The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2178
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Cliffy B wrote:
If I remember correctly ONLY the first 4 members of the class had the twin crane/squared stern arrangement, IE CA-68-71. The remainder had the 1 crane/rounded stern arrangement. All ships retained their respective stern shapes regardless of the modernizations/conversions performed.


Thank you CliffyB for the reply.

Looks like that rules out using Trumpeter kits as a stand-in for USS Chicago, CA-136, which I like since she was the only member of the class to have fired at an enemy ship. (This was during the time US Navy Adm. Shafroth's task force encountered a small Japanese C class escort ship during the bombardment of the Kamaishi Steelworks in July 1945)

...unless of course you are aware of another Baltimore class member that did shoot at an enemy vessel?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 578
Location: Downey, California
CCGSailor wrote:
Cliffy B wrote:
If I remember correctly ONLY the first 4 members of the class had the twin crane/squared stern arrangement, IE CA-68-71. The remainder had the 1 crane/rounded stern arrangement. All ships retained their respective stern shapes regardless of the modernizations/conversions performed.


Thank you CliffyB for the reply.

Looks like that rules out using Trumpeter kits as a stand-in for USS Chicago, CA-136, which I like since she was the only member of the class to have fired at an enemy ship. (This was during the time US Navy Adm. Shafroth's task force encountered a small Japanese C class escort ship during the bombardment of the Kamaishi Steelworks in July 1945)

...unless of course you are aware of another Baltimore class member that did shoot at an enemy vessel?


You should start with the Trumpeter Pittsburg kit for a Chicago conversion - it has the rounded single-crane stern you need.
As for Los Angeles/Chicago comparisons, be aware that while Chicago got fully converted to CG-11, Los Angeles remained a gun cruiser to the end but got a few additional refits - so be careful what time period you're referencing in that book. Up to halfway through the Korean War should be pretty similar.
One additional variation I've noticed that will be a little tricky with the Trumpeter kits (all three) is that the planking stops well ahead of the catapults and hanger door (where the alternate stern is split from the main hull). From studying photos, it looks to me like several ships (particularly the early ones which Trumpeter is providing) were configured that way. However, some later ships look to have planking all the way back. Adding in the missing planking and seamlessly blend it in to the existing planking forward is something I haven't had the guts to tackle yet.
Say... might one of the wood deck makers consider a late-Baltimore class deck with planking all the way back?

- Sean F.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Trumpeter makes both stern variations in 1/700. For square sterns look for the Baltimore kits and for the rounded sterns look for the Pittsburgh kit.

Reviews for both are located here: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/700-trumpeter.html

So to make Chicago, get the Pittsburgh kit. Not sure how different she is but you'll probably need to alter the AA guns, their directors, radars, various antennae, and other little sundry details depending on how accurate you want to depict her. Look through her NavSource page http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/136/04136.htm.

Best photo of her on there is this one: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/136/0413601.jpg Its a nice high-res shot that should show you the majority of her layout and highlight the differences between her and the kit.

Two things I know they omit from the kits are the openings in the bow for the paravane chains and these two openings in the stern (only the rounded ships) had: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/136/0413608.jpg

A nice shot of Bremerton highlighting the bow opening:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/130/0413016.jpg

Can anyone tell me what the stern opening are for and what's inside behind them. Are they just for mooring lines or do they serve some other purpose?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2178
Location: Vancouver, Canada
SeanF wrote:

You should start with the Trumpeter Pittsburg kit for a Chicago conversion - it has the rounded single-crane stern you need.
As for Los Angeles/Chicago comparisons, be aware that while Chicago got fully converted to CG-11, Los Angeles remained a gun cruiser to the end but got a few additional refits - so be careful what time period you're referencing in that book. Up to halfway through the Korean War should be pretty similar.

- Sean F.


Sean,
Thank you for the reply. However, I believe you're referring to another poster when you mentioned the USS Los Angeles, since I have no intention to build her, just Chicago.

Cliff,

Thanks a great deal for all the information you posted, since it's been a great help in clearing things up. While I have yet to read the whole thread, which Baltimore class cruiser kits have you built, if you don't mind my asking?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 578
Location: Downey, California
Sorry, CCGSailor. It was Bob Dedmon who referenced his Chicago project and having the Los Angeles book. (Two CA-136 projects at the same time... go figure! :) )

With regard to the stern planking I mentioned earlier, compare:
USS Baltimore: Planking stops just aft of #3 turret muzzles:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/068/0406872.jpg

USS Toledo nearing completion: Planking as with Baltimore. (Note hangar door slid all the way forward - probably why the planking stopped there?)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/132/0413225.jpg

A later shot of USS Toledo, with planking extended back and along port side of hangar door, but not starboard:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/132/0413229.jpg

USS Helena, with planking back to and to starboard of hangar but not port:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/075/0407527.jpg

USS Los Angeles commissioning, looks like planking stops about the same location as on Toledo and Baltimore (and there's an interesting texture to the steel deck beyond):
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/135/0413521.jpg

USS Los Angeles: Planking stops against front edge of hangar and doesn't extend further to either side:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/135/0413506.jpg

The Toledo and Los Angeles obviously had the planking altered at some point. My best guess is that the ships were probably all completed the same, then altered later. Early 50s, perhaps.

