What actually covered the Swastikas on the Bismarck?

[Chel Sea]

Dear Sirs, on my 1/600 scale Bismarck I was planning to dip some cigarette rolling papers in grey paint and let them dry over the bow and stern swastikas because I remember reading in German Capital Ships of WWII (the section on Rheinubung, based on the ship's logs) that they were covered over with grey tarps.

On seeing the new updated profiles on here of the Bismarck I notice that it is stated that the bow and stern swastikas were painted over in Grey. I have found this website to be definitive regarding paint schemes, but I thought I'd better throw it out to the floor and see what anyone else thinks.

Furthermore on the profiles and regarding the decking: They are shown in natural wood, but I notice the metal paths are still there (in line form) underneath where the anchor chains run. I thought that these were a feature on the Tirpitz and not the Bismarck, is this the case? Otherwise I should model out these paths as well before I attatch the anchor chains, this would be another job to do after sanding of the moulded chains.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, and I thank you in advance, Lucas

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Lucas and all,

do not use any cigarette rolling paper, otherwise you will do something historically not correct.

Bismarck air recognition ( the swastika's and relative red banner ) were not covered with grey tarps.

They have been painted over with grey painture, exactly like happened to Prinz Eugen ( a clear photo do exist of Prinz Eugen ).

On the same photo you can see that the 2 bow anchors ( only 2 left as the center bow anchor was removed ) were 'blocked' with smaller chain's crossing into the big anchor chain holes, so they wont move on high sea.

Regarding the ' deck chain lanes ' were the anchor chain runs, they were really higher compared to the floor deck, but also covered with wood as the normal deck was.

This deck wood ( I have an entire piece of Tirpitz myself ) is really strong, very strong ... and very intense as far as colour, yellowish and light brown ...... very beautiful wood light colour, .. not so clear ( white tone ) as the USA Navy for example, .. more intense.

Bismarck and Tirpits were almost the same, both ' deck chains lanes ' were covered with deck as said, so they shoudl be painted on deck colour.

But you know, .. doing modeling sometimes you take your own initiative so the model looks a bit better,.. this is the fun on modeling.

Hope my explanations were clear enough,.. and they will help you, .. you can visit the model section and verify what I have done both on Bismarck and Prinz Eugen for reference.


Ciao Antonio

[José M. Rico]

Hello Lucas,

According to Bismarck's War Diary, 1307 hours on 22 May 1941:

• "Alarm beendet. Anschliessend auf Befehl Flotte Fliegersichtzeichen auf den Türmen und Hoheitszeichen auf Back und Schanz übermalt.
  Alarm ended. Subsequently, by the order of Fleet the aircraft identification insignias on the turrets and the national emblems [swastikas] on the forecastle and poop deck are painted over."

However, former Bismarck survivor Josef Statz clearly states on his memoirs that, before he left the ship on 27 May, he saw how the ropes that tied the canvas which covered the bow Swastika broke up, making that symbol visible to all. Only two of the rope subjection sticks where still there. The jack mast was gone too.

So, I think it is really up to one's interpretation. Perhaps only the top of the turrets were painted over on 22 May and the swastikas actually covered with canvas. If I were you I would initially paint the black swastikas over the white disk on red background. You can always paint them over later if you have the need to do so.

As for the deck, It was indeed a teak wood elevated platform in the forecastle and not a metallic support underneath the anchor chains. I have some detailed photos of the forecastle that I could send to you via e-mail if interested.

José

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

I would go with Josef Statz's words. The reconstructed Bismarck war diary is based on the interpretation of a pile of data by several desk jockeys and may, therefore, not be entirely correct on some minor points.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

and I agree with you Ulrich

I was not aware of those Josef Statz precise statements ( his book is one of the few I miss ) so thank to Jose' for providing that piece of info.

My interpretation of what could have been done on Bismarck too as said was made on the really clear Prinz Eugen foredeck photo were you can see what has been done on Prinz Eugen very clearly, and that was painted over and not covered with canvas.

