Calling all USS North Carolina BB-55 & USS Washington BB-56 fans

[Ron Smith]

Hi Ron, hi Tracy, hi all.

To Ron, first of all many thanks for all the help (info and advice) you offered and for the in box review you linked to, which is absolutely excellent (very comprehensive).

Thanks, that's actually a build review, you don't find most of the problems until you start gluing things together.

(I presume Trumpeter got their position right so since your Ron�s review does not mention such an additional error).

If they're not perfect they're close enough. I wasn't going to try taking calipers to photos.

 "acetone puttying" (I simply put a fair amount of Tamiya putty on a earstick, rub the putty on the seam to fill any gap, then grab a few more earsticks soaked in acetone and wipe out any excess).

There's an easier way, paint in some White Out (correction fluid) then use Q-tips with denatured alcohol to "sand" it. Also works with Mr. Surfacer. Tamiya putty, if it's the sliver/grey stuff, will "sand" using Q-tips and Mr. Color thinner from Gunze. Acetone can attack the plastic so I prefer either of the milder solvents.

Reinvigorated by the deck 01 success I set about to correct the �too agile� stacks.
Drilling larger exhaust holes was easy.
Then I wrapped the main flanks of the funnels on .25 mm rectangular pieces of styrene, to fatten them up as much as I practically could.
I put 2 x .25 mm styrene layers in place (around the whole stack), sanded their joints, sanded (round contour of course) the added length as much as I practically could (if one sands too much the added sheets break up).

I have to say I am NOT satisfied with the partial results.
Lots of work still needs to be done on upper and lower portions of the funnels for a result that probably will never be perfect.
It would be wiser to buy some good resin, if available
Do you know if YMW would be willing to sell just the 2 stacks ?

Since I have the resin stacks you mention in the Classic Warships kit I compared them with Trumpeter's stacks. I don't think you can modify Trumpeter's and get a good result with any reasonable level of effort, you'd spend your time better scratchbuilding new stacks. I also worked with microfilm prints of some of the original plans and photos to determine how wrong Trumpeter got them. Contact Chris Decker at http://www.tridenthobies.com and see if they'll run you up a set of stacks. Be forewarned, if you do that you'll have some serious work to redo the bases they sit on to make them look right.

What was the correct height for the 40 mm tubs ?

I read Ron�s review about the fact that the 20 mm tubs are a 20 % too short.
I thought of a way of fixing the 20 mm tubs (gluing on a thin sheet of styrene - to the upper side not to ruin the positioning pins - then trim away the excess styrene).

I can't say if the Essex carriers have correct tub heights but from Hornet and North Carolina I would bet they're too short. Most of the problem seems to be Trumpeter usually gets it almost right *if* the tub hangs in open air, where the "too short" comes into play on those tubs is the inside, the floor is too thick and makes the gun/director sit too high but from the outside it look fine as long as there isn't a gun mounted. The root cause is mold engineering and overly thick floors. On BB-55 however the circular 40mm tubs are all just too short no matter how you look at them, since they're plain you could just cut away the molded walls and glue strip styrene in place. from the outside of the tubs .015" x .125" is the closest stock size to correct but you'll still have a problem with over thick floors. The 20mm splinter shields are too low too and they lack bracing.

Ron please where could I get a picture that shows where the 40 mm director was on the aft turret ?

Easier to just tell you here. Draw a line down the center of the turret fore and aft, then a line centered between the first and second row of rivets (should be about where the small sight hoods are on the turret sides). Cut a piece of 5/16" diameter tubing (thin the inner wall if it's too thick) and make it .125" high. Glue in place centered on the intersection of your two lines. In Shoker's book you can barely see it on page 2, it shows on the lower drawing page 49 and most of the profiles for camouflage (it and the 40mm tub should not be shown on the profiles except for dazzle, Ms22 and the postwar grey).

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Ron,
thanks for the many tips.

I would be tempted to flood you with zillions of BB55 questions but I will refrain from doing so.
I'll buy the photo CD first, study it carefully and steal your time only when I just can't make it.

Unfortunately I find many difficulties in getting some modelling materials in Italy.
The products you mentioned are just some of the ones I would love to get.
However in my experience acetone (at least the diluted formula my wife uses for her fingers does not attack plastic - unless I forget the part in a acetone bath long enough ) so I get away with it and CA debonder (that gel type just saved my modelling life).

I am also planning a Bismarck build.
I would like to replace the deck there as Frank did for the BB55.

The Tamiya deck planking for her just stinks.
However I can not seem to be able to find sheets with in scale grooving.
Do you happen to know where from Frank got the sheets for his BB55 ?
Or may be he scribed them himself ?

