The Ship Model Forum

Sounds too much work but I will give it a try. Its a shame the tactic Tamiya follows, from a 2 class ship it only produce one, come on Tamiya make the Portland too...

Hello,

I'm trying to find out the number of 40mm guns and radars carried by Portland and Indianapolis in late 1943/early 1944. I know that they probably had 20 (4x4, 2x2). Is it right?
Radars: SG, air search SK, 2 Mk3 and 2 Mk4. Is that correct?

Thank you in advance
Max

That is correct, except that both ships had 2 SG sets. In June '44 (Portland) and Nov '44 (Indy) both upgraded the main battery directors to MK-34's with MK-8 radar. At that time, Portland added two more twin 40MM and Indy upgraded the fantail mounts to quads. They also switched the MK-33 directors from the open-topped version to the fully enclosed type.

Were they more overweight than other heavy cruisers? It seems that many of them had 24 40mm instead of 20.

Max

Something you must be careful about is mixing up time frames for planned weapons fits. They were constantly changing based on weapon availability, need, and what the ship could carry (space and weight wise). The "approved" fit at the end of 1942 was for 16 40MM. Chicago, San Francisco, Helena, Columbia, Montpelier, and a number of other cruisers updated to this standard. Others were fitted with fewer, due to availability (both for weapons and the ships). For example, Cleveland had 12; St Louis, New Orleans, and Minneapolis had 8, in addition to some residual 1.1's. Later in 1943, Indianapolis and Portland added a pair of twins, for a total of 20 (in common with the first few "square-bridge" Clevelands). Next, the number was upped to 24, a standard to which the Baltimore was firstcompleted. New Orleans and Minneapolis were given 6 quads, Portland, Louisville, and Chester had 4 quads and 4 twins. Eventually, the number was increased to 28 (26 on the New Orleans class), but not all of the ships received the refits before the war ended. The extended forecastle flagships (Chicago, Augusta, and Indianapolis - Houston was already lost) had more of a weight problem than their sisters. That is why Indy only had 24 after her last refit, using improved directors to upgrade her AA capability instead of increased weapons numbers. The "24" or "28" gun standard had not yet been set in early '43, so obviously, ships refitted in that time period didn't get that many at that point in the war. So that was no reflection on the material condition of the ship - just a reflection of the time.

Thank you very much.
Before those interesting posts I believed that the bigger 24-28 40mm was authorized only because of kamikaze menace later in the war.

Max

Like I said, the numbers adapted to the need. Louisville and Chester went from 24 to 28 as part of their kamikaze upgrade, but the real reason for the new 40MM was to kill aircraft weaving back and forth across the bow. (The earlier config kept a weaving target switching from the guns on one side to those on the other, allowing no group to get a long enough lock-on to home in for a kill.) Likewise, the twin on Minneapolis's turret II was installed for the same reason. But the numbers on these ships had already reached the "24" figure before the kamikazes. However, the Cleveland's reached the 28 figure pre-kamikaze. Especially late-war, when production had caught up, numbers depended on the class, yard availability and need.

If anyone is looking to build the Indy or Portland, I HIGHLY recommend picking up the Warship Pictorial book. Mine came a few days ago, and wow! Theres a lot of Indy pictures that I havent seen on the net (I found 11 new dazzle pictures I havent seen before), as well as Portland pics (13 dazzle pics). Its interesting seeing the changes of the ships from their refits with pictures that show the changes, like the rear super structure. Sure, I have a lot more work now to convert my Tamiya to a '44, but it will be more accurate

_________________
"Also we will never see a 1/350 late war Enterprise from Dragon due to a paralyzing fear of success...." - Heavy Melder

Lots of unfinished model ships + attention issues = A busy slipway where nothing gets done!

It is really good to see the new release announced in both 1/350 and 1/700. Such an exciting time for modeling even if things have slowed some. One of the very exciting things about the new Indianapolis kits that have been discussed here is the possibility to back date the kits to pre December 1944 and to convert one of the kits to the Portland.

There are a couple of items that have not been mentioned about a Portland conversion that should be noted. As everyone knows the Indy was a flagship version of the class and therefore had the longer fore deck and smaller well deck/aircraft catapult area.

The one thing that is generally missed on Portland concerns the overall size of the 01 deck house (the structure that No. 2 turret and the forward superstructure set on). Not only is this structure shorter than the Indy it is also more narrow. This is very evident in looking at photos of the two ships and comparing the walk way space between the edge of the deck at the hull and the wall of the 01 structure.

