The Ship Model Forum

"Just a ridiculous mistake" seems to be the theme for this kit.

I don't have specifics for boot topping for the class. The US Navy's 1943 Painting and Cementing Guide states in Chapter 3:



Not really helpful to us....

I have pictures of a 1945 Booklet of General Plans that lists the L.W.L. (Loaded Water Line) as 33'0" but I'm not sure what the difference between L.W.L. and the "full-load water line" as used above is.

Now, on to something I said in the review. ShipCamouflage.com has long stated that the four sisters were in Measure 14 (except Santee) in 1942 and 1943 but I stated that I thought Sangamon was in a lighter gray. This picture on her Navsource page just looks too light to be a medium-ish gray to me, even with it being a crappy copy of a copy of a copy. The referenced photo is of Sangamon in September 1942 at the start of trials. Once again referencing the painting and cementing guide



OK, so maybe she was Haze Gray in trials - what about Operation Torch about a month and a half later? This photo is of her steaming to Torch in company with DD-455 Hambleton, which was in Measure 22 at the time. Hambleton's 5-H looks pretty similar to the gray on Sangamon, so I feel that it is likely that Sangamon is effectively in Measure 13. I have no documentation to prove this at this time; this is just my opinion.

For those wanting to do do other ships, the Trumpeter 1/350th kit is a good starting point (minus all the stuff they missed, of course) for the other ships of the class through Operation Torch but there may be modifications necessary after that. At least two of the ships had damage to the forward catwalks and flight deck from a storm on the return voyage and Santee immediately had the supports forward and catwalks modified in ways the other ships followed with later. There are detail changes we can see but we're holding off on building the full list and chart until we can get to the departure reports at NARA to get the full list.

I've been going through the war diaries making summaries of the daily activities so some progress is being made until then.

Hi Tracy,

The waterline depicted by the raised molded lines on the kit indicate that the width of the WL is about 1/16" or about 21 7/8" on the actual vessel. Is this correct? I don't have any expertise on these carriers but it would seem that the WL should be wider that the molded lines show. I have the kit and would at least like to paint the ship correctly. What's the general consensus on this?

Frank R.

Tracy,

Just one more to add to the list of mistakes in this kit. On the port side aft roll up doors, the moldings in the inner hull do not line up with the outside. I discovered this as I was cutting them open. Just a ridiculous mistake.

My review of the Trumpeter kit is finally up: Trumpeter 1/350 CVE-26 Sangamon kit review and I have a few more things I have determined that I'll add over the next couple of days - just a short break tonight.

a Sangamon book would be most welcome

Me too! I've been scanning photos I came across randomly at various branches of the National archives for a while but never made time for textural records (I'm already way behind in hoped-for books on the Essex class and Independence class CVLs) but when the kit came around I realized there really aren't any great references out there for the class. Since it's only four ships "theoretically" it should be quicker than the others to get a book out, and it will let me test some ideas I have for the other two books.

I have doubts about the mahogany stain but nothing to counter with. It wasn't in general use past late 1941 so how are ships that were converted starting in the summer of 1942 using it? I don't see how the Navy would have wanted to experiment with it given the fact that it had been used for so long before the war and would have been a known quantity. I suspect it was Norfolk 250, which was to match 20B Deck Blue (but as a stain instead of a paint it would have looked a bit different) but I haven't any actual documentation to back that up. I *think* Sean Hert and I looked through Santee's textural records for anything related to camouflage but we didn't find anything else I would remember. Hoping for a trip this summer (it would be my first since spring of 2019) to try and hit some CVE/CVL records.

Thanks for the info, Tracy!

I took the stripes for grungy white; now that you mention it, they are too uniform in tone for that.

That do you make of the deck color? In the Alan Raven piece you linked he suggests that Santee had a Mahogany-stained deck into late '42, but in the color photo it sure doesn't look like it; though it is reminiscent of some color shots of Wasp. Perhaps they applied blue stain over the mahogany just before shipping out for Operation Torch and that not-quite-blue but not-quite brown is the result?

