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

[SeanF]

Thanks for reminding me. I actually had taken some photos when I started modifying my Colorado hull about 10 months ago, and never followed up with them. Just found them again - they're all much too bright from the flash, but the point just might be able to come across. I'll take them to the office tomorrow to see if I can clean them up a bit. These shots go up through the removal of the offending areas, but I don't have shots during the replacement process (Once I get going, I hate stopping to take pictures - especially since I'm not very good at it and am usually dissatisfied with the results) I'll see if I can get a decent enough shot of the hull now that it has its first coat of paint on it. Or maybe even my completed Maryland.

Back to the '44 California question: Definitely start with the West Virginia kit. It looks like the 20mm layout is virtually identical between the two, even including the strange asymmetrical 40mm & 20mm sets to the sides of turret 3 and the long, overhanging banks of them athwart turret 2. I think the 20mm mounts up in the superstructure to the sides of the forward Mk. 37 director are only singles, not the twins the WV kit indicates, and I think the tubs on top of turret 3 are a different shape (but still carry two 20mm single mounts each). You'll want to buy a pack of Kingfishers, though - the WV kit only comes with Seahawks.

- Sean F.

[SeanF]

Okay, let's see if this works.

Here's what we're faced with:

Bulges too big and square!

Starting with the kit hull as-is, and some Plastruct 1/16" L-angles:

Hull and Strips

Tack them on with a little superglue or something else easily chipped off (that is, you don't want the bond of cement on this!) at one end, flopping loose at the other:

Just let them hang loose at the back.

Use the strips as a guide to scribe with a simple needle stuck in a pin vise:

Blurry, I know...

Go deeper and deeper, and soon it won't matter if the strips fall off:

And you thought the last one was blurry!

To be continued...

- Sean F.

[SeanF]

Looks like that worked... so continuing the effort:

When deep enough, clip off the side panels. The hull will be very weak, so be careful not to break its back. Once glued to the waterline baseplate or lower hull it'll be fine. Here it is with the sides cut off and resting on the WL plate:

Big, missing rectangles...

From above, you can see how the red WL plate hangs past the significantly narrowed top "shelf":

Now the bulge can be fatter at the waterline than the top.

At this point, I cut some plastic strips and clued them on, using the edge of the WL plate as the bottom boundary and lay them back against the remaining 1/16" of the top shelf. You can use cement for this process, but best to use the thicker stuff than fumble with Tamiya - you'll be handling it so much you'll get fingerprints everywhere. This process is rough, and there will be lots of gaps, especially at the ends. Make generous use of gap-filling superglue, epoxy putty, or whatever heavy-duty sandable filler you prefer, mostly applied from the inside (Oh, right: Be sure to leave the deck off until all this is done!) Have at it with the sanding sticks. Get a couple of fresh, new ones for sanding along the top of the bulge shelf. Yes, you will completely wipe out the fuel lines running along the sides (you need to wipe out the port-side one anyway - CO and MD both had theirs on starboard only), and will have to replace it with some fine brass rod later. It will likely take a few rounds of primer to reveal flaws, filling them, re-sanding, and re-primering to zero-in on an acceptable finish.
As I did this all on a different day, and didn't have my camera handy, I don't have any photos of this effort. But I do have this shot of how it came out in the end. Compare against the photo at the beginning:

This is more like it!

Now, a few shots of my completed Maryland '41, to show how it finishes out:

- Sean F.

[garyrunnalls]

Nice and very well done!

[Steve]

I received a copy of Profile Morskie #6 USS California 1944 which includes the usual excellent plans. I will compare the Trumpeter kits for the Tennessee and West Virginia to these plans to see which is the closest for those who are interested in building a 1944 Leyte version of the California. This assumes of course that the Profile plans are "accurate". I will have an extra copy of this Profile listed for sale (reasonably) in the for sale section of this Forum if anyone is interested.

[SeanF]

Good drawings will finish the journey; but you will, without doubt, be best served by starting with the Trumpeter '45 WV if you want to build a '44 CA.

- Sean F.

[Guest]

Just in a process of building Trumpeter's 1/700 USS Maryland (1945). My first build after some 15-20 years :-) As it represents the Maryland after her final refit during the summer of 1945, there are some minor factual issues (Mark 3 radar still present at the top of the foremast platform; Mark 8 radar at the top of the rear director instead of the Mark 13).

Despite the kit is very nice out of the box itself, I decided to enter the world of photo-etching :-) Replacing the original plastic 40mm Bofors quads for Eduard's is almost finished, I just started swapping the 16'' barrels for Master's and the WEM Radar Sets are on the way somewhere between the US and Europe :). After adding some generic railings, ladders etc...we'll see. After all, I can only blame my stone hands :-)

However, I am looking for an answers for two questions. I wasn't able to find them neither in the Myron Smith's "Free State Battlewagon" nor Slawomir Lipiecki's "Big Five" (Jaroslaw Palasek's "Colorado Class" is out of my reach as of now). If anyone of you guys can help me with these, I would be very grateful:
1) What was the composition of the final package of 20mm Oerlikons after the final refit during summer 1945? Was it 20 double mounts + 1 quad mount? Or something else? I want to replace the original plastic ones (actually, double mounts) by Eduard's and I would rather to do it right :-)
2) The Maryland was repainted according to the MEAS21 scheme. But what about a color of the main deck? Was it in Deck Blue as it was supposed to...or was is left bare? I'm asking just because of this photo http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014637.jpg I suspect it being artificially colored...but one never knows.

