The Ship Model Forum

Does anybody know the AA fit of each ship as completed? I need to know how many .5's, 2omm's. 1.1' and 40mm each ship had.

thanks
Mike

I've just updated my Mk 49 Gun Fire Director page with some information I came across last night and was able to confirm this morning. Alabama had two Mk 49s mounted at least during her shake down cruise and part of her Atlantic service. Textual records gave the number and this Navsource page shows their locations (the below image with them circled is a smaller copy of the 5th image down). Ron Smith was able to confirm it with some of his high-resolution scans. So far she is the only member of the class I have found to have used the Mk 49.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Just one more reason to model this distinctive vessel.

Nice to see more and more information coming forth on the name-ship, she makes for a nice alternative build subject to the more common Alabama and Massachusetts kits out there.

I find some interesting parallels between the SoDaks and various destroyer leaders, insofar as each had somewhat different armament, arrangements and accomodations, as compared with the rest of their "class".

I agree too, that Ron's the man for some great USN (and other) scans.

_________________
Danny DON'T "waterline"...!

I just ordered the 1/700 Trumpy South Dakota....

Think I waited what, a year for them to come out


Why no reviews? I know I can't possibly be the first

I just picked up the South Dakota. From a cursory look, the hull matches the plans I have. Looks like they got the correct flare and width to the bow - what a welcome improvement!

Since I now have the Trumpeter SOUTH DAKOTA (in the Divine Scale), I am getting excited about this class of BBs. I also have the Warhip Pictorial on the SOUTH DAKOTA Class and it is loaded with photos, but unfortunately, there are no plan or elevation line drawings or details on changes that occurred during refits.

In that regard, it appears that all four ships were commissioned with boat cranes alongside the aft superstructure. By the end of the war, it appears that both cranes had been landed from SOUTH DAKOTA and ALABAMA, and the port crane had been landed from MASSACHUSETTS and INDIANA.

Does anyone have any information on when the cranes were landed and why?

I believe the port crane on the mass was removed to make more room for a.a guns,where the crane was there is now a platform with 20 m.m guns.does not make sense because the 20 m.m guns were not that efective against kamakasizes, not enough stpoing power.this was probobly done around 1944.

Kamikazes weren't a factor until about October of 1944, and the Navy was wanting more AA long before that.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Has everyone read the review of the Trumpeter 1/700 Massachusetts? Looks like the fit is 1946 but the instructions have the wartime MS22 camou and also Kingfishers are included. I know the Massachusetts carried 18 quad 40mm but can anyone see what else would need to be done to back date it to 1944/1945? I would love to have this to go with my South Dakota but want and idea of the work involved first.
thanks
Mike

Measure 22 was still in use on some ships in 1946. Massachusetts was wearing it when she came out of overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in January 1946:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/059/015970.jpg

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

QUICK WHERES MY FLY SWATTER !!.......just kidding LOL wow man those really look great..really

Measure 22 makes a lot of sense as far as camo goes, do we know why some schemes like the hard, broken ones with straight lines chopping across the structure or the wavy kinds?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but the dazzle schemes were designed to break up the silhouette of the ship enough to make it difficult to guess class, distance, direction, and speed. The earlier Measure 12 Modified using splotches failed in this as the splotches were generally too small and blended together at farther distances. In terms of the angular patterns versus the more curved, swoopy ones (if that's what you're looking for), I haven't seen any textual records documenting the development that discussed this, but I always figured some of it was to emulate different ship shapes such as a flared bow or stern, etc. Artistic license may have come into play as well.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Sorry about that, I did't finish the question, but you got it and answered it! What I meant to ask was: why the used the differet scemes? The main differences I have noticed as the long straight lines that seem to break up the silhouette well, but it was the splotchy ones you talked about that are kind of confusing. What you pointed out about the splotches not blending makes a lot of sense. It really just makes the ship look like it has spots.

Thanks, Tracy! How effective the most effective ones were? Do they work against visual acquisition?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well, keep in mind that camouflage is designed to blend something into its background. In WWII there was a problem in that depending on situation, you were either trying to blend a ship into the sky (light in the day, dark at night) or sea (Dark). Dazzle schemes did nothing to blend a ship in, but they did make it harder to pick out outlines, *IF* at least one of the colors used was close in tone to the background.

I know that battleship Washington swore by her graded scheme, but otherwise I haven't seen a study that went through each contact and decided if the camouflage worked optimally or if there could have been a better design used.

I do know that when the kamikazes first came on the scheme there was an attempt to get dazzle out as quickly as possible, you get a hint of what they were trying to change with things like this speedletter in reference to "avoiding bold contrast."

