Calling all rebuilt "Big 5" (TN/MD class) fans

[Haijun watcher]

Haijun, are you doing full hull or waterline?

waterline.

[SeanF]

Slightly more than 1/8", yes. That's 1/16" off each side for 1/8" total width reduction.

The kit as-is scales to about 114' wide (That's right: too wide for the Panama Canal)- proper for Late-war Tennessee, California, and West Virginia. Maryland and Colorado should scale to about 106' at their bulges.

It's not too difficult to do in waterline if you're already planning to correct the taper of the bulges. But if you want to leave the hull as-is, it's just going to look especially fat compared to photos.

- Sean F.

[Haijun watcher]

It would be best to use the upcoming Tennessee 1941 as the base for your 1942 build. The forward superstructure decks are different between the West Virginia/Colorado and the Tennessee. You would have to rebuild these decks if using one of the Colorado class. Also, the biggest difference, and not an easy fix, is the shape of the 01 or gun deck (the deck the 5"/25 guns are on).

Frank,

Could you please be more specific when it comes to the superstructure differences you mentioned above between the Tennessee and Colorado class battleships?

Looking at this Navsource photo below, the forward and top superstructures of both ship classes in December 1941 look pretty much identical!!!! I don't see why I can't just use the Trumpeter West Virginia 1941 kit if I wanted to build a 1942 Tennessee.

[Frank Fowler]

In response, the photo you have posted does not have the detail or clarity to show the actual shapes of the forward superstructure decks. The angle also distorts the actual shapes. You need to get plans for the two ships to see the differences. Every deck on the forward superstructure is different as is the 01 deck. I have the very nice Hi-Mold/Pitroad resin kits of both ships and not one corresponding deck part is the same shape. This is confirmed by the various plans/drawings I have of the two ships. As an example, the bridges of the two ships are different in size and shape. The WV bridge is a rectangle that is wider than it is long and the forward face overhangs the deck while the Tennessee bridge is a much smaller rectangle that is longer than it is wide and it does not overhang the deck having a walkway in front of the bridge windows. The deck the bridge sets on in each ship is shaped different. The deck that the MK 19 directors set on are different with the Tennessee's deck being a V shape. I don't know what else to tell you, but I believe if you use the WV bridge and 01 decks to represent Tennessee in 1942 it will not be correct. That is why I would wait for the Trumpeter 1941 Tennessee. The Trumpeter 1941 kits of the big 5 are based on the Hi-Mold/Pitroad kits so the Tennessee should be correct.

[Frank Fowler]

While looking through my stack of plans from Floating Drydock I came across the plans for the Maryland 1945. I had forgotten I had these, so never looked at them for the bulge issue for the 1/700 Trumpeter Maryland 1941, Maryland 1945 and Colorado 1944 kits. The plan set has one sheet with seven cross sections of the hull with the bulge at 1/8 inch = 1 foot. The larger plan and profile sheets are in 1/16 inch = 1 foot. On the plan the bulge is 12 feet from the top to the waterline. or in 1/700 scale 0.201 inch. The model's hulls all have a height of the bulge from top to waterline at approximately 0.23 inch and adding the baseplate this increases to 0.26 inch. So as noted in this topic earlier the models all set too high. Leaving the base plate off helps some.

The frames are measured along the waterline on the plans with frame 0 at the point where the bow touches the water. Each frame is 4 feet on the scale. Here is what I measured from the plan set.

Top of Bulge width (1/700) Water line bulge width (1/700) distance from Bow (1/700)
Frame 19 0' (0") 1' (0.017") 76' (1.30")
Frame 40 2.8' (0.048") 4' (0.068") 160' (2.74")
Frame 55 4.0' (0.068") 5.2' (0.089") 220' (3.77")
Frame 74 4.8' (0.082") 6.0' (0.102") 296' (5.07")
Frame 94 4.5' (0.077") 6.0' (0.102") 376' (6.45")
Frame 106 3.0' (0.051") 4.8' (0.082") 424' (7.27")
Frame 124 1.9' (0.032") 3.0' (0.051") 496' (8.50")

Hope this information is of some use.

[garyrunnalls]

Thanks for this, I really want to get some of those Floating Drydock plans but too many to choose from. Wanted to post pics on my USS Tennessee 1944, but decided to go full hull and had to do some fill and sand with barely noticeable hull plates and of course more work and time, but I like the kit.

