Calling all Atlanta-class & Oakland-class (CL-51) fans

[Timmy C]

As part of the Group Build going on, I am currently working on the Dragon San Diego kit in her 1944 guise, and have proceeded with correcting and detailing some of the bridge areas:

download/file.php?id=17138&mode=view
download/file.php?id=17139&mode=view

I do want to correct the main walkway around the enclosed bridge level, but the thought of doing all the supports for the wind baffles are too daunting.

I also dislike the way the circular open bridge turned out, where it meets the molded-on splinter shields - all due to the fact that they molded that section with the intention of making it fit the lower level of the structure that steps outwards.

[Timmy C]

Hi all,

What is under the tarps in the circled area? Is it a dual 5" practice loader? The kit molds some unidentifiable object as a part in its place.

[Dick J]

Timmy, you nailed it. That is the 5" practice loader.

[Timmy C]

Thanks Dick! Time to bash some of the many open 5" single mounts then.

[Michael Potter]

Paper Lab makes accurate 1/700 practice loaders. The loaders were located in something of a cave, not open in the Skywave/Dragon kit. For my Flint I cut the kitted parts to open the cave, sheathed the sides of the deckhouse, and installed an accurate deck for the loaders.

[Timmy C]

Thanks for bringing that "cave" to my attention, Michael! Holes were drilled, enlarged, and squared, and now a little indent has been made in that bulkhead.

[Cliffy B]

Hey guys, I have some questions I'm still fuzzy about on the Atlantas and the DML kits.

I know the DML kits have hull problems but what are the problems exactly. From the photos comparing to the Admiralty kit the bow is wrong. Are there any other errors? Sheer? Dimensions?

Also, the Atlantas were known to have a lot of top weight issues and from what I've heard those were due to the fact that the displacement was too light for all of the gear aboard or was there another factor? Would widening/bulging the hull alleviate any of that or cause more problems?

I want to do a whiff design based on the Atlanta Class hulls but I wanted to fix any of the issues with the design first by either enlarging it or bulging it. Any ideas? I'm not really familiar with these ships. Thanks in advance.

[Steve]

In the DML kits (et al) the armor belt that extends to the stern is incorrect and is way to thick. This is just one of many problems.

[Dick J]

As Steve mentioned, the "belt" on the kit is too thick and extends to the stern. Its top edge also parallels the waterline. In 1/700 scale, the armor should only be about .005" thick rather than the .125" or greater the kit has. Also, the belt only covered the machinery spaces, and so should not overlap any of the centerline 5" mounts. Its top edge should parallel the deck, which means it should rise forward when the deck turns upward. To give you some perspective, the top edge of the belt lined up with a welded seam in the after hull plating. The seam extended all the way to the stern, while the belt did not. But the belt was so "inconsequential" in appearance that someone (actually Skywave - they produced the molds and Dragon bought them later) didn't notice when the belt stopped and only the seam in the plating continued.

[Michael Potter]

the Atlantas were known to have a lot of top weight issues and from what I've heard those were due to the fact that the displacement was too light for all of the gear aboard or was there another factor? Would widening/bulging the hull alleviate any of that or cause more problems?

The ships were designed in 1939 with a secondary gun battery of three 1.1"-gun mounts. With war experience service this battery was doubled in service, with additional masses for the directors, all high on the ship structure. Norman Friedman in US Cruisers wrote that the CO of the first Juneau suspected that the unplanned weights at the stern widened (this was not good) the ship's tactical diameter. Friedman also mentioned excessive vibration of the hull from the propellers. Photographs in Warships Perspectives - The Atlanta Class Cruisers show that the initial 3-bladed propellers were replaced by 4-blade propellers with shallower pitch. The new propellers reduced maximum speed to about 31 knots.

Bulging of the narrow hull would further impair speed and maneuverability, and would increase the risk of capsizing by asymmetrical flooding from even light damage.

A what-if improvement that is plausible for WW2 is to remove the wing turrets and the aft 02-level turret. Replace each with a twin 40mm mount and the associated Mk 51 director. The wing turrets were for star shell and were obsolete with the availability of radar. At least one of the center-line turrets was an in-place battle spare, since the turrets were not armored.

