The Ship Model Forum

The ship would not have fit through the Panama Canal with the 7 outboard 40MM in place. That is why she put into Hunter's Point. She needed the extra firepower to face Kamikazes. She was probably in the neutral Navy Gray rather than Navy Blue, based on her being painted on the east coast after the switch was made, but one can not guarantee that she was not painted with some of the remaining older stocks of the Navy Blue. B&W photos are of no help here.

I never knew about the panama canal thing, I guess the question is do I model her with or without them. On the one hand, the war ended while she was still getting them put on. On the other hand, she looks more like a WWII Essex with them on. Would the deck color still have been blue if she was in 5-N Navy Gray? If so I will probably model her in gray for more contrast. For what its worth I have seen her depicted in model form as being both blue or gray. Perhaps I could ask the USS Boxer veterans organization. With a ship of more than 3,000 hopefully there is at least one WWII vet who remembers.

https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022132.jpg
She definitely operated with the outboard quads, so it is your choice.

Thanks for the image, I've seen it before but not in that high a resolution, makes me wonder what my grandfather was doing aboard her when that picture was taken. I might as well depict her with the gun tubs, that makes her look more "wartime". Her war diary also says that she got additional FCS equipment during her upgrades, would that have likely just been stuff for the new guns or would that be an upgrade to her FCS director itself (or something similar, perhaps internally)? If I am going to depict her with the gun tubs, I'll have to have the right FCS stuff on her as well.

I don't have much for CV-21 herself but I can state that there wasn't a neutral flight deck stain during the war, so she would have had a blue flight deck at least.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Good to know. Shipcamouflage.com says that the horizontal surfaces were deck gray 20, is that the same as the pre-war deck gray #20 or something different? If I may pick your brain a bit, what do you know about CV-21?

The formulas changed, but they worked to match colors fairly consistently so it should be close enough, especially if you are weathering.

I don't have a lot on CV-21,

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

That's fine, she had a pretty uneventful service in World War II so there's not much out there about her, at least when it comes to her service in that conflict. It seems that Korea was when she did her more notable actions. As for the colors as long as its the same as the prewar stuff I should be fine. I am using Colourcoats enamels and they're very well researched. The flight deck blue was the Norfolk 250N blue stain yes? I'm only doing light weathering as I am depicting her as commissioned, plus the outboard 40mm's she was getting at hunters point when hostilities ended.

No, they switched to a different formula: #21 Flight Deck Stain

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

And for clarification, if you're using Colourcoats, you want #21 Flight Deck Stain, but it just occured to me that I'm not sure which of the two it represents.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I see, I'll have to check if I have #21 flight deck stain or not. As for whether or not it is the 1945 revised version or not I'll have to email Sovereign Hobbies. Shipcamouflage.com says that the revised #21 flight deck stain was identical to 20-B deck blue when new, and I am making USS Boxer when she was new after all. If the #21 flight deck stain offered by Colourcoats is the 1944 version, I can either use 20-B deck blue, do a 50:50 mix of the 1944 #21 and the 20-B deck blue, or very simply just use the 1944 version of the flight deck stain. One more paint question, Colourcoats offers two antifouling reds for the US navy, one called USN antifouling red which I believe is for modern, or at least post WWII, USN ships, and then there's Norfolk 65A antifouling red. The anti-fouling paint would've been the Norfolk 65A antifouling red, yes?

Hi,

according to my Snyder & Short US Navy chips there's only one Flight Deck Stain 21 chip (which Colourcoats US11 is matched to) with a foot note on the card saying:

2. In 1944 Flight Deck Stain 21 was changed to match Revised Deck Blue

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

Thanks James.

Given that, I'd probably go with 20-B for the flight deck but change it a touch to give the wood a different appearance. Given the oil dripping and blowing off the exhausts, rubber from tires and shoes, I'd tend to darken it just a touch as when you look at color pictures of wooden decks they tend to look dark.

Norfolk 65 is essentially called out in the 1943 painting and cementing guide online at ShipCamouflage.com so that's a pretty easy choice.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

So the flight deck will just be revised 20-B deck blue then, thanks for the info!