Just two pictures of the progressing build. Still mostly dry fitting, preparing for camouflage and further detailing.

[Daytona675R]

Allright, I have the answer for the Maryland's Oerlikons now. Norman Friedman states on the page 381 of the "US Battleships - An Ilustrated Design History" that "...Maryland actually had two twin and eleven quadruple 40mm mounts and twenty twin and one quadruple 20mm." Which is also illustrated on the page 348.

The mystery of the deck color stands still...

[SeanF]

Allright, I have the answer for the Maryland's Oerlikons now. Norman Friedman states on the page 381 of the "US Battleships - An Ilustrated Design History" that "...Maryland actually had two twin and eleven quadruple 40mm mounts and twenty twin and one quadruple 20mm." Which is also illustrated on the page 348.

The mystery of the deck color stands still...

Looking at Navsource's photos, I think we can be pretty certain that in her final wartime fit, Maryland did eventually have a bare wood deck while having Ms. 21's 5-N (Navy blue, or navy gray, though? This is August '45, so the grays should be in effect...) Some ships scrubbed their deck blue off after the hostilities ended, some retained it for a while, but in this case it is reasonable to ask if she ever got a new coat of deck blue at the end of that refit.
I've seen in some mid-to-late war photos, where ships are running trials near the end of a major refit, a beautiful new coat of paint on all the hull and structure but a bare wood deck - which would then be painted only after the last of the repair tasks (those noted during the trial) were complete and before the ship would head back to the war zone. (They also tended to be missing a lot of the life rafts and other loose stowage during these trials. I really noticed this in the series of photos with Saratoga in her dazzle scheme, provided in the Squadron at Sea book) In the case of Maryland, finishing up her refit in mid-late August, I suspect there's a good chance they didn't bother with it since the fighting had stopped before they finished. Then again, maybe they did, and the captain had it hollystoned off not long afterward.
So... blue deck as a "maybe," blue deck for sure if you're going hypothetical for Operation Olympic, bare wood as definite for November '45 (see: http://navsource.org/archives/01/046/014645m.jpg ), and probably earlier as well.

- Sean F.

[Daytona675R]

Sean, thank you very much for your response, the conclusions are perfectly reasonable.

[Guest]

Does anyone make the 14in barrels for the Tennessee class in 1/700 just like Master models do for the 16in on the Colorado class?

[Daytona675R]

I just sent an e-mail to the owner of Master, whether we can expect 14''/50 cal. barrels (used on New Mexicos and Tennessees) in his portfolio.

As for using 14''/45 cal. instead, they are actually 2.54 mm shorter in 1/700.

Barrel lengths
16.00 m for 14''/45 cal.
17.78 m for 14''/50 cal.

[Guest]

I just sent an e-mail to the owner of Master, whether we can expect 14''/50 cal. barrels (used on New Mexicos and Tennessees) in his portfolio.

As for using 14''/45 cal. instead, they are actually 2.54 mm shorter in 1/700.

Barrel lengths
16.00 m for 14''/45 cal.
17.78 m for 14''/50 cal.

I hope they do end up making them.

[Daytona675R]

So, the response of Master is:

"Hello,
yes we have a plan to release 14''/50 barrels in 1/700 scale. Probably set will debut on Moson show

Kind regards
Michal Madraszewski
MASTER"

Which is great. FYI, this year's Moson Model Show takes place between April 16th - 17th.

[garyrunnalls]

Thanks, I will need at least 2 sets since using my one set that came with my resin kit BB-44 from Brandon. The ones from Master are Excellent!

[Daytona675R]

By the way, I just discovered that #788 "Modernized West Virginia, California and Tennessee" photo-etch set from Blue Ridge appeared on Tom's Modelworks.

[Daytona675R]

Guys, I have some issues regarding the identification of radars present on the USS Maryland after her summer 1945 refit.

The red one: Just to be sure it is the Mk 27 FCR
The yellow one: The SRa? Edit: You are completely right, Cliffy, this is going to be the TDY-1
The blue one: I have absolutely no idea what is it in the place of the former Mk 3 FCR. Neither the picture http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014671.jpg helps me much.

Btw, the radar on the top of the mainmast...is it SM or SP?

Thank you for any hints...

[Cliffy B]

Best I can tell is the yellow one logged like a TDY-1 jammer antenna. The one atop the fighting top I can't ID. Can't see it clearly enough or find a better photo. The shot showing the back side of the fight to and care mast though does show a number of small radomes one of which could be a DRBM. Also looked like there MIGHT be some railings on top that may be masquerading as an antenna from certain angles but I don't know. Just my best guess work at the moment.

The Mk-27 sounds and looks right as well. To check, BB-55 had one on the roof of her conning tower for certain later in the war and I think still has it.

[Haijun watcher]

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.

Sean F,

Thanks again for your pics cutting away that 1/8 inch earlier in this thread.

You mentioned that the Trumpeter Colorado 1944 kit is also like that? Or just the early war Maryland 1941 kit? Just wanted to confirm what you stated above.

So neither the Colorado 1944 kit or the Maryland 1945 late war kits are supposed to have that extra eighth inch?

[Dick J]

Maryland received her bulges pre-Pearl Harbor. Colorado was in the yards receiving an identical set of bulges when Pearl was attacked. So both were the same, and neither had any significant alterations done to the bulges during the war.