Bismarck water line
Moderator: Bill Jurens
Bismarck water line
Hello I am building a 1/200 scale model of the Bismark. I am painting the hull can any body tell me where to locate the water line. I mean can any body give a measurment from the bottom of the hull. Thank you Paul
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: water line
Hello and welcome to the forums!
The waterline is located between 8.0 and 10.45 meters from the keel.
Color RAL 7016.
The waterline is located between 8.0 and 10.45 meters from the keel.
Color RAL 7016.
Re: water line
Thank you very much for the information.
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: water line
Eh?José M. Rico wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:40 am Hello and welcome to the forums!
The waterline is located between 8.0 and 10.45 meters from the keel.
Color RAL 7016.
What’s the source of these figures? The lower bound is officially 8.5 meters (but that is debatable, IMHO it‘s the lower edge of the belt armor) and the upper bound is 10.52 meters.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: water line
Photos of the ship in Hamburg, August 1940.
The lower edge is certainly below 8.5 m, and the top edge is closer to the 10.4 mark than 10.6.
Did they change the position of the waterline when the ship was repainted in early 1941?
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: water line
José,
each number of the draught marks is 10 cm high. The 4 represents 40-50 cm. The 6 represents 60-70 cm. The empty space between 4 and 6 represents 50-60 cm. The top edge of the waterline is very close to the top edge of the 4. That means it‘s about 52 cm. This would approximately correlate to the draught of 9.522+1 meters.
As I said the lower edge is debatable, but why exactly 8 meters?
each number of the draught marks is 10 cm high. The 4 represents 40-50 cm. The 6 represents 60-70 cm. The empty space between 4 and 6 represents 50-60 cm. The top edge of the waterline is very close to the top edge of the 4. That means it‘s about 52 cm. This would approximately correlate to the draught of 9.522+1 meters.
As I said the lower edge is debatable, but why exactly 8 meters?
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: water line
My mistake! I read the draft marks wrong.
You are correct, the top edge of the waterline is more between 10.50-10.55 m. I had no idea there was an "official" 10.52 figure, so that should be fine.
As for the bottom edge, I just made a guess assuming the draft marks go from 8 to 13 meters, but since the seawater obscures the lower hull in the photos, I can't say for sure.
It could be that the waterline goes as deep as the Upper Platform deck, 7.9 meters over the keel. Wasn't the lower riveted edge of the 60mm splinter belt at the same height as the U.P. deck?
You are correct, the top edge of the waterline is more between 10.50-10.55 m. I had no idea there was an "official" 10.52 figure, so that should be fine.
As for the bottom edge, I just made a guess assuming the draft marks go from 8 to 13 meters, but since the seawater obscures the lower hull in the photos, I can't say for sure.
It could be that the waterline goes as deep as the Upper Platform deck, 7.9 meters over the keel. Wasn't the lower riveted edge of the 60mm splinter belt at the same height as the U.P. deck?
- Attachments
-
- draft01.jpg (22.76 KiB) Viewed 4438 times
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: water line
Well, the November 1941 paint job instruction orders 1 m above and below CWL. CWL is 9.50 m. Obviously the waterline ends slightly above 10.5 m. It's just my speculation that the draught on construction displacement (9.522 m) could possibly explain the difference.
In regard of the lower edge I wouldn't rule out 8.5 m definitely. There is a straight line visible in better quality pictures.
However, IMHO the lower edge of the waterlinie is possibly derived from the imperial instructions which means the waterline is equivalent to the lower edge of the armor belt. Wreck pictures seem to confirm this.
In regard of the lower edge I wouldn't rule out 8.5 m definitely. There is a straight line visible in better quality pictures.
However, IMHO the lower edge of the waterlinie is possibly derived from the imperial instructions which means the waterline is equivalent to the lower edge of the armor belt. Wreck pictures seem to confirm this.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: water line
That straight line at 8.5 m is interesting.
It is not a plate weld, and it is not the lower edge of the 60mm belt either since that was located at 7.9 meters and was riveted.
The color seems to be the same as the upper part but darker, so perhaps is just an optical effect due to surface being wet?
It is not a plate weld, and it is not the lower edge of the 60mm belt either since that was located at 7.9 meters and was riveted.
The color seems to be the same as the upper part but darker, so perhaps is just an optical effect due to surface being wet?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm
Re: water line
The surface would be wet in a perfectly straight line? I think it must be a plate overlap of some kind, if it isn't armor maybe just skin plating.
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: water line
Marc,Herr Nilsson wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:29 pm CWL is 9.50 m. Obviously the waterline ends slightly above 10.5 m. It's just my speculation that the draught on construction displacement (9.522 m) could possibly explain the difference.
Why the difference of 22 mm between the Construction Waterline and the Construction Draft? Is that because the KWL does not include the thickness of the bottom skin plates (moulded draft)? I can not think of any other reason.
The 9.5 meter Konstruktionswasserlinie (KWL) corresponds to "WL 12" in Bismarck half-breadth plan, and that gives us a distance between waterlines of 0.7916 m. "WL 11" would then be located at 8.7 meters which is given as "Standard draft" by Breyer/Koop. "WL 19" would be located at 15 meters which corresponds to the depth of the hull.
Also, Breyer/Koop give a "Construction draft" of 9.3 meters. The same 9.3 m. figure is given in the Bismarck/Richelieu comparison document. Other sources have 9.3 m as "design draft". So the question is, if 9.3 is not construction draft, then what is it?
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Bismarck water line
José,
we have to distinguish between "Konstruktionstiefe" (construction depth) = 9.5 m and "Konstruktionstiefgang" (construction draft) = 9.522 m. Construction depth (as well as "Seitenhöhe" (side height) = 15 m) is measured without hull plating. The bottom plating is 22 mm. Construction draft is construction depth + bottom plating.
9.5 m and 9.3 m are both correct values.
9.5 m is the construction depth and corresponds to the CWL, which is WL 12.
9.3 m (actually 9.302 m) ist the draft at the (calculated) construction weight.
Construction displacement and CWL do not belong together! There was a reserve of 937.5 tonnes between these two waterlines.
we have to distinguish between "Konstruktionstiefe" (construction depth) = 9.5 m and "Konstruktionstiefgang" (construction draft) = 9.522 m. Construction depth (as well as "Seitenhöhe" (side height) = 15 m) is measured without hull plating. The bottom plating is 22 mm. Construction draft is construction depth + bottom plating.
9.5 m and 9.3 m are both correct values.
9.5 m is the construction depth and corresponds to the CWL, which is WL 12.
9.3 m (actually 9.302 m) ist the draft at the (calculated) construction weight.
Construction displacement and CWL do not belong together! There was a reserve of 937.5 tonnes between these two waterlines.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
- José M. Rico
- Administrator
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Bismarck water line
The maximum side height of the hull should then be:Herr Nilsson wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 1:38 pm "Seitenhöhe" (side height) = 15 m) is measured without hull plating.
22 mm (bottom plating) + 15,000 mm + 50 mm (upper deck) = 15.072 m., right?
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Bismarck water line
Generally yes. However, the hull plating exceeded some centimeters above upper deck.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)