Type VIIb plans inconsistencies

[don prince]

Hi Jeff,

I plan on

Hi Jeff,

I plan on bringing U-96, but I won't finish the WTC and Dive system until I retire (end of 2008). I plan on getting some good suggestions and information from the many experts.

Regards,
Don_

[mylo]

Good read, enjoyed the discussion.



Good read, enjoyed the discussion.

Jeff......don't get me going on that damn Atlantik Bow, that "detail" cost me 20 hours of labour to get reasonably correct on my VIIc/41 build. Yes, the Atlantik Bow is "fatter". Other than the Atlantik, I could find no difference in my research from the bow of the VIIb and c. ....I don't know HOW many photos and schematics I stared at. ...lots, let's just put it that way.

As for the saddle tank step, I could find no photographic evidence to suggest that any VIIb/c had that step as a "visible" exterior feature. The dabate continues on whether it's concealed or not. Does the possibility exist that the diagrams containing the "step" are simply incorrect ?

.....calling all experts.

Mylo

[hakkikt]

Here is a comparison of

Here is a comparison of how Revell solved the problem of the Atlantic Bow. Their models of the VIIC and VIIC/41 include that difference.
Photo taken from a review that I saved ages ago.

[dougie995]

Hello gentlemen,

The photos of the

Hello gentlemen,

The photos of the VIIBs U 53 and U 54 show no externally visible step in this area either. Mylo's suggestion that the plan is incorrect is quite possible. In the side profile drawing of a 1940 VIIB that is in pages 30 and 31 of Robert Stern's "Type VII U-Boats", the drainage holes between the two torpedo doors are not the same as those on U 53, U 54 and U 99. The side profile has a double line of holes while the photos show a single line.

So maybe this step is merely an error in the plan as Mylo suggested?

Cheers,

Dougie Martindale

[gerwalk]

Hello gentlemen,

The photos of the

Hello gentlemen,

The photos of the VIIBs U 53 and U 54 show no externally visible step in this area either. Mylo's suggestion that the plan is incorrect is quite possible. In the side profile drawing of a 1940 VIIB that is in pages 30 and 31 of Robert Stern's "Type VII U-Boats", the drainage holes between the two torpedo doors are not the same as those on U 53, U 54 and U 99. The side profile has a double line of holes while the photos show a single line.

So maybe this step is merely an error in the plan as Mylo suggested?

Cheers,

Dougie Martindale

Dougie! What a honor that you have joined this discussion!

I think that we all agree the step is not present in any of the photos but I wouldn't say the plans are wrong. Since the Type II has this kind of steps: Maybe those plans represent an early design of the type VIIb?

Thanks for your answer!

[dougie995]

Hi Gerwalk,

Many thanks, you are

Hi Gerwalk,

Many thanks, you are too kind! It is a pleasure to join a discussion with such knowledgeable contributors.

I suppose the plan could show an earlier VIIB. The earliest VIIB U 45 was launched over a year before U 53 and U 54 so maybe U 45 was different in one or two respects.

By the way, I think the photo that is often reported to be U 47 in dry-dock is not U 47. Is this dry-dock photo you refer to the same photo that is on page 47 of Stern’s Type VII U-Boats? If so then the drainage holes around the torpedo doors, along the side, and next to the stem, all point to a VIIC rather than a B.

You did ask in your first post about differences between B’s and C’s. Jeff rightly (as always!) pointed out about the air trunking. The L-shaped trunks were fitted around the summer of 1940 or so. The teardrop shaped intakes behind the attack periscope base replaced the L-shaped trunks (which were removed) sometime around the start or early spring of 1941. U 48, for example, originally had no trunks, then had the L-shaped trunks, and finally had the teardrop trunks before being retired. As for U 47 and U 99, they didn’t last long enough for the teardrop intake to be fitted.

Another difference is that the trailing edge of VIIB towers (VIIBs from 1940 onwards that is) sloped in the opposite direction to the VIIC towers. This difference is illustrated on the second image down at -

http://www.modelshipwrights.com/modules ... 870&page=5

The drainage holes in the hull casing were slightly different on VIIBs than VIICs too. The difference in the holes can be seen at –

http://www.u-historia.com/uhistoria/tec ... ecnico.htm

(Goto articulos technicos then Patrones de los agujeros de inundación de los Tipo VIIc)

On the top image on this page you can see there were more holes in the front group on VIIBs than on the VIICs. On the 6th image down the difference between the holes around the torpedo doors can be seen (the VIIBs didn’t have the double row of elongated holes above the top door).

There are a few other differences which I can go into if you wish but they are more minor. By the way, is your friend making U 47?

Best regards,

Dougie

[gesalinas]

Dougie: My name is Gonzalo

Dougie: My name is Gonzalo Salinas. I´m friend of Gerwalk. I´m the same guy of 3 friends that send to you a mail saying that we met in a bar, asking to you for photos of u 47 or reliable drawings. The mail you received is from Otto Pretzel, your real name forgot it because it´s a nickname that he assumed it.
I, Gonzalo Salinas; is not building the u 47, because this step. This problem I can´t resolve since 2 o 3 years ago. I discovered that side view bow and stern of VII C and VII B has the same dimensions, like the drawings of book Original Zum Modell u boot typ VII C.
I send to Gerwalk a couple of photos that I think it´s a type VII A. Problems of copyright, he can´t upload here. May be, Gerwalk, if he wish; send to your mail. There, it´s possible to see a little step in that photos.
Also, there is not photo of inside the U 47 tower.
Your job about U 47 it´s excelent. It´s an honour that you post here.
I hope this text you understand. My english it´s bad.
Regards,
Gonzalo Salinas.