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Now that I have the 1/700 Trumpeter kits for the SOUTH DAKOTA, MASSACHUSETTS, and ALABAMA, my examination of the kits have led to some preliminary conclusions.

- SOUTH DAKOTA is in her 1945 configuration and would be overall 5-N (MS 21). She has the late AA fit and radar suite, and her mainmast is flush against the funnel. That's okay. Retrofitting her to an earlier period could be difficult. I plan to retrofit her to a 1944-45 configuration with the SK radar.

- MASSACHUSETTS is in her 1946 configuration. Why on earth did Trumpeter do this? I need some plan view drawings of the main deck and 01 level in order to retrofit her to a July 1944 configuration in MS 22. I will need to add the missing 20mm and 40mm mounts (especially the elevated quad 40mm mounts added to the bow breakwater and replace the SK-2 dish radar with the flat SK set. There are some other changes needed, but nothing seems insurmountable.

- ALABAMA is in her November 1942-February 1943 configuration in MS 12R. All things considered, I will probably keep this configuration because of the unique MS 12R paint scheme. She has the early mainmast and could be the basis for converting MASSACHUSETTS and INDIANA to earlier configurations.

- So now we come to the INDIANA, the only ship in the class to wear a MS 32 scheme. Why is there no kit from Trumpeter? A January 1944 seems like a logical period to model. Such a kit could start with the basic MASSACHUSETTS and ALABAMA sprues and replace/add sprues as needed, such as the early mainmast. Trumpeter has done this with other ships, most notably the NORTH CAROLINA and WASHINGTON, and the NEW ORLEANS class CAs.

What would it take to convince Trumpeter to produce the INDIANA?

I've just finished Trumpeter's Massachusetts, back-dated to late war fit - a minor challenge, particularly re-shaping the bridge and adding the bow 40mm quads (including the anchor billboard cut-out beneath one of them. How that custom-shaped pedestal was easier to build at the shipyard than just filling in the hole, I have no idea.) I have started work on two of the new Alabamas, intending one as the Indiana '44 with dazzle. From the photos I've compared, it looks like it should be fairly easy to convert. The Alabama kit comes with enough extra 40mm quads and tubs to add the extras, and most of the molded-on 20mm shields on the kit deck are thankfully still in about the right position for Indy '44. A couple of platforms need a little re-shaping with some plastic strip, but nothing appears especialyl extravagant. At this phase of the operation, I think the only thing that's truly lacking (Not counting PE radars and the like, for which I'm using the GMM PE set anyway) is a boat crane - Alabama never had any but the Indy '44 had one, and the Alabama kit doesn't come with the sprue that had it in the Massachusetts kit. If dazzle-scheme Indy is something you've been really looking forward to modeling, this Alabama kit will get you there with a minimum of detour.

- Sean F.

Hi Gary;


I know what you mean about the Indiana along with the others of the class. Trumpeter seems to be fixated with the late war South Dakota classes/why?

I think the 1942 South Dakota version during the Guadalcanal campaign, and the 1942 Massachusetts during Operation Torch would have made much more sense than late and post war fits!!!

The Alabama is a good choice in its fit, and the Indiana could have been in its 1944 version that alot of modelers would be happy with.


Maybe we will see some backdating sets like the 1/350 versions had to cope with these issues???


Just my 2 cents worth.




Bob Pink.

Working on my Alabama '42 and Indiana '44 in parallel here... I just noticed that the Trumpeter Alabama kits (yes, both the 350 and 700) have an incorrect configuration of the 20mm tubs flanking the bridge, just ahead of the forwardmost 5" mounts. See the overhead view on the Classic Warships book, page 24, or this one on Navsource: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016005.jpg The kit has 2 mounts per tub, symmetrically positioned, at an angle approximately aligned with the center of turret #2. Per the photos, the starboard side tub is at that angle, but contains three mounts. The port tub contains two, but is at a completely different angle - it doesn't align with anything at all, as far as I can tell. In addition, there is something between the port tub and the nearest 5" mount, and I'm hoping someone could identify what it is. It's visible on Classic Warships page 25 and on Navsource here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016020.jpg - my best guess is that it's a pair of 5" practice loaders, sitting out in the open. Does anyone have a better reading on this?

Another oddball thing I noticed - per a color photo in Classic Warships page 36, and compared to Navource at http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016025.jpg it appears that during her December '42 shakedown cruise, the radar on the Mk. 37 5" gun directors were unpainted, bare metal!

- Sean F.

That looks like a pair of 5" practice loaders to me also!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?