In 1/700 scale the Niko Portland kit picked this up; however, the old Classic warships/Midships Models kit of Portland did not. The difference in 1/700 scale at the aft end of the structure is approximately 4 mm or a little over 9 feet in scale. This is a significant difference in both 1/700 and 1/350 scale and very noticeable.

Looking at plans of Indy and Portland in a number of books, Friedman’s Cruiser Book for example pages 152 and 153, the angle point where the sides of the 01 structure start to more closely parallel the hull /deck edge is further forward on the Portland than the Indy. This moves the sides of the structure inward to the centerline quicker giving a more narrow overall structure.

The next item concerns the wood decks of the Indy. There was some concern noted earlier in this thread about the aft 40 mm shields being molded on the deck and damaging detail to remove the shields for backdating or conversion. This should not be a concern on the 1945 Indy as the wood deck from the stern to the area around the aft superstructure and turret 3 was removed to save weight so this deck should be smooth. However, this does cause a problem in backdating this kit or converting to a Portland since this area will need to have the planking. Niko missed this on their 1/700 Portland since they probably used the Tamiya Indy for the conversion/kit. The forward deck area is planked, but the aft main deck is smooth. Maybe Pontos will make a full wood deck for the kit that also covers the stern area.

The last item concerns the main battery (8”) gun directors. These were either heavily modified or replaced during the December 1944 refit. In any case they look quite different from the ones fitted prior to December 1944 on the Indy and those fitted on the Portland.

The two Portland's were built with MK 27 directors. Portland upgraded to MK 34's in a refit that completed in Jul '44, while Indy upgraded directors in a refit that ended in Dec '44.

Thanks Dick. I could not find anything concerning the type of directors. I am sure I have it some where here. This information is very helpful.

I now have both 1:350 Indi's in hand. Just to judge the hull only, haven't been topside yet. The Academy kit has much more detail on the hull then does the Trumpeter.
Both kits need their bulb in the forefoot increased in width. The stern of the Academy kit is shaped very nicely but the shafts have only one strut post and not the "V" it should. Reminds me of back when Revell did the CV-59 class and had done the same thing with the shaft struts.
Here's the big one, Trumpeter's stern is way out to lunch. There is no chine but rather a curve in the hull that just continues to be round right to the keel area for the rudder. Major Bondo work here.
The bilge keels on both are pretty much the same but I'd go with Academy on this one. The Trumpeter props are much better. Both hulls have the armor belts but I have to go with the Academy belt.
So with this short eyeballing of both hulls I'd lean to the Academy kit for now and again this is just the hull. This is not to trash one or the other and I did pay for both of my kits which then gives me the right to post goods and bads or just put it as a "heads up".

Keith

Interesting! Now it would be really interesting to see how the topsides compare!

Might be the case as with the Fletcher kits - had to use both Trumpy and Tamiya kits to get a decent model...

_________________
Model kit manufacturer and distributor: https://b2b.modellbaudienst.de
Distributor of Very Fire, Snowman, Milania Master Korabel, Falkonet, Microdisign in EU
1:350 HMS Diana 1794 - nearly released
Further kits in preparation.

One more thing to look at on your Trumpeter hull, Keith - does the stand fit?
I know some of us won't use them, but I noticed on my last couple of recent Trumpeter kits that they have a generic stand that does not fit the hull shape. I slapped my Type 23 stand together just for a quick work cradle and it wouldn't hold it upright....

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Trumpeter not thinking about hull shape?! Inconceivable!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Sounds like one would have to purchase both kits and more than likely a few sets of PE to build the best CA35 possible. The finished model would be spectacular, to say the least, if money is no object !

Steve Wiper
www.classicwarships.com

Well I do have one of each here so that could be an idea. Hey Steve, you have lots of money , how bout a sponsor .

Keith

He said that the Academy hull was better, but he didn't say that there was anything wrong with the rest of the Academy kit. So why would you need both kits for a good build? Just buy the Academy kit and be done with it.

You could be right as of now but I have not looked into the rest of the kit. Maybe the Academy kit top side is a dog but I haven't checked it out yet.

Know something else, I haven't even measured the two hulls to see which one is right or even close, I'm only going by looks as of now.

Could all end up like a Casin and Downs sort of,
Keith

I'm working on the Trumpy review, and I generally agree with Keith's comments- the stern is way screwed up on Trumpeter's. Not convinced about the bow bulb- Portland's weren't supposed have one. Trumpeter also has the external avgas line from the bow tanks to the hangar on *both* the port and starboard sides.

Trumpeter's 8" gunhouses are larger than Academy's; their 8" barrels and mantle are nicer, as are the open 5" guns.

Twin 20's are blah and both company's have them on the incorrect pedestals.

I hope to have this finished by the weekend.

_________________
--
Sean Hert