Once again you assume that an order could have been executed on same way on both ships, but it appears it was not the case, .. those ships history always have a surprise.

Well, at least now we have all the options and inputs clearly defined.

Ciao Antonio

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

On this photo of the PG foredeck it looks more like canvas, doesn't it? It doesn't make a lot of sense to paint out an ID marking that you may suddenly need again. But the Kriegsmarine, like any navy, did strange things BTW, there I just found a gross error in my translation!
22 May 1941

1307 / 1307 hours-
Alarm beendet. Anschließend auf Befehl Flotte Fliegersichtzeichen auf den Türmen und Hoheitszeichen auf Back und Schanz übermalen

Alarm ended. Afterwards, by order of Fleet, the aircraft identification markings on the turrets [red tops] and the sovereignty emblems [swastikas] on the forecastle and quarter [poop] deck were painted over.
SHOULD READ: "are to be painted over." This could mean that perhaps the order was not carried out exactly as given because of the wet and cold weather.

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

A better picture of the same frame from http://www.prinzeugen.com

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

Well, things like that covering or painting problem bother me: I think I have the answer now. Schmalenbach in "Schwerer Kreuzer Prinz Eugen, pp. 149-150:
"22.5. 05.10 Uhr: Zerstörer entlassen. - 12.37 Uhr: Zur Übung U-Boots- und Fliegeralrm. Nebel, schlechte Sicht, 400 m.- Nachmittags Hoheitszeichen of Back und Schanz übermalt bzw. zugedeckt."

"22.5. 0510 hours: Destroyers dismissed. - 1237 hours: Practice of submarine and air alarm. Fog, poor visibility, 400 m. - In the afternoon the sovereignty markings on the foredeck and poop are painted over, or rather [respectively], are covered up [zudecken = blanketed]."

So Schmalenbach and Statz say the same thing.

[José M. Rico]

BTW, there I just found a gross error in my translation!
22 May 1941

1307 / 1307 hours-
Alarm beendet. Anschließend auf Befehl Flotte Fliegersichtzeichen auf den Türmen und Hoheitszeichen auf Back und Schanz übermalen
Alarm ended. Afterwards, by order of Fleet, the aircraft identification markings on the turrets [red tops] and the sovereignty emblems [swastikas] on the forecastle and quarter [poop] deck were painted over.

SHOULD READ: "are to be painted over." This could mean that perhaps the order was not carried out exactly as given because of the wet and cold weather.

It makes sense to me. I will correct that entry in both BS and PG KTBs asap.

[Chel Sea]

Saludos/Ciao/Grüß Gott/Greetings all!

Wow, I am in really respected company here, often I have the prescient and well informed posts of all the above on here in other contexts.

My physical reference on my bookshelves is limited, and as time goes by more out of date, the collated information on this site is pretty definative and up to date, since it is based on all the existing written literature and painstaking research. As a qualified Historian (also Politics and Philosophy) my hat goes off to you all.

Therefore the only real source (apart from Osprey and the other slimline-type books) I have is "German Capital Ships of WWII" by MJ Whitely (2000 edition), but really most of the research was done around 1989, and the amount of historical research conducted since then has been phenomenal, the same in other fields that I study such as the paint schemes on Panzer tanks. Therefore at times I tend to be sceptical of my own sources, particularely pre-1990.

Notwithstanding that I also went on a great journey (metaphorically) like perhaps yourselves as to what happened with the painting. I know for a fact that the poor Sailors struggled to paint the Turret Tops yellow towards the end of the engagement and days before the Bismark was destroyed. I also know from personal experience how frustrating it is to paint with oil based paints in the rain, let alone a high sea and with the enemy abroad. It is often frustrating (the paint will not sit on a wet surface) and seems like a complete waste of time, let alone what was indicated above regarding potentially needing the air recognition banners again. I remember that even the anchor chains were painted in order to fit in with the banner on the foredeck.

Hmm that is interesting, in the process of trying to "prove" my claim about the Tarpaulins in my own books I have drawn a blank. I am postive that I read somewhere that Tarps were placed over the banners, and that it must have been the Bismark because later in the same account after the Denmark Strait engagement the sailors had to go out on the Foredeck and reposition the tarps because due to the lowered bow they were washing off.

