Calling all Scharnhorst and Gneisenau fans!

[bill tarn]

Olaf,
thankyou so much for that infirmation it was just what i need, the thing i like about tamiya paints is the ease at which i can mix my own colours and the speed at which they dry.

As soon as i saw your reply i chopped of those hatches, again many many thanks

bill

[navydavesof]

As you know in the gallery of yesterday, at last I have finished my diorama the Scharnhorst in Gotenhafen(Gdynia)1943. http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff14 ... 0051-1.jpg

Fran,
Wow! What an excellent job you did on this diorama. The build up was absolutely fascinating. Thank you for posting the entire progression. The wood deck was very well done and especially inspiring. I like how you illustrated what you scratch built and how you did it. It helps a lot of us who want to make more realistic parts and fittings out a lot.

I have a question about the presentation! When you took your progress pictures, what did you use for a background?

[navydavesof]

I see that there has been questions about Bismarck's turret top color and how it shifted quite frequently, so much that her final scheme is in question. What was the standard color for Scharnhorst's turrets during the war? What might the turret tops be in peace time and today?

[rtwpsom2]

Most of the time they were either the same as the rest of the ship or were part of the camo pattern, but there were a few occasions when they were painted differently. See Antonio's paint scheme page for a better understanding of timeframes.

[navydavesof]

Most of the time they were either the same as the rest of the ship or were part of the camo pattern, but there were a few occasions when they were painted differently. See Antonio's paint scheme page for a better understanding of timeframes.

Thanks for the info. I am not quite sure if this is Antonio's or not, but this link really shows a lot. http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/gneisen ... _1940.html

I have been able to learn a bit about the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau so far. I would like to know more about the planned 15" conversion of the ships. Does anyone have any more information on how the conversion was to take place and what hard alterations were to be made to the ship?

Thanks, guys!
navydave

[ingura]

...

[navydavesof]

On GNEISENAU they cut off the bow at station 185.7 and it was planned to build the new forecastle 10 m longer...It only proofed later that the ships were very wet and bow-heavy - it felt like the bow "sucked into" the sea at higher speed. This caused trouble to the A-turret who was literally out of action during bad weather conditions.

This is fascinating. Because the ships were planned for the heavier turrets, It makes sense that the bow would be enlarged only for seakeeping.

I find the longer bow interesting. I see that is what Vlad was trying to accomplish earlier in this thread with this picture:

He took an interesting approach. In 1/350 10m is only an extra inch.

sharp stem all the way up and no longer a bulbous bow.

I don't fully understand what you mean here. The bow looks very sharp as it was. What was bulbous that was going to be sharpened up? Also, was the bow supposed to assume the same look as that of the Tirpitz like what was reflected in Vlad's model, or was an elongating with a difference under the water?

There are a couple of pictures I have seen in my research of Gneisenau when she had been bombed while sitting in a drydock. My understanding is that she suffered quite a number of below-deck explosions and killing over a hundred crewmen. Then they started cutting up the ship.

This is where I need some guidance. From here a laymen such as myself can conclude in two very different ways. One way, it would reason that the ship was so damaged that it was time to salvage as much as possible from the ship, so the turrets were taken out, the bow was scrapped, and the ship was used to block a sea-lane. Well...that makes sense. Desperation of war.

The second way is that the ship had just suffered terrible damage, so now was just as good of time as any to go ahead with the conversion, and that's why the turrets and bow were removed. Then for whatever reason, they could not complete the project so they trashed the ship instead.

Thanks a lot, gets. I look forward to hearing what you say.

[ingura]

...

[navydavesof]

1. Bulbous bow gone during conversion - this is the part of the ship I'm talking about:

Ah, I see! This seemed to be common amongst big ships of the time. The Iowa-class have it as well. To my knowledge, this is how the bow bulge started. We began to understand some of the hydrodynamic characteristics of a rounded bow. So, was the idea with the elimination of the bulbed bow be replaced with a very sharp edge all the way from the nose to the keel?