Ciao
Luca

[Ron Smith]

Hi Ron,
thanks for the many tips.

You're welcome.

I would be tempted to flood you with zillions of BB55 questions but I will refrain from doing so.
I'll buy the photo CD first, study it carefully and steal your time only when I just can't make it.

Actually I won't be doing a photo CD for at least a year since Steve Wiper's already doing a book. Also keep in mind I can point out what's wrong on the kit and suggest fixes but on my model I might just leave it as is since I might consider it not worth the effort to fix. As often as not I'd rather build a resin kit since they usually don't have these kinds of stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately I find many difficulties in getting some modelling materials in Italy.
The products you mentioned are just some of the ones I would love to get.
However in my experience acetone (at least the diluted formula my wife uses for her fingers does not attack plastic - unless I forget the part in a acetone bath long enough ) so I get away with it and CA debonder (that gel type just saved my modelling life).

We call that "nail polish remover' in the US. When I see acetone I assume pure acetone, which I use to clean lacquer primer from my airbrush.

I am also planning a Bismarck build.
I would like to replace the deck there as Frank did for the BB55.

The Tamiya deck planking for her just stinks.
However I can not seem to be able to find sheets with in scale grooving.
Do you happen to know where from Frank got the sheets for his BB55 ?
Or may be he scribed them himself ?

I think he mentioned in the text he used prescribed Evergreen styrene. I know you can order it online. At some point I'll be seriously backdating a BB-55 kit to 1941 or 1942 and will have to replace the deck and I decdied that the smallest groove spacing would be the most correct from stock sheets. I think it was .020" spacing.

[guest]

Hi all

I have the 1/350 Classic warships North Carolina BB, but am confused on the out fit off AA during the 1942.

I want to build the kit as the Washington in Mod 12 camo during 1942. The instructions say that she carried 4 x 1.1" quads in August 1941, then they were removed until September 1942 when she received 6 x 1.1" quads?

Is this true or am i reading the instructions wrong?

In addition, the instructions say she mounted 1 x 1.1 quad at the stern after 15 august 1942. Seems strange that she would not mount 2 on the stern, one on port and one on starboard, given that she carried 6 x 1.1" quads after sept 42'

Can anyone help on the accuracy of the AA outfit during 1942, when she served in the Atlantic? As i said I want to depict the Washington when she wore MS12 mod and was hoping that during this time she also carried 1.1" quads, but going by the instructions with the kit, this may not be possible.

Thanks
Bruce

[Ron Smith]

In addition, the instructions say she mounted 1 x 1.1 quad at the stern after 15 august 1942. Seems strange that she would not mount 2 on the stern, one on port and one on starboard, given that she carried 6 x 1.1" quads after sept 42'

Can anyone help on the accuracy of the AA outfit during 1942, when she served in the Atlantic? As i said I want to depict the Washington when she wore MS12 mod and was hoping that during this time she also carried 1.1" quads, but going by the instructions with the kit, this may not be possible.

She has the 1.1's in the standard four places on the superstructure. The 5th and 6th are both starboard side, one in front of the hawse pipe and one behind the catapult. Be aware for a short period around her visit to Scapa Flow and King George VI's visit to her she holystoned the paint from her teak decks. All six 1.1's are in place at Scapa Flow as well. Also you should know her decks are very light even when painted, closer in tone to the ocean grey than the blue on her hull.

Neither the bow or stern 1.1 tubs hangs over the hull side, they sit fully on the deck.

[kevinb120]

The seam between the decks is a pain in the ...

BUt it is at least recessed; the Tamiya Missouri decks are similar in break down but the lines are raised, so if you do any sanding you lose the planking. At least with the Trumpeter deck you can rescribe them, and they do line up if you take the time.

This one by Rick Cotton seems to have the deck gaps filled well:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


That list of 'reviews' though definately needs to be updated from a 10 year old looking format, I think my eyes were about to pop out of my head trying to read it.

[Guest]

I am also confused on the Measure 32 scheme. It appears that there are two oppinions that I can find, One says its Navy Grey, Pale Grey, Haze grey, and the other says Ocean grey, Light grey, and black Of course the memorial itself looks like its Navy/Haze/pale grey(and obviously the decks are not deck blue as it sits now). Which is it?

[kevinb120]

I am getting ready to start building one and am using this drop dead georgeous model by Richard Sliwka as inspiration:


http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

He even talks about the blue/black thing, but I have seen the actual ship in Wilmington and there is no black to be found anywhere. Richard's looks exactly like the actual ship as it sits, even the two-tone gun barrels. I have been researching this and have not seen one single color picture depicting this ship with black in the scheme, so I am going to go along with what actually exists.

