Calling all New Orleans-class (CA-32) fans

[Dick J]

Also, I noticed this amazing picture shared earlier in this thread (copied below). Dick J identified this as Quincy in late 1940 or early 1941. What is interesting though is the painting on the hull. Do my eyes deceive me or is there a sharp demarcation to a darker colour? Is this temporary shipyard paint or is the ship in a graded scheme in this picture? Measure 2 is the only thing that makes sense given the time scale. Anyone able to confirm?

Thanks to Rick Davis, I have some photos that shed some more light on this photo. One photo of Norfolk Navy Base shows Quincy in Dec '40 without the King Board mods (and still in pre-war gray), so 1940 can be ruled out for this photo. I have one clear photo of Quincy in a graded measure, either MS-2 or more likely, unmodified MS-12. Rick had another shot of Tuscaloosa in the MS-12 mod scheme with a sister beyond her in unmodified MS-12. Since only Quincy and Vincennes were in the Atlantic when CA-37 painted into MS-12 mod, the sister in the background must be one of them. (The ship is too distant in the background to tell which one of the sisters it is.) The probability is that this photo is shortly after the release of MS-12, or around Sep/Oct '41.

From DANFS we get this:On 28 July 1941 Quincy sailed with Task Group 16 for Iceland on neutrality duty which included a patrol in the Denmark Straits 21-24 September. She returned to Newfoundland with a convoy 31 October. Quincy then proceeded to Capetown, South Africa, via Trinidad, where she met a convoy which she escorted back to Trinidad 29 December 1941.

Quincy returned 25 January 1942 to Icelandic waters on convoy duty with Task Force 15 and made a patrol in the Denmark Straits 8-11 March. She departed 14 March for the U.S. and an overhaul at the New York Navy Yard that lasted until the end of May.

So from 31 Oct '41 until 14 March '42, she was tied up on convoy duty. When she entered NYNY in March of '42, she was already in MS-12 mod. Considering that Yorktown, Wasp, Ranger, Tuscaloosa, and Augusta were all in unmodified MS-12 before all of them but Yorktown repainted into MS-12 mod, that is why I think Quincy was also in MS-12 rather than MS-2. It also makes it likely that the switch to MS-12 mod occurred in the last days of Jan '42 and into February. But this is just an inference at this point.

[Vlad]

Dick,

Thanks for the additional information helping date that picture. Yes, Measure 12 makes more sense in that context.

Rick,

Great picture, thanks! Unfortunately it made me realise I asked the wrong question, since I didn't know Tuscaloosa already had her new bridge in 1944. I was looking for more detail on the ship around the time the photo below was taken, already in Measure 22 and sprouting at least one new 20mm gallery but still with the old windowed bridge.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/037/0403728.jpg

I'm currently trying to gather as much information as I can since I'm playing an odd "puzzle game" with this class to work out how I can build them covering the widest combination of refits and camouflages without building the same ship twice. so thanks again for your contributions!

[Rick E Davis]

OK ... 1943 images;

As far as armament, it is harder for me to determine from these images. At some point the quad 1.1-in mounts on the fantail were replaced with quad 40-mm mounts. I can't tell from these photos if the forward quad 1.1-in mounts remained in earlier 1943 on the bridge wings or were replaced by 40-mm guns. The 20-mm gun count is hard to determine as well. Maybe Dick has a better idea about that than I do.

[Vlad]

Ooh, pretty thank you!

I can just about make out where the 20mm are. I would also speculate that the bridge wing tubs would be harder to adapt to the size/weight of the quad 40mm. In my mind this makes it likely they stayed 1.1" for longer or, if indeed replaced, the 40mm there would likely be a twin.

Something very odd in all those pictures, is the front Mk.33 director "parked" backwards?

[Dick J]

There were times that the quad 1.1's got directly replaced by twin 40MM (Savannah, CL-42 is an example), but Tuscaloosa is not one of those instances. The guns are most visible in the center photo Rick posted, and there are 4 closely spaced barrels. (I have Rick's high rez version of this shot. I know, an unfair advantage.) I can make out 16 20MM in this config. And yes, the forward MK-33 is parked facing aft. My speculation as to why is that she was operating in the North Atlantic, and facing aft kept the spray from misting over the lenses on the rangefinder and the director elements allowing them to be ready when needed.

