1/700 USS Astoria CA-34 at Savo/Trumpeter+Vladi+FiveStar

[Vladi]

Hi everyone,

USS Astoria is clearly another logical addition to my Battle of Savo Island collection. I started the kit already some months ago presuming it would be an easy build � not really OOB but not overly complicated � in between my other more demanding projects, so I was not even thinking about starting a WIP page for her. However, I found myself soon dug in details that I simply did not want to leave as they were, ending up designing an upgrade set to someone else�s upgrade set at this very moment so I think it can be of interest to have it documented in the end. But let�s start from the beginning.

As shown on the photo I am using the Trumpeter USS San Francisco 1942 1/700 kit instead of their Astoria kit simply because I had a chance to buy it really cheap in a close-down sale of a local hobby shop 3 years ago. It contains the same sprues as the Astoria kit so the only real differences are the box art and a few different parts to be used that can be identified by comparing respective assembly guides.

Gathering photos and other resources always comes first to me. Astoria does not seem to be the best documented of her class, I was able to gather only about 20 photos from the 1941-42 period and just 5 of them of her final fit after the modifications made after the Battle of Midway. So it�s good she was not that different from her sisters and especially the well-documented San Francisco. The differences between the two ships as such and between them and their Trumpeter representations are known and well documented e.g. in the CASF New Orleans class thread. This is my recap incl. a few updates related to the Trumpy kit and her fit as of August 1942:

• Early style round-face 8in turrets with vents aft and Mark 9 main gun barrels
• No bracing on 5in splinter shields
• No bracing on 1.1in splinter shields
• 20mm tubs fwd of the first 5in mounts were outboard
• Main bridge
  • Height of the deckhouse at the level of the 1.1in tubs should be increased by approx. 0,5mm (common issue of Trumpy New Orleans kits)
  • 1.1in tubs should not be a full circle
  • No bulwark along the back of the bridge between the two 1.1in tubs
  • [Edit] Trumpy/Fivestar main bridge proportions are inaccurate, �dent� abreast of the fwd conning tower, see below
  • [Edit] Fwd 1.1in tubs are different in shape and height compared to both SF (and other early class members) and the kit
• [Edit] Searchlight tower: San Francisco and New Orleans had supports going from the top of the vent around the vent down to the deck while Astoria and Minneapolis supports did not extend outside of the roof of the vent
• Outlook posts(?) on sides of the searchlight tower were removed and replaced with Carley floats instead
• Openings of the boat & airplane cranes� machinery spaces were covered with steel with access door on both levels
• [Edit] Shape of the 20mm splinter shield on the hangar roof (fore and aft of the main crane) is different with a larger overhang fwd of the crane on Astoria
• No overhang of the hangar roof over the back of the hangar structure (only the two fwd 20mm tubs extend beyond the bulkhead)
• Secondary conn and the adjacent 20mm gun platform need significant improvement over the Trumpy kit
• The small 2.5m rangefinder tub on the back of the after superstructure (above turret #3) was positioned higher than the hangar roof level
• Differently shaped 1.1in director tubs aft with no directors installed (tubs should be left empty)
• No depth charge racks on fantail
• Different arrangement of Carley floats on superstructure and main turrets
• Two 40ft (or one 40ft and one 36ft?) motor launches and one (26 ft or 30ft?) whale boat on the hangar roof in Aug, 1942
• Only starboard 26ft motor whale boat present on well deck davits in Aug 1942
• Three SOC-3 floatplanes in the hangar and two on catapults on Aug 8, 1942, according to the Damage report

Any comments and additions to the above list are highly welcome!

Having already built the Trumpeter 1/700 Quincy few years ago I am well aware of their New Orleans class kits problems. I wanted to improve on it so I decided to buy the FiveStar 1/700 WWII USS San Francisco CA-38 Heavy Cruiser Detail Set for Trumpeter 05746 & 05310. It is really extensive, though it clearly contains many parts that I won�t be able to use as they are intended for the 1943/44 version (incl. a completely new main bridge), but there are parts for the 1942 version, too, and more parts are common. I�ll cover my impressions of the set in the next post.