A new book on the subject is welcome. I hope it comes to pass!

- Sean F.

To a point. I don't have full hull drawings and past a certain point I just needed to get the review done so I could get back to other projects. One area I had intended to illustrate but ultimately didn't do as well as I wanted was the lack of deck sheer on the main and forcastle decks; here's an inboard profile photo that shows the deck sheer:



The forward "openings" are about where the forward mast is in this post-war Cimmeron plans and you can see a definite slope as well as the forward forecastle deck, which is missing in the Trumpeter kits.



They were originally intended to have quad 1.1" mounts and Chenango did through Torch at least for her forward two (no good pictures aft yet). Quads on the stern and additional twin 40mm mounts up front.. there's a fair amount of upgrades and changes, some less apparent than others. Sangamon's 1945 Booklet of General plans does label the 5" gun as a 5"/38.



Measure 17 in general has been a quest for a few of us with the research bug. I'm not going to say that the documentation isn't there, but it's not in an obvious place. Lee Johnson and I talked about it more than a few times and he had regular access and was able to spend a lot more time in textural records than I ever will. For the time being the info in Alan Raven's piece on ShipCamouflage is probably the best we have.

Flight deck markings in the color picture you linked to were actually painted in Norfolk #250, which was formulated to match 5-O Ocean Gray.
For what it's worth, there may be a book in the works that would list details such as this

Depends on the year. Looks like they all got upgraded to quads at some point. For example:
https://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0302612.jpg

In this 1959 mothball shot of the Santee, at least the port side 5" mount is still in place; probably reasonable to extrapolate that to the whole class. Since they didn't simply remove them to save weight, and given the really poor fire arch overhead, it would be quite reasonable to expect that they never swapped out the 5"/51 anti-ship mounts for 5"38 dual-purpose guns.

I see Santee listed as having a Ms. 17 scheme in 1942 on Snyder & Short, but no definition of what colors constitute it. Does anyone know?
Couple other interesting points: In this shot, is that a yellow zinc chromate primer poking through? Didn't know they used that on ships.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0302901.jpg

And in this one, we have deck markings... apparently solid white at the deck edges, narrow dashed whit e in the middle, and... a lot of very non-standard annotations all over the place!
https://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0302960.jpg

- Sean F.

Will your review have photos of the errors? I'd planned on getting a Sangamon in 1/700 scale if and when they brought it out but before I buy I'd like to have an idea if the corrections
are doable/worth it.
Thanks

I have a review I sent in last month that largely echoes this. I decided - in for a penny, in for a pound and ordered $100 worth of Back Cat sets that essentially just covers what Trumpeter missed in this kit and not enhancements. Full retail for the kit and missing details is about $250 vice $300 for an Iron Shipwright resin kit, and that doesn't include a replacement set of railings. Up to the builder what medium they want to work in and who they want to support.

For what it's worth, the 5"/51 guns were on the aft sponsons and the fantail guns were twin 40mms, not 20mms as Trumpeter provided.

Hopefully the review shows up here soon.

I just finished the Trumpeter Sangamon kit and thought I would weigh in with a review of it. To preface my remarks, I will say that I was not familiar with the class at all when I purchased the kit. Before I began building it, I did some online research. I wasn't able to find much there, beyond the basics and 20-30 photos, most of which were so poor they were useless. I visited some modeling pages on Facebook and discovered there were some significant inaccuracies with the kit, involving, among other things, armament and deck heights, etc. Once I began the build, I found there were a great many more problems with the kit. Some are easily rectified, others...Well, let me list them.

1. The parts count. There just aren't very many of them. In fact, the majority of the parts are made up by the aircraft. There are only 90 plastic parts for the ship itself, and 43 PE parts for a total of 133. The 16 aircraft make up 136. If you figure in each individual decal, the imbalance is even worse. If this were a $50-60 destroyer, it wouldn't seem such a big deal, but a $127 aircraft carrier makes it one.