- Sean F.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The stern openings were for stern lights used for formation steaming and a wake light to illuminate the wake at night.

Most (all?) WWII US cruisers had the paravane chains on the bow. They faired down through a hole in a half-donut shaped stem extension at the bottom of the bow and back up each side of the hull to where the minesweeping paravanes were stowed (near the forward turrets). The paravanes were eliminated on the missile conversions and the holes high on the bow were plated over. The stem extension remained.

Here is an image of the stem extension on a Cleveland class hull:

http://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20ima ... 0C%205.jpg

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:39 am
Posts: 116
Location: Tide Water, Va
thanks everyone...I have the Pittsburg to convert, I have the LA book I figured since it was a numerical leader to Chicago the two I thought I could use the book for reference since I've only seen 2 photos of Chicago before CG-11

_________________
It's easier to beg foregiveness than it is to ask for permission.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2178
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Hello Gary and all,

So essentially, taking note of Gary's post below, I can't use Trumpeter's Baltimore 1943 kit to portray any of her sisters? One has to really acquire either Trumpeter's Baltimore 1944 kit or their Pittsburgh kit, right?

GaryJ in NC wrote:
The Trumpeter 1943 BALTIMORE portrays the ship "as commissioned" on April 15, 1943. However, by June she had received additional quad 40mm mounts, including the fantail mount offset to port. She also received some bridge modifications which included a square front bridge top. By the time she deployed in September 1943, BALTIMORE looked more like the 1944 PITTSBURGH kit in the superstructure; therefore, I am using parts from an extra PITTSBURGH in order to represent BALTIMORE as she appeared in September 1943. As can be seen in the Trumpeter 1944 BALTIMORE kit, the July-October 1944 refit made further changes.

I have no idea why Trumpeter made the 1943 kit "as commissioned" instead of "first deployment." She was in that configuration for less than 60 days. The "first deployment" variation is much more interesting from a historical standpoint.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2178
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Cliffy B,

Another question, so the USS Canberra is essentially identical to a 1944 Baltimore? So one would use Trumpy's Baltimore kit to build her?

Just the conclusion I'm drawing from this navsource photo of Canberra and the review of Trumpeter's Baltimore kit showing the differences in various ships' sterns.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Yes sir!

The Trumpy Baltimore kits will build into, Baltimore, Boston, Canberra, or Quincy ONLY (CA-68-71).

DO NOT be fooled by the decals in them though as they provide numbers for CA-68-75. The Trumpy New Orleans class kits are notorious for that as well, including numbers for ships that simply can't be built from the kit they're in. Always do your research if accuracy is important.

The Pittsburgh kits will build into the rest of the class (CA-72-75, 130-133, 135, 136).

Again, do your research as no class of ship is entirely 100% identical throughout the class. They were variations in their bridges, superstructures, masts, electronics, and AA guns (quantity and layout, among others. Root through NavSource and if they don't have enough photos ask us. Someone will be able to help :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 14
I was wondering if the wood deck on the Baltimore class was flush with the bow and stern steel decks or raised proud of them? A look at the Floating Drydock drawings seems to show the that wood deck is proud of the waterways along each side, but there is a line at the bow and stern which seems to cut that off, so as to raise the steel deck up to be flush with the wood. As the Floating Drydock drawings make reference to "waterways" and even sections where the waterways are covered (to allow passage around raised 5" guns and such), I think this establishes that the steel waterway is lower than the adjacent wood deck along each side.
However, there is a photo in the Squadron Heavy Cruiser book 2 (page 17, USS Boston) which seems to show the waterways flush with the bow steel deck which would therefore indicate that the wood deck is slightly above the adjacent steel on all sides.
The various kits (1/350 resin and 1/700) seem to show pretty much everything flush which I think is incorrect.
Is anyone aware of a photo which clearly shows the area where the wood deck meets the waterways AND meets the bow or stern steel section? I have the Ray Bean CD but was unable to distinguish anything specific.
Thank you in advance.
PS I hope this makes sense! :smallsmile:
cliftonra
edit- I do NOT have the Ray Bean CD. The only photo reference that I have in my hands is the CD produced by the Floating Drydock. I have been unable to get hold of the Ray Bean CD through normal channels


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Clilfton,

The ships were built with steel decks and then the wood decking was fastened on top of the steel decks. The edge of the wood deck was raised above the steel deck all around.

