The Ship Model Forum

A question regarding CL-53: After her April 1944 refit, does the small tub directly in front of her bridge contain a 20mm mount? It looks that way from photos on Navsource, but most of them show the gun as being covered in canvas so the outline is a bit hard to make out.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Alan Raven's drawing for San Diego in Arnold's Warship Perspective on the class shows 3 20mm mounts in front of the bridge. Two are in the usual P/S positions and a third elevated between them on the centerline. Drawings are noted as being at the completion of the 1944 refit. Although not the San Diego, I have an 8 x 10 photograph labeled "31249-45-S8" dated Oct. 14, 1944 of the San Juan that clearly shows this arrangement with the 20mm in side profile. This photo is same as the one on page 28 (center) of Arnold's book. Trust this helps with your reasearch.

Thanks Steve, that should be good enough for me.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Free Time has the Dragon 1/700 kit (7066) on the sale page for just under $17. This is the "premium" kit with the extra sprues and some PE.

Hi Atlanta Class Fans,

I would like to ask how many of you would be interested in a correct hull for the Atlanta’s.
As you know, I have done the Spokane, and on examining the Dragon kits, I think I may be able to do a hull for the CL 95 to 98. The early Atlanta’s will not be adaptable for the hull due to the plastic kit’s part’s breakdown and wing turrets.
What else would you like included. I would do the hull and ??

Thank you,

Pavel @ The Admiralty

Full hull or waterline?

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com

The hull would be waterline only.

Pavel, for CL 95-98 you should create a casting equivalent to the Spokane main casting, to include the superstructure:

Dragon part Qty Description
Dragon A 1 1 Hull
Dragon A 6 1 40mm twin tub - oblong
Dragon A 7 2 Stanchions
Dragon A 8 1 steam pipe
Dragon A 9 1 Fo'csle
Dragon A 10 1 Mt 52 deck 01-level
Dragon A 14 1 20mm deck 02 level
Dragon A 15 1 Armor belt
Dragon A 18 1 funnel side
Dragon A 19 1 funnel side
Dragon A 20 1 funnel side
Dragon A 21 1 funnel side
Dragon A 28 2 40mm twin tub (Spokane part 9)
Dragon A 29 1 #4 deckhouse Mt 54-55
Dragon A 30 1 #1 deckhouse main deck
Dragon A 31 1 #1 deckhouse main deck
Dragon A 32 1 #1 deckhouse 01-level
Dragon A 33 1 #1 deckhouse 01-level
Dragon A 34 1 #3 deckhouse
Dragon A 35 1 #3 deckhouse
Dragon A 36 2 Loader drill devices (Spokane part 17)
Dragon A 38 4 Paravane (Spokane part 33)
Dragon B 27 2 tub for 20 mm gun
Dragon B 28 2+ tub for #53 director Mk 51
Dragon B 29 2 tub for twin 40 mm guns
Dragon B 37 2 Signal flag trellis
Dragon B 49 2 Director Mk 37 turret & trunk (Spokane part 30)
Dragon B 50 2 Director Mk 37 turret & trunk
Dragon D 1 1 Boat deck 01-level
Dragon D 2 1 Director Mk 51 stand
Dragon D 3 1 Mt 53 deck 02-level
Dragon D 4 1 Signal bridge 04-level
Dragon D 5 1 Navigation bridge 03-level
Dragon D 6 1 Aft bridge 03-level
Dragon D 7 1 Navigation bridge
Dragon D 8 1 Navigation bridge
Dragon D 9 1 Navigation bridge
Dragon D 10 1 Aft stack platform 04-level

Dragon's kitted superstructure parts are inaccurate, out of scale, require kit-bash surgery to fit each other, and fail to provide a complete model. The worst area is the kitted superstructure below and aft of the second funnel. Despite two armament sprues, Dragon's kitted armament is incorrect, incomplete, and really ugly compared to your great kit of USS Spokane (which I built as USS Juneau as in 1950, when she was the first US military unit of any kind to resist the North Korean invasion of South Korea).

An AMW resin kit oriented toward USS Flint (CL/CLAA 97) would attract modelers to buy it because of the great photographs of her in measure 33 camouflage. She mounted eight twin 40mm gun mounts, and zero quad 40mm's. I expect soon to meet a Flint veteran, whose son is in my local IPMS chapter (San Diego + northwest Mexico). He has already relayed the hitherto unpublished information that Flint wore her measure 33 camouflage pattern all the way to V-J day.

