Airfix 1/600 Bismarck (vintage and it shows it!)

[KJD]

I made this Airfix model earlier this year just to see if it's shape could be corrected.  Using the deck as a stencil I drew the outline, then scaled up and overlaid the deck plan from "Haynes:  Owners guide to the Bismarck".  That showed exactly what was wrong with the base kit.  Bow and stern too blunt, armour belt doesn't extend far enough forward or aft, forward turrets about 3mm too far forward, and aft turrets about 9mm too far aft.  The hull itself is about 4mm too deep.  The aft barbette meets the superstructure about halfway, which matches the forward arrangement, but in fact to be accurate the aft barbette should be almost entirely contained by the first level of superstructure.

 

Sounds like a massive job to correct, but surprisingly didn't take too long.  I hack sawed 3.5 mm off the height of the hull all round.  That had the pleasing effect of restoring the proportions between the weather deck, top of armour belt, and waterline.  It also reduced what seems to be a slightly generous sized anchor recess blister.  I chose to create a whole new deck out of lined styrene, although with care you might be able to reuse the original.  The barbettes were transferred to holes cut in the new deck.  Biggest challenge was taking the extra 12 mm out of the now compressed midships area.  Although I didn't add photo etch at that stage, the transformation was amazing.  Gone was the blunt fore-shortened look of bow and stern, and ridiculously high hull (especially next to other 1:600 ships), and back was the elegant fine lines of this ship.  I have left it fairly rough, but have since started an Airfix 1:600 Scharnhorst for which I obtained the photo etch, so now being a bit more confident with it I might even go back and fit rails and rigging to my Bismarck and tidy her up.  Have to say though that Scharnhorst is far more accurate out of the box. 

 

As a side note, I bought a second Bismarck kit to supply missing parts for the Scharnhorst (bought as a terrible made up model with bits missing) including the "Atlantic" bow.  Part of the problem with both these kits seems to be that the superstructure walls are often molded into the deck at right angles to the direction of release, which means no recessed or overhanging detail is included, and this all has to be researched and added.  The 1970 Airfix Prinz Eugen provides separate superstructure walls and lo and behold, finally some detail.  The AA armament is also much better, for the Bismarck I scratch built both the 37mm and 105mm mountings, to replace the awful originals.  Those wih Prinz Eugen are almost acceptable.  The Arado 196 with the Bismarck kit is also terrible.  The Scharnhorst kit actually had two very nice HE114s that with a little work were converted into quite passable Arados.  If I was going to fit an aircraft on the Bismarck, even a scratch built one would be better than what is provided, sorry to say.

[KJD]

Lets see if this image post works.  I don't have an on line source other than this, so fingers crossed:  The fore-shortened effect bow and stern has been removed by moving the main barbettes to the correct position, and re-shaping bow and stern deck lines.  Armour belt has also been lengthened.  Hull height reduced 3.5 mm.  All very do-able.  Or you could just buy a decent kit.  I guess it depends how desperate you are for a 1:600 version.

 

[KJD]

The same model prior to final painting showing the new deck, superstructure walls, and other added detail.  Since the gun turrets have been moved a lot closer together (12mm) there is quite a bit of compression of the aft superstructure required, but again this was possible as they did make some of this too long.  I probably compromised a bit by taking cuts out where they made sense rather than where they were 100% accurate, but it should be pretty close.  A certain degree of weirdness in the original model, as some of it is so accurate they must have followed good drawings, but then in places it just loses the plot completely.  The original rudders were approximately 1:300 scale.  How you make that sort of error I don't know, and I laugh everytime I see someone who has made it OOB with those huge barn doors hanging down:

[Whitewolf]

I built this as a kid so long ago......I found out later that Airfix only produced one size box for all its 1/600 Battleships/carriers(except the Forrestal which came much later) so regardless of the true length/width details, they were all manufactured to fit the one box!

[KJD]

35 minutes ago, Whitewolf said:

I built this as a kid so long ago......I found out later that Airfix only produced one size box for all its 1/600 Battleships/carriers(except the Forrestal which came much later) so regardless of the true length/width details, they were all manufactured to fit the one box!