Around the edges of the wood decks were vertical flat metal bars the height of the wood decking welded to the steel decks. This protected the edges of the wood. The waterways were between this steel edging and the side of the hull.

You can see the edge of the wood deck outboard the 40mm gun tub on the Baltimore in this photo:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/068/0406865.jpg

Here are some more photos showing the forward edge of the wood deck on the Boston:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/04010128.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/04010129.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/04010132.jpg

Wood decking was typically two inches thick. At 1:350 this is about 0.006" or the thickness of two sheets of notebook paper. It would be pretty hard to see this difference in a model.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 14
Thank you Phil, that is exactly what I was looking for.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:43 pm
Posts: 43
Would trumpeter's Pittsburgh be best starting point for a 1954 Macon? Thanks.

_________________
Planned projects
1/700 USS Macon CA-132
1/350 USS Wasp CV-18
1/350 USS Alabama BB-60


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
A question for those with plans, did the size of the seaplane hangars vary at all with any of the CA-68s? Were they originally larger and then had part turned into Crew Berthing like some of the other cruisers or were they always small? Normal complement was 4 aircraft correct? Best I can tell the hangar doesn't go much farther than the forward end of the hatch. How many aircraft could be stowed inside? Did they leave them on the elevator or was there room to push them to the side?

I'm building one of the 1st four ships with the centerline hatch but any and all info will be appreciated.

I want to depict one of them similar to these photos and have the hatch open and want to be as accurate as possible.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/0406901.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/0406937.jpg

-Mike

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Anyone know of any more photos of CA-70 in 1945 after her Boston repair/refit following her torpedoing? I've found two but both are shot from a low angle. Looking for topside details if possible. Trying to figure out her 20mm disposition and if they were singles or twins or both.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/070/0407023.jpg
http://www.usscanberra.com/Images/Albums/6._1946in_SF.jpg

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 745
Location: Adelaide,SouthOZ
G'day All,

Just got an email from Tim at Southern Cross Models as he has just finished the 1/72 scale plug for the Baltimore class Heavy Cruiser. This plug will do the first four ships of the class Baltimore, Boston, Canberra, and Quincy once the mould is made Tim will modify the plug for the round stern hull of the rest of the Baltimores and Oregon City class and make a second mold...

Price for Hull will be $700 AU (which is about $553US at current xchge rate) plus shipping, contact Tim at Southern Cross Models if interested. There are some other really cool hulls available too.....

Here are some pix of the plug.....

Cheers Bruce

PS This hull is 2.85m x 0.30m with about a 12cm draft....


Attachments:
photo 1.JPG
photo 1.JPG [ 65.55 KiB | Viewed 2893 times ]
photo 2.JPG
photo 2.JPG [ 50.36 KiB | Viewed 2893 times ]
photo 3.JPG
photo 3.JPG [ 56.67 KiB | Viewed 2893 times ]
photo 4.JPG
photo 4.JPG [ 39.92 KiB | Viewed 2893 times ]

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 5:10 am
Posts: 3
G'day guys, new to model ship building only done 2 1/700 ships with a third halfway made. Want to make a Leyte gulf USS Boston. I could only get the 1/700 USS Baltimore 43, with the artwork Baltimore 44 wood decks and the flyhawk Baltimore 43/44 detail set. I have limit knowledge of ships. What do I need to do to get her to a Leyte gulf USS Boston? What cam was she wearing? Any good websites that I can use for picture and plans? Any help would be much appreciated

Regards Rodney


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1991
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/04069.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:41 am
Posts: 942
Location: CT, US of A
Just about to start the Trumpy 1/700th Baltimore 1944, in dazzle, and I'm stuck. :scratch:
The design 16D sheet for this class clearly shows two colors for the decks:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Pattern_Sheet_Measure_31-2-3_16D_for_Baltimore_class_cruisers.jpg
Colors are not specified but I'd suspect deck blue and ocean gray.

Trouble is, if I go to CA-68's Mare Island dockside shots at Navsource, I'm simply not seeing two colors on the deck. A trick of the lighting, maybe. I've been unable to find any other decent overhead shots on the web which might be deciders. In the Gallery you'll see models with all-blue decks and others in two colors.
Were the camo designs followed religiously, or might Baltimore (and others) have been in overall deck blue? Any photos (in particular) or other evidence would be much appreciated. Separate but related, I'm in a similar quandary with San Diego CL-53. I'm wondering if the specs for deck colors, in dazzle schemes, weren't always as rigidly adhered to as those for a ship's vertical surfaces.
TIA

_________________
Harold


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group