[mylo]

dougie,

You've got some nerve

dougie,

You've got some nerve posting on this thread. This thread is for people with some knowledge about U-Boats. Do you feel you qualify ?

DISCLAIMER : All assumptions are made that the sarcasm will be apparent in this post.

Mylo

[gerwalk]

Thanks Dougie for the answer.

So

Thanks Dougie for the answer.

So this is not U-47?:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4803/10u47vs4.jpg

These are the photos Gesalinas mentioned (since we are using them for technical discussions I think we are not violating any copyright issues, if someone thought the contrary I will remove them ASAP).
IMO these photos are from a Typ II not a Typ VIIa as gesalinas said (the step is visible in these photos)]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/Gerwalker/Typ%20II/c812.jpg[/img]

[JWLaRue]

Pablo,

...actually, I think those two

Pablo,

...actually, I think those two photos *are* of a Type VII (also erroneously called the VIIA).

Though the quality of the photos is lacking, the bow does not appear to have a torpedo tube in the centerline. The second photo does show a bit of the external, aft torpedo tube.

That aside, I do not understand (or see?) where the 'step' is? Can someone point it out to me?

-tnx,

Jeff

[gerwalk]

Pablo,

...actually, I think those two

Pablo,

...actually, I think those two photos *are* of a Type VII (also erroneously called the VIIA).

Though the quality of the photos is lacking, the bow does not appear to have a torpedo tube in the centerline. The second photo does show a bit of the external, aft torpedo tube.

That aside, I do not understand (or see?) where the 'step' is? Can someone point it out to me?

-tnx,

Jeff

Jeff,
you are right! It's a Typ VII My appologies to gesalinas! As for the step, I think it can be seen here (it can be an effect of "pixels" or the like though)]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/Gerwalker/Typ%20II/step1.jpg[/img]

[dougie995]

Hi everyone,

Ah, yes, Gonzalo, I

Hi everyone,

Ah, yes, Gonzalo, I remember you well. I think you are from Argentina, if I remember correctly. Firstly, the U-boat photo in the link on Gerwalk’s post is the one I was referring to earlier. I’m positive it isn’t U 47 due to the following reasons –

1. The quality isn’t great but if you look above the top torpedo door you can see a double row of elongated holes. These holes featured upon most (but not all) VIICs but not upon VIIBs such as U 47.
2. The main set of drainage holes along the hull casing has the number of holes that were seen upon VIICs. All VIIBs had quite a lot more holes in this area. So this also points towards a VIIC.
3. The wind deflector can be seen at the top of the tower. On early VIIBs (such as U 46, U 47 and U 48), the wind deflector did not curve outwards as much as it did on later VIIBs (U 99 and U 86) and on all VIICs. The deflector in the photo is the style found on late VIIBs and VIICs (and not U 47).
4. Stern refers to this photo as a VIIC on the 14th December 1940. He also says it is probably U 451.

As Jeff righly says, the two photos posted are of an original VII. It is U 29, after it had been retired from active duty to the 24th U-Flottille, a training flotilla. There might be a small step in this photo but I’m not convinced it is as pronounced as the one in the plan?

The photo below is another original VII, U 31. I'm not sure this helps but thought I'd add it anyway -



In any case, the photos posted are original VIIs. The available photos of VIIBs definitely show no step. If I was modelling U 47 I’d certainly go for no step.

One thing to remember in U-boat research is that we don’t know everything. It isn’t like modelling an F14 Tomcat where we have a walkaround book showing us literally every detail. There were so many variations in the VIIs and none of us can possibly know everything. This can make U-boat research fun, since there is always more to learn, but also a bit frustrating at times!

Cheers everyone,

Dougie

[gerwalk]

Dougie,
Gonzalo is indeed from Argentina

Dougie,
Gonzalo is indeed from Argentina -like myself- and he is very persistant sub-researcher and modeler.

That photo shows a gap or step, no doubt about it!

Thanks for all the info! And yes, I prefer U-boats to Tomcats as research subjects!!

[JWLaRue]

Well....given where the apparent 'step'

Well....given where the apparent 'step' is, I'd suggest that it is more likely that we are seeing the lower saddle tank flood door frame........

Time to dive into the library to see what I can find of early Type VII's (e.g. VIIA)......

-Jeff

[gesalinas]

Dougie:
Yes, I´m from Argentina

Dougie:
Yes, I´m from Argentina and Rosario City. ¿What about the shape of saddle tanks? It´s not the same that VII C and VII B and not the same that drawings post here about VII B. From side view, this tanks looks like an oval shape. The VII C has more long saddle tanks, narrow tanks.
The drawings of VII B sections, view from bow or stern; shows saddle tanks different than VII C, wich has frames saddle tanks in semi circle shape. All sections of saddle tanks are semi circle in VII C and there is no step.
Because this, I think it´s not possible to make a VII B from a VII C, cutting 60 centimeters to hull. Scratch or from VII C kit.