The Ship Model Forum

Yes, but since no one confirmed it I thought it was just hearsay for now.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I have seen the line drawings in the meantime. The aft underwater hull of the Z-39 is wrong.
Should be like the photo below, much rounder and longer. The bilgekeels are about 40 mm to far aft and the transom is at least 2 mm too narrow. if you compare it with the Trumpeter hull (Z-25/Z-43) you will see immediately what i mean. This is how I realized it first (see the second photo)
I have the line drawings, but I cannot post them here for copyright reasons. The source is: Hadeler, "Kriegschiffbau" Vol 1 between P. 16 u 17, Zerstoerer 1936A.
For information, Hadeler was Hadeler was leading designer in the german navy before the war and one of the designers of "Graf Zeppelin and had access to original plans.
There are probably other sources for the line drawings, however, you cannot reconstruct the hullform only from a sideview and some cross-sections alone, as this could lead to misinterpretations like in this case

_________________
"The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage"

Emperor Hirohito in his capitulation speech 1945

in the book z-vor vol 2, harald fock, you can find in the last two pages a good plan (two pages, 40 cm long) of z 34 with hull lines and two drawings (around 25 cm long) with hull lines of paul jacobi and z 28.
ciao peppe

Do they more closely match the Trumpeter hull or the Dragon one?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

the shortest drawings are close to the trumpeter model but the big plan is close to dragon, with the bilgekeel arriving until the propellers but the keel lines are more rounded, like trumpeter
ciao peppe

My point thus being that it is too early to state definitively that either hull is wrong. We have conflicting sources, and while one would appear to be from a good source close to the originals, we have no way of truthfully vetting either short of photos and other documentation.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

To clarify the matter I made a small sketch of the lines of the aft body of a 1936A type destroyer.
You can clearly see, that they have very fine lines in the aft part. Th only harp bend is for the overhang in the waterline, but there is no sharp bend forward of the propellers, which would obstruct the water flow. That the transom is wider than in the model is not really important, you only see it in comparison with another one. The considerable deadrise in the bottom is not existing in the model, too. The bilge keels cannot be seen in this drawing but in every side view there are much more forward (inevitable, as the aft part is too fine for them, they have to be at the widest part of the body)
Btw. "Z-5 Paul Jacobi" is an earlier 1934A type destroyer with a slightly different stern and underwater lines. She e.g.has only one rudder.
I think the offical drawings from the Kriegsmarine on which the sketch is based are reliable. If you look carefully at the crossection peppe has attached a few posts earlier you can see that int he left section is no sharp bend in the sides, which would be present if the model would be right.
I have seen pictures of "Z-29" in a dock as "DD- 939" under American flag, but not the underwater part. Maybe somebody has access to pics of this part during this docking?

_________________
"The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage"

Emperor Hirohito in his capitulation speech 1945

A follow-up question regarding Z-43's paint scheme (as I'm getting ready to paint mine): for 1944, should the hull be dark gray with light gray superstructure, or should it all be light gray? I was under the impression that the two-tone was the official basic paint scheme throughout the war, but the instructions for both this kit and the Dragon Z-39 show monotone.

- Sean F.

Hi all.
I'm really an airplane builder, so my references are limited, but I built the new Z-25 Destroyer in 350 scale from Trumpeter. Now I'm stuck on the rigging (is that what it's called?)
I've looked for pictures of the real thing on the web, looked at builds on various websites, but I just can't get a good view of what the rigging is supposed to look like. If it's not called rigging, I'm talking about the cables that go from mast to mast, mast to deck etc.

Can anyone help me out with diagrams or something?

Look forward to hearing back from someone.

Thanks!

Mike

I recently picked up the Dragon z-39, and it is a great kit. But what would I have to change to convert the z-39 to the z-33?

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea

Late in the war, I've read that t was wasn't uncommon for ships to be all light grey, especially in the Baltic.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Just to recap from my recent post in the main forum, 1-350 Z-38 from Dragon.
http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/p ... id=DRA1049

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea

Another new Z-ship. Great.

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea

Cybermodeler anounced Trumeter's Z-43 in 1/700 for May this year.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/news/trumpeter.shtml

Btw. I am a bit confused regarding zerstorers main artillery.

I have Revell/Matchbox Z-38, Dragon's Z-39 and Trumpeter's Z-25, all in 1/700.
I know that the bow (twin) turret is 150mm, but the starboard (single) turrets are on Dragon's box (Z-39) noted as 127mm, and not 150mm, like I found on many internet locations (dkbismarckclass, for exmple).

Could someone please provide me some links for accurate data about the zerstorers main armament of all german destroyers or at least about the Narvik class.

Thank you.

Btw. I think Dragon is about to release their Z-31 in 1/700 very soon.

It is already out. I got mine from Dragon's online sales site. http://www.dragonusaonline.com/

The 15 ships usually listed as the "Narvik" class (Z-23 through Z-34 and Z-37 through Z-39) carried only 150MM guns, not 127's. They were designed for a twin forward and three singles aft, but the twin mount was not ready for the first ships to complete and they carried a single 150MM forward. (As a special flagship, Z-28 carried two single 150MM forward and only 2 aft.) Many of the early ships were back-fitted with the twin mount, but a few never received the twin. The German's finally acknowledged that the 150MM gun was too large for the hull, so the 1936B group (Z-35, Z-36, and Z-43 through Z-45, although Z-44 and Z-45 were never finished) reverted to the 127MM guns that were carried by Z-1 through Z-22, all in single mounts. The single 150MM gun shield was similar in design to that for the 127MM, and some sources get confused by that.

Wow, that's a speed post.

Thanks. I was confused to see on Dragon Z-39 box the 127mm single gun turret. Or, maybe they meant that those are only 127mm turrets, but did not mention that 150mm gun are housed in them.

The single guns were really not in a turret. The mount had a shield on it, but unlike a turret, the shell hoists were external to the mount and so the back of the shield needed to be open when in operation. The shield for the 150MM was larger than the one for the 127MM, but the shape was similar (though not identical). Those that are familiar with both mountings can usually tell one from the other. Model companies, on the other hand, only know what someone tells them, and they don't always get that right.