[ARH]

Hi , try this lot 1944 refit Pugot Sound.

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... 55-rh.html

[kevinb120]

Wow that thing looks the business. You can see though even at this scale how the colors flip-flop based on lighting, like the deck looks gunship grey at times, the pale grey goes 'powder blue' and the navy looks like black:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... 4/sup1.jpg

I could see confusion based on old color photos back in the day. I still think its pretty amazing at 1/350 Richard Sliwka actually painted the barrel tops on the mains and got the center starboard 5" turret painted half navy/half pale. Both of them rock, I cant wait to get mine in now, I got two fresh rolls of masking tape ready

[ARH]

It is all down to lighting, thoughs are the WEM PAINTS recommended by John, I went to see the ship and took my own pictures, she is not painted exactly right , the stacks are wrong for a start, my model is more accurate for 1944 refit. ARH

[kevinb120]

Yea I was just looking at the current pics of the memorial, its a little off. I also just went through the entire 1/96 build, man that thing is friggin awesome.

[ARH]

Yea I was just looking at the current pics of the memorial, its a little off. I also just went through the entire 1/96 build, man that thing is friggin awesome.

Thanks for the comments, Ron Smith has found a paper that said she was painted black, in this refit I have my doutes as to that colour, the photo in the DATA 1 book in colour to me clearly shows a black water line and a dark blue hull, to me if the hull was black , why did the black water line not blend together with the hull.

[Ron Smith]

From September 1943 through September 1944 she was 5-L, 5-O, Dull black. There are in existance 6 original color negatives that are known (three are listed in the indexes but are missing...note that would make 9 negatives if those three weren't missing).....of them 5 are from the same series of photos taken by the Steichen unit in November 1943 (all three of the missing negatives are in this series). At that point the paint has been on her 2 months and there is NO question it is black. This does include the infamous 80-GK-101 with red streaks in the sky.......the other surviving negative of the series also has those streaks. There is a note attached which states "Red streaks in sky due to contaminated processing roller, rest of photo unaffected and judged good. E. Steichen". Anyone who claims to see a "blacker waterline" for that period is blowing smoke, not a single photo shows any significant amount of boot topping. What they ARE seeing is flat black paint that has been on the ship 2 months, 6 months or 9 months depending on the exact photo. You can literally compare them and see the effects of exposure to the sun and salt of the south Pacific on the paint. What they claim is a "blacker waterline" is nothing more than parts of the hull wetted by wave action. Flat black paint with 9 months of sun fade and salt encrustation will appear lighter than flat black paint that was water on it. The telltales for this scheme are bedspring SK radar, lower starboard bow panel is black and she has a deck pattern.

From September 1944 (the Puget refit ARH mentions) until sometime in 1945 she wore the second Ms32/18d. The clues are a bowl shaped SK-2 radar and the lower panel on the starboard bow is grey not black. No color photos of this scheme have been found to date. Now is where you need access to the original negatives, not books, not prints and sure as hell not the ship as she is today. Approximately half the photos of her in this scheme are on film that did not exist until 1948, they are copy negatives and since each generation of duplicate negative increases contrast they are useless for determining the original tonal values. Of the prints that exist from original negatives that are well lit in the areas of dark hull color and boot topping there is little or no contrast and in several spots the hull paint is darker than the boot top. There is a further clue, she does not wear a deck pattern in this scheme and her decks are far lighter than her darkest camouflage color (some claim it to be 5-N)......photos of her repainting her earlier Ms21 which was overall 5-N with solid 20-B decks show the fresh 20-B to several shades darker than the fresh 5-N (I know both are fresh because I can see the deckapes painting and see where they have already painted or have yet to paint).

All the high angle photos of the later scheme allowing clear views of the deck and adjacent areas of dark hull color are from her refit and immediate post refit trials in and around Puget Sound Navy Yard. The deck is *much* lighter than the darkest camouflage color. There are known to be 54 photos of her later scheme, all are B&W and 38 of them are in or around puget Sound. There are no high angle photos of sufficient quality once she rejoins the fleet to compare deck color to camouflage color.

The real US Navy camouflage design sheet from BuShips specifies 5-L, 5-O and dull black. And the final bit of information rarely understood, boot topping as applied by the yards in drydock during major overhauls is a semi-gloss plastic compound; camouflage paint is just flat black paint.....the boot topping *is* going to look slightly darker in most cases due to simple reflectance effects.

Furthermore, yard fresh 5-N against yard fresh boot topping has at least fives times the contrast difference shown in BB-55's Puget Sound photos between her yard fresh boot topping and her yard fresh camouflage paint.

