At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[PeeJay333]

Here's something I popped online last month but haven't linked to yet that might be of some help or interest:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... 9Director/

Tracy -- thank you for posting that. It looks right for the directors on the Arizona after the 1941 overhaul, but I have questions regarding the Arizona's earlier 1936 configuration. After I found the "CASF" threads on the Ship Modeler's Forum, having been introduced to this site through a destroyer-related search, I started following this thread because I had run into a "wall" on a USS Arizona build a number of years ago, despite buying the Stillwell book.

I had built a Revell Arizona at the time the "motorized" single screw (gasp) version came out in the late 50's, which had the normal Revell atrocities per the painting schedule -- silver rails and gunbarrels, etc. After a visit to the Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor and purchasing a reference book at the gift shop, I put Arizona on my "do list." When Loren Perry introduced the PE for this kit, I decided to build a more accurate model. I realized from some of the articles written at the time, that the kit was somewhat of a "hybrid" with 1941 style directors and forward superstructure and 1930's SOC's, among other things. Although I bought a new kit and the PE, the build was put on hold because I had a question regarding the directors on top of the "masts" in the earlier configuration.

There is a picture of one of these directors being inspected by the President in the Stillwell book, and the rangefinder is in the vertical position. It does not look like the Mk 19 in your post with the housing, and the "unhoused" director from the Salt Lake City does not look like it would go in that position, either. I have studied the Stillwell photos with a magnifying glass, and most of them seem to have canvas over them.

Regarding putting the project on hold, I guess I am one of the "OCD" type modelers who will let certain details or issues halt the progress of modeling a particular ship at a particular time until more information is available.

Even if I were to use the canvas covers, I am not sure what color they should be. I have seen references in this thread to 'dye vs. paint' in the discussion of the boots or 'bloomers' for the 14" guns, but I don't know what color the canvas would have been dyed in the 1936 configuration.

Still confused regarding the AA directors for the 5"/25 guns. Although they are never identified by designation or type in the text or photo captions of the Stillwell book I did see that Alan Chesley labeled the tubs for these directors as "Mk 19 tubs" in his drawing of the decks for the earlier configuration of Arizona.

Some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Fascinating thread, and outstanding workmanship on the many projects here.

peeJay

[Tracy White]

Before the Mk 19 was "consolidated" the two main components were on separate levels. The optical component was what Hoover was inspecting, if I recall (don't have my books with me at the moment). I've been trying to find good photos and materials on these directors for some time but haven't had any real luck.

With regards to canvas, you're in a bit more luck, unfortunately. While trying to solve the camouflage controversy, I pulled the 1940-41 Commander of Battleships camouflage files... and found only documents from 1935 and 1943.

Go figure. However, the 1935 documents had a bit on canvas. Here's a quick stitch on one from the Commander of Battle Force, January 1935:

Canvas painting Directive, Battle Force

[BFR4570]

Tracy - That document on canvas coloring seems to point to all canvas being colored #5 Light Gray, except for the canvas covers in front of the 5"/51's that were rolled, and any other canvas that was routinely rolled. The last paragraph specifically states this should be the case going forward. How well this directive was followed, or later changed is still up in the air. It does seem to explain why all the pictures I can recall of the 14" bloomers seem to be a lighter color than the rest of the ship. Do you have any pics showing the bloomers as being darker? Or any of the boat covers? I would think though that when the fleet changed to Measure 1 with #5D at least the boat covers and bloomers would be changed to match the other horizontal and vertical surfaces. The post-attack pics of the Arizona seem to show the remaining bloomers on both rear turrets as a lighter color than the turrets themselves, especially where the bloomers hang down over the side of each barrel. That seems to argue against the bloomers, at least, as changing color to match Measure 1. Do the other BB's have lighter bloomers in the post-attack photos?

[Tracy White]

There was originally confusion with regards to boats, but by the time of the attack it was cleared up.