[guinness]

Hi. First time posting here....

I chose Dragon's deluxe San Diego kit to dive back in to ship modeling after not having done it in years. I'm sort of kicking myself for choosing something in 1/700 for a first project, but that's not why I'm posting here. I'm hoping to replicate Atlanta as she was between her post-Midway drydocking and Guadalcanal. Somewhere approximately in the era of this picture: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h97807.jpg

I've read this thread and I have this query about paint:

The consensus seems to be that Atlanta's hull was painted 5-N, but I wonder: at Pearl for that drydocking, wouldn't they have painted her Hull 5-S? She was in drydock July 1 - 2 for scraping and painting (according to the DAFS). Measure 21 was adopted that June, as was Measure 22. Both used 5-N for hulls, unless I'm mistaken. My supposition is that the yard would have painted the hull whatever the new standard was, with the expectation that the crew would finish the job by painting the upperworks on their own. It seems likely they never got that chance, so she would still have been wearing her Measure 12 (mod) splotches above.

Any Atlanta class experts here who could comment?

Finally: Thank you to Gordon and others who posted pictures, etc. of your excellent models. They have been great help, as have the various tips and tricks, etc. elsewhere on this forum.

[Dick J]

The consensus seems to be that Atlanta's hull was painted 5-N, but I wonder: at Pearl for that drydocking, wouldn't they have painted her Hull 5-S? She was in drydock July 1 - 2 for scraping and painting (according to the DAFS). Measure 21 was adopted that June, as was Measure 22. Both used 5-N for hulls, unless I'm mistaken. My supposition is that the yard would have painted the hull whatever the new standard was, with the expectation that the crew would finish the job by painting the upperworks on their own. It seems likely they never got that chance, so she would still have been wearing her Measure 12 (mod) splotches above.

The Pacific Fleet had long since determined that 5-S was too light. Even ships painted nominally in MS-11 were using 5-N instead of the originally specified 5-S by that time.

[guinness]

Thanks for the reply. That actually answers my question. I had 5-N and 5-S backwards both in my minds and on some paint "samples" I'd cooked up for myself from RGB codes for FS numbers for both. It seems that Tamiya's XF17 is a good match...

[Michael Potter]

Re: Dragon/Skywave/etc Atlanta/Juneau/Oakland/etc 1/700 kit: The kitted main deck toward the stern has molded rings to mark the placement of gun tubs. These rings are misplaced forward by about ten feet (3m) in scale. Before you assemble a model from this kit, Include those circles in your list of molded artefacts to sand off.

The designers of Skywave�s cruiser Atlanta kit, and of probably all Skywave�s original model kits, reverse-engineered them from drawings and photographs. In the case of Atlanta, they could instead use actual blueprints. I think the error in placing the 20 mm mounts was careless drafting, not the result of misinterpreting photographs, which itself was an avoidable risk. The error approximates the diameter of the circle. The designer of this kit, I suspect, drew an athwartship line on his mold pattern as the tangent for each moulded circle. He then drew the circles on the wrong side of the line, forward instead of aft.

[PeteM]

Are there any reliable photos or drawings of Atlanta's Ms. 12 mod camouflage scheme available anywhere? I have recently acquired the Yankee Model Works kit and would like to reproduce it as accurately as possible.

[Russ2146]

Here's what I found on the History Command site. The second photo is actually dated 16 Oct 1942.

[Russ2146]

I reviewed the information on ship camouflage.com and the splotches shown in the refueling photo seem seem a little off, given the verbal description.

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/measure_12_modified.htm

[Timmy C]

Ms 12 mod. was very much a system that was interpreted by the individual ship's commander - though the instructions call for specific requirements, they were not always followed through (or followed through with the commander's own interpretation). Make no mistake, though the pattern may not follow the instructions precisely, it IS Ms 12 Modified.

[Tracy White]

Measure 12 mod was a mess, which is why it's so cool to look at. Each ship was different, and each ship may be different at different times due to touch-ups and changing moods. It took place before the Navy hired Everett Warner back and developed an effective system of disruptive patterns.

[Doug]

Is there any difference between Dragon's Atlanta and Oakland models?