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

[Dick J]

There are a several books that are worthwhile for the San Fran, but all are out of print. Classic Warships had a Warship Pictorial book dedicated to her with a few line drawings and some excellent photos. They also produced a Pictorial volume covering the whole class, but obviously less focused on CA-38. In addition, there was a monograph on the San Fran by Chuck Hansen which had more of the history of the ship, but still found room for an abundance of photos. You might occasionally find a copy of one of these three in some of the online book sellers - most frequently in the used section. All are soft-cover.

[tomcat Fanatic]

1 quick question, Is it possible to build Trumpeter San Francisco in 1/350 scale in to any other members of New Orleans class cruisers?

[Dick J]

It depends on whether you are talking the '42 or the '44 version, and how much scratch-building you are willing to do. I don't believe that the 1/350 kits include both styles of turrets, unlike the 1/700 releases. The '42 San Fran could be easily modified into either Astoria or Minneapolis if the turrets are modified. New Orleans is possible with additional mods to the bridge. Tuscaloosa would need to have the 5" guns somewhat rearranged, and the comm-bridge level modified. (And the intake vents aft of the second stack completely redone.) Quincy or Vincennes would require some significant modification. For the '44 version, the same turret limitation applies for New Orleans or Minneapolis, plus some bridge modifications. The starboard 40MM on the hangar roof would also need to be relocated for New Orleans. Tuscaloosa would still have the 5" arrangement issue, and the vent problems. Modifying her bridge would be somewhat more complicated than doing the other two, but at least her turrets were the same as San Fran's. She would also need the starboard 40MM on the hangar roof moved. In all cases, the 20MM locations varied from one ship to another. Not having seen a build-up of the '44 1/350 kit, I don't know if they made the same mistake with the AA directors as they did in the smaller kits. In the 1/700 kits, the open-topped MK-28 directors are sort of correctly shaped, but poorly detailed. Unfortunately, for the 1/700 '44 San Fran, they used the same directors, when all 4 of the surviving ships had the MK-28's replaced by fully-enclosed MK-33's during the 1943 repairs/refits.

All things are possible, if you are willing to put in the effort. But some are more difficult than others. If you could specify which conversion you are contemplating, more specific alterations could be identified.

[tomcat Fanatic]

Thanks for this head up.. I was thinking about '42 layout/configuration.

Scratch building is not so unfamiliar to me... I deal mostly with airplanes, but have done a lot of scratch building on some of the airplanes.. Curently almost completelty scratchbuilding revell Mig 25 in 1/48 scale, done same thing on hurricane 1/32, Kfir ( c-pit, wheel bays... )

Is there any good reference book outhere with comparison of varius New Orleans cruisers? Curenlty I have only 2 books, but they deal only with San Francisco.

[Dick J]

None of the books really have complete point-by-point comparisons, but the best available ones are Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #7 and Lester Abbey's Shipcraft book. The Wiper book is out of print, but Lester's book should be obtainable.

[tomcat Fanatic]

THX.

[Hokkaido]

I am very impressed with how much knowledge there is on these forums.

I have some questions about the Trumpeter USS Astoria. In Mr. Abbey's Shipcraft book he mentions that the kit is decent but needs a little bit of scratch building in the hanger deck area. Does anyone know exactly what that might be?
When war broke out the lower level of portholes were plated over. Was that for seakeeping when under attack?

I spent much of this weekend going over the Astoria.org website. Just fantastic the effort that Mr. Jones and others have put into it. The photo quality takes me back in time.

I wish that Trumpeter would issue a 1/350 Astoria. Seems like all they would have to do is modify the turrets and hanger deck roof from their SF kit.
Thanks

[sixman]

Just a minor point, but the web site is www.ussastoria.org (www.astoria.org brings you to the Astoria NY web site).

[ArizonaBB39]

First off, I have a kit for sale or trade here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=125251

I'm sorry if this has been covered already, but I don't have the time right now to read the whole thread. How hard would it be to convert the Trumpeter San Francisco 1/350 1942 kit to a 1941 version of a New Orleans class cruiser? I'd prefer to do one that isn't in Ms12, unless there is really good documentation of the pattern. Any help would be appreciated!

[Dick J]

How hard would it be to convert the Trumpeter San Francisco 1/350 1942 kit to a 1941 version of a New Orleans class cruiser?

This is a bit vague. You need to indicate what you are after. Is the most important thing the peacetime paint scheme, or is it the pre-war config without the new light AA and splinterscreens. Some ships would be easier than others. Also, how much scratch-building are you willing to do? CA's 32, 24 & 36 have different turrets. CA's 39 & 44 have different bridge structures and a repositioned forward turret. Some, like the San Fran, recieved splinterscreens while in pre-war light gray. What exactly is your goal here?

[ArizonaBB39]

Thanks for the reply Dick, sorry for being so vague. I didnt realize there were such big differences between the ships. I think I'm shooting for San Francisco in late 1941 in her Ms11 scheme. That should keep me from having to move/make new turrets, correct?

[pbudzik]

Dave did a sweet job on the conversion to the New Orleans here:
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=37034&hilit=new+orleans

Paul

[Dick J]

San Fran was in the Pearl Harbor yard at the time of the attack. She was probably only then switching to MS-11. But she refitted stateside very shortly thereafter, and added 20MM guns and more radar. Obviously, she would have the kit turrets. If minimal mods is your objective, this should work.

[Rob-UK]

I'm considering doing an Astoria class in 1:350, and have settled on USS San Fransisco in 1942.
My question to anyone who has bought and built any of this class in this scale is which photo-etch set is most highly recomended? I understand there is a Gold Medal Models and a White Ensign product to choose from, and the reviews aren't all that conclusive as to which is the best.

