Calling all USS North Carolina BB-55 & USS Washington BB-56 fans

[Hippy Ed]

Tracy comes through for us as always! Excellent information. Now to figure out what the aircraft would have looked like (paint schemes, insignia, etc)...

Just did a quick Google search and found this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=u5uXAw ... -3&f=false

[tenacioustanaka]

Now here is a convoluted idea that I wanted to run past the N.C. class building community.


I have a rather old resin kit (acquired several years ago) of the USS Washington from Regia Marina (which is very nice by the way) that includes a fine array of stainless steel photo etch and other goodies. However, I despise working with stainless and need some better/updated etch for her eventual construction.

5-Star makes a set for the class as well as for the South Dakotas but intended for the Trumpeter 1/700 injection kits. I have the SoDak superset and it is beyond belief in its intricacy. Has anyone ever messed with the resin Regia Marina N.C./Washington and tried to use the 5 Star set on that kit? I would imagine most of the detail parts would work fine but some of the brass bulkheads and structural replacement parts could present fit issues.

I doubt anyone has tried this yet but I figured I would throw out the idea and see if it gets any bites.

[blacman]

Dear fellows,

I'm working on Washington deck equipment. I'm looking for detailed pictures of diamond pattern and chain pattern on plate laying under anchor chains. But cannot find it. One picture I have is quite unclear.

In August BB56 did not have yet quad guns on stern. But during battle again Kirishima on November got them already. Anything else changed in this period in terms of AA guns on deck or anywhere else?

thanks for help!
Greg

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Hi Greg,

I'm working on Washington deck equipment. I'm looking for detailed pictures of diamond pattern and chain pattern on plate laying under anchor chains. But cannot find it. One picture I have is quite unclear.

The best pictures I found of these chafing plates were in Warship Pictorial 29 (North Carolina Class Battleships) page 8. The diamond pattern is just visible here. Also on the color picture on the cover, but just.

Depending on the scale you are using you could consider etched brass 'Engrave Plate' nr PP17 from Aber, this should be about right for 1/72 scale modeling of deck equipment.

On page 59 of the same reference you have some pictures from the Washington, after her collision with Indiana. But on these pictures the pattern is hardly visible anymore, it's simply too fine. I wouldn't consider it for a 1/350 scale model anyway.

Maarten

[blacman]

Hi Marteen,
thanks or info. I guess this is the picture you referring to:

for me it looks like short line and dot (or diamond shape)....

I'm not very familiar with US Navy architecture. But I guess this pattern was used widely on US Navy battleships.. Or I'm wrong?

[W. L. Upshaw / SSY]

This is the early style Diamond Plate, or what became Diamond plate. This was a common pattern in several navies. I have photos taken on the Bismarck that show this same pattern.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I am contemplating my next build being the trumpeter 1/350 kit of the North Carolina. Are there any major issues I should be on the lookout for as I do not wish to read through this entire thread? I'm aware that the 01 level is a bit too tall but I have no intention of trying to correct it. I have the white ensign models photo etched set for the kit, and I am really just interested in a nice clean build that results in a presentable and attractive model for the display shelf. I am not overly obsessed with having every detail perfectly accurate.

Thanks for your imput and suggestions.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Hi Thomas,

in my view there are four areas which really spoil the looks of the North Carolina model, and should be corrected:
1: the bulb of the bow is much too narrow,
2: the guns in the main turrets sit too close together and are too short,
3: the funnels are tapered and should be straight, the caps should be improved,
4: and indeed the 01 deck sits much too high.

Of course it's up to you what you want to do about these, but even the 01 deck correction isn't too hard if you try it this way (I did that):

Glue all the sidewalls to the 01 deck, instead of to the box structure on the main deck as directed in the instruction. When completely dry sand off almost two mm of the bottom of the sidewalls, on a piece of sandpaper on a flat table. Take your razor saw and completely remove the box structure just mentioned from the main deck. After painting the decks to your liking you can you can cement the complete level to the main deck, and at the correct height. By the sanding you have removed the lower part of the doors, so replace these by PE doors. However, the portholes sit at just the right height now!

Of course there is a long list of other smaller items to correct, but these are relatively minor. But again, it's up to yourself what you think is necessary to correct.

[Timmy C]

And one more: the forward funnel should be higher than the aft one.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

And one more: the forward funnel should be higher than the aft one.

