Sink The Bismarck!

[klr]

Johnny Horton, you don't know what you've started!

 

 

I bought this set back in 2011, cost 28 Euro. It seems like only yesterday. Actually, it seems like only yesterday when I first "built" the Bismarck, circa 1978. I built it again in 1984, but I've never built any of the other kits. It's a pity Airfix never added more ships to the original "Naval History" range. Surely a KGV/PoW kit, and another of Rodney, would both have been sure-fire winners?

 

 

Almost all the parts (nearly 300) seem in good condition. These kits are going to be built mostly out of the box. Some parts may have to be thinned (masts, some guns). The first task will be to cut the Bismarck hull down to size, which could take a while. Basically, I'll have to remove the base, and maybe a small bit more.

 

I prevaricated over what to build, but I didn't want to renege on my original commitment to build something "floaty". I thought about the Airfix Belfast, but as someone else is doing that, I came back to this set. Other candidates included the Revell 1/700 Tirpitz, and even the ancient 1959 Revell HMS Victory. In the case of the latter, sanity eventually prevailed, and I put it back into storage. I also thought briefly about the Heller 1/400 KGV, and even the Trumpeter 1/700 Hood (1941), which is actually a considerably more complex and detailed kit. The Heller 1/400 Jean Bart and Richelieu were both briefly considered, but they are going to be kept for the proverbial rainy day, or more likely retirement. Ditto for the Revell (ex-Otaki) 1/350 Missouri.

 

I'm not committed to any other Group Builds for the next few months, but I do have plenty of other "in progress" kits (and then some) that need to be completed. Between that and the fact that I rarely build ship kits nowadays, this set seemed the sensible, if somewhat conservative choice. If time allows, I may add another kit to the build.

[stevej60]

This will be good!

[PeterB]

Hi Kir,

 

Never built any of these but I did try one similar one from I think Eagle - a short lived UK company who only existed for 4 years I believe - I built their KGV. In fact according to Scalemates they made a very useful range of 1/1200 warships based on the River Plate, Bismarck and Cape Matapan scenarios, including everything from destroyer escorts to battleships and carriers, and also merchants. Must really have been churning them out. There are still a few about on auction sites but some are at very silly prices - £450 for example!

 

Good luck with the build - not sure my hands and eyes would be up to that scale - 1/700 is bad enough these days.

 

Pete

Edited February 15, 2020 by PeterB

[klr]

52 minutes ago, PeterB said:

Hi Kir,

 

Never built any of these but I did try one similar one from I think Eagle - a short lived UK company who only existed for 4 years I believe - I built their KGV. In fact according to Scalemates they made a very useful range of 1/1200 warships based on the River Plate, Bismarck and Cape Matapan scenarios, including everything from destroyer escorts to battleships and carriers, and also merchants. Must really have been churning them out. There are still a few about on auction sites but some are at very silly prices - £450 for example!

 

Good luck with the build - not sure my hands and eyes would be up to that scale - 1/700 is bad enough these days.

 

Pete

Some of the finer details - and there are quite a few - are going to require all of my patience. But close-up work one area where being (very) short-sighted can be beneficial: I just take off my glasses to get a natural magnification boost.

 

I have a range of Revell (ex-Casadio) "mini-ships" as well, so in theory I could build the Duke of York kit as KGV/PoW. But the Casadio tooling represents a mid-war KGV configuration, so for example it has some extra 20mm AA guns, notably on deck fore and aft. These would have to go, without ruining the deck plank effect, such that it is. Also, the barrels of both the main and secondary batteries are much too thick, and would all need replacing.

 

[klr]

OK ... here are the numbers on the Bismarck freeboard, from: https://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/generaldetails.html

Midships: 5.67m (1/1200: 4.7mm)

Forward: 8.8m (1/1200: 7.33mm)

 

The kit, with the deck attached:

Midships: 8mm (scales up to: 9.6m)

Forward: 10mm (scales up to: 12m)

 

So the side profile is a bit "flat" at the bow, compared to the real thing. The bow of the kit is about 1.2mm too high, and the midships about 3.3mm. The best compromise would be to remove about 2mm.

 

The side armour belts are much too low, possibly linked to the freeboard being far too high. So they need to be built up by at least another 1mm, which is doable.

 

There should be two rows of portholes both fore and aft of each armour belt. I will try to add these as well.

[rob85]

Looking forward to this, and it definitely sounds like you know what your doing.... which leads me to ask, can’t you build Belfast? Then I can copy as you go along?!

 

Rob

[klr]

4 hours ago, rob85 said:

Looking forward to this, and it definitely sounds like you know what your doing.... which leads me to ask, can’t you build Belfast? Then I can copy as you go along?!

 

Rob

... or I can copy you 😛

 

Anyway, you're on. I'll start a separate thread for the Belfast tomorrow, once I get the Bismarck hull modifications finished. Naturally, adding the Belfast will slow down building this set, but I did say I might add another kit - just not at the same time.

[rob85]

Don’t feel you have too on my account! But definitely not a problem if you do 😃 I wouldn’t copy me if I were you, I’m not a builder of ships! Normally it’s aircraft and even then it’s mediocre.

 

Rob

[klr]

Right ... after a hiatus of two days and more, I can finally post some "progress" pics:

 

First, Bismarck hull and deck, after cutting down hull base by 2mm and rebuilding armour belt. Cutting down the hull meant removing the base and then some more. I then had to reattach what was left of the hull base to restore some structural rigidity.

 

The original armour belt was much too thick - in scale, it ought to be about .15mm thicker than the upper hull. The belts in the kit also had a really exaggerated taper, which probably one reason why they were so thick. Also, while they were both too low, they were not even the same: The starboard belt was about 1mm lower than the port belt. I sanded both down until the taper was gone, and then attached plastic card to build up to the correct height, followed by much sanding and touching up.

