The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 36  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:38 pm
Posts: 24
Finished work on a weathering and color study. I posted about the weathering in 'Tips and Tricks', but had a question specific to -38 in '42 post battle.

I used WEM Navy Blue N-5 as the base and then lightened it for my purposes.

Is it me, or does the WEM N-5 not look like a good match compared to color photos of the period, or parts of -38? I understand the -38 in '42 could have been in S-5, but no one seems to know for sure and even if it was, the colors were very similar (outside of how they weathered - and why the Navy changes to N-5).

Thoughts?


Attachments:
Picture2.png
Picture2.png [ 398.48 KiB | Viewed 3008 times ]
0403886.jpg
0403886.jpg [ 176.24 KiB | Viewed 3004 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
I have to ask where you found these images of ship structure and what ship are they from? If they were posted earlier, I missed them. I have to wonder, does that "-38" refer to USS SAN FRANCISCO? When were these parts removed?? Whether these parts are painted in 5-S, 5-N, or even 5-H is depended on when they were removed. Very few USN ships were painted in 5-S after about the Spring of 1942, unless the ship was too busy for a complete repaint job.

As to the apparent difference between 5-N out of the can and what it looks like in photos, color or B&W, there are several factors to consider.

- All paint will look different outdoors in natural light. And even appear different under different lighting conditions; bright sunny day or overcast cloudy day.

- The camera settings. filters used, processing of the film or age/preservation of the film/print/transparency, etc will alter how the image looks color or otherwise.

- The WWII 5-N paint was notorious for fading in the bright South Pacific sun. Also, the exposure to salt water left a residue on all surfaces, particularly the hull.

- Distance from the camera that an image is taken.

- Generally speaking, the "true color" of a WWII camo paint will appear to be darker on a model than on a full size subject.

Here are a sample of images scanned from original transparencies at the US National Archives (NARA). All of these subjects were painted in Ms 21 with 5-N paint.

Image

Image

Image

This image of USS St LOUIS (CL-49) taken on 5 July 1943, is really an interesting study. Note that parts of her superstructure looking darker than the hull. Also, note that the hull of the oiler in the foreground left is a darker 5-N than St LOUIS. Further, you can see where at some point her hull has been touched-up painted. You can see the salt residue along her hull, particularly along the waterline.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:38 pm
Posts: 24
Rick E Davis wrote:
I have to ask where you found these images of ship structure and what ship are they from? If they were posted earlier, I missed them. I have to wonder, does that "-38" refer to USS SAN FRANCISCO? When were these parts removed?? Whether these parts are painted in 5-S, 5-N, or even 5-H is depended on when they were removed. Very few USN ships were painted in 5-S after about the Spring of 1942, unless the ship was too busy for a complete repaint job.


Rick - thank you so much. That was really helpful information, especially the nuances of coloring in different environments. I assume I could also add, that the myriad shipyards (domestic and abroad) that painted USN ships during WWII all probably used different color mixes, different suppliers and different application techniques at different levels of workmanship resulting in a fleet that while might have been in the same measure, might actually look different side-by-side. This helps a lot, as I think I can give myself some wiggle room in paint match.

"-38" indeed refers to the San Francisco. I'm actually modeling her as she is seen upon return following the Battle of Guadalcanal. So either 04 DEC 42 when she returned to Pearl or 11-14 DEC 42 when she had to stand off San Francisco while berth space was made available. The picture behind the model is off San Francisco(fittingly).

Lastly, the parts are actually from the San Francisco following the battle. The bridge wings are in the memorial at Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the others were put in storage in their original condition, which is really helpful (especially in seeing how the yellow primer shows through the faded blue). I wish they had done that to more ship of the war.

They can be found here, at the bottom of the page:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/038/04038.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Actually until mid-war, the USN manufactured the paint and distributed the two component paint to USN yards and private yards. With increased need for paint as more ships were added to the Fleet, private paint manufacturers were provided the formula to make the two components of paint.

The family of USN camouflage paint, 5-H, 5-O, 5-N, 5-S, etc, was shipped to application sites as "White" paint with all the properties desired in a good marine paint, and "blue tinting" paste. The ratio of tinting mixed in to the white paint determined the shade of the final paint... http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/index.html ... It was possible that whoever mixed the paint, could loose count of how much tinting he was using, but most times the paint was mixed and applied at a yard or an advance base. Early in the war, it was directed that ships were not allowed to carry large quantities of paint after it was realized how much of a fire hazard it was in combat. Ship crews could apply the paint, but it was supplied at a base or yard for that purpose and likely was delivered to them pre-mixed in smaller containers than large barrels.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Hi gents,

Two more questions regarding USS San Francisco, please:

Were floater nets and baskets ever in use, and if so what time frame?

My reference photos show four accommodation ladders--two port and two starboard--from 1935 through the end of the war. Any reason to think this might not be the case in 1939?

Thanks,
Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:19 am
Posts: 249
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Chuck she did carry them but I don't believe they were installed until after the December 42 yard period.

The number of accommodation ladders probably didn't change through the life of the ship.

_________________
Bruce
OSC USN-Ret
Image

Currently on the building ways:
1/144 USS Stevens DD-479
1/144 USS Cook Inlet AVP-36
1/144 USS Walke DD-416
1/144 USS Preble DDG-46


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Sounds good.
Thanks for the quick reply.

Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Floater Nets had a slow introduction and initially were "bundled" and not put in baskets. It is really hard to spot in photos unless they are close-ups, but the nets would be bundled and tied to the inside of deck edge railing for deployment if needed. Sometimes the nets were wrapped in canvas. But, combat experienced showed that the net bundles would come loose and cause a big mess on the deck making movement difficult. Baskets were introduced as best I can tell in mid-1942, at least on East Coast built destroyers in and around NYNY. There were complaints about the baskets being mounted TOO HIGH up in the superstructure and the use of baskets was suspended for awhile. I have photos of several destroyers completed in late 1942 with as many as THIRTEEN float rafts. By early 1943, floater baskets became common.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Thanks for this extra information, Rick. I'm sure everyone appreciates it.
Do you think it is safe to assume, then, that neither the nets or the baskets would have been aboard San Francisco in 1939?

Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The ships may not have carried four side ladders. They could be rigged fore and aft on either port or starboard side. It would be unusual to rig them on both port and starboard at the same time.

Looking through the original Cleveland plans I can find stowage for only two side ladders, ladder platforms, booms, etc. On the CLGs we had only two side ladders. We typically rigged the ladders on one side and rigged the boat booms on the other. Boats tied to the booms and the boom rigging would obstruct passage to the side ladders.

You may find photos of a particular ship with ladders rigged on both port and starboard sides, but were the photos taken at the same time?

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Interesting. Most of the photos I have seen are undated. But none of them were taken at the same time.

Thanks for the heads up,
Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Well, I hate to be "hogging" this thread, but now I'm looking at USS San Francisco's boat stacks...
I have a drawing which shows a boat stack with a Pearl Harbor-vintage captain's gig on top, in 1935. By 1942 apparently they were all open boats. Does anyone have an idea of what was in place in 1939?

Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:19 am
Posts: 249
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Chuck according to Hansen's book, in 1938 she carried the following:

2 - 40ft launches
2 - 36ft launches
1 - 30ft launch
2 - 26ft motor whaleboats
2- 12ft punts

The next change he calls out isn't until May of 42. So, unless you can find other evidence of an change before 42 I'd go with Hansen's line-up.

Bruce

_________________
Bruce
OSC USN-Ret
Image

Currently on the building ways:
1/144 USS Stevens DD-479
1/144 USS Cook Inlet AVP-36
1/144 USS Walke DD-416
1/144 USS Preble DDG-46


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Thanks Bruce, once again.
Unless we hear otherwise, this is what I will go with.

Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 11:13 am
Posts: 263
Location: Michigan
Hello, everyone, hope all is well with you all! I have a couple questions for you fellow builders. First question pertains to the difference between the heights of the forward 20mm Galleries on the Quincy and Vincennes. I have plans for both ships, and when I compared them, there was only about .4mm difference between the two. Does this sound right? I thought there was a larger difference between them.

My second question is about the aft 20mm Gun tubs. The plans show them between the No. 3 Turret and the aft 1.1" Gun tubs as of 6/42. However, in viewing multiple photographs, I can't seem to see them. Can anyone confirm that these indeed were there at the time of her sinking in 8/42?

The plans are from the Floating Drydock. Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Justin

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri





Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
When the New Orleans class was designed, the communications deck was made extra high. The reason is that the conning tower needed the extra height to see over turret 2. So the base of the conning tower was 3'10" above the rest of the communications deck, and the deck for the pilothouse was 8' above that. This applied to all 7 ships of the class. Astoria, Minneapolis and San Francisco eventually raised the communications deck to the higher level, but the other 4 did not. Quincy's 20MM gallery was built at the level of the base of the by then removed conning tower. Vincennes had hers added at the original communications deck level. This gave them a 3'10" difference in height above the main deck. This equates to .065" in 1/700 scale.

As for the alleged quarterdeck 20MM on Vincennes, I agree that they were not there. No photos show them, and several show the vacant quarterdeck clearly. Where I think that last pair of 20MM were mounted was in the gallery around the back of the after control position atop the hangar, putting 4 at that level. Some photos seem to hint at that, but I am still searching for a definitive shot to prove it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 11:13 am
Posts: 263
Location: Michigan
Thanks for the quick response Dick! The Plans I have are in 1/350 scale. I believe the difference was around .40mm in that scale. Would that be about right? I agree also. I have seen a Pic of a very open deck where the 20mm are supposedly mounted. As far as the 4 20mm atop the aft Control position, I have not heard or thought of that. Interesting! I just want to get the 20mm gallery position right, as I am designing both the Quincy and Vincennes Forward superstructures in a cad program to have them 3d Printed to use for modifying the San Fran kit to a model of each!

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri





Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
jester63, contact me off line. dick_jensen_44@msn.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 11:13 am
Posts: 263
Location: Michigan
Email inbound!

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri





Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 669
Location: USA
Another question ref USS San Francisco, please:

George Richardson's drawings in Lester Abbey's book show no. 38's on the hull in 1935 and in 1942. Should I assume they were there in late 1939, or does anyone have any contrary opinion?

Thanks again,
Chuck

_________________
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... uck-Bauer/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 44 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

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