There was some delay in canvas, but by the time of the attack they should have been dyed to match. The question, since we still don't know what her final colors were, is WHAT they were died to match. If you're painting your ship 5-D, I would do dark bloomers close to 5-D. If you're doing Sea Blue or Ocean Gray, I'd go with something similar, as the tones of what's left on her wreckage are pretty similar:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/039/013905.jpg on http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/39b.htm

[PeeJay333]

Before the Mk 19 was "consolidated" the two main components were on separate levels. The optical component was what Hoover was inspecting, if I recall (don't have my books with me at the moment). I've been trying to find good photos and materials on these directors for some time but haven't had any real luck.

With regards to canvas, you're in a bit more luck, unfortunately. While trying to solve the camouflage controversy, I pulled the 1940-41 Commander of Battleships camouflage files... and found only documents from 1935 and 1943.

Go figure. However, the 1935 documents had a bit on canvas. Here's a quick stitch on one from the Commander of Battle Force, January 1935:

Thank you, Tracy. Since reading your post, I re-studied the Stillwell book last night and finally found the reference to the Mark 19 rangefinder location on the drawings for the earlier bridge and upper level structures. I had been focusing on the tubs before. Additionally, after looking at Charles Landrum's outstanding model, I spotted the separate rangefinders. I have tried Googling the Mark 19 rangefinder, but the closest I have found is a reference to it in the Index of Naval Ordnance Publications, which calls out an OP 100, described as '5" AA Mount Mk 10 Mod 1 Assemblies 208, 211, 219, April 1929, supersedes O.D. 567'. There is no link to O.P. 100 or O.D. 567, however, and they do not come up on a new search.

There is a picture on page 160 of the Stillwell book that shows the starboard canvas-covered director, in which the canvas appears to be noticeably darker than the surrounding structure. However, another picture on page 204 of the port director shows a much lighter cover that appears to be about the same shade as the surrounding structure. Therefore, it appears that the canvas color directive was being followed at the time that the second picture was taken.

Thanks again for your support and quick response.

PeeJay

P.S. The Paul Stillwell book is down to $49 & change used at Amazon Now I don't have to worry about being forced to sell it to make a house payment.

[Dick J]

The best photo I've found of an uncovered MK-19 is here on the Northampton:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/026/0402626.jpg

[PeeJay333]

The best photo I've found of an uncovered MK-19 is here on the Northampton:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/026/0402626.jpg

Wow! That is a GREAT photo. Lots of interesting details, like the railing around the directors being mounted to the directors themselves, as opposed to the deck below. You can also see the canvas covers rolled up and sitting on the bottom of the director platforms, and it appears they are light gray, as discussed in the preceding posts. Thank a million!

PeeJay

[BFR4570]

There was originally confusion with regards to boats, but by the time of the attack it was cleared up.

There was some delay in canvas, but by the time of the attack they should have been dyed to match. The question, since we still don't know what her final colors were, is WHAT they were died to match. If you're painting your ship 5-D, I would do dark bloomers close to 5-D. If you're doing Sea Blue or Ocean Gray, I'd go with something similar, as the tones of what's left on her wreckage are pretty similar:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/039/013905.jpg on http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/39b.htm

The tops of the bloomers that are still visible do look like the same shade as the turrets and barrels. I was going by the part of the bloomer that is overhanging the side of the barrel just in front of the facing. But it occurs to me that this may have been an interior portion of the bloomer, and therefore not painted to match the exterior. All six of the bloomers in this pic appear to have been sucked inside the turrets, or pushed in from the outside. Either way, it could account for an interior piece of canvas being exposed on each barrel.

[NigelR32]

This is a cry for help...

I'm currently trying to correct the hull of my Trumpeter 1/200 Arizona, but cannot fnd a pic of the stern and screws in dry dock. My Stilwell book is on route from the USA, so won't be here for a while??

Can anyone please help me here.. My Hull lines aren't very concise in this area.

[BFR4570]

This is a cry for help...

I'm currently trying to correct the hull of my Trumpeter 1/200 Arizona, but cannot fnd a pic of the stern and screws in dry dock. My Stilwell book is on route from the USA, so won't be here for a while??

Can anyone please help me here.. My Hull lines aren't very concise in this area.