[SeanF]

I've been working on the Trumpeter Colorado '44, got the 5-L on the hull, and now studying photos vs. the provided painting guide (Good in some spots, off by quite a bit in others - that figures), and then I get to wondering - Was Colorado actually in a 4-color scheme? See:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014503.jpg

In this shot, it looks as though the stern is a bit darker than the patch ahead of the 5-O band under the turrets. Are we looking at 5-L and 5-P here? Or is the hull curvature enough to explain it with a bit of shadow? The aft two turrets and the tall barbette look to be the same color as the stern, even where it's angled back the other way. Thoughts?

- Sean F.

[garyrunnalls]

I see what you mean and the value can be misleading. I used a 3 D pair of glasses (cardboard with blue and red film on each side) or if you have a piece of red film, it's the red I look through at pics, paint values, etc to give you a sense of what hue/value/shades it might be. I see only the 3 colors, Dull Black, Light Grey, Ocean Grey.

[ModelMonkey]

Apologies if this has been discussed previously.

How do the Tennessees' fighting tops compare in shape and size to the Colorados'?

[SeanF]

I see what you mean and the value can be misleading. I used a 3 D pair of glasses (cardboard with blue and red film on each side) or if you have a piece of red film, it's the red I look through at pics, paint values, etc to give you a sense of what hue/value/shades it might be. I see only the 3 colors, Dull Black, Light Grey, Ocean Grey.

That's an interesting trick... never would've thought of that.

A little while after posting this question, I looked at the picture again, zoomed out to look at the entire scene, and decided it's probably the same color as well. Thanks so much for your comment!

- Sean F.

[cba@3dmodelparts]

@ModelMonkey:

The TN fighting tops are nearly the same overall width, length, & height, (per drawings) but have a shorter side facet (1 window on the lowest level compared to two for the CO class). This can be seen well in the photo of TN inboard of WV during the PH raid; the TN top is clearly "pointier":

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014824.jpg

Also,

Here's a shot of some current builds - the CO main top lower level is set on a foremast (rt) just for illustration. TN is on the left.

-Carl

[ddoyle]

Hi Folks,
My publisher has announced the pending release of my latest nautical title, 168-pages addressing the USS California. This book is similar in scope and content to the Squadron at Sea series of books I did for Squadron (Arizona, BB-55, CV-2, CV-3, BB-60 and BB-35), but comes from a different publisher.

Like all the books I've been privileged to work on, this book would not have been possible without a considerable amount of help from my friends, many of which are visitors to this site. Thank you again for all your help.

For details about the book, including a sneak peak at some of the pages, visit Ampersand's website at:

http://www.ampersandpubco.com/new-page-3/

Regards,
David Doyle

[Steve]

[quote="Steve"]
I have added comments in red to my earlier post on the Tennessee comparing this just released kit of the California to her two near sisters.

I received my kit of the California from Freetime yesterday and it is a nicely rendered kit. My impression is that Trumpeter took the time to modify the West Virginia and Tennessee molds to represent the differences between the three near sisters. Here are some observations.

1. As expected the hull is duplicated between them. All three use the bulged Colorado WL plate and lower hull

2. Both the fore and after decks vary significantly in the location of the many 20mm galleries from the Tennessee. The California fore and after decks are generally the same as the West Virginia kit except for the number and placement of the 20mm mounts and some deck fittings. The location and shape of the splinter shields appears to be generally the same. The individual decks are ship specific and so marked. The California has 21 twin mounts while the West Virginia has 26 single mounts and the Tennessee only 11 in similar locations.

3.The layout of the platform deck for the Tennessee and West Virginia with the 5" twin mounts is the same and there are some minor differences in details and the number of Mk 51 directors. The number and location of the 20mm galleries is the same only for these two. The California has been upgraded to 10 40mm quads (from 6) in place of the galleries with added Mk 51 directors.

4. There are some minor differences in the superstructures the most obvious being the enclosed space between the tower and the stack on the California and the masts and radar suites.

5. The 20mm galleries on "X" turret are different with the Tennessee and California carrying 2 fewer mounts than the West Virginia.

6. All 10 or 14 (California) 40mm mounts on all 3 are unshielded as has been correctly noted in other posts.

7. All three show a pair of twin 20mm mounts in the forward superstructure. I have no idea if this is correct.

8. the use of common sprues generates plenty of spare single and twin 20mm and quad 40mm mounts.

