Calling all Kriegsmarine Schnell-Boot fans

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:22 pm

was "S-100 splotch camoflauge" -Tracy

I read somewhere one camo pattern has been confirmed. A splotch pattern. Do we know what colors and configuration and where used?

Appreciate help. This is for an amigo. I am mired in my own stuff.

Filipe Ramires · Post by **Filipe Ramires** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:49 pm

Try to take a look at this site, Felix:

http://www.prinzeugen.com/colors.htm

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:20 pm

Yep. No answer there. Only states there was one pattern.

coaster · Post by **coaster** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:34 pm

As I understand it, the late boats - like the Revell kit were never known to be splotched. The Kriegsmarine knew as did the RN that the best night camo is pale grey/white. I'd like to be wrong because an S-Boot in 'seeweis is pretty boring...
Fraser

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:18 am

Apparently Historie & Collections book on S-boats identifies one boat with splotch camoflauge operating in the channel in 1944. Artists rendering is included. Does appears like the one from MK magazine. H&C is a reputable organizaton so I guess it is ok to use them as a source.

Any views?

PTConsultingNHR · Post by **PTConsultingNHR** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:03 am

Felix,

Hi. Mr. Krakow and I never found any hard evidence that any S-100 ever wore a blotched scheme. We believe that the data used by other authors on the topic was gleamed from a Russian/Polish publication and that the data is questionable at the very least.

What people think they see is a Kalotte bridged S-boot with a blotched scheme and it could be a S-38b Type of boat as they were often camouflaged in such a manner.

Garth

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:25 am

Thanks.

I suppose a S38 type with Kalotte is a considerably different boat than the S-100?

PTConsultingNHR · Post by **PTConsultingNHR** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:17 am

Check Dave's site Felix - the Kalotte bridge was fitted over the old style bridge of the S-38 Type .............. understand?

Garth

Edward Pinniger · Post by **Edward Pinniger** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:57 am

I'm building the Revell S-100 kit at the minute, and it seems to me like it would be a fairly straightforward process to convert it to an earlier type such as the S-38, by leaving off the part for the Kalotte armoured bridge cover and scratchbuilding the missing parts of the original bridge structure. Am I correct? If so, has anyone done this yet?

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:57 am

http://www.modellmarine.de/phpwebsite/i ... AGE_id=243

There is what one fellow did.

Talisker · Post by **Talisker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:20 am

@EPinniger

Lutz did a conversion of the S-100 kit to a S-38.
You can read his buildup articles here: Baubericht Schnellboot S-38

PT Dockyard · Post by **PT Dockyard** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:46 pm

There is a photo of a camouflaged S-100 (with the Skullcap bridge) on page 133 of the following book:

Suomen Laivasto Sodassa 1939-1945
by Kalevi Keskinen

It is a history of the Finnish Navy and the S-boat is in the Gulf of Finland. It appears to be a little non standard in armament too as she has one 20mm at the bow and a twin 20mm aft.

That is the only photo I have ever seen. The many camo drawings of this type that are floating around in other books appear unsubstantiated.

Dave G.
The PT Dockyard

PTConsultingNHR · Post by **PTConsultingNHR** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:24 am

Yes, in the Finnish Navy - not the Kriegsmarine. I believe the original poster wanted to do a Kriegsmarine vessel. Am I correct in that assumption?

Garth

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:09 am

It is my brother doing two S-boat kits. One standard Weiss with WEM PE and the other splotch (love that word!) with Eduard's and the canvas dodgers from WEM.(Since they provide alt. in the PE). Does not matter which navy. Considered Spanish Navy as they had German stuff but could not find where a Kalotte type was used there. I noticed the differences between an armored S38B and S-100. A bit too much at this point.

PTConsultingNHR · Post by **PTConsultingNHR** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:44 am

OK. I was just trying to help out Felix............ tell your brother-in-law that he can email me if he needs help on the project ...

Garth

PT Dockyard · Post by **PT Dockyard** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:42 pm

Jeepers, Garth.

The Finns did not use S-boats. It is a picture of a GERMAN boat. The Finns and the Germans were ALLIES.

Before you shoot off a snide comment, do some research. I learned long ago that there is more to learn than what I already know. Simply because one has not seen something does not mean it doesn't exist.

Dave

Felix C · Post by **Felix C** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:28 pm

Ok. Using Historie & Collections & Squadron Book we have one citation where the 6th Flotilla temp. used splotch camo while enroute from Finland to Germany in June 1944. Three of the boats were S114, S132, S135.

So that would mean we have three S100 Types with camo...

But, and maybe a problem, I note from photos in "Bajo las banderas del Kriegsmarine", that S124, 125, 126 were delivered to the Spanish navy but are not fitted with Kalottes. So I am guessing this means not all S100 types have armored bridges.

We do you good folk think about that?

PT Dockyard · Post by **PT Dockyard** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:34 pm

Sounds like one of these three could be the boat in the Finnish book. I can't make out a number on it but it clearly has the skullcap bridge.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:41 pm

Dave?

Where are you coming from? My comment was nothing of what you and as you said others are saying they are. I was just asking a simple and innocent question in order to have confirmation of what was said. THAT IS ALL. And, in fact, after I send this email - I'll sign on MWS and apologize for my comment and will restate for the record that it was not meant to be anything more than inquisitive.

Also Dave, I know that I don't know everything as you just implied to me in an email and I would be the first to admit that I don't and I'll also be the first to admit that I am wrong. Anyone who knows me knows that about me. Dave, here we have a clear case of you being in possession of information that I was not privvy to and until you mentioned it AFTER my posted question - I was not aware of such data.

And, in that light, I will wait for you to show me that photo or to post it somewhere to make any further comment ...

And, additionally Dave and all of you other people, it seems that my answers or questions or comments and my apparent attitude are made a snide slant - well, I am now thinking of not posting anything else - anywhere ... I certainly don't want to be offensive to anyone.

Garth

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:58 pm

Felix,

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all - I do not think that the Kriegsmarine's method of numbering hulls was the same as the USN and RN ... I don't think they were sequential - I seem to recall reading somewhere that some S-38 and S-38b hulls were launched AFTER the S-100 Class started to come out ... so some earlier boats COULD bear numbers like 126 and the like ...

But, don't listen to me, ... I might be wrong ...

Ya know something's that funny? All I was trying to do was be helpful and all that and I just asked a simple and innocent question to clarify something in my own head and I get accused of being snide and coming off like I know everything and everyone else is wrong ... that's starting to really grate on me to no end.

I love naval history and I love modeling and I really admire all of you guys' skill level - especially because I can't do what you do and all I want to do is help you guys and all I've been getting lately is criticism ... it really doesn't help my sense of self-worth or my self-confidence.

Garth

Garth