The Ship Model Forum

Thanks maxim! That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

The mainmast I could deal with, but the hull would be a huge problem.

Bob

You would have to extend the forecastle deck to the catapult - not a difficult conversion (in the other direction, removing this extension, would be much more difficult in the case of a resin kit).

_________________

Now I see what you guys are referring to, after perusing Navsource for a bit.

It looks like Northampton, Chester and Louisville all had the short forecastle deck, and Chicago and Houston had the extended one.

So theoretically Northampton or Louisville could be converted to a 1940's Houston by giving it a taller mainmast & extending the forecastle deck back. Northampton would need to lose the CXAM as well. It looks like that's a solid bulkhead at the end of the deck.

Besides Friedman's US cruisers book, are there any good books dedicated to the Northampton class?

Thanks gents!

Bob

The best option for that conversion would be probably:

PROFILE MORSKIE No 144 "American heavy cruiser USS HOUSTON 1942"

_________________

I didn't even know Profile Morskie did a book on the Houston. I just ordered the plans.

Thanks again, maxim!

Bob

USS Salt Lake City in Hawaiian waters, late December '41.

USS Chester, same as above. Both photos from the US National Archives via Roger Torgeson

_________________
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

Isn't a 1/350 USS Houston (and Chicago) made by Blue Water Navy?

Wouldn't that make for an easier conversion?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

The old BWN kits can have a 4 piece resin hull (upper & lower bow & stern), making for some fiddly assembling with lots of seams to clean up. I have the old BWN 1944 Enterprise kit that actually has a 6 piece hull.

The Yankee Modelworks Louisville just has an upper & lower hull. YKM also made a Houston, but you rarely see them up for sale. Plus I can get the Louisville for about $60 cheaper than the BWN Houston ATM....

Bob

These are Awesome! Thanks for posting these Martin!

Question about the directors on Houston after her 1940 Mare Island refit.

I was looking at Mike C's build in the gallery of Houston from that time period, and he has Mark 19 directors on her:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/ca/ca-30/350-mc/CA30-12.jpg

However, I was talking with Steve Larsen, and he had some info from Tracy White that said only Chester, Chicago and Augusta were known to have the Mark 19's among the Northamptons.

My question is, would Houston have gotten Mark 33's in 1940 at Mare Island? It's hard to tell from the photo's I've found exactly what she has fore and aft for directors. She's always in the background of shots of Chicago.

TIA

Bob

No, CA-30 only had the MK19 directors--a modified subset model, but still a MK19.

These were not very good directors, and CA-30 had trouble w/hers from the time they first went on the ship. However, they were not emplaced at Mare Island, but earlier, and well before her final refit in summer/fall 1940.

To make the ship accurate, you can look at plans for AUGUSTA, her 'sweet sister' as they were the most closely related of the NORTHAMPTON-type flagships. CA-30 is distinguishable by her train-trestle supports for her 1.1" quads, which had two (2) uprights. She also had a small RF sited on her foremast at the MG platform. and it jutted out slightly. Her mainmast was cut down and topped by the navy crew's .50cal position (X4 MG).
Her hull was altered at the hangar, as you know, and made flush then also. Her hangar doors were altered from the original sliding/folding doors to lighter, corrugated garage-door types that went up rather than side to side.

There were no small RFs at the Sky Aft Mk19, but there were deck-mounted metal oberver's chairs there. You can see these in the excellent LIFE magazine photo essay on NORTHAMPTON later.

There are no useful navsource images of the entire ship in her final configuration--although they most certainly exist--but the last of her quad 1.1" mounts went on at Cavite in late 1941.
Her paintjob was a variation of Measure 1 w/the notorious local paint called "Cavite Blue" as the darker hue.

What is the cruiser behind USS Chester in the second photo that looks like it is wearing a Ms. 1 camo and the CXAM radar on the foremast?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Most likely Northampton.

_________________
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

Here is perhaps the best full length view of HOUSTON showing her in Ms 1 (ca 1941), and how rapidly it faded in the very intense P.I. sun...The photo is an original from the collection of the late Otto Schwarz.