9. The Tennessee has many more life rafts stacked and located around the decks. Four new sprues numbered U1 providing a total 44 additional rafts are included only for this kit.

10. I believe all 3 are reasonably accurate with regard to the general layout of the 20mm AA mounts and the change to twins on the California. I suspect the West Virginia is also reasonably accurate. Now we still need to see the announced 1941 Tennessee and California to round out the "Big 5" collection.

EDITED FOR:

1. Use of Colorado hull shape.
2. Ship specific decks.
9. Extra rafts sprue.

[Mike W]

When the Colorado was painted in it's camouflage (Black, 5O and 5L), did the deck have camouflage or was it just 20B? If was it camouflaged, what colours were used with 20B and is there anything that shows the pattern?

thanks
Mike

[Cliffy B]

Looking at overhead photos the decks appear very even which would indicate 20-B.


http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014504.jpg

On post refit trials in Puget Sound, Washington on 3 October 1944. Running at 19.2 knots and creating quite a wake. White colored 5"/25 mounts can be easily picked out; circles indicate quadruple 40mm mounts(ten total). This is her final appearance.

Tonal variations are from water since if 5-O was used the areas would clearly defined and cover a larger area.

[garyrunnalls]

Hey Sean, let me know and I could send you a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses for free. I'm in Lawndale close to Redondo Bch so if you're in Downey we're practically neighbors. I found an extra pair and could mail them to you, all free.

[Haijun watcher]

Steve,

Thanks for the long, detailed review on the Trumpeter West Virginia kit and comparisons with her sisters' kits.

Since you have an in depth knowledge of the rebuilt TN, CA and WV kits, I was wondering how hard it will be to backdate the 1945 California kit to her October 1944/Battle of Surigao Strait configuration.

I know she was hit by a kamikaze hit in January 1945, but I'm not sure if she received much more modifications such as more AA positions during the time she spent in dry dock to repair the kamikaze damage.

The Navsource photos aren't much help.

[Steve]

In looking at the options to have a '44 California based on a Trumpeter kit it appears that the '44 Tennessee is the best option. The '45 West Virginia may be an option also (interchangeable turrets in the Trumpeter kits). With the exception of masts and radars, I believe the 20mm mounts are the most difficult to locate. So can anyone add to this "analysis"? The intent is to have the sisters as they appeared at Leyte.

[SeanF]

In looking at the options to have a '44 California based on a Trumpeter kit it appears that the '44 Tennessee is the best option. The '45 West Virginia may be an option also (interchangeable turrets in the Trumpeter kits). With the exception of masts and radars, I believe the 20mm mounts are the most difficult to locate. So can anyone add to this "analysis"? The intent is to have the sisters as they appeared at Leyte.

I have the same idea, planning on a Surigao battle line collection. Something unexpected and quite welcome showed up at one of my local hobby shops yesterday: USS California by David Doyle. I knew it was in the works, but didn't expect to see it in the store so soon. It's similar to the "At Sea" series of books released by Squadron, but not published by them this time. A few Pearl Harbor shots of California I'd never seen before are a very welcome sight (The white top of Turret 1 is very visible in a couple of them, and the big frame of her radar set shows up quite nicely as well) But on the question at hand: no perfect overhead shot for the '44 time frame, but many other shots from various angles to search for those little devils. Already I've noticed that the overhead drawing of her in 1944, provided on page 116, does not jive with the photos at several of the 20mm locations.
I don't have my Trumpeter WV and TN kits on -hand at the moment, but I'll pull them out in the next day or two to assess which would be the better starting point, and start figuring out what would need to be changed.

- Sean F.

[Haijun watcher]

Sean F.,

Do you have pics of your Colorado/Maryland hull after you cut the 1/8 " off the bulges? This is just for a reference for me and others who want to fix the "fat" bulges on their Trumpeter kits as you mentioned below.

The lower hull - and the waterline plate, and the bulges of the upper hull - of the Maryland and Colorado kits are about 1/8" too wide (not scale - I mean literal).
So, not only is the shape of the bulges wrong and making them look too wide; they really are too wide. Re-shaping them to the correct taper helps the look considerably, and if you're building it waterlined you can pretty easily narrow it at the waterline in the process of tapering. But if you're building it full-hull, it's a major undertaking if you want to narrow the lower hull.

- Sean F.