Calling Alaska-class (CB-1) fans

[Ian Roberts]

I'm no aircraft fanatic; the OS2U and the SC-2 are the predrawn versions available to anyone drawing USN ships, and I can't ever find detailed sources for aircraft camouflage and paint schemes for individual ships. As for the query re: prominent bridge windows, I don't believe the Alaskas were ever fitted with prominent bridges, just conning towers. From reading Friedman's it appears that the pilot house was below sky control on the fire control tower.

[Timmy C]

I meant missing as in "detracting from the ship's otherwise near-perfect beauty" - not criticizing the accuracy of your drawing

[Ian Roberts]

Ah, gotcha -- and yes I certainly agree! I remember the first time I ever saw an Alaska, I wondered where the hell the bridge was!

I have to say now, though, that not having a bridge at all gives the late-war USN ships a particularly warlike appearance.

[Atma]

Timmy, any chance for a 1/700 USS Alaska in PLASTIC !?

[Timmy C]

Haven't heard anything on that. But a possible indicator that would provide at least the chance of a hint it being produced would be the presence of some large late-war USN subject that would share many of the fittings on Alaskas...

[Ian Roberts]

What's the reason for the lack of a large USS Alaska (1/350) plastic kit?

Not enough interest?

[Cliffy B]

Not so much lack of interest as lack of available mileage out of the molds. The ships only served for 1.5-2 years and didn't have any appreciable modifications to warrant a second kit. If done right, you could easily make a kit that would allow either ship to be built from any point in their short lives. Kit makers like to put out kits these days that will allow them to release many forms of the base kit with only minor alterations. Means more kits for us and is a better financial decision on their part. The molds are expensive and last forever so you have to be able to make and sell a lot of the kit to justify cutting them.

[DrPR]

Anyone have an idea what the molds for a "typical" plastic ship model cost to create?

Our company produced a hand-held metal detector (like you see at airports) about 18" long with a two-piece shell and two or three smaller pieces. The molds were made in China and cost on the order of $120,000. It was a bit fancy, with a soft rubber overmould, but there were not nearly as many parts as a ship model.

Phil

[Cadman]

I have received quotes in the $30-50k range for 2 way (no slide) mold inserts that were about 24 x 16. That did not include the base or any rigging.

[USS California BB44]

Not so much lack of interest as lack of available mileage out of the molds. The ships only served for 1.5-2 years and didn't have any appreciable modifications to warrant a second kit. If done right, you could easily make a kit that would allow either ship to be built from any point in their short lives. Kit makers like to put out kits these days that will allow them to release many forms of the base kit with only minor alterations. Means more kits for us and is a better financial decision on their part. The molds are expensive and last forever so you have to be able to make and sell a lot of the kit to justify cutting them.

One possibility I could see would be a modification to have a CBG Hawaii. Or possibly the CC version.

[Dick J]

The problem with that idea is that "what-if's" are even harder to get the majors to produce. They won't see that as a real justification.

[USS California BB44]

We can always deam.

[Fliger747]

Working on a 1:192 bb63 at the moment, a long shelved project. However also on the shelf is a 1:192 scratch waterline Alaska (where i live). Have to finish Missouri first. Alaska is a festivil of small detail so have to get my casting skills back. The 40 mm quqds are a bigg effort, will probably purchase those.

Tom

[Blue Devil]

I just posted this to the Trading Post list but thought I should give you all a heads up as well. I'm selling my 1/350 Yankee Modelworks USS Alaska. The kit retails for $450, I'm asking $350 with shipping included in the continental US. I don't have PayPal so would like payment by money order. Let me know if you're interested, and thanks for looking!

Michael

[Fliger747]

As with the Iowas, the primary ship control station was on the 07 level of the fire control tower.

though quite incomplete, a couple of photos of my 1:196 Alaska, scratchbuilt with homemade everything so far. exception the shieldless 40 mm quad at the bow and a few PE ladders etc.

[Fliger747]

Detail view of the top of the fire controltower. All directors and small fittings cast from resin from scratch masters.

Tom

[Fliger747]

I wonder if not for the surrender ceremony on Missouri if those ships might have been forgotten like the Alaska's. a super carrier escort, magnificent steamers, a 12 inch that could penetrate anything that a Brit 15 inch could go through, battleship quality fire control, really a great ship in overall and detail. They could have really done everything that the latter day Iowas could do with modification

T

[pbudzik]

I may be mistaken, but I thought she was terribly unmanuavarable.

[Cliffy B]

Main drawback of the class was their underwater protection and their crew size. For a few hundred more crew you got an Iowa which was better in all aspects. Crew size was one of the reasons they reactivated the BBs instead of a few CAs in the 1980's. More bang for your buck and more capability. The CBs were nothing more than over grown CAs with 12" guns. Could have had the same thing if they'd re-armed some CAs with 12s. In the end they were simply a waste of money and resources. We would have benefited from some more CAs/CLs/CVs. The last 2 BB-61s might have even been built sooner if the CBs had been canceled early enough. That's just my opinion so take it for what its worth.

[Fliger747]

The Alaska's were armored against their own 12 rifles, a very powerful weapon, as good a penetrator as the British 15" weapon. The main driver of crew size was the Plethora of small and medium AA, which was sort of a function of deck size. Only one US fast Battleship ever took a torpedo, North Carolina.... The experience of the carriers was redundancy, subdivision, hull strength and damage control were often critical factors. The cruisers per se did not have the long range BB type fire control to take advantage of the long range of the 12 nor the displacement to really handle such a weapon in any number at all. Maneuverability, not as good as the Iowas which had dual rudders, but up to cruiser standards and as good as the Essex boats and better than Lex and Sara. A small tactical radius can be good for evasion etc, but in Battle the speed loss and the time it takes to work back up to speed can obviate much of its utility.

The real reason the last Iowa,s were not finished? Probably steel for landing craft and escorts. By then we had plenty of fast and otherwise Battleships for escort and shore bombardment. Postwar certainly a lot of the liabilities went away. Every ship is a compromise, and the Iowa' were probably the best all around BB's built, if in a war in which they ceased to be arbiter of sea power. Hard act to follow.

Sitting here by the beach in Hono, heading to Missouri for another visit soon....

T