As far as I can see so far, they are all about right overall size for scale.  Some people say this hull is too short, but I think that's just an illusion because the turrets are too close to the ends of the ship so it looks too short.  Working on a rough rule of thumb, 100 feet = 50mm.  All the ships I have so far in 1:600 look correct for length and beam.  Don't get me wrong, there is plenty that needs correcting, but when I line up the various models, they all look correct length and beam relatively speaking.  Hood is slightly longer than Bismarck, which is slightly longer than Scharnhorst and KGV etc....

 

And the boxes in my stash are all different lengths for Bismarck, Nelson, KGV, Victorious, Repulse, etc.... although they are from various periods and releases.

[KJD]

I couldn't bring myself to use the supplied 105mm AA mounts and replacements were scratch built.  Not entirely happy with them and looking to improve when I do the replacements for Scharnhorst.  I haven't placed an Arado on my Bismarck yet, but for my Scharnhorst, the HE114 supplied look a million percent better in quality than the Arado which came with the Bismarck and being about the same size, was converted into one as shown below.  Excuse the rough hand painted insignia, best viewed from a slightly greater distance!!  I have a spare HE114 from that kit, so it may well become an Arado in future for the Bismarck.  Something like this also wouldn't be too hard to scratch build.  There are plenty of 3 view drawings online that can be scaled correctly, and I have managed to build a passable air wing for a 1:600 aircraft carrier this way..  The only thing I might have found difficult to make were the floats, which for the HE114 were beautifully shaped.  The Bismarck Arado model should have been the same, but all they gave you were big ugly flat slabs.

 

[KJD]

So I suppose the bottom line is if you combined the approach of the thread author and myself, you'd end up with both a properly proportioned as well as highly detailed model.  It is a lot of work, but then again you'd end up with a fairly unique model as good as any, at a now unique scale of 1:600.  The question is whether you like scratch building and research, or would rather just build largely OOB.   I found looking at detailed references such as "Anatomy of the Ship" and adding or correcting detail quite rewarding, but then again I do get impatient and lose interest, and the quality tends to then suffer.  Best balance for me is to have some other short term projects lying around where I can get an instant fix, and not feel so guilty if I can't face a day of adding PE and scratch building with little noticeable progress to show for it.  I have an Airfix 1:600 Rommel waiting to be created as HMAS Brisbane DDG 41, and that might just be more manageable and less of a mission than monsters like Bismarck and Scharnhorst.   Still, they do look mighty fine on the shelf when eventually completed.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

3 hours ago, KJD said:

I have an Airfix 1:600 Rommel waiting to be created as HMAS Brisbane DDG 41,

Gidday KJD, funny you should mention that. I did the same conversion, but to HMAS Perth DDG 38. And it only took me 40 years! Seriously.

 

     My original builds were all OOB, I didn't know any better. But now I'm aware that kits aren't always accurate OOB is a rarity for me now. As for research and scratch building parts for a more accurate model (or a conversion) I quite enjoy that. I don't do PE or aftermarket stuff, I like to make my own parts. I'm making more and more now, my latest included octuple pompoms and screws, although they're not as good as PE etc. I guess the trick is to know when to say "Enough is enough research, now build it".

     Regards, Jeff.

 

PS - I'm afraid I can't access your photos above, don't know why.

[KJD]

2 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday KJD, funny you should mention that. I did the same conversion, but to HMAS Perth DDG 38. And it only took me 40 years! Seriously.

 

     My original builds were all OOB, I didn't know any better. But now I'm aware that kits aren't always accurate OOB is a rarity for me now. As for research and scratch building parts for a more accurate model (or a conversion) I quite enjoy that. I don't do PE or aftermarket stuff, I like to make my own parts. I'm making more and more now, my latest included octuple pompoms and screws, although they're not as good as PE etc. I guess the trick is to know when to say "Enough is enough research, now build it".

     Regards, Jeff.

 

PS - I'm afraid I can't access your photos above, don't know why.

Damn.  Well I can see the photos, but maybe no one else?  Thanks for letting me know.  I linked them from my Gmail account but obviously that was a fail.  I have built an HMAS Melbourne R21 in 1:600 from a model of HMS Victorious.  That took a lot of scratch building but I did use a few of the original parts.  A4s and S2s and Wessex all scratch built, and that turned out OK.  Might do Brisbane next, I have found some quite good photos, and there may be a half decent set of plans available from the RAN historic site.  I got the Melbourne plans from there.