2. Stem sharp all the way up - this is it:

Was this going to be a cosmetic alteration or was it going to serve a purpose? Would the sharp edge perhaps begin the proper flow direction of the water?

GNEISENAU suffered from the hit while in drydock. Foreship incl. turret A was burnt completly and had to be replaced anyway.

Do we know why they went ahead and put the ship in drydock with munitions aboard? I know it is a suuuuuuper no-no in the US. I understand wartime, but I don't think we would even in wartime.

[Cliffy B]

From what I remember, German capital ships that were built were "blunt" bows were almost always refitted with what they called "Atlantic Bows" or which resemble "Clipper Bows". We all know how volatile the Atlantic can be these alterations were surely made to help them in said waters.

[navydavesof]

From what I remember, German capital ships that were built were "blunt" bows were almost always refitted with what they called "Atlantic Bows"...

The bow included on the picture above was already modified to the Atlantic bow, the modification mentioned was going to be yet another change. They seem to have realized changing just the angle was not enough but the length and edge needed to be changed as well. It's really fascinating to see the progression of these ships, because this was the first generation of fast big ships in any nation, and the complications associated with driving through heavy seas really climbs exponentially the faster you go.

[Olaf Held]

They seem to have realized changing just the angle was not enough but the length and edge needed to be changed as well. It's really fascinating to see the progression of these ships, because this was the first generation of fast big ships in any nation, and the complications associated with driving through heavy seas really climbs exponentially the faster you go.

I can't remember where I read it and if it is true, but the German underwater hull design might have been the cause of all trouble. At higher speeds the water displayed by the hull lifts up the aft part of the ships, causing the bow going down slightly - and becoming wet. An enlengthened foreship (with its higher weight acting as a counter-weight to the stern, plus a better length-width ratio of the hull) might indeed have solved this problem.

Happy modelling ~ Olaf!

[navydavesof]

"This...is only the beginning." - Pinhead

Napkins nothing! Shipbucket is too fun to manipulate. Shipbucket offers a better platform generalized scaling. I used it for better proportioning in order to let people get a good idea of what I am thinking.

The mission statement will be next.

[Dan Banks]

In regard to the extension and shape of the planned extension to GN's bow, there is a plan in Sigfried Breyer's "Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970", on page 298, that shows a waterline version. I don't know what this was based on but the bow raises more sharply in profile without the graceful curve this class was known for. In the overhead plan the very end of the bow does not look as sharp. It looks like they were trying to get more flair to divert the spray. An extreme example of this is Yamato's bow. Neptune models makes this planned conversion,#N-1004b in 1/1250 scale and it looks like they went by Mr. Breyer's drawing. I am sorry if I am repeating something that has already been said, but I did not see this information in the thread.

[David Gatt]

G'day, I'm hoping to start the 1/350 Scharnhorst in the next few weeks. I'm wanting to Paint her as she appeared in Sept-Dec 1943 with the two tone grey scheme, ie very dark grey midships with very light/white grey at both bow and stern. I have the book Kriegsmarine Colours Vol 1 by AJ press, one of the Polish books. It has a plate of this scheme on page 75 however the turrets are coloured dark green. The image is also on the front cover. Can anyone corroborate that this is correct?

Thanks
David Gatt

[rtwpsom2]

I would go with Antonio's drawing here, it doesn't show green on the turrets.

[David Gatt]

Great Thanks for that.
David Gatt

[David Gatt]

I feel like a newbee asking these questions, perhaps I'm getting old.
The bow and stern needs to be painted in a very light grey or is at actually white? I'll be using Tamiya and have decided on XF53 Neutral Grey for midships. If the bow and stern aren't white I'll have to mix a light shade of grey.

Thanks again.

David Gatt

[Olaf Held]

It is believed that it was white. However, if you're adding scale effect, you might want to brew a very, very light grey for that colour.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

[David Gatt]

Thank you .
Much appreciated