[Vladi]

Hello, is anyone aware of any alternative source of photo-etched parts for SOC-3 Seagull floatplanes in 1/700 other than some of the old Tom�s Modelworks US cruiser-related sets (like e.g. this one)? I�ve got enough for 4 planes for my Quincy build but will need more in the not so distant future - and I am not really happy about buying more of these sets just because of the few struts...
Also any hints for a properly scaled insignia (wings and fuselage)?

[Vladi]

Hello, is anyone aware of any alternative source of photo-etched parts for SOC-3 Seagull floatplanes in 1/700 other than some of the old Tom�s Modelworks US cruiser-related sets (like e.g. this one)? I�ve got enough for 4 planes for my Quincy build but will need more in the not so distant future - and I am not really happy about buying more of these sets just because of the few struts...
Also any hints for a properly scaled insignia (wings and fuselage)?

Hi all, although I have not yet managed to solve the photo-etch part of my question above, I found a good solution to the insignia/decals part in the meantime. I ordered
this very nice set from Starfighter Decals. It provides - apart from other interesting items such as fuselage numbers - very large number of 1942-style insignia in various diameters for a reasonable price.

[mikasa]

Hello, is anyone aware of any alternative source of photo-etched parts for SOC-3 Seagull floatplanes in 1/700 other than some of the old Tom�s Modelworks US cruiser-related sets (like e.g. this one)? I�ve got enough for 4 planes for my Quincy build but will need more in the not so distant future - and I am not really happy about buying more of these sets just because of the few struts...
Also any hints for a properly scaled insignia (wings and fuselage)?

Hi all, although I have not yet managed to solve the photo-etch part of my question above, I found a good solution to the insignia/decals part in the meantime. I ordered
this very nice set from Starfighter Decals. It provides - apart from other interesting items such as fuselage numbers - very large number of 1942-style insignia in various diameters for a reasonable price.

I can't wait to see this one!

I see you are also working on Tenryu at the same time. I can't wait to see that one also!

[MartinJQuinn]

Vinny at Pearl Harbor, May 1942

[Vladi]

Martin, thanks for posting the Vinny photo! Did you manipulate the contrast and brightness? I downloaded the same shot from NHHC in hi-res (30MB tiff) but yours is much better despite the lower res!

Does anyone have a better version of the photo below (this is a poor scan from Shipcraft 13 New Orleans Class Cruisers by Lester Abbey)?

[MartinJQuinn]

Vladi,

I am at the National Archives this week. No time to play with the brightness or contrast, I just scan and move onto the next photo!

The photo you posted is, I believe, a crop of a larger photo showing 4 New Orleans cruisers on maneuvers off Hawaii in July 1942.

[Vladi]

Hello Martin,

I see, then your scan is far better than the one at the NHHC website, congrats!
You are most probably right about the Vinny port side photo, it really seems to fit into the series of airborne photos from the May 42 trainings off Hawaii.
Fingers crossed for you mission at the National Archives this week

[Vladi]

Yet another tricky question I am just rigging my USS Quincy and I am trying to figure out about halyards/leads/antennae in the mainmast area, where these come from and especially where these attach to the superstructure. Unlike the foremast, the mainmast rigging seem to have been similar across the NO class in 1942. I am almost sure none of the Quincy shots show this, I checked also Astoria, Vinny and SF where I have quite a lot of photos. Browsed my books, searched the net but still nothing. Any ideas, gents?

Edit: would anybody have high resolution versions of these photos (or similar)? If so, could you send me a PM or email them to me please?

Edit 2: just discovered this excellent photo of NO in Feb 1942 - helpful, but still not providing answers to everything, especially most of the thin wires and halyards remain a mystery to me...

