The Ship Model Forum

What is the scale here?

My BB 59 3d printed superstructure wood printed deck
SOUTH DAKOTA SUPERSTRUCTURE AND Hull RESIN FROM MOLD

Also the boat crane aft wasn't fitted to Alabama.

One thing you need to be aware of when converting an Alabama into a Massachusetts is the spare anchor notch. The South Dakotas were designed with a notch in the deck, port side forward, for a spare anchor. Massachusetts retained hers until her post-war refit, although it was disguised following her '44 refit by having a quad 40MM positioned on top of it. (The visible break in the deck edge remained, however.) Alabama had hers filled in prior to commissioning, although the reinforced deck-edge lip can still be seen a short distance below the forecastle deck.
https://navsource.org/archives/01/059/015934.jpg
https://navsource.org/archives/01/060/016042.jpg
https://navsource.org/archives/01/060/016014.jpg

Right off the bat, you should use their Alabama kit instead as it will start you off much closer to where you want to finish. (Unless you already have the Massachusetts kit and simply must use it). Aside from the AA fit, the mainmast is one of the most notable differences and the 1945 BB-59 kit has the late style.

- Sean F.

What are the key differences for USS Massachusets ca 1942-43 during her African presence to be mindful of compared to late 1945? Radar, AA, location of various tertirary weapons, boats, etc. Im thinking what are the key backdating steps for Trumpeter 1/700 1945 kit.

Thanks but I don't have the kit yet, so I can't really compare the plans and the kit.

I'm thinking of getting the Vee Hobby Indiana but I want to back date it to 1944, when it was painted in it's Ms32 scheme. Can anyone help me with what work would be needed, other than the paint job.

thanks
Mike

There is a really excellent analysis of the damage to Krishna on line. It is believed that Washington't first salvo that was spotted as short caused several penetrations of the side protective system below the waterline beginning a progressive flooding that probably would have been fatal eventually. It contains a chart showing hit locations etc. Very thorough! It was some years ago I read this excellent article and traveling at the moment don't have a link to it.

Interestingly SODAK's main armor was not penetrated including a hit on her aft barbette.

Not to take this thread further off topic, but review of this shows there was several critical hits below the waterline which let to her instability. The actual hits were around 20 of 16-inch, ADM lee said they only hit her 8 times, but several of the "misses" would plunge into the side of the Kirishima.
Lundgren Kirishima Damage Analysis

Matt

Supposedly the Kentucky and Illinois had their torpedo protection revised for this reason as the commissioned Iowa's mostly duplicated the SODAK system. When Battleships are compared it's usually on the basis of ship vrs ship. Indeed diving shells were a considerable danger, probably responsible for krishima's rapid demise vis. Washington. I have some recollection Prince of Wales had an unexploded 8" shell from Prinz E in her bilge. One of POW's three hits on Bismarck defeated her side protective system by diving under and causing some slow progressive flooding.

No doubt they were successful ships, and impressive engineering achievements. For fighting other battleships, it's hard to argue against them being the best of the treaty battleships, even the ones that cheated!

However one major flaw that doesn't seem to be talked about much was their torpedo protection. Unlike North Carolina, the armored belt of South Dakota was extended downwards into the torpedo protection zone (it was intended to protect against diving shells). Apparently it was not appreciated at the time that a rigid armored bulkhead interfered with the system's ability to absorb a torpedo hit, because the hard belt material would shatter rather than elastically deform. In Freidman's US Battleships he stated that it "nearly negated the the value of the entire system". It wasn't clear to me how the flaw was discovered (caisson testing?) but to me it seems like a pretty big one. Torpedoes were the #1 killer of battleships in the war after all. And the Iowas had the same protection scheme.

If this has been hashed over I apologize, feel free to point me to the original discussion - but I hadn't notice this flaw discussed before.

Are you still looking for a copy of pages 3/4 for the Flyhawk 1/350 PE set for USS Alabama ?

It's why UV filters remain popular, not just as lens protectors. The human eye responds to color perception differently than films. Of course some people lack certain response to colors, we call them color blind. Digital for instance, photographing the aurora appears much brighter than we experience it in person, mostly because in dim conditions we loose much of our color vision.

Back to the subject of the thread, the SODAK's were very successful battleships for their tonnage and lacked (only) space, being crowded and the extra speed for carrier escort. Some opined that the extra 10,000 tons to leap to the Iowa's was a lot to pay for 6 knots of speed.

In the early days of popular color photography, i.e. Kodakchrome, it was not widely known that the film was sensitive to UV. In areas where UV was strong, such as the open ocean, there would be a slight shift towards blue in the image.

A lot of Official WWII photos were taken by 4x5 press cameras which did have interchangeable lenses and many of these photos are of high quality. Roll film cameras as twin lens reflexes were also around, photos of the era ar mostly black and white for a number of technical reasons. The biggest drawbacks to color photography was the need for what was a special processing with more rigorous controls, problems with temperature and mostly very slow emulsions. Black and white was much "faster" TRI X being a popular emulsion at ASA 400. Edward Steichen had his famous group of photographers traveling with the fast carriers, there is one of those photos I have seen at MOMA in NYC. Another showed a young ensign on the USS Monterey jumping for a basketball on the lowered elevator, his name Gerald R Ford... Guestamation of colors fromB&W can be interesting, but one must know if orthochromatic or anatomic film was being used and what filtration, green, orange and red filters see the world very differently. Orthochromatic had advantages in processing as red safe lights could be use din the darkroom as is often done with B&W paper development of prints.

Color, well hard to tell often and usually not reliable in the slightest. In NZ they worried down the paint of the last surviving NZ Corsair to find what the original pay t looked like. I am sure AI will recreate what the 'Rebel Yell" sounds like though no living person has ever heard it... Is shipboard photos one can tell a little about color shifts from things like undershirts and Chambray shirts worn by the deck apes (I wore one).

All in all we should be aware of what we don't know.

These are some great photos.

I had started some SoDak PE and 3D parts a few years ago, which got derailed by a paralyzed arm and part of my body.

I am kind of glad now that it was so delayed, as there are some details that these photos show, aside from the color, that are a big help to completing the set.

It is stunning that no one has done a 1942 outfit of this ship, nor many of her sisters, as a model.

I had wondered about the camo measure at the time as well, with most saying it was Ms. 12, while the Santa Cruz picks caused me to wonder about that.

But the photo of her with Maury is a pretty decent piece of evidence for Ms. 21.

It is often very hard to tell the “color” of ships in the WWII photos due to the film they used, and the lack of any ability to control the cameras in the way that the Box-Cameras with detachable lenses (the predecessors of the SLR) could do (controlling iris and shutter-speed).

And this is in addition to the salt buildup and fading of the paint, on top of other weathering, combined with the tendency to shoot in very hard lighting conditions.

MB

Hi all, having a rough shot here, but would anyone have the Flyhawk 1/350 photo etch set for the Alabama? i need a copy of pages 3/4 of the instructions. I have tried Flyhawk with no luck.

Thanks

Also don't forget this pic, I think it is pretty definitive that she was in Ms 21:


https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 30054.html

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to dig that out and post it Martin, very interesting and much appreciated.

I'd also concur with taskforce48 that she looks monotone in the post Guadalcanal battle damage photos.

So it seems there is some leeway barring any further hard evidence emerging.