Here is the one on Navsource. It is the last picture in the 1919-1929 Set. It is a little dark under the stern.

http://navsource.org/archives/01/039/013915a.jpg

Look thru this thread. Tracy White has posted the Hull Lines somewhere in here.... That would probably work better than trying to build it from a picture.

[NigelR32]

Here is the one on Navsource. It is the last picture in the 1919-1929 Set. It is a little dark under the stern.

http://navsource.org/archives/01/039/013915a.jpg

Look thru this thread. Tracy White has posted the Hull Lines somewhere in here.... That would probably work better than trying to build it from a picture.

Thanks for the posting... I will look out those hull lines to see if they're better than I have. I am using the Profile Morskie drawings, which are a little limited with their hull lines.. for example there are no horizontal lines whatsoever..

The problem I have is the radical shape changes which I believe Arizona has around the keel at the stern prop area. I could really use profile lines every 10mm but the ones I have are 30-40mm apart!!

I would really like to see the area adjacent to the inner shafts. The kit is moulded as a V section from the keel base. I wonder if the keel sides should be vertical, and blend into the hull 'V' at a distance up from the keel base?

[Tracy White]

Here's some relevant posts for you from this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=12942&start=1060#p423167
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=12942&start=1060#p423288
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=12942&p=424415#p424415

[NigelR32]

Thanks for those links Tracy, I had seen them, but couldn't find them amongst the 70 odd pages here!! You made it much easier..

I'm surprised you haven't commented on my corrections thread?? I seem to be correcting all that you already discovered?

[Tracy White]

I'm surprised you haven't commented on my corrections thread?? I seem to be correcting all that you already discovered?

To be honest, I very rarely go into WIP and didn't know about your thread until our post hinted that it might exist. You've certainly put some work in! And you're right; you're going to hate working on the upper hull!

[NigelR32]

I'm surprised you haven't commented on my corrections thread?? I seem to be correcting all that you already discovered?

To be honest, I very rarely go into WIP and didn't know about your thread until our post hinted that it might exist. You've certainly put some work in! And you're right; you're going to hate working on the upper hull!

Have you already done this correction then Tracy??

[Tracy White]

Hell no! I'm doing mine waterline. The above-water stuff is more subtle and I'm willing to live with it.

[NigelR32]

So Tracy, have you corrected the upper hull then?

I have copied this from my byuild thread and put it here to get maximum coverage for my question..

I need some help here guys, just until my Stilwell book arrives...

I have the hull lines to cover the areas you see modified, cut up or built up with plastic card, but I haven't got a clue what to do with the area in between??







I'm not sure if the hull line should follow in a straight line past the keel, leaving the keel as a vertical feature, like it is just in front of the rudder, or if it should follow a line as Trumpeter have done?

Please help if you can.. I could use artistic license, but after all this work I would rather get her right.
I also need to add chunks of plastic to depict the rudder hinges.

[Timmy C]

Back to the good old blue vs. grey debate, what are some verdicts on this 1956 photo of the wreck? http://images.google.com/hosted/life/1e ... 7dcb9.html

Clearly, there's a blue cast to everything, so that needs to be fixed. I'm not a professional photo fixer-upper, so take the attached result with a grain of salt - I only played with the Levels sliders:

[Tracy White]

I am reasonably certain that entire area was re-painted after the attack before the Navy determined that they were not going to salvage the ship. Paints in Navy parlance was a "preservative coating" and was actually lumped in with damage control supplies in terms of accounting of supplies.

Note the burned-off paint on the vegetable storage under the tripod and mushroom vent.

[Cliffy B]

Back to the good old blue vs. grey debate, what are some verdicts on this 1956 photo of the wreck? http://images.google.com/hosted/life/1e ... 7dcb9.html

Clearly, there's a blue cast to everything, so that needs to be fixed. I'm not a professional photo fixer-upper, so take the attached result with a grain of salt - I only played with the Levels sliders:

There may be a blue cast to everything but note the flag and the sailors; pure white! May have just been doctored back then though. No clue really. For 15 years later the paint seems to be in awfully good condition (color wise) for all that she went through......... Makes me think some "re-painting" was done in the interim possibly. Something's a miss with that scene.