Apart from FiveStar PE I plan to use 5/25 guns from 3dmodelparts and 20mm oerlikons and 1.1in guns from Shelf Oddity. I�ve also got my own PE parts I created while working on USS Chicago, both generic for US cruisers and Astoria-specific, with some more being added right now.

[Vladi]

Now about the FiveStar San Francisco PE set. I had a very positive experience with FiveStar set for the Tenryu, the set definitely looked nice and comprehensive on their web so I ordered it as a solution for improving the Trumpy kit and adding detail. It contains 7 brass sheets and turned brass main gun barrels. FiveStar promotes you can build 1942 or 1944 version out of it, but upon closer inspection it appears the set was primarily designed to build the 1943+ San Francisco with parts for the 1942 version added perhaps as an afterthought. This can also be seen in the instructions, where the 1943+ version is covered in detail on several pages while for the 1942 version only the bridge and searchlight tower are shown on just over half a page in total.

To my deepest regret, FiveStar designed their version of the pre-refit (1942) main bridge not as a full replacement, but rather as an overlay to the original Trumpeter parts (see the part of the instructions relevant to the 1942 bridge below). This maybe makes the construction a bit easier for a beginner, but what beginner would buy such a comprehensive set? As a result, one would end up with bulkheads and splinter shields even thicker than the � already quite thick � Trumpeter bridge . More ambitious modeler is then left with not only having to cut off the unneeded plastic bulwarks but also to gluing stripes of plastic to compensate for the width of the plastic sides of the bridge where those are not used. Honestly, if I realized this before buying the FiveStar set, I�d likely have rather resorted to designing entirely my own bridge in either PE or 3D.

Another annoying feature of the FiveStar set is that some parts � like bulwarks of the bridge, overlay of the hangar superstructure or overlay for the forecastle deckhouse � have accentuated edges by relief-etching, quite unrealistic when compared to the real ship. I am considering to amend this by using these parts reversed, putting their flat reverse side outwards. The disadvantage is that I�d lose relief detail where I liked it to stay, so I�d have to add those details separately. Funny enough, the replacement bridge for the 1943+ version does not have these accentuated edges, so it definitely comes out much better � if it wasn�t totally useless for anyone building the original New Orleans class members as they appeared in 1942.

FiveStar also tried to make life easy to the modeler by having the bending lines etched all the way through in dashed lines. The advantage perhaps is you won�t need a bending tool, but you�ll end up with visible dashes over the bended joints that you�d have to fill in or leave them as they are.

The part I disliked at the very first sight was the 1942 searchlight tower. Compared to the much older Tom�s Modelworks set the latter comes out definitely better to my eyes, although not perfect. I will enlarge about my solution to this problem later.
Last but not least, it�s also a pity that FiveStar forgot to include the SC radar for the 1942 version. I really regret it as the rendition of the SK radar for the 1943+ version looks really good!

On the positive side, there are some really nice looking and detailed parts in the FiveStar set, such as catapults (they sell them also separately) incl. overlay for the catapult bases, or crane arms.

Overall, I can see both positive and negative sides of this set. I think the 1943+ version comes out just fine. Modeler of the 1942 version comes out much worse, unfortunately, as he bought many more 1943+ parts that are useless to him (I guess at least one third of the set, maybe even more) while some of the large important parts he needs are not really perfect and the coverage of this version in the instructions is inadequate. Let�s see how useful this set will be to build the 1942 version of the original New Orleans class members in the end.

[Dan K]

This will be an interesting build to follow. I have the same kit in the stash (also bought on sale) and was figuring to build it one day, probably as Astoria.

[Vladi]

Hi Dan, yeah, it will be interesting... I wanted an easy build but am already spending more time on a PC again staring into photos, discovering more and more differences and wondering about how I�d address them. The list of needed corrections in the first post is growing...

[Quincy]

Looking forward to your build, Vladi!!



Bob Pink

[Dan K]

I wanted an easy build but am already spending more time on a PC again staring into photos, discovering more and more differences and wondering about how I�d address them. The list of needed corrections in the first post is growing

This is exactly what I told myself, and what happened, when I started West Virginia and California. Down another rabbit hole as the research went on. And,I share your disappointments with Five Star, even if it's for a different ship.

