Calling all New Orleans-class (CA-32) fans

[Vladi]

Thanks - sure, but where did it go while underway?

(I also added a second question above about the range finder a minute ago)

[Vladi]

I agree about the ladders, that would be a logical place. Just cannot find any photo showing them there.
I mean the range finder covered with canvas on this photo. Thanks!

[Vladi]

Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I am trying to find out what that range finder looked like .

[lafitte2949]

This is my first trip to this forum. I am attempting Trumpeter's 1/350 San Francisco, planning the build timeframe around Cape Esperance-Battle of Guadalcanal, but likely before the battle damage from the plane. I bought the WEM PE set for New Orleans class based on recommendations I found online, and somehow got a copy of the Abbey New Orleans guide which was all I could find. I would like to use some of the 3D details that are now available, but don't wish to order without more definitive answers to three questions:

1. What ship's boats were carried in mid-1942? The WEM instructions indicate the kit parts are incorrect. My best guess from photos are 2 launches and 4 whale boats, but I can't determine sizes.
2. What size were the Carley floats?
3. Which model were the 20mm Oerlikons? Mk2, Mk4?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Never mind. I found what I needed.

[maurice de saxe]

I am working on building a model of Tuscaloosa to go with my Wasp model depicting the carrier in November 1941 at Hvalfjord. The photographs Jeff Sharp posted on page 35 are very helpful but too indistinct to determine some specific details of the light anti-aircraft armament.

From the table Rick Davis posted on page 33 it seems safe to conclude that the tubs for the quadruple 1.1-inch guns were installed by September 1, 1941, but that Tuscaloosa was not scheduled to receive the weapons themselves until a November regular overhaul at New York. This raises several questions:

Were the 1.1-inch guns in place by the time Tuscaloosa was in Iceland?

How many 1.1-inch guns was Tuscaloosa to receive?

Where were the tubs fitted? Jeff Sharp�s images show that two were on the battle lookout & machine gun platform on the forward superstructure, presumably replacing the four 0.5-inch machine guns previously there. Tuscaloosa�s other four 0.5-inch guns had been on the after 8-inch director platform. Did a pair of 1.1-inch weapons replace them (it�s not clear from Jeff Sharp�s images)? Photographs of Tuscaloosa four or five months later do show tubs in that position. They also show tubs on the quarterdeck, so were there to be six such weapons?

What happened to the 0.5-inch machine guns while Tuscaloosa was waiting for the installation of the 1.1-inch weapons? Assuming the report is accurate, Tuscaloosa did not temporarily fit 3-inch guns in their place.

Finally, what and where was the sky lookout whose supports are shown to have been installed by September 1?

I�ve been through all 37 pages of the CASF and could not find the answers there, so I�m hoping the array of experts who have contributed know the answers.

Thank you all in advance.

Maurice

[Lethal215]

I've been putting together a list of movements for the heavy ships in the Atlantic from May 41 through Mar 42, and been following this and the New Mexico class thread as BatDiv-3 and CruDiv-7 feature prominently in anything dealing with Iceland during the "shoot on sight" period up to the PHA. I'm sure the poster meant October for Wasp since, for the whole month of November, she was in "Bermuda and vicinity."

[Dick J]

Were the 1.1-inch guns in place by the time Tuscaloosa was in Iceland?

It is not clear when the 1.1's were installed. Photos suggest she had 3" guns in the upper bridge tubs into 1942, but the shots are not clear enough to be definitive.

How many 1.1-inch guns was Tuscaloosa to receive?

Eventually, she received 4 mounts. Two on the upper bridge and two on the quarterdeck. But photos of early 1942, in the MS-12 MOD paint scheme seem to indicate that the quarterdeck tubs were empty.

Where were the tubs fitted? Jeff Sharp�s images show that two were on the battle lookout & machine gun platform on the forward superstructure, presumably replacing the four 0.5-inch machine guns previously there.

The two tubs on the forward machinegun platform displaced the .50's rather than replaced them. The 1.1's were additional rather than replacements. The .50's were eventually replaced by 20MM guns.

Tuscaloosa�s other four 0.5-inch guns had been on the after 8-inch director platform. Did a pair of 1.1-inch weapons replace them (it�s not clear from Jeff Sharp�s images)? Photographs of Tuscaloosa four or five months later do show tubs in that position. They also show tubs on the quarterdeck, so were there to be six such weapons?

No 1.1 tubs were ever installed on the after superstructure. Any tubs there were for 20MM guns. When 40MM guns replaced the 1.1's, tubs were installed on the hangar roof. That brought the total number of quad 40MM to 6 mounts. The quad 40MM was heavy enough that the forward mounts on the bridge had to be at a lower level, requiring the bridge wings to be cut back. But there were only 4 1.1 mounts installed before their replacement.

What happened to the 0.5-inch machine guns while Tuscaloosa was waiting for the installation of the 1.1-inch weapons?

