Dear Contributors--

It looks like I may be confronted with the first snaffu in the course of my exciting Amtai 1:72 U Boot project. As some of you may know, I am strongly considering building a U Boot other than U 47, mostly because I want a U Boot with the classical early war Wintergarten, but also because I like the swordfish, cat times three emblems better (waiting to see what emblems U 101 and u 99 had). While I am partial to U 48, its tower is simply too dissimilar from the tower provided in the kit. The only way I could truly and accurately render a U 48 would be to rehaul the tower substantially. One might even have to build the thing entirely from scratch: an undertaking I am much less confident about at this stage in my career as a modeller. After some inquires, the most successful, early war U Boots with towers that would allow for relatively pedestrain tower-modification are U 99, U 96, and U 101, the front runner being u -96, because she, like the other U Boots mentioned, had an illustrious career, and she was the ship that the movie Das Boot was based on. Best of all, she also had that exciting "laughing swordfish" emblem that I am so enamored with.
The latter of these two U Boots, U 96 and 101 are Type VII Cs, as far as I know. The problem is I have already inscribed the torpedo tubes as well as the limber holes between them. The problem? Recent consultation with my resources reveals that Type VIIcs generally have different limber hole patterns around the torpedo tubes than Type VII Bs. Type VII Bs had two rows between the two torpedo tubes; as far as I know, Type VIIc's only had one row between the torpedo tubes, then two rows above the highest one. Of course, given how divergent different U Boots of even the same class can be (eg U-47 tower looks much different than u 48, saw in my book that U Boots of a certrain manufactgurer had dramatically varient free flood hole patterns), it would not surprise me if what lawyers might call the "black letter rule" regarding Type VIICs-- namely that all Type VIICs had one row of limber holes btwn torpedo tubes and two rows above the upper tube--varied to such an extent that its really not a hard and fast rule at all. Upon reviewing their gallery, I was surprised to learn the fine art models rendition (see fineartmodels.com) has one row of limber holes on each level. I doubt their production is anything other than absolutely, totally accurate, strongly suggesting that there is variation among Type VIIC limer hole patterns on this part of the vessel. Of course, if some one could tell me that early Type VIIcs had the same configuration in this area as type VII Bs, I would be greatly elated. Absent that, here are the considerations that I am presently contemplating at the moment:

1) just let it slide. Its a relatively minor detail, and given how small the holes are, I am fortunate to have been able to execute them with the degree of uniformity i have been able to manage. What I have been able to achieve is impressive enough, so just let it go. Only the most obnoxious, anal retentive "rivet counters" fret about that sort of thing, and they take the fun out of the hobby anyway.

2) do not let it slide. You are trying to become the very best modeller you can be, not only in terms of basic form, but historical accuracy. If Type VIIcs had a different limber hole configuration across the board, do not take the easy way out, particularly when anyone reasonably well versed in "U Boot science" recognizes Type VIIcs by this very feature. Either settle for a type VIIB--at this point either u 47 or u 99, given the very lmited options with the tower issue--or fix this.
But if I should try to remedy it, given the fact that the holes are already there, things might me difficult, to put it mildly. To my great satisfaction, I have discoverd that green putty by squadron is much harder. It does not crumble nearly as easy as that white stuif. I discovered this because one of the templates I was given was overszied, and I was pleased to see that it was fairly receptive to redrilling. Right now, if I should try and redo the limber holes, two ideas are being considered:

a) smother the existing limbering holes with green putty. Let dry and harden. Then redrill new, single row of limber holes, sand down and refinish, touching up torpedo tubes where needed. This option sounds dubious to me, because I would be drilling where a vertical bar of resin now exits. I am thinking the drill, rather than press through this resin, would simply slip off to the side, in to the softer putty, and off target.

b) cut out the hole section between the tubes with a jewerls saw, install plastic sheet with single row of holes already drilled. Cover up seems with putty. Due to the puty over-run, this would require re-doing part of the torpedo tubes, which is fine. Both of these options would be a lot of work. And I dont think they would be easy. But they are the only remedies that seem realistic to me, except this one, which I just now thought of:

c) smother the top row only with putty, as well as all the portions of the top torpedo tube.. Sand down and smoothen to a seemless flush. Then re-inscribe the torpedo tube. The downside to this is tht the top torpedo tubes would be about 1mm lower than they should be. However, whereas different limber holes on the very front of a vessel are fairly obvious, this sort of nit picking abot such an obscure matter is of infinitely much less concern to me. Even the most obnoxious "rivet-counter" most deserving of a hard and severe beating would probably not cathc this.

I know this is a lot to read. But I would like contributors' advice, based on their collective experience. Thanks for reading my lengthy inquiry.

Best Wishes,

Einsamer Wolf