[maxim]

Another Savo cruiser by Vladi!

[Vladi]

Thank you, guys!

So now all the fun starts. I kicked off with the hull, providing nuts to allow me fixing the model onto a temporary base for easier handling and onto a seabase in the end. Then the usual �joy� of Trumpy New Orleans hull � uneven fit, missing armour belt on the waterline plate, unneeded portholes etc. In fact, I started two hulls at once � one for Astoria and the other for Vincennes. Not sure how long will I be able to work on them in parallel, I find it too distracting for me to concentrate on two ships at the same moment.

I cut a piece of plexiglass for the seabase. I might have as well used a piece of plastic or wood instead as I won�t be taking advantage of its transparency. I like this material also because of its weight that provides a stable base for my models. I cut the contour of the hull out of a piece of a thicker artist�s paper. I find it easier than having to build up the necessary thickness using a filler or similar material. Stripes of paper underneath add the basic structure of sea swells. Airbrushing the surface and adding layers of acrylic gel medium etc. can wait as I won�t need to touch the hull anymore.

Then I removed all the overly thick splinter shields and some other mold on parts from the deck and rescribed the planking. Unlike in case of my Quincy build I consider to give up having the main armament movable as it required to wait with gluing the main deck until late build stages. That resulted in issues with filling the seams under the 5in battery and the aft superstructure that I want to avoid.

Next step are the portholes. I�ve got no close-up photo of Astoria showing how exactly her unneeded portholes were covered during her prewar refit but SF photos show very little hint of them remaining so I think it�s ok just to fill those in and sanding flat after their relevant eyebrows are removed.

I am using plans by Profile Morskie for Astoria (basically redrawn BOGP) and MMP Books for Vincennes, crosschecking them to photos. Both ships will be depicted as in combat readiness at night so all remaining portholes should be blinded. I still hesitate whether to use PE for them or just fill them in and make them a bit more amplified by punching slightly over the filler. The Trumpy eyebrows are quite good so I don�t think they need to be replaced at all cost. Any ideas welcome!

[taskforce48]

Off to great start!

Matt

[marijn van gils]

This should be interesting!

[Nino]

Great project(s).

I have a Trumpy Astoria on the way to me so your Port hole references will come in handy.

I will follow along closely.

Nino

[Vladi]

Thank you, Matt, Marijn and Nino, hope I won�t let you down

Astoria had the �round face� turrets for her 8�/55 Mark 9 main armament, another documented difference between Astoria and SF. Unlike New Orleans and Minneapolis, Astoria�s �round face� turrets were unique with two vents located at the back as opposed to below the rangefinder arms like all her sisters (incl. those with �flat face� turrets with Mark 12 guns).

I bought the ABER 8"/55 Mark 9 turned brass barrels for my Astoria some time ago. Unfortunately, they look different than barrels on photos of Astoria (or actually any other Mark 9 barrels) so I am not going to use them. The FiveStar Mark 12 actually look much closer to Astoria photos although they should be slightly slimmer. Anyway, the FiveStar Mark 12s will find their use on the Vincennes later on.

There are two more accurate turret solutions for the Astoria. Master released Mark 9 barrels in the meantime, these appear much better than ABER and are �fatter� than the Mark 12 as they should be. Master designed them without blast bags so one would have to sculpt the bags as Astoria had them installed while supporting the Guadalcanal invasion.

The other option will be the Red Devil/Kraken 3D printed Astoria turrets that are planned to be downscaled from their 1/350 Astoria upgrade set. As I tried to help with their development I�m hoping to go down this way

[Vladi]

As mentioned before I disliked the FiveStar 1942 searchlight tower at the first sight, although it�s definitely better than the plastic version It appeared quite crude when compared to the Tom�s Modelworks set used for my USS Quincy, so I planned to use the remaining part of Tom�s for my Astoria build. However, when I had a closer look at it, it turned out that even Tom�s was quite different from what I saw on photos of the real ship. Thankfully this all happened already when I was designing PE parts for USS Chicago, so I used some spare space there to draw a completely new searchlight towers for both USS Astoria and USS Vincennes that I intended to build in the future. I added some more parts like supports under the front 5in guns, 5in and 1.1in splinter shields, funnel grills etc. I also designed some common miscellaneous USN treaty cruiser parts like ammo boxes, doors, portholes, navi lights, boat parts, practice guns, accommodation ladders etc. at the time of the Chicago build, that will find a good use on Astoria.