USS HOUSTON was painted in Cavite Blue as a substitute for 5-D paint in the Philippines. She never had 5-D paint applied. Cavite Blue was a local produced paint since Cavite Navy Yard wasn't getting supplies of the official camo paints. The paint faded and wasn't very durable. See attached from USS HOUSTON. She was at first painted to Ms 1 scheme, but used the Cavite Blue in place of 5-D. Sometime before December 1941 the upper works/masts were also repainted with Cavite Blue. Hence to basically the Ms 1A or Ms 11 scheme only with Cavite Blue.

I thought Hart's reply re the Ms 1 paint scheme & "Cavite Blue" (as shown) was dated Dec. 6, 1941 (IIRC) and so may not have much relevance for final paintjobs on the ship(s).
(By that I only mean there is no visual evidence that CA-30 ever painted in an overall blue scheme, and much anecdotal evidence--from survivors--that they had no time for that by then...)
This isn't an argument that I would defend too strenuously, but many men said she never did any overall painting after she left Cavite Navy Yd on Dec. 1, 1941 for Iloilo.
I would say that nothing of the sort appears in her Deck Logs, but such activities were not recorded in logs anyway. However, I've not yet come across any officers or enlisted men stating that they recalled painting the ship that late in the day.
We do know that they didn't begin putting on the "battle plates" over their portholes until after getting news that PH was bombed on Dec. 8.

FWIW

Yes the letter that Adm. Hart sent was dated 6 December 1941. But the last couple of paragraphs state that the upper works were or had been painted over with Cavite Blue on Asiatic Fleet ships. Which ships in the Asiatic Fleet completed that task prior to the attack may never be known. But, I would assume that Adm. Hart would have had his flagship follow his directive. Such a repainting wouldn't take long, involving relatively small areas of the ship. Although on parts more difficult to access. The only Ms 1 painted with 5-D Asiatic Fleet units would be ones that had Stateside Overhauls/Yard Periods during the Spring-Fall of 1941. Hence, likely USS HOUSTON and USS MARBLEHEAD were painted in Cavite Blue, but USS BOISE not. I'm not sure about the destroyers.

This memo enlightened me to where Cavite Blue fit into the spectrum of USN paints applied in late 1941 and gave an understanding to the few available photos.

Yes, the same CINCAF message was also reproduced in an old issue of Warship International many years ago, which is how I first came across it...

CA-30 had 200 workmen aboard her for much of the final month [Nov 1941] at NY Cavite doing the last-minute stuff, so it's possible she was painted at that point. But, I've never read of anybody who was there saying they remembered painting her then, or later. In view of the alterations to her at that stage, I think repainting might have been problematic, but that is just speculation. They were definitely working w/her searchlights & the platforms for those, along with the 1.1" guns & those areas, and may have been fiddling again w/her degaussing gear.
By Dec 6, she was at Iloilo, and no one ever recalls painting her there/then.
However, I do not claim to be authoritative on this mysterious subject, which has gone on now for decades.

One may draw one's own conclusions from the last good images of her--those taken at Darwin.

Photo from USSHouston.org via John Bradford.

I have seen original photos of her being repainted at Cavite in the P.I. after she became flagship again, and the darker gray is quite noticeable. That it became so light by later in '41, or during the war, as shown in the few images of Houston that survived tells us much about how lacking in durability the Cavite Blue really was.

It is hard to say. I know there are images of HOUSTON available from the Australian War Museum. I just have no idea if the dates are accurate for any of them.

The photo you posted shows that parts of her have been repainted (forward section of the hull is really noticeable) at some point. But, as you say, the upper works do not appear to be repainted. Painting and touch up painting was so routine and done often and sailors hated the routine, that I suspect they would rather forget about it.

This image has less contrast between the upper works and the rest of the ship.

Something interesting if you have not seen it. Reconstructed Deck Logs of USS HOUSTON's movements from lat November 1941 to February 1942. HOUSTON visited Darwin several times starting on 28 December. So when specific photos were taken is in question and may explain why photos vary.

... https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/sh ... html#Enclb ....