 

As with all the kits, the hull to deck join has received a great deal of attention, to make the transition between the parts as near invisible as is possible. Portholes are to be added, both fore and aft of the armour belts.

 

The upper hull above the belts has been primed with Hu 64 light grey to pick out any areas that may need further attention. While this is the recommended colour in the instructions for the hull and superstructure, the actual colours are to be decided. For one thing, the superstructure should be lighter than the hull.

 

 

 

 

[klr]

Next up, Hood. As with most of the kits, the large locating pins for attaching the main deck to the hull were removed, so as to get a better fit. This is a recurring issue I have with all "snap fit" kits. Even so, no matter how hard I tried, the fit just wasn't good enough, especially on the port side. I ended up sawing away the transition to the quarterdeck, which made fitting the main deck somewhat easier. Having glued both parts of the deck, there was the usual cleaning up of the joins. There is still some warping evident in the hull, with the middle rearing up. I'll have to deal with this before starting on the upper works.

 

 

 

After, with the upper deck dry-fitted. I had started to pain this area in the recommended colours, but then had second thoughts. The recommended Hu 27 for the hull & superstructure seems too dark, and Hu 71 for the wooden decks too bright, light and shiny.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by klr

[klr]

Finally, for now ...

 

The cruisers. The deck to hull join was somewhat easier with these, although Prinz Eugen, like Hood, is somewhat warped. The anti-torpedo bulges on Suffolk seem too thick and exaggerated, but I don't have the heart (for now at least) for more butchery. Also, the Suffolk hull is very high compared to Prinz Eugen, but that may well be correct, or almost correct. So no further action - for now.

 

 

The two Tribal class destroyers were not surprisingly the least troublesome of the lot. The upper deck parts have been attached.

 

 

Ark Royal I have yet to start on, apart from some dry-fitting. I need to decide on the colours for the internal parts/detail first.

Edited February 23, 2020 by klr

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

40 minutes ago, klr said:

They recommended Hu 27 for the hull & superstructure seems too dark, and Hu 71 for the wooden decks too bright, light and shiny.

 

 

 

Humbrol 27 is too green for Admiralty Pattern 507A rather than too dark. Either way, it's not a convincing Home Fleet Grey.

[klr]

8 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Humbrol 27 is too green for Admiralty Pattern 507A rather than too dark. Either way, it's not a convincing Home Fleet Grey.

Thanks for the correction. It seems Airfix just decided that Hu 27 and Hu 64 should get used wherever possible on these ships. I have Hu 05 Dark Admirality Grey (Gloss), which I from what I've read* approximates to the pre-war Admiralty Pattern 507B. I may end up using that with a matt varnish, or I might use something else entirely. Unfortunately, I don't have ready access to anything other than Humbrol and Revell enamels.

 

*Including at your website ... 😉

Edited February 23, 2020 by klr

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, klr said:

 

*Including at your website ... 😉

 

I recall making no such endorsement.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

10 hours ago, klr said:

Also, the Suffolk hull is very high compared to Prinz Eugen, but that may well be correct,

Gidday Klr, as I understand it these RN cruisers were designed to be very habitable, in all weathers, in all oceans and as a result had considerable freeboard. While I'm no expert the comparable freeboard of these two ships look OK to me. HTH.

     Also, I think that Airfix has forgotten that there are other shades of grey other than Hu27 and 64. The Hu27 I'm currently using is very dark. I think the tin is mislabeled. Regards, Jeff.

[rob85]

Looks like they are well underway! You have the startings of an armada!

 

Rob

[klr]

On 2/24/2020 at 3:07 AM, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday Klr, as I understand it these RN cruisers were designed to be very habitable, in all weathers, in all oceans and as a result had considerable freeboard. While I'm no expert the comparable freeboard of these two ships look OK to me. HTH.

     Also, I think that Airfix has forgotten that there are other shades of grey other than Hu27 and 64. The Hu27 I'm currently using is very dark. I think the tin is mislabeled. Regards, Jeff.

A much-belated acknowledgement on my part. One of my favourite bedtime reads is Cruisers of World War Two by M.J. Whitley, so I ought to know a lot about issues such as this. I guess I need to read it some more!

 

While I am using Hu 64 for the upper works of the German ships, I won't necessarily be using it for Suffolk, or any of the British ships.

Edited March 5, 2020 by klr

[klr]

On 2/24/2020 at 10:23 PM, rob85 said:

Looks like they are well underway! You have the startings of an armada!

 

Rob

Like all armadas, it's taking a while to build up. I got a lot done last Saturday while Storm Jorge was raging, but almost nothing since, between one thing and another. I am travelling to another part of the country this weekend to visit family, so I won't get much done during that time either ...

 

... unless I decide to take work in progress with me, which is entirely feasible.

[PeterB]

On 2/23/2020 at 4:36 PM, klr said:

Finally, for now ...

 

The cruisers. The deck to hull join was somewhat easier with these, although Prinz Eugen, like Hood, is somewhat warped. The anti-torpedo bulges on Suffolk seem too thick and exaggerated, but I don't have the heart (for now at least) for more butchery. Also, the Suffolk hull is very high compared to Prinz Eugen, but that may well be correct, or almost correct. So no further action - for now.

 

Hi Kir,

 

Due to their role covering the British Empire, the County class heavy cruisers were designed for long periods on station in tropical climes. To improve habitability they had somewhat deeper (higher) hulls than the equivalent Kriegsmarine cruisers, which, like the German WWI battleships, were not expected to stay at sea for quite such long periods. As a consequence they were sometimes called "tinclads" as the extra height meant that the armour plate was spread rather more thinly than on say Prinz Eugen. At least that is my understanding.

 

Pete