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

[maxim]

Does somebody know, when USS Quincy and USS Vincennes will be released in 1/700 by Trumpeter?

Are there alternative kits for Vincennes available?

[Dick J]

Another repost from "the other site", reference a mid/late war New Orleans.


For a mid/late war NO, there are a few things to watch out for. First is the bridge. Aside from the turrets, the first 5 were visually very similar when first commissioned. However, things changed very soon thereafter. The Tuscaloosa was first to glass in the comm bridge level, which was done at the original comm bridge deck. (That level was 1 1/2 levels in height to allow the conning tower to see over turret 2.) Astoria, Minneapolis, and San Fran all added a new deck 1/2 level above the original and then glassed it in at that level. As Gary alluded to, the Quincy and Vincennes not only were not glassed in on that level, the comm bridge wings were severely cut back in their modified design, making them useless as a reference for the NO bridge.

The reason this is so important for a mid/late war NO is that the 1/2 level deck played a significant role in the positioning of the quad 40MM attached to the bridge structure. Minnie and San Fran, since they had the 1/2 deck, placed the 40MM at that higher level. NO and Tuscaloosa, since they did not have the 1/2 level, had the 40MM 1/2 level lower than the others. Also, NO retained the wind-baffle equiped wings forward of the 40MM tubs, making her unique among the 4 survivors of the class.

Another area to watch is the quad 40MM on the hangar roof. Minnie and San Fran had similar 40MM positioning. On NO and Tuscaloosa, the starboard 40MM was further aft than on the other 2.

Lastly, the guns. The curved turret face was only an outward manifestation of the different guns carried by the first 3. NO, Astoria, and Minnie all had the same older model 8" gun carried by the Portland's. The gun had a larger outside diameter, making the guns look closer together than the ones in the later turrets. The older style cradles and elevating machinery are what necessitated the curved faces on the turrets.

[Steve]

Stevens has the SF (1944) listed as an October release, Minneapolis (1942) for November and Tuscaloosa for Dec (box art posted on several sites shows 1942 outfit). Quincy and Vincennes are also listed but without release dates. CAD pictures on Trumpeter site for Tuscaloosa clearly shows the Quincy/Vincennes type as has been commented on earlier on SN as I recall.

[phil]

If I could just return to the question of the camo colours:
It might be the way the photoraphs come out, or it might be just me, but I would swear that in all the colour pictures of American ships in measure 21camo the navy blue seems to be a lighter, purpley ,even slightly mauvey colour, unlike the tamiya or gunze navy blue (which is all I can get ) which is darker, which is alright if you barrack for Carlton, but it obscured all the details in my 1943 Baltimore. Do other companies do a lighter navy blue? Or, what would be the right mix of NB and white? Or was the measure 21 navy blue actually darker than what it appears to be in the pictures, was the ship bathed in direct sunlight, or whatever?
And another question: what is deck blue? Trumpeter list it in their painting guides but no one seems to stock it. Is it a darker blue again? Does anyone make it?

[maccrage]

Navy Blue was very dark when fresh. Try adding a bit of white to it for scale effect.

Deck blue was a bit darker than Navy Blue. WEM Colourcoats and PollyScale have it.

[noel_carpio]

I hope Peter Van Buren or anybody can reply to this.

Peter, what was the paint scheme you used for the San Fo you recently posted in the Gallery. I have been searching the Naval Resource site hoping to get pics of that which you used. When did the San Fo have that yellow strips on the turret tops?

Thanks in advance.

Noel

[Richard Durham]

Looking for some color help. At the time of her loss at the Battle of Salvo Island, were the USS Astoria (CA 34) 8 inch gun blast bags Navy Blue for all turrets? In the black and white Astoria picture taken on 8 August, the day before her loss, the blast bags look the same color as the barrels and turrets. I am building the 1/700 Trumpeter Astoria. Thanks, Rich

[Quincy]

I'm thinking that her blast bags would be a dull black, although, you could be right if they were stained navy blue.


Bob Pink.

[maccrage]

According to the Ship Camouflage site, exposed canvas was to be stained approximating Deck Blue. I think this would cover blast bags too.

[Steve]

How does the Minneapolis kit differ from the others released and is the Minneapolis kit "identical" in content to any of her sister kits in the 1942 time frame? I do not believe this kit represents her as rebuilt but this is based only on the box art posted on a mail order site. As an alternative, can the rebuilt Mineapolis be built by combining this or any other 1942 kit with the 1944 San Francisco?

