The Ship Model Forum

DrPR and Dick J, thank you for the help!
Interesting information, USS mobile can move forward.

_________________
Dan
Field Artillery, King of Battle
Please check out the Secret Society of Model Builders on facebook.

Thank you, Ian, for identifying the two Mark 3 antennae.

I'm all thumbs when it comes to assembling pe radar antenna. Lucky for me that ISW's Jon Warneke has provided me with two outstanding 3D Mod 2s for a NOV1942 Cleveland CL55 and Kraken Hobbies' Matt Enoch has provided me with an outstanding 3D Mod 1 for a JAN1945 Nashville CL43.

Simply gluing these 3D antennae atop the FCDs is so much easier than fussing with pe!

DanCinSD, I'm also planning a hangar for a 1/350 Very Fire Cleveland class, but for a NOV1942 Operation Torch Cleveland CL55.

The big attraction for me (besides the Ms12 Mod camo) is that Cleveland's VCS12 deployed with Curtiss SO3C Seamews. I owe another big thanks to ISW's Jon Warneke for 3D printing both fixed wing and folded wing Seamews for me. Two Seamews on the catapults and one below in the hangar, wearing the yellow roundel of Operation Torch, will be unique.

And I'm in debt to Kraken's Matt Enoch, again, for his tall 3D-printed Mk4 radars.

David, Seamews would be nice, I read they were made "for the cruisers" but unfortunately Mobile had kingfishers.
Yes, thank goodness for Krakken! The FC radars will be nice along with the SC from Black Cat models. It's a nice time to be a ship modeler!

_________________
Dan
Field Artillery, King of Battle
Please check out the Secret Society of Model Builders on facebook.

Hi all,

I'm considering getting one of those Very Fire 1/350 Cleveland class kits, but I want to build a ship in dazzle.

First question, are the Cleveland and Birmingham kits the same plastic and etch in different boxes? A quick glance at the sprues and instructions online would suggest so, but I just wanted to check.

Now the main one: which member of the class, wearing dazzle, requires least modification from one of the base kits? The main candidates seem to be:

Denver
Birmingham
Montpelier

I'm leaning against Montpelier because I prefer the other Ms.33 patterns, but her AA fit seems to match the kits so she remains a good option.

Birmingham is my preferred pattern (Ms.33/6D) but seems to have worn the dazzle before the AA upgrades. I'm wondering, does the kit include spare tubs and parts to ease this backdate? I think I can see some 20mm tubs on the sprues but not sure.

That leaves Denver, which seems to have the same AA fit as represented in the Very Fire Birmingham kit while wearing Ms.33/3D.

Have I missed anything? Other detail differences between class members? What do people think, which would you choose and why?

Thanks

I can't speak to the plastic that is included in each kit, although the CAD correctly depicts the differences in the quad 40MM supporting structure between Cleveland and Birmingham. However, the actual ship differences mean that whichever option you choose, some plastic surgery will be required.

Cleveland commissioned with 4 twin 40MM and added another pair prior to departure for the Pacific. The forward twins were high up in the forward superstructure, above the beam 5" twins. Immediately aft of the 5" mounts, a single 20MM was on a projection of the O-1 level on each side. The quad 40MM were added in a late-war refit, and the supporting structure of the forward quads essentially matched that for the after quads - unique in the round-bridge members of the class.

Columbia and Montpelier deleted the forward twin 40MM and added a box structure aft of the forward twin 5" mounts (partially supported by the original projecting structure for the single 20MM), placing these quads at the O-2 level. So these two went to war with 2 quads and 4 twins. The after quads came in late-war refits. So, to do either of these from the Birmingham kit would require scratch-building the structure under the forward quads.

Starting with Denver, the forward quads were atop a rounded structure (properly depicted in the Birmingham CAD), and this became standard for the forward mounts on subsequent sisters. However, Denver was the first round-bridge Cleveland to get the after quad 40MM, and these were mounted at the O-1 level - unique for the class. So, to depict Denver, this structure would have to be cut down and the tubs lowered.

Variations in 20MM positioning should be easier to reproduce. I hope this helps with your decision.

Thank you Dick.

Yes, that helps a lot. I hadn't spotted all the differences in the supporting structure of the forward quad 40mm for example.

I think the decision is fairly simple then: get the Birmingham kit, just in case the plastic is not the same it has the greater feature commonality with the later ships. Then after I have it in hand, decide if I do the simple thing and cut down the rear 40mm tub supports to make Denver, or backdate it to Birmingham in 1944.

It's a tough call because I prefer the port side of pattern 6D but the starboard side of pattern 3D

A small detail difference between the Cleveland CL-55 and Columbia CL-56 and all other ships of the Cleveland class was the stern lights. The first two ships had them mounted outside the hull plating. All other ships had a cavity in the stern, just to the starboard of the centerline, with the lights mounted in this recess.

It would be interesting to see if the two kits actually show this difference. If so, the Birmingham kit would be a better choice for the later round bridge Clevelands.

Starting with the Vincennes CL-64 ships of the Cleveland class had square bridges without the round armored pilot house and some changes to the after superstructure. The earlier kits would require major modifications.

Here is a history of the Cleveland class. However, it doesn't go into the small details about gun configurations over time.

https://www.okieboat.com/Cleveland%20Cl ... story.html

Phil

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

I did briefly consider doing a square bridge conversion using ModelMonkey parts but there are too many other differences, relocated aft 40mm twin, swapped director positions, I didn't feel like that much surgery on this project.

It looks like the CL-55 kit has a stern cavity and is therefore incorrect, but fine for CL-62. It's a shame both kits show a ship with the 6x2 + 4x4 Bofors configuration.

https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/055/0405503.jpg
Apparently, the inset stern light was retrofitted to Cleveland. So this would be correct for the 1945 fit kit.

Dick,

Thanks! I had missed that. Apparently they added the stern light cavity when they put in the 40 mm gun tubs.

So it would be a late war Cleveland with those stern lights.

Phil

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

So I got the Very Fire Birmingham kit and intend to build her as Denver in dazzle. I keep noticing small differences in photos e.g.
- slightly different positon of boats and davits
- different setup at the top of the rear mast
- extra 20mm amidships
- different supporting structure under the aft superstructure 40mm directors (I think)
- no directors for the main deck rearmost 40mm?

Trouble is the photos on Navsource are too low resolution to get a clear idea of how to model these details. Does anyone have good photos, ideally superstructure close-ups, of Denver in 1944? Or can anyone help me catalogue any other differences I might have missed?

I noticed the same thing on Navsource for the early Cleveland class ships -- the photos of the Mare Island refits are pretty low resolution. Higher res versions can be downloaded from NHHC -- I just search by hull number: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... ml?q=CL-58

There are a few of the Mare Island photos available in higher res but unfortunately all of the closeups are only available in "medium" resolution...!

Thank you, the extra res on some of those is very helpful!

What time period does the Very Fire USS Birmingham build as?
Tom

1945