Calling all Bismarck and Tirpitz fans

[kabelodeovo]

My kit will represent the Bismarck in your last days.
This picture is my problem... is the color in the turrets more light?



Picture from: Pancerniki typu Bismarck cz. 3. Bismarck (Encyklopedia Okr?t�w Wojennych 17)

And here my WIP: http://webkits.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/ ... 049323/p/1

[Olaf Held]

No, the whole superstructure was in light grey, apart from some horizontal surfaces (turret tops, roofs of rangefinder hoods, bridge roof etc.) being dark grey. This dark grey was lighter than the dark grey steel decks (and the boot-topping). The hull was a medium grey. The sloped sides of the turrets 'catch' light a bit better, that's why they appear lighter.

You my want to refer to photos taken in Norway. They show the 'colours' a bit better.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

[kabelodeovo]

Tks Olaf!!!!!

[kabelodeovo]

According the book I am reading, on the 27 of May (in the final moments) they tried to launch the Arado, but due the problems in the pneumatic system (damaged by gunfire received) it was not possible. Question: what was the side (port side, starboard side) that they tried it? And what plane (T3 + AK, T3 + DL, T3 + IH, T3 + MJ)?

[Olaf Held]

If I'm not mistaken, the pneumatic system was a single installation, not doubled. This would mean you can't shoot the catapult anyway, no matter if to larboard or to starboard.

Which of the planes? Phew, that's tricky.

Maybe in one of the books the names of the plane crew are mentioned. Maybe, when you have those, you could associate them to a specific plane. I'll keep an eye on it, and ask on another place.

Of course, you could dive to the wreck and try to find out which of the planes is missing ...

Happy asking + Olaf!

[kabelodeovo]

English is not my mother language (eu falo Portugues) and sometimes it's hard to translate what you are thinking in another language, but I will try to be more clear...

My kit will represent the Bismarck in your final moments. Comparing kits on the internet showing the ship in the same moment (19 ~ 27 May 1941), its possible to see the Arado on the catapult portsise, sometimes starboard side, Peter Beisheim shows two on the main deck, etc.
What I wouldnt like is to put, for example, the Arado T3 + AK on the catapult portside and somebody apear and say that this plane was not onboard or somethig like that.

"All cutters and dinghies on the upper deck were removed before Bismark left Norway on 19 of May 1941" (pg 23 of Anatomy of the ship, Jack Brower). So if I put these boats on my kit I will make a mistake, right? This is the kind of info I'm trying to discover regarding the planes.

No, I dont like to dive....

[navydavesof]

Hi, Olaf!

I have a quick question about the H-class. I see they were supposed to be 121 feet at the beam instead of Bismarck's 118 at the waterline, and they were of course to be longer with a second stack, but there are also a lot of iterations of this potential class. To your knowledge which ones were actually considered for construction?

[Olaf Held]

@ kabelodeovo ~ I don't have a problem with your English, mine is not better ...

I've searched around a bit, and so far it is unknown which of the Arados had been considered. Furthermore, the names of the crew are known but they can't be associated with a certain plane. All eight of the crew and all ten of the 'ground crew' were lost.

On board were:
T3+IH, T3+AK, T3+DL and T3+MK

I think all models showing one or two planes on deck do this because of artistic license, and not because of representing a snapshot of history. Maybe you can tell from the combination of the ship's course and the prevailing wind direction, which catapult could have been used. We can only speculate that they took one of the two planes from the big hangar, since they only found one machine in there on the wreck. Maybe the other is burried in mud, wreckage and other clutter inside the hangar - or the one missing is the one they dumped into the sea after they realised the pressure system failure. Anyway, this still doesn't tell you which number the plane carried.

And this in turn means that no-one can say that your model is wrong!

The boats ~ Bismarck carried six boats on the main deck. I can't remember their size, but these were all cutters. Two of them between the forward secondary turrets, one on either side. The other four, two one either side, one smaller inside one larger, between the catapult and the after secondary turret. On photos taken in Norway and thereafter, none of these boats are visible. In fact, photos of the sea-trials do not show the four aft boats, but the two forward ones. The latter were removed shortly before the start of Rhein�bung, if I recall correctly.