The forward .50's were relocated, but I am not sure exactly where. The after .50's remained in place until replaced by 20MM guns.

Assuming the report is accurate, Tuscaloosa did not temporarily fit 3-inch guns in their place.

Photos seem to indicate 3" guns forward. But since the quarterdeck tubs were empty in early 1942, it is unclear if 3" mounts were ever installed there.

[maurice de saxe]

DickJ

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I must admit I am equally baffled about the new locations for the displaced forward machine guns as there is no space at their original location once the tub is in place and there does not seem to be a visible additional platform added elsewhere in the vicinity.

Maurice

[Vlad]

I was looking again at Vladi's excellent Quincy build, and in his notes he says one of the modifications was "Forward superstructure height increased".

Vladi, if you're still around, (or anyone else of course if you know why this modification was necessary) can you please provide some more details about where exactly you raised it and by how much? In-progress pictures maybe?

It also says "20mm gun platform repositioned � level upwards", but as far as I can tell on the base kit this is already in the right place, if anything it's too high relative to the back of No.2 turret. Can you please also clarify the modifications made here?

Just trying to understand the extent of the errors in the bridge layout specifically on the Trumpeter Quincy kit.

[Vladi]

Hi Vlad,

thanks for your kind words about my old build

I�m trying to refresh my memory to find out what I meant, it�s been 13 years ago already. I only started to document my build quite late in the proces so I�ve got nothing more to share than what�s already at my WIP page, sorry for that.

However, I remember I worked with info that I found in this thread. Most useful to find answers to your questions would be to check DickJ�s post here and those that follow.

I can only recommend using the 3D printed parts developed by Justin Jones that I helped to improve, available either from Justin (Red Devil Design) or Kraken Hobbies (when reopened - BTW I�m in no business relation to either of them nor have any business interests there, we�re just friends). We�ve put a lot of effort into making them as good as our knowledge was 3-4 years ago.

Hope this helps!

[Frank Fowler]

Hi Vlad,
Take a look at page 7 of this topic from 2009, wow time flies. There is a long discussion concerning your question.

[Vlad]

Thanks both! Yes, I understand the issue now, I should have trawled the thread first but there's a lot of it!

But wow, that is a bit of a mess to fix. I thought the Quincy kit was one of the better ones in terms of actually being accurate to what it says it is.

[Vladi]

You�re indeed welcome . Don�t forget about the slimmer funnels on Quincy, which I wasn�t aware of at the time of my build.

I guess you know about my NO class comparison table, right?

[Vlad]

I was not aware but that is really great, thanks for drawing my attention to it. I thought myself quite well versed in this class but always more to learn. I have built Vincennes, also about 10 years ago, correcting most of the issues but I don't remember this height thing; and San Francisco OOB some years before that. I was hoping to revisit the class for a relaxing build, but avoid another rather bland Ms.21 ship. However, that seems impossible since any member sporting camouflage (either early or late war) requires major surgery to the Trumpeter kits.

[Frank Fowler]

You are welcome Vlad. The funnel issue wasn't well known or at least not discussed much back in 2009. WSW did a Quincey kit with the correct funnel size as well as some of the other things correct, but still as I recall some other issues with the WSW kit. Loose Cannon did both Quincey and Vincennes back I think in the late 1990s and I think this was David's first resin kit release. His two kits had most of the issues with the Trumpeter kit correct, but the forward superstructure height matched the later released Trumpeter kit. Classic Warships released these two Loose Cannon kits later. Model Monkey has 1/700 and 1/350 versions of the correct funnel if interested.

[Mike E.]

A question about USS Quincy:

In this well-known photo of USS Quincy, it seems that the fantail of Quincy was a rounded shape (though I understand it might be that perspective and lighting makes it look this way), whereas most if not all the other ships in the class had a pointed or "pinched" fantail, at least on the lower part of the fantail closer to the waterline (see the photo of Minneapolis' fantail below). Does anyone know if Quincy's fantail was different than that of the other ships in the class? Please advise.

Thanks!

Mike E.

[Dick J]

The hull form of the class, below the waterline, was not significantly different from earlier US heavy cruisers. However, the New Orleans class, above the waterline, morphed the stern into a rounded quarterdeck level. All 7 ships of the class had the same hull form aft. Rick Davis has an aerial shot of Quincy and Vincennes at Norfolk that shows this stern shape on Quincy quite clearly.

[maccrage]

Currently working on Astoria in July 1937, when she visited Portland for the Rose Festival. She was assigned to CruDiv 6. She had her hull number painted on the roof of Turret 2 instead of stripes. The color doesn't look black. Any clue what color?

[Vlad]

Was USS New Orleans painted in Measure 11 overall Sea Blue in 1941 before being repainted into Navy Blue presumably in her February 1942 refit?

[El Santo]

Was USS New Orleans painted in Measure 11 overall Sea Blue in 1941 before being repainted into Navy Blue presumably in her February 1942 refit?

That's what they think over at Snyder & Short, anyway.