The Ship Model Forum

I am attempting to accurately build two Skywave (1989) Z class destroyers. I seek, ideally, port and starboard profile in which I can “see” the number of portholes in each superstructure, placement of ladders, mast, rigging, bridge detail and appropriate colors for 1940 and 1943 era.

Thank ya'll

Gus

You could start by looking at Ingura's treasure trove of Z39 pix:

<link deleted>

Thank you Francis for these wonderful pictures.

Does anyone have accurate references for the size and location of the sonar housing? One drawing I have from Koop/Schmolke shows a sonar room on a Type 36A as being about 27 meters from the prow, and I assume the sonar dome would be directly under that room. Would it be centered on the keel or offset? How big would it be?

_________________
The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve all the worlds problems. Mohandas Ghandi

A few shots of a member of the 1934A sub series, Erich Steinbrinck, in 1:72 scale which I hope you like





Regards

Unicorn

_________________
Pictures of model warships available at http://s554.photobucket.com/albums/jj419/Unicorn1111/?start=all

Task Force 72, home of some of the world's finest 1:72 scale model ships http://www.taskforce72.org

Anyone have good pics or drawings of a depth charge thrower for a Narvik class?

Best I can do for ya, Rob-- damn little info and it appears the KM did not spend much time on ASW vis a vis propelled charges. Most I've seen were roll-offs, with only a few DCTs here and there. Hope it proves useful, nontheless...

Dan

_________________
Danny DON'T "waterline"...!

I'll be. Until this discussion, I didn't think that the Germans used depth charge projectors ... only dropped depth charges off the stern of the fantail and off the sides from the aft areas of the ship. Koop's book only mentions the depth charges used.

These look very close to the USN version of "K-Guns".

Rick, you're not the Lone Ranger here; I never gave it much notice myself, and I've been geeked on KM zerstörers for a long time! Even Campbell in Naval Weapons of World War Two dedicates only a fraction of a page to charges and throwers, but does mention a three-gun mortar that was developed, in addition to the single-gun one illustrated in the previous post.

Dan

_________________
Danny DON'T "waterline"...!

Hello Gentlemans
I am currently working on achieving the Z39 from the Airfix kit in 1 / 600.
I do not know the color used on DKM destroyers during the 1945 period.
Will somebody would indicate the colors to use, if possible Humbrol reference please.
Here are some pictures of work in progress.
Thank for your precious help.








Amitié Rémy

_________________
C est en maquettant que l on devient maquettiste

Marine-Arsenal Deutsche Zerstörer im Einsatz 1939-45

By Sigfried Breyer.

Got the Koop/Schmolke book, and it is good, but need more detailed photos, and particularly plans of Z-31 thru 39. If Kagero wanted to make some serious money they could release one of their excellent 3-D volumes on this subject, hopefully a type that is represented in plastic.

Don't forget that Z-31 and higher (the 1936A (mob) variants) had a taller cap on the first stack than did Z-28 (on which your model is based). That twin mount forward looks pretty good. Converted, or scratch built?

What is the correct width ( height actually ) of the boot topping on the Z-25 and the Z-39 ? The Dragon Z-39 has this as a pretty wide stripe - confirmed by pics of the Z-39 in dry dock in the US, but the Trump. Z-25 shows a pretty narrow stripe. I seem to recall a discussion on this on the SMF but can't find it.

( on edit )
Looking in " Anstriche und Tarnanstriche der Kriegsmarine ", I translate ".75 meters above and .75 meters below the waterline" for destroyers, or 1.5 meters total - is that correct ? I'm assuming that the German abbreviation "K.W.L." stands for "Kriegs Wasser Linie" - perhaps the waterline at full combat load ?

Does anyone have any info on the Trumpter 1/350 Z25 and the Dragon Z39?

What I know is that the Dragon kit is more expensive (and probably better) and comes with etch. I'm wondering is the Trumpeter Z25 any good and is there any etch for it? Also, is the Dragon Z39 that much better its worth paying twice the price for?

thanks
Mike

I've found the reviews on here of both ships so i'll revise my questions.

I would still like to know which is best, they both look good 'in the box' but I notice the Dragon can be full hull/waterline and looks to have the better etch in it. So I would still like to know if anyone has been able to directly compare the 2 and form any opionions on them.

thanks
Mike

It's quite subjective - B.Lampman and William Swan in this thread both says they prefer the Dragon kit.

Naturally, a lot of it has to do with your cost-benefit consideration - the Dragon kit is many times better, but more difficult to build due to the plethora of parts. It's more expensive relative to the Trumpeter kit in most places in Europe compared with North America as well. Dedicated PE for the kits have not been announced yet.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I agree with Timmy that it is subjective. The Dragon has added complexity and detail, and only you can determine if the difference is worth it. Aside from the differences you have noted, the Z-39 was a Type 1936A (mob) as opposed to the Z-25 being a Type 1936A. The most visible difference is that the later ships (mob) had a taller funnel cap on the forward funnel. The Type 1936 was designed with a boat crane on either side of the after end of the bridge, but only one was retained during the war years. Which one was removed depended upon the ship. So the cranes might be on opposite sides on these kits. Which type you want to depict could also influence your choice of kits.

Don't forget that among other considerations, the Dragon kit provides a waterline opition, while the Trumpeter kit does not.
Joe

TBA I'm not concerned about the subject, only that it is a German destroyer, which makes it a bit different from the usual US and IJN models (nothing against them, it just makes a change). Also the number of parts doesn't bother me either, more parts just means more time to build to me, rather than a more difficult kit.

I'm thinking of trying a 1/350 kit instead of my usual 1/700 and I think a destroyer would be a good starting point (space/money etc) compared to a larger ship. What does concern me is that the Dragon kit is twice the price of the Trumpeter kit. So it needs to be at least twice as good and it seems the Trumpeter kit is pretty good to start with. Is the Dragon kit tiwce as good? If anyone has had a chance to build the Trumpeter kit, does it fit together well?

thanks
Mike

Overall? Probably 50-75% better. In details aspects though, such as the small AA and bulkhead details, then I think Dragon's do look 100% better.

Here's a link to some good close-ups of the unpainted completed Dragon kit:
http://www.dragon-models.com/html/1037buildup.htm
(a good place to look is the bridge shot: http://www.dragon-models.com/catalog/dm ... 037_07.jpg)

Pick one object that's on both kits and see whether you think one is 100% better than the other.

Part "3" in the bottom right of this shot of the Trumpeter kit corresponds with the same portside bulkhead of the bridge in the Dragon photo I linked above: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... m/d-04.jpg

The disparity in detailing is quite obvious.

I can't find an unpainted assembled Trumpeter kit, but we do have the review, which you've seen. Note the presence of relief etching on the Dragon PE parts compared to the relatively plain Trumpeter PE. Other places to look include single and dual small-calibre AA guns (the Trumpeter instructions give an accurate representation of the actual parts, since they are CAD).

From a few feet away, yeah, the differences are probably minimal. But any closer, and the discerning eye (and more especially the builder) will start to note the differences.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?