2. Next are a few parts that should have been included, but weren't. There were 4 sets of lifeboat stanchions included, but no lifeboats. I can't remember a warship kit ever that didn't include at least one. Nor are there any life rafts. The Sangamon had an open bridge, yet the kit is bereft of any details. No signal lamps, binoculars, polaris, nothing. Just empty space. According to various sources, she was originally fitted with a pair of 5" 51 gun mounts (I assume these would have been mounted on the fantail), but the kit provides only 20mm guns in that location. Sources also indicate there were 4 twin Bofors, but only two are provided.

3. A large PE wall completely relief etched leaving only a couple of doors unetched so they would stand out. The wall itself is inside the hull on the lower deck where it cannot be viewed.

4. A poorly designed and executed handrail for the upper platform of the main mast.

5. Separate flight deck elevators that can only be mounted in the raised position. The do fit nicely in the holes in the flight deck, but with no additional parts to display them lowered, why bother making them separate parts?

6. "Aztec" stairs on the edges of the flight deck. These could have been done with PE for a much nice look. The previously mentioned interior wall took up more than enough space on the PE fret that could have been used for this, as well as ladders that could have been included to take the place of molded in ones.

7. Enormously thick platforms on the sides of the hull near the stern on both sides with molded in ladders that lead nowhere.

8. The SBD's included in the kit came with optional folding wings. An easy delete, but seems indicative of the lack of concern/research into the making of the kit in the first place.

9. The plastic mounting stand looks to have been designed for a wooden sailing ship. The ship has basically a flat bottom, while the stand pieces are a deep "V" with a large, square notch at the bottom that looks to be meant to clear a keel. All this for $127 USD from Sprue Bros. You may find it for less elsewhere by now. In my opinion, this is maybe an 80-90 value when compared to other models of similar size and content.

I knew going in to this there would be issues, given Trumpeters track record with several other kits of theirs I've built, but for my money, this kit is an all-time low for the company. To me, it looks like the engineers and decision makers at Trumpeter just phoned this one in. Knowing what I know now, I never would have made the purchase. I hope this saves someone a lot of aggravation and disappointment.

You have to get in touch directly with David Angelo for any of his current Loose Cannon kits since he no longer has a website and he closed his Ebay store. He still had these available a few months ago. Contact at fuelmann06@gmail.com for availability of any of the Loose Cannon kits.

It would appear so - but I couldn't find anything current and they might be hard to find. According to a SteelNavy page they are Loose Cannon kits:

Kit #43 USS Sangamon Class CVE 1942
Kit #44 USS CHENANGO, USS Sangamon Class CVE 1942

No hits for completed builds in the gallery or eBay, etc.

Loose Cannon also has two models of this class in 1/700 scale.

OK, we have a new 1/350th scale kit (review pending) and no thread to share information and questions! The four sisters of the Sangamon class were converted from oilers of the Cimarron class. The ships were:

CVE-26 Sangamon - Navsource / DANFS
CVE-27 Suwannee - Navsource / DANFS
CVE-28 Chenango - Navsource / DANFS
CVE-29 Santee - Navsource / DANFS

There was a fairly interesting history ranging from Operation Torch and the Battle of the Atlantic to varied service in the Pacific.

Kits

1/350
Iron Shipwright CVE-26 Sangamon - 1944
Trumpeter CVE-26 - 1942-43

1/700
Aki CVE-26 - 1942-43 (ModelWarships.com Review)

ModelWarships.com Galleries:
Scratchbuilt 1/72 CVE-26 by René Hieronymus
1/350 Iron Shipwright USS Santee CVE-29 by Richard Sliwka
1/350 Iron Shipwright USS Sangamon as USS Santee CVE-29 by Mike Bridge