This is a quick and incomplete test build of my searchlight tower to prove the concept. The lower platform railings and support struts are not yet installed. I think it looks good.

[Vladi]

Okily Dokily, I just recognized that my searchlight tower was maybe nice but suitable for San Francisco or New Orleans, not really for Astoria (or Minny)

As shown below, SF and NO had supports going fore and aft around the vent down to the deck. Supports on Astoria and Minneapolis were still there (thanks to Dick J for pointing that out to me ) but these did not extend outside the rounded roof of the vent. Otherwise their searchlight tower construction was very similar to SF and NO, unlike in case of Tuscaloosa, Quincy and Vincennes that had different narrower searchlight towers �sitting� on top of the vent.

So by now I designed three versions of the NO class searchlight towers in PE � or more precisely four as Tuscaloosa�s lower half was overplated and I already modified my PE for a friend of mine to reflect that.

[Vladi]

After some playing with the Trumpy bridge plus FiveStar PE overlays, doing some measurements and comparing all of it it to actual photos and drawings (BOGP and Profile Morskie) I found the proportions of the bridge inaccurate in multiple instances. One example is the comparison of the width of the pilot house to the adjacent bridge wings: this comes out 50:50 with Trumpy+FiveStar while the reality is like 62:38, so the bridge wings are considerably wider, nearly 2/3 of the slant face. The slant face of the Trumpy bridge is too wide and this only becomes more pronounced with the FiveStar overlay.

Another example is that neither the bottom nor the top of �Chicago piano� gun tubs on the navigating bridge were level with the bridge bulkhead. This inaccuracy appears in BOGP and apparently all the other profiles like Profile Morskie and Shipcraft copied it from there, and so did Trumpeter in both 1/350 and 1/700. Still the bridge floor appears to be level with gun tubs as on the May 1941 photo below. The bridge bulkhead should extend under the floor as usual on US cruisers, but the bulkhead�s height above the floor seems unusually low in this case, I don�t know why. BTW it�s interesting that the way shipbuilders added 1.1in tubs is a bit different every time on Astoria, SF, Minneapolis and New Orleans.

All Trumpeter N.O. class kits in 1/700 and 1/350 also have a �dent� abreast the armored conning tower as shown above � Fivestar and surprisingly also Flyhawk (in 1/350) just copied this obvious inaccuracy. Note that also the peepholes look suspicious in case of FiveStar (they�ve got windows in their place), and Flyhawk�s navigating bridge windows are way larger than those one level down. This would all be so easy to correct, if noticed

I know all this may seem peanuts to many. For a rivet counter (on my own models, not others� ), considering the amount of work to adjust the Trumpy and FiveStar parts so that they fit together (not like in the FiveStar instructions) to obtain a knowingly inaccurate result in the end would be far too much to withstand. So I am already designing PE parts for the main bridge myself � I think I can do it better

[Nanond]

That looks like lot of work. N.O. is an interesting class that I want to do someday. It's not on the top of my list.
I'm still following your Tenryu for my next project.

Great work so far.

Nanond

[Dan K]

Well, looks like we'll just have to wait for your set, Vladi. Can't let all that research go to waste.

[Vladi]

Thanks, Nanond!

Well, looks like we'll just have to wait for your set, Vladi. Can't let all that research go to waste.

Well, I don�t really plan to get myself into the business & logistics side of it, but if there�s someone interested in taking it over, we can strike a deal

[MartinJQuinn]

Great research work, Vladi. Reach out to one of the PE guys, shame to not put all this good info into practical use.

[Vladi]

Thanks, Martin! I�ll try to find some good solution