[bwross11]

Vlad,
I too am moving into the rigging phase on my San Francisco. From my research, and the great picture you found confirms, that for the support shrouds there are two that go forward and attach on the over hangar deck. In the high res picture you'll see that the center boat is straddled by them. The aft two shrouds are attached at the forward edge of the 20mm platform to frames. I think the shrouds attached to the mast up above the yardarm.

For the signal halyards, there was a flag bag immediately aft of the mast below the director. I believe that there are rails, or a pin rail of sorts that the halyards attached to at the bottom for the signalmen to get to. In the high res picture it looks like the signal halyards are moving up to the yardarms. On the San Francisco there was a frame that was on the forward edge of the mast that I believe they attached to at the top.

For the radio leads, they attached at the bottom end at the three cone shaped insulators you can see in the high res picture. On the San Francisco there was a similar arrangement on the starboard side.

Hope this helps; its my story and I'm sticking with it.

Bruce

[Vladi]

Hello bwross11,
thanks for sharing your thoughts, they are mostly in line with my own findings I did in the meantime. In the end I had to draft the arrangement on a piece of paper as it became too complex to remember

As to the support shrouds in the boat area on the Quincy: she definitely had them after her May 42 refit in NY (e.g. here)
but they seem to have been removed by August 3
as seen here.

There are four radio leads attached to the support frame forward of the mast, I am not really sure if the halyards go to the same or to the crossyard. I have already attached bottom end of the 4 aerials before I found that NO photo but you are probably right about the insulators. Ok, I�ll leave them as they are.

Last but not least there are the long aerials going between both masts. Their leads go down to the end of the frame at the fwd edge of the 20mm platform and then continue down somewhere towards the aft end of the aft superstructure, it can be seen here, but it is not much clear where they are exactly attached.

[bwross11]

Hi Vlad,

I doubt that the support shrouds changed much, if any. When at sea as the ship rolls those pole masts have a real tendency to sway; removing the support shrouds would put undue stress on the mast structure and could result in the loss of a mast. In the second picture of the Quincy in the South Pacific if I zoom in I can just make out what could be the shroud still going down to the over hangar deck just in the shadow and thus hard to see. Just as a follow on, I checked the building plans I have of the New Orleans, they show that the over hangar anchor points where 23' back from the leading edge of that deck and 14' apart centered on the centerline of the ship.

For the between mast lines and the associated radio leads that's a more pragmatic problem. May have to resort to a small amount of artistic license for those.

best,
Bruce

[Vladi]

Hi Bruce,
thanks for your comments. I was also surprised I could not see the fwd shrouds on the second photo (and I still cannot see them however closely I zoom in, although I agree they should be there), but the position where they should attach is a great help, thanks! And of course we will need to use some artistic license for some of the details.
Vladi

[aercastro82]

My question is just a general.
Is not about conversion or modification scale modeling.

Will anyone please provide me information regarding
the overall length of
CA-34 USS ASTORIA, CA-38 USS SAN FRANCISCO,
CA-39 USS QUINCY, and CA-44 USS VINCENNES.

According to these reports:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... -no29.html
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... -no26.html

USS ASTORIA waterline length was 574'
USS SAN FRANCISCO waterline length was 578'
USS QUINCY and USS VINCENNES waterline length were 569'

Is interesting to see that these ships hand different hull lengths.

I would like to know if all these ships were 588' overall length?
If that is the case, perhaps the bow or stern could have different curvatures.

If anyone could please share information or explain the lengths of these ships.
I appreciated.

[Dick J]

All should have been roughly the same. The differences would most likely be related to how the waterline was defined. With the rake of the bow (and a bit at the stern), changes in draft would effect the length of the apparent waterline. The earlier sisters were very close to the 10,000 ton treaty limit. Quincy and Vincennes were redesigned prior to construction to create a margin to add more light/medium AA. They were 550-600 tons lighter than their earlier sisters. So with the waterline further down the hull, the length at that waterline would have been less than on sisters with a deeper draft.

[aercastro82]

Thank you for the input from previous message.

I have another question.

Can anyone please confirm if the two tubs at USS QUINCY's top platform are for the lookout chairs
or something else?
How about the round figure behind the pilot house in the navigating bridge?
Is that a signal light?



I appreciate for the help.