As for not replying on the ship as she is today.....the pattern is not quite correct, it is symmetrical (the real pattern was not) and the paints are modern "equivalents". After hearing some of the games NASM directors have played with paint schemes I do not trust any museum to get it right.

For more you'll just have to subscribe to NRJ and read the summer issue. Note I *do not* quote any books here, all my sources are original photos, negatives and text records at NARA and NHC.

[kevinb120]

lol I don't think anyone would doubt who that 'guest' was

So should I do black or navy for the trumpy NC with the LR pe?? The LR kit has the SP-2 radar if i'm not mistaken. I like the idea of the navy better IMO.

[Ron Smith]

lol I don't think anyone would doubt who that 'guest' was

So should I do black or navy for the trumpy NC with the LR pe?? The LR kit has the SP-2 radar if i'm not mistaken. I like the idea of the navy better IMO.

The LR PE set is for the post 1944 refit so you have two choices, the later Ms32/18d and Ms22 (you can do bright decks in Ms22 scheme from the time she is halfway through the Panam Canal in late 1945 through 1946).

It's your model, paint how you like but be aware 5-N has very weak arguments for it based on current, original source evidence. But if they allow a paint sample to be lifted (say next week) and it contains all the layer of paint back to her #5 standard navy grey and the appropriate layer for her later Ms32/18d does turn out to be 5-N I certainly won't argue it as long as I get a sample to examine under a real microscope with halogen ring lighting.

Takne from any area above the main deck where the darkest color is, they should be:

#5 SNG
5-O (Ms12 mod, may also be 5-H or in some very specific spots 5-N), should be two layers at least
5-N two layers from her Ms21
black 2 layers from Ms32
5-H Ms22, possibly two layers
several layers of post-war grey
whatever they have on her now and any primers applied

[kevinb120]

Heh, I was poking around and found the huge arguments on ShipCamouflage.Com Maybe I should of ordered the Kuznetsov instead....

Not to revisit any of the arguments, but IMHO, in the shipcamoflage picture, I clearly see blue in the pic you were all arguing over based on the stack greyscale(the ymw pic)

http://www.yankeemodelworks.com/images/bB55color2.jpg

BUT

on the navy history site, the same picture in a different tint I would say black

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... k00101.jpg

And you can even see how much Ron's model can flip-flop under certain lighting as well:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... 4/sup1.jpg

So who knows, I may just do postwar grey untill you guys figure it out, I can always build another one...

[Blue Devil]

I accidentally posted this in the main forum, but supposed I should be asking it here!

I know this has already been discussed a bit, but I just picked up an old copy of Battleship At War and wondered what would be required to convert the Trumpy NC to the Washington. Pretty much any point in the war would be OK, I don't have a lot of conversion experience.

Thanks!

BD

[Tracy White]

If you want to do her later in the war it's pretty simple. I haven't paid attention recently so I'm probably missing some details, but I remember determining that one platform on the forward top that North Carolina had Washington didn't.. and that there was a minor difference on the bridge level with Washington having a 20mm where NC had a searchlight or something similar.

[Rshoker]

Capt Dave Schue very kindly let me take sand paper to a five inch mount to see if BB55 was sandblasted after the war or if the Measure 32 paint was still buried under years of repainting. After standing for an hour in the hot southern sun I got back to 1947's Haze grey layer, then hit the yellow primer. She was probably sandblasted before her 1947 Measure 13 paintjob.

Things looked bleak but then Kim Sincox of the BB55 said she seemed to remember a crewmans diary where he mentioned the 1943 pearl harbor repaint. They are an incredibly organized museum, and she produced a file in a few minutes with a letter from the crewman and a color photo copy of his dairy, which reads, "We got our new cammo today, Black, light blue and dark blue."

Obviously the kid was looking at Black, pale grey (his light blue) and Haze grey (being darker than pale grey would look like dark blue). I was shocked as I had been debating my pals Ron Smith and Steve Wiper for a long time on the color scheme. Even the offical BB55 line was Navy Blue. I doubt they will repaint her black, but they might. I would prefer thay spend their money protcting the artifact. Which, by the way they do a great job of.

So thats it. A 17 year year old sailor, who when asked today has no memory of the color change, wrote it in his diary. For the sake of Privacy I cannot post his name here, but I do have a photo copy of his diary page and will be changing the drawings in my book when it is reprinted late this summer.

As for the repaint in 1944 she was most likly repainted black and the Navy Blue would not have covered the black as it faded, and late war photos of her in measure 32 don;t seem to show the kind of splocthing that Navy blue painted over black would do as it faded.

I was wrong. Ron Smith and Steve Wiper were right. Nice detective work Ron...

Take care all...
Randy Shoker