[Steve]

Suggest you base your decision on content. Look closely at the details of each offering if you plan to use aftermarket resin or use the kit plastic with PE enhancements. Best book out there for the modeler is Shipcraft 13 by Lester Abbey on the New Orleans Class which covers all kits and aftermarket resin and PE available prior to the book's publication. Missing of course are comments on the newer brass barrels and wood deck options. the book was first published in the UK

[Cliffy B]

Question for you CA-32 gurus in regards to CA-44's main battery directors as I am now confused. I always thought the whole class had Mk-31 main battery directors and never upgraded to Mk-34s due to topweight reasons. Well...after reading through Friedman's "Naval Firepower" book I came across a section that mentioned the CL-40 class, CA-45, AND CA-44 had Mk-34s. I raised an eyebrow at that and began digging. On page p.52 of Wiper's Warship Pictorial on the CA-32 Class there's a photo of CA-44 with what appears to be a Mk-34 and NOT a Mk-31 on her forward superstructure. There's no mention of it but its the only close up that shows without a magnifying glass. Am I seeing things or did she get Mk-34s and if so how could she carry them? Did the moving of Turret 1 save enough weight?

[Dick J]

This was discussed a couple of years ago. (See the top of page 14 of this thread.) I have been saying for some time that, in photos, the directors on CA-44 looked more like the early version MK-34's on the Brooklyns than they looked like the MK-31's carried by the rest of the class. Friedman finally confirmed that. CA-39 and CA-44 were close to 500 tons lighter than their earlier sisters. Vinnie was rated as being 25 tons heavier than Quincy. Since she was built at the same time as the Brooklyns, apparently she was built with their new-and-improved directors. The MK-34 in question was the early version which had simple sighting periscopes in the sides rather than the rangefinder common in the later models. (Retrofitting the rangefinders to the existing early directors is why the MK-34's on the wartime Brooklyns look so different from the MK-34's on everything else.) Vinnie never got the rangefinder upgrade, and it is unclear whether or not she could have handled it. In any case, the later version of the director was deemed too heavy for the New Orleans class survivors to handle (topweight) so they were one of only two classes of US 10,000 ton cruisers that never got them either as-built or in wartime modernizations. (The Pensacolas lacked the below-decks plotting room needed for the stable and computing elements of the MK-34 system.) One can only speculate about what Vinnie's directors would have looked like had she survived to be modernized.

[Cliffy B]

Thank you very much Dick!! Sorry I missed this on pg 14. I've been through this thread so many times my eyes are spinning.

I actually am working on a hypothetical build of Vincennes if she had survived Savo and been rebuilt stateside. I wanted to upgrade her FC capabilities and completely forgot that she and Quincy were so much lighter than the rest. I thought for some reason that any weight savings (from moving turret 1 aft and shortening the main belt) went into thicker armor; right? I wonder how much more that rangefinder really weighed and if they could have found a way to incorporate some sort of rangefinder into her directors.

I did read (Friedman's Cruisers) that the surviving CA-32s were supposed to get old DD directors like of the CA-24s but the end of the war prevented it. Were the Mk-31s really that bad that those older model DD directors were deemed superior or was it simply a weight issue?

[Dick J]

The main reason for the design modification for the last pair was to free up an allowance of weight to install quad 1.1's and further AA upgrades. The earlier 5 ships were right at the 10,000 ton limit. As for the "older" DD director, the unit in question was the MK-35 system installed on the Porter and Somers classes (and on the Erie class gunboats). So it obviously wasn't "older" than the MK-34. The biggest reason the MK-35 was used on the Pensacola was that it was completely self-contained - no below-decks components. That type of system usually ends up with more topweight rather than less because all of the computing and stable elements are included in the rotating mounting. But being designed for a DD, lightweight was paramount. Even so, the topweight "savings" would have been minimal, and the performance not quite as good as the MK-34. I am surprised that the MK-35 was discussed for the New Orleans class because they were designed with a plotting room (just enough space for the main battery, not enough to add AA components) and the larger MK-35 housing could have interfered with the nearby MK-33's.

Like the MK-35, the MK-33 AA director was self-contained, while the superior MK-37 needed a below-decks plotting room. (Inclusion of extra space for a plotting room was the real reason the Sims and Benson/Gleaves classes were 7' longer than the Benham class.) The Pensacola and Northampton class survivors received MK-33's to replace their MK-19's even though MK-37's were in production because they lacked sufficient space for the below-decks elements. When Savannah and Honolulu upgraded to MK-37's, internal space had to be found, making them a bit more cramped than they had been. But the appearance of the German Fritz-x bomb showed that the 5" 25/MK-33 combo was inadequate, and this realization was only cemented in when the Kamakaze attacks started. This knowledge made the sacrifice of protected internal space worth the price.

[scottj]

I've dug out my 1/700 Trumpeter Quincy kit and am working through my research. I've re-read this entire topic again (whew!) so understand the bridge structure issues, #1 turret placement, anchor handling gear placement, teardrop shaped stern 1.1" tubs, no smoke generators or depth charges, SC radar, etc.

First question is on placement and structure of the boat davits. Abbey's book, page 63, shows Quincy as unique among her sisters in having them aft of the catapult with two davits instead of one davit built into the catapult support. The photo on page 64 appears to back that up. Is that right? If so, why in the world was this done?

The paint scheme looks to be 5-O, 5-S, 5-P (instead of 5-H) with 20-B decks. There's an editing mistake on page 54 that references Measure 13 so I can ignore that but the caption on page 64 references 5-N. I'm assuming that's another editing mistake since the photos clearly show a mid-gray instead of two very dark colors (5-O and 5-N). Is it 5-S, sea blue, for the medium tone?

Thanks!