@ navydavesof ~ They even began building the first two. This was the 1939 design. Around the start of WWII, the stopped construction and scrapped the material already spent. All the later designs, up to H-44, were, as I understood it, just studies and none of them was really considered for construction. Maybe just in one of AH's weird moments...

Sorry, I don't know much more about it.

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[kabelodeovo]

Olaf, vielen dank f�r ihre geduld mit mir.

[Olaf Held]

Olaf, vielen dank f�r ihre geduld mit mir.

Da nich' f�r!
('No worries' in Flensburg slang)

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[just some dude]

If I had to guess (and this is only a guess), I would think that Bismarck would have tried to launch the aircraft over the starboard side. Here is why.

After the damage to the rudders, Bismarck really only had 2 options as to her course. At slow speeds, she was steering a drunken course generally into the sea, and into the wind. At high speeds, she could turn to port. So, since the ideal launch position for the floatplane would be into the wind, and since Bismarck was generally heading towards the wind at slow speed, Bismarck would only need a 90 degree turn to port in order to launch a floatplane on the starboard side into the wind, but would need a 270 degree turn to port in order to launch a floatplane on the port side into the wind. Therefore, I would tend to think that a launch to starboard would be easier.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part, so I would not be surprised if I was wrong, but my guess is that they tried to launch to starboard.

[kabelodeovo]

Next week will complety 70 years that Bismarck and Hood sank! I leave here my tribute to all who lost their lives in this battle.
R.I.P.

[mopy]

Hey guys! I need advice regarding 1/700 Tirpitz.
What main gun barrels would be better: Aber or Voyager Model?
http://www.luckymodel.com/scale.aspx?it ... E-700-L-14
http://www.luckymodel.com/scale.aspx?it ... 20VNG70002

[Anthony P]

Could someone kindly identify the piece below, which is a part of the 1/350 Revell Bismarck? With my limited knowledge, it does not look like any 20mm or 37mm AA I know of.
(this is a scan from the Eduard turret & armament PE instructions)

TIA,
Anthony

[Olaf Held]

Looks like the two 20mm singles on the Army mounts located aft and either side of the aft armoured command post (beneath the aft rangefinder). If you model them, don't forget to model the two trailers for the Sd.Kfz 52 (or 51?). Those trailers were stored beneath the aft searchlight platforms...

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[Anthony P]

Thank you very much Olaf! However, as usual, an answer leads to more questions: were the army mountings present when the ship arrived to Norway -which is the time frame I am trying to model- ?


Anthony

[Olaf Held]

If I'm not mistaken, the three conical 'feet' per army mount are still visible on the wreck (at least, this is what I have heard or read).

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[Guest]

hi guest -----re- bow
Bismarck and Tirpitz bow were very different.
Bismarck had her bow modified during her construction and was a more curved shape than the Tirpitz.
Tirpitz bow was constructed on the slipway.
as for the Tamiya mould considering the mistakes on the rest of the kit it is likely to be wrong.the revel tirpitz isnt correct either.but the kit overall is better than the tamiya.
i would get the revell tp and with a bit of research, you should be able to make a decent version of her ....good luck happy tp

[Charlestonguy]

Could someone kindly identify the piece below, which is a part of the 1/350 Revell Bismarck? With my limited knowledge, it does not look like any 20mm or 37mm AA I know of.
TIA,
Anthony

I asked about this on an earlier post in here, I think we figured out that the shields should be left off the guns.
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4696&start=280

I have not seen pictures of the trailers yet, would love to see an example if anyone has one.

[amiers]

Looks like the two 20mm singles on the Army mounts located aft and either side of the aft armoured command post (beneath the aft rangefinder). If you model them, don't forget to model the two trailers for the Sd.Kfz 52 (or 51?). Those trailers were stored beneath the aft searchlight platforms...

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

i dont recall ever seeing 20mm with shields on Bismarck.? is there any pictures Olaf?