I've just spent a good hour re-parsing the texts and nothing, this is really intriguing to me now. Regarding the German Armed Forces in General, my studies have taught me that normally the Germans (even today) have a highly homogenised system regarding painting and proceedures, and that they stick to them rigorously, more so than other armed forces. However there was extremely bad weather throughout Rheinubung, and in particular in the Atlantic, but the National Banners were covered up in "safe" waters, and it is clear the the Prinz Eugen did paint over their own banners. As Jose says I will paint the banners in first and them make adjustments, I even had the idea before this highly informative thread to mould the grey painted tarps over the banners and have them as a removable option. Perhaps that might be best practise

At the same time, the Prinz Eugen and RM Bismark were seperate commands and therefore differences in practice especially regarding comouflage were indeed open to interpretation especially regarding local conditions. Furthermore the German philosophy of spoken over written orders gave a certain amount of leeway of interpretation to the junior officers implementing them.

I think the correct interpretation of "blanketing over" is highly significant, many mistakes have been made before translating from English to German, I know this for a fact regarding the Wehrmacht. This also underlines my initial point that the Historicism of that period is still evolving, and especially regarding the exellent intelligence to be got on here

Antonio and Jose: Thank you very much for clearing up the decking details, especially the colour of the wood. Using an off-white Oak is tempting because it provides a "nice" contrast with the Grey Hull, if it was not for those hints I probably would have persevered with that option

Antonio: Thank you for the extra details about the Chain runs and the the chain stays over the beautifully arc-welded anchor rests in the bow. I am working on an Airfix kit, and the Bow is already innacurate, no middle chain and the metal deck from the bow runs back too far, so that part neeeds a bit of remodelling already.

Ulrich: Thank you very much also for the exellent translation work and the photographic details.

In all I'd like to thank you all again, I am very impressed with this thread and all the efforts rendered so far

All the best, Lucas

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Lucas and all,

Thanks from my side for your nice words

Jose' and Ulrich are great guys and very highly committed too, I fully agree with you.

Well there is one statement that I liked in particular, this one :

Regarding the German Armed Forces in General, my studies have taught me that normally the Germans (even today) have a highly homogenised system regarding painting and proceedures, and that they stick to them rigorously, more so than other armed forces.

I was initially thinking the same, and boys after several ' big ' failures I made I have learned painfully that those ships will always surprise you .

Few examples :

Banner and swastikas, a lot of differences among all ships, places, dimension, rotation, every ship a different interpretation and different places depending on period. GU and HIpper thinner and bigger ones.
Tirpitz used a flag back sometimes on port, sometimes on starboard side, as a non standard solution.

Top turrets, look at SH and GU during Weserubung, GU with the rangefinders painted too, SH did not,.. after a while they did it too.

War flag, almost everybody on top of the aft rangefinder mast, but not Bismarck ( mainmast ) or Tirpitz ( sometimes ),.. never SH that created her own special post on the mainmast 45° inclination ( very unique solution and to me very beautiful place too ).

Camouflages, sometimes the 2 sides are the same, sometimes completely different .... during Rheinubung BS and PG did things differently and at different times

So,.. they really did not follow the specifications too much,.... be careful on trusting the concept, .. otherwise you will be surprised too, .. just look every photo,... my suggestion of course.

Ciao Antonio

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

Antonio is right. There is no uniformity in some of that paint and emblem scheme for ships. Here for example are two 1:200 models from a book by Peter Schönfeldt, Wiking Modelle, Koehler Verlag, 1998. The Lützow and Hipper each has a different stern emblem which they wore only in April 1940. The models were made in Germany and are contemporaneous.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/ ... Hipper.jpg

[Pax Melmacia]

The item about the wooden (or is it wood-colored?) anchor chain lanes is new to me. This raises the question for modelers: How would you weather such a structure? Would there be gouges and splintering in the 'wood' from the anchor chain? What would show up underneath?