[Dick J]

Another repost from the main forum. The topic was "Can a 1/350 New Orleans (1942) be built from the 1/350 San Francisco kit?"

As commissioned, the main visual difference between San Fran and New Orleans was the turret shape. Then San Fran had the comm bridge modified. The original comm bridge space was 1 1/2 deck levels in height to elevate the conning tower to the height needed to see over turret 2. On San Fran, a new deck was built 1/2 level above the orginal comm bridge deck, and then the front was enclosed and glassed in. This difference was still present in '42. New Orleans never had the level glassed in or the 1/2 level deck added. By '42, though, she had moved the flag bags at the back of the comm bridge up to the nav bridge (pilot house) level, reshaping the back of that deck to accomodate them.

When the WW-II AA upgrades were made, there was a slight difference in the arrangement of the 20MM based on the bridge differences already outlined. Because the New Orleans still had the open comm bridge level, two 20MM could be accomodated there, in tubs projecting out from the front (one per side). Therefore, New Orleans only had 2 20MM on the platform surrounding the after gunfire controls, high above turret 3, while San Fran had 4 on the same platform. (Standard allocation was 12 20MM per cruiser, until enough had been produced to allow more. But this was not until later in '42.) Another difference was that San Fran retained the rangefinder above the bridge when the shield around it was enlarged and reshaped to accomodate 2 20MM. New Orleans deleted the rangefinder when the 20MM were added there.

Another possible minor difference (I work with 1/700, so I presume that the 1/350 is the same) is the overhanging deck at the back of the hangar roof. The deck should only overhang beneath the 20MM tubs on New Orleans. The rest of the overhang on the back side of the hangar roof level should be removed.

[Dick J]

How does the Minneapolis kit differ from the others released and is the Minneapolis kit "identical" in content to any of her sister kits in the 1942 time frame? I do not believe this kit represents her as rebuilt but this is based only on the box art posted on a mail order site. As an alternative, can the rebuilt Mineapolis be built by combining this or any other 1942 kit with the 1944 San Francisco?

The '42 Minneapolis kit looks like it has the same kit contents as both the '42 San Francisco and Astoria kits. This is based on the pictures on the Trumpy website, since I don't have the kit in my hands yet.

If you want a late-war Minneapolis, the 1944 San Francisco kit is the only way to go. Since the 1/700 kit includes both turret types, no additional kits should be necessary. (Minnie had the curved-faced turrets while San Fran had the flat-faced ones.) If you want the '45 version of Minneapolis, a twin 40MM and its tub will be needed for the top of turret 2, but most of the other major parts should be there, though some would require modification. You would also need a source for twin 20MM, since none are included with the kit. There were some minor differences in the superstructure, some of which (particularly the shape of the bridge wings) go back to the very austere bridge San Fran initially had when first modernized. Minnie retained a little more of the original pilot house, and had a little less structure at the back of the bridge. The 20MM gallery around the front of the bridge, and the positioning of the 40MM quads were the same on San Fran and Minnie. If you wanted to do either New Orleans or Tuscaloosa, a bit of repositioning on these features would be necessary. Get lots of pictures for the differences. The best source, if it can be obtained, is Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #2 on Minnie.

[GaryJ in NC]

Dick is correct about the MINNEAPOLIS. I just received the Trumpy MINNEAPOLIS kit and it is definitely the 1942 configuration. I want to do the October 1934 version and my initial conclusion is that the conversion would be a major effort. I thought about using the 1944 SAN FRANCISCO as a start, but the SF bridge and MINNIE bridge are very different. The SF bridge extends farther aft and the structures and openings between the forward funnel and the bridege superstructure is different between SF and the 1943 MINNIE. I based this comparison on on the diagrams in Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorials on the MINNEAPOLIS and the SAN FRANCISCO.

The Trumpy kit has some other errors as well, such as the shape of the splinter shields for the 5"/38 mounts, but these seem to be fixable.

There appear to be two options here. One, buy the COMBRIG resin MINNEAPOLIS, which I believe is the 1943 version. Two, an enterprising company could produce a cast resin bridge superstructure to modify the Trumpy MINNEAPOLIS kit. (hint-hint!)