Okay so it turns out I actually do have one more paint question. What were ceiling surfaces painted? specifically I am talking about where the flight deck overhangs the bow and stern but the interior of the hangar would be good to know as well. I still haven't decided if I am portraying Boxer with hangar doors opened or closed yet, on the one hand they appear to have been usually open but on the other hand depicting them open means filling many many more ejector pin marks, at least on the trumpeter Hancock and Ticonderoga kits, which I understand is the only 1/350 long hull Essex's available.

Overheads at that point would have been the same as vertical surfaces. Earlier in the war, Dazzle schemes would have called for white as part of counter-shading, but this was canceled by February of 1945 (Second page, 4 (A).

Also, overheads in the hangar (along with bulkheads) would have been white. Bulkheads around the elevators would have been the same as vertical surfaces with a six-foot band around the top so that they could do engine run ups in the dark.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Okay so next question, what would you all say is the best 1/350 photo etch set for my Boxer model? In particular I'd like to get the things like the correct type of radar, FCS directors, etc that Boxer had as commissioned but knowing what the best all around set would be just as nice to know. Thanks to everyone who has been answering all of my questions, by the way.

It depends on how much you want to put in to it and what results you want. Boxer was a long hull, but had her flight deck "restored" to the original length versus the first three had a mixture of shorter deck configurations. Trumpeter repackaged their CV-14 Ticonderoga and CV-19 Hancock kits with the same parts (maybe a couple of small radar details; can't remember for sure) but they're both short flight decks (Tico had a couple of different configurations during the war) and have some incorrect details for any instance of an Essex class.

Your "best" bet may be a Pontos set, but I'd need to look over parts and configurations to determine which set you would want. There are also sets by Gold Medal Models, Tom's modelworks, and White Ensign but before I out any more work in to it (busy work week) I'd like to get a sense for what you are looking for. "Money's no object," "best value," etc.. Trumpeter's calwalks are a little plain and incorrect - do you want to detail them out or just choose a little extra railing set?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

As I mentioned previously, my grandfather served aboard Boxer from 1945 to 1949. He passed before I was born (I'm 23) so this model is being built for my father as much as it is being built for myself, so money's not a problem as I am going all out with it. When you say Boxer's flight deck was "restored", do you mean it was longer than Hancocks as commissioned, and if so, by how much? The Hancock set is the one I going to be using for Boxer. I am actually working on making Hancock first, then I will buy a second kit in order to make Boxer, and learn from any mistakes I've made on Hancock. I want it to be the best model possible. As for the Hancock model, I am simply looking for railing, and maybe the radar and the FCS director antenna.

The original Essex design had a more vertical bow. By the time she commissioned, a single quad 40MM mount had been added there. Another was extended from the stern on a small sponson. After 10 of these "short hull" ships had been started, there was a desire to increase the number of 40MM mounts, so the bow was extended (making the "long hull") and widened to allow 2 quad 40MM there. A new. larger sponson was designed for the stern to allow 2 quad 40MM there. To increase the arcs of fire for these new mounts, the forward flightdeck was shortened by 11 feet and the after end by 7 feet. Additionally, there was a "notch" cut out of the forward end of the port side flightdeck overhang (just aft of the forward 5" gun sponson) to allow for a third MK-37 director. The director would have interfered with flight ops, and so no ships were completed with it, instead adding 2 more quad 40MM on the sponson. Hancock and Ticonderoga both commissioned that way, but the air departments on the ships hated the flightdeck changes. Hancock deployed that way, but Tico had the notch filled back in and the forward 11 feet of flightdeck restored before leaving the east coast for the war zone. Tico had the after 7 feet of flightdeck added back when she was repaired in 1945. Hancock had some repairs done at Pearl, when the notch was filled in, but the flightdeck was not lengthened. Randolph and Shangri La launched with the shorter flightdeck, but both commissioned with the full-length deck. I can't say if they had the notch when launched, but neither had it upon completion. All subsequent Essex's had the full flight deck.

Dragon mistakenly put a shorter flightdeck on their Randolph kit, but it was only shorter at the forward end. They also made the forward deck of their Antietam kit shorter. I also think the Boxer deck was short. So the shortened decks in their kits are not correct for any ships of the class, and were often included on the wrong ships of the class. Tracy and I both tried working with Dragon to fix this, but (obviously) we got nowhere.