Too true! If you make them straight you can fix the height easily. Refer to superb drawings from The Floating Drydock, suitably resized to 1:350 with one of the reference books (Randall Shoker) on the NC as museum ship. Beware: the color scheme in that book is largely similar to what's on the ship today, the pattern was really different back in 1943-1944! Also the colors were different then. In the reprint Shoker corrected the colors, but the scheme remained the same so not quite in line with the real one.
http://www.steelnavy.com/NCbook.htm

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

And one more: the forward funnel should be higher than the aft one.

Too true! If you make them straight you can fix the height easily. Refer to superb drawings from The Floating Drydock, suitably resized to 1:350 with one of the reference books (Randall Shoker) on the NC as museum ship. Beware: the color scheme in that book is largely similar to what's on the ship today, the pattern was really different back in 1943-1944! Also the colors were different then. In the reprint Shoker corrected the colors, but the scheme remained the same so not quite in line with the real one.
http://www.steelnavy.com/NCbook.htmattachment=0]NC intermediate.jpg[/attachment][
Just a picture showing the 01 deck correction, the funnels still have to be done here. Note that the rear superstructure needs to be corrected for the height loss as well...

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Thanks for that information guys. I may or may not implement any of these corrections on the model. What I am most interested in being made aware of before starting it ( I'm still not sure if this will be my next project or not ) is whether or not I should be on the lookout for any fit issues or troublesome parts. I am currently working on the 1/350 trumpeter kit of the Roma, and as I commented in the thread on that ship, the parts fit on that kit is awful.

[Timmy C]

I've never heard any good things about the NoCar's fit and engineering, and only bad ones. I especially recall some strong words about the turret sides.

Actually Ron Smith posted about it on the first page of this thread, and the review he refers to now exists here: http://www.modelerjoe.net/shipmodellist ... rumpeterNC

It -may- be exaggerated in its criticsims, depending on what's your reference point. But I would expect about the same, maybe worse, than your Roma.

[MartinJQuinn]

I am contemplating my next build being the trumpeter 1/350 kit of the North Carolina. Are there any major issues I should be on the lookout for as I do not wish to read through this entire thread?

Thomas,

I finished a build of the North Carolina last year. You can see her here. The kit is ill fitting and poorly engineered. I didn't have that much problem with the turrets myself - they actually went together better than I thought they would. I made some corrections to the kit, but ignored the 01 deck and the mismatched funnel height issues.

Overall, I felt like the model fought me every step of the way. Still, when finished, it's a pretty good looking model of a handsome battleship.

HTH - Good Luck!

[pbudzik]

The stacks are just flat undersized and it isn't an easy "fix". If you've actually read this thread then you should have figured out that this is not one of Trumpeters best. If assembled out of the box, you can't even rotate the aft 16" battery ... the list of corrections can be as long or short as you want.

Paul

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I just want a nice representation of the ship for my shelf. I am NOT overly concerned about being 100% technically correct.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

I just want a nice representation of the ship for my shelf. I am NOT overly concerned about being 100% technically correct.

Well, you asked what errors there are in the kit, and you have got extensive answers. What you are doing with those is entirely up to yourself!

So, off you go and happy modeling! As long as the result is to your own liking everything is alright. But don't come back complaining about errors in the kit!

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I just want a nice representation of the ship for my shelf. I am NOT overly concerned about being 100% technically correct.

Well, you asked what errors there are in the kit, and you have got extensive answers. What you are doing with those is entirely up to yourself!

So, off you go and happy modeling! As long as the result is to your own liking everything is alright. But don't come back complaining about errors in the kit!

I am more likely to complain about poor fit and engineering issues than I am about accuracy ones.

[MatthewB]

Jester63
go to the gallery and look up Ed McDonald's Washington. He gives some prety precise instructions for a Guadalcanal Washington


http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

I will be adding to this post (which I hope is not a repeat), but the above link does show the Washington as she would have been at the Nov Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, with the SoDak?

I am confused by a photo in Navsource, which shows the Washington with a claimed date of "After the night action, Nov 14-15, 1942," but there are clearly quad 40mm tubs and guns visible on the ship:

http://navsource.org/archives/01/056/015673b.jpg

Which leaves me a little confused, considering the above image showing her in Sept of the same year without these quad 40s?

I do realize that between Sept and Nov is PLENTY of time to whang a few gun tubs and quad-40mm guns on the ship.

But.... What gives here?

Does anyone have her AA layout for Nov of 1942?

MB

[MatthewB]

You may find something here

This thread is absolutely FULL of Dead Links (such as this one).

Less than half the photos remain.

That is just sad...

MB