[Edward Pinniger]

I'm just adding the finishing touches to my build of Trumpeter's 1/350 USS San Francisco, and have bought the WEM USN Radar PE set. Which radars do I need for the 1942 fit? I'm fairly certain (comparing the PE radars to the plastic ones in the kit) that I need a Mk3 fire control radar on each of the two main gun directors, and a small Mk27 antenna on the main mast; am I correct?

Looking at photos of the WEM + GMM dedicated PE sets for the kit wasn't much help, as both of the sets include a variety of radar types for different ships + fits.

[Dick J]

For the '42 outfit at Guadalcanal, the two MK-3's on the main fire controls are correct. There were two versions of the MK-3, the correct one here being the "long horizontally and short vertically" version. (The other one, like on Helena, looks more like a MK-4 at first glance.) The only other radar should be an SC set on the foremast. The SC appears to be missing in all of the post-action photos. There was no radar on the mainmast at that time. (And '42 was a bit early for the MK-27.)

[Edward Pinniger]

For the '42 outfit at Guadalcanal, the two MK-3's on the main fire controls are correct. There were two versions of the MK-3, the correct one here being the "long horizontally and short vertically" version. (The other one, like on Helena, looks more like a MK-4 at first glance.) The only other radar should be an SC set on the foremast. The SC appears to be missing in all of the post-action photos. There was no radar on the mainmast at that time.

Many thanks for the help! The Trumpeter kit has a tiny oval radar (looks like a Mk.27) on the fore mast rather than the SC; maybe they misinterpreted the post-action photos. BTW, I meant "fore mast" when I wrote "main mast"; I'd forgotten that on a two-masted ship the "main" mast is actually the aft one!

[Dick J]

Another reposting in answer to the question "Can a '44 San Francisco be converted to a '44 Minneapolis?"

There were a number of differences in the '44 configs. The bridges had a few differences, such as the Minneapolis having less structure at the back. When San Fran was first modernized, she had no bridge wings, and so, the pilothouse was narrowed even more than on her sisters. San Fran's bridge wings were added back later. In general terms, the 20MM batteries were similar, but with a few variations. San Fran had 20MM on the deck between (and outboard of) turret 3 and the hangar, Minnie did not. San Fran had a single 20MM at hangar roof level aft of the after fire controls, Minnie had two there. The galleries surrounding the after fire controls differed, with Minnie having 4 20MM there, and San Fran had only two. The shape of the platform differed, as well. Minnie also had a single 20MM on turret 3's roof. Forward, the 2 20MM forward of the raised 5" mounts were positioned differently. On Minnie, they were moved outboard so that they were more directly in front of the 5" guns.

Minnie's '45 config was more radical. To compensate for the other additions, the port catapult was removed and the 20MM battery greatly reduced. Only 8 20MM mounts were carried, but they were twins: 2 at hangar roof level above the after turret, 4 on the vent between the stacks, and the last pair forward of the raised 5" mounts. To improve the arcs of fire for the 20MM above turret 3, the gallery around the after fire controls was trimmed back so that it did not project back beyond the the after end of the hangar roof. All this bought the twin 40MM on turret 2 and improved electronics aloft. Both the MK-31's (main battery directors) and MK-33's (AA battery directors) received MK-25 radar.

[Steve]

The forecastle deck required shimming under the 5" galleries to raise it to a proper height to align with the deck edges. Not a big problem but this was not an issue for the 1942 versions of this class including the SF! My best guess is that the forecastle deck was redone for the new 5" galleries and somehow the thickness of the cast in filler below the 5" galleries got changed (thinned). A common problem for the waterline versions of all the kits remains the need to build out the armor belt on the waterline plate to align with the hull sides.

[Drazen]

Hi guys.
I am looking for your opinion. I'm sure lots of you have got your Trumpeter 1/350 San Francisco and I'm thinking of doing the same now for Christmas. But my question is: how difficult is to make one of the New Orleans class cruisers (Vincennes, Quincy and Astoria) during First Battle of Savo Island using the above mentioned kit as a basis? Which one is the best choice? I already have Aoshima 1/350 Chokai 1942 kit and would like to pair her with one of her adversaries.

Kind regards,

Dra�en

[Tracy White]

Look in the last couple of pages; some of the modifications have been covered already.