence from the wreck so this is what i went for. The upper edge of the boot topping is at 10.5m from the keel and the CWL is at 9.5m so you have the option to make you're own minds up

Olaf is the expert in this so can fill you in with more details.

The CWL is at 9.3 m.

I already wrote it in another thread:

The CWL was always 9.5 m. The mean draught at constuction load condition was 9.3 m. Relevant in this context is only the CWL.

My latest shopping trip to the hobby railroad shop may have turned the tide on my decision whether I should or should not do the electrical conduits. I was originally there to pick up my order of 1X3 scale lumber made by Northeastern Scale Lumber Co. to do the wood decking. I also picked up some 1X2 and 1X6. When walking around the shop I noticed their assortment of wires. At that point the decision to do the conduit was made. I purchased them in .006, .008, and .01 to do the different size conduits that I might find.
Not sure if this is a check on my sanity or my insanity.

BTW, Perth, your ship looks great.

"It not a boat, its a yacht"

Yes, 9.5 m is ok!

Took the data from Kaiser's book. Cu.

Have been looking at some photos of Bismarck and noticed this about the box deck vents. Look like the covers were stowed against the superstructue walls when removed. The model has no molding for this and I have not seen anything on the PE sheets for them. One more detail to add to the list.

Plastic Habit wrote:Have been looking at some photos of Bismarck and noticed this about the box deck vents. Look like the covers were stowed against the superstructue walls when removed. The model has no molding for this and I have not seen anything on the PE sheets for them. One more detail to add to the list.

Yes they're the watertight hatches.

further progress on the weathering on the port side of the hull.

Even on a moving ship sediment, salt and stains will accumulate on the waterline. This is what i'm adding on now. The effect is still quite harsh as it's only its first stage.

This is something I've been contemplating Anton.. weathering....

We all know she was sunk only 9 days into her maiden voyage, so certain parts of her won't be weathered at all.

I'm assuming she was not in a dry dock just prior to the voyage, so there will be some weathering to be applied below the waterline. The white and black stripes were painted out just prior to the voyage, so there lies a question... did the crew only paint out the stripes, or did they paint the whole Hull? Were the dark grey patches on bow and stern painted over at the same time?

If the radar was fitted just prior to May '41, wouldn't they be brighter and cleaner than the rest of the superstructure?

It's obvious we can't go to town with weathering like we could on, say, a dreadnought, but we need to do something.

I have looked on the two big websites but haven't found definitive answers?