With reasonable modeler adjustments such as relocation of the search radar antennas, a kit for Flint could represent any of the war-time CL 95-98 group. Oakland in 1945 would need some quad 40mm's, and Reno in 1944 would need add-on bloomers for her 5-inch guns. The PE could be a reference-sell of GMM's new PE for USN WW2 cruisers and destroyers. Paper Lab's available set of single 20mm's would do for those guns.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.

Hi Michael,

What you are asking for is a new kit!! I have been asked to do the hull. I would include only a few parts on the hull to make it as easy for the model builder only. I do not want to squander resources on a kit made in plastic as this would be a commercial failure.
If I add all the items you asked for, it would in essence be a full kit. Please, could anyone looking at this post understand I will only release a hull with “some” parts on it only. Parts are vents and what needs to be on the hull to be able to add the plastic components and complete the kit.

Thank you,

Pavel

Pavel - I believe that at a minimum you would need to duplicate the Dragon molded in superstructure "blocks". In a side by side comparison of the two kit hulls the Dragon main deck is "beamier" than the Spokane by at least a 1/16" in the midships area. I'm not sure how the Dragon superstructure parts would work on the narrower Spokane based hull but this is a potential problem. I see some other potential positioning problems that would need to be looked into but probably could be easily fixed. If you do this project sign me up for at least 2. - Steve

You're killing me!

All that I need is the lower hull...

I already cracked the nut with the Sky-Dragon-ML Atlanta (see here and here), but I'm afraid Spokane languishes in the box waiting for the day that I can finally get around to making a proper hull to fit. If I could buy one, however, I would begin construction yesterday.



I know you've previously discarded the idea of producing a lower hull accessory because of the poor projected ROI. If you should reconsider, though, Please let me know... I submit that it would open up a broader market for your ships (at least by one!)

_________________
Andrew P, PBFHS
Chesapeake, Virginia
www.PBFHS.org

Incidentally, Although I don't keep track of my modelling time (I'd be afraid to learn the answer), I can estimate how much time I spent correcting the Atlanta's hull to suit my taste.

Note that I personally don't bother much with exact dimensions; I work to the 'looks about right' standard and BNT of about 12".

To that end, I was only concerned with removing the oversized armor belt and not with correcting the beam, chine, etc. Later, I added a lower hull (the one included in the later Dragon/DML variants is - and looks - too shallow in draft).



I would estimate 2-3 hours to remove the belts by carving, putty and clean up the hull, and attach replacement styrene belts. Because it's a fairly simple task, I wouldn't be willing to spend too much for a replacement - maybe $10-15. (I know that's less than Minimum wage, but it's only a pastime for me ).

Carving and shaping the lower hull, however, took me 7-8 hours, not including wait times or the research (to find usable line drawings). Carving and shaping, several iterations of sanding and varnishing, adding details in styrene strip, and final painting all spanned several days of work. And I still need to fashion shafts, struts, props, and a rudder (another 1-2 hours).

Because of the time investment required, I would pay more for a nicely-cast bottom, especially if it included the running gear. Better yet if I could buy a full hull, but I expect that would restrict the manufacturer's marketing options.



Hope this helps,

_________________
Andrew P, PBFHS
Chesapeake, Virginia
www.PBFHS.org

You actually do need an upper hull!

Don't forget, the knuckle on the bows of the DML and Skywave Atlanta class is all wrong. It does not slope up like on the real ships. It's much more horizontal. To fix requires major surgury/facelift.

Admiralty posted here in MWS and on SN that the Atlanta hull will be produced. Very good news.

Alas, If they leave me bottom-less, I'll have to refrain.

_________________
Andrew P, PBFHS
Chesapeake, Virginia
www.PBFHS.org

Greetings All,
I was thinking about building a 1/350 USS Tucson (as that is where I live now). It seems that the only 1/350 Atlanta is the Iron ShipWrights kit. I've looked for photos of the ship & only found about 6-8, all not very good or clear.
Does anyone have a line on good pictures of this ship?
Is the ISW Atlanta a good place to start?
What modifications to the kit would be necessary?
Thanks in advance!

Yankee Modelworks makes an Atlanta in 350 scale. Check with Freetime Hobbies Either way you are going to have to do some scratchbuilding to get the later square bridge of the Oakland class.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com

Unless, of course, you just buy the Oakland kit.

_________________
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

duh. I looked for that kit, couldn't find it, and convinced myself that they must not have done one.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com

From kit-bashing and scratch-building Dragon's 1/700 kit for USS Oakland into USS Flint (CL 97):

The Floating Drydock plans for Flint appear accurate for Tucson as built structurally. The camo schemes obviously differed.

Warship Perspectives: Atlanta Class Light Cruisers of World War Two has ten pages of photos of Tucson.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.