Calling Alaska-class (CB-1) fans

[maxim]

?OP o.s. recently still produced kits, I am not 100% sure, if they still do. But the availability at some shops for sure does not indicate, if it is still in production or not. It only indicates that they would have to order it - which they will not do, if nobody asks them to do it. But e.g. HLJ has USS Alaska on "backorder".

[Betelguese90]

maybe if I were to email ROP o.s Samek directly and ask about the Guam and see if they still do make it. Their direct shop sight did not show a listing of the model so hopefully I can get lucky with it.

[Guest]

There are there:

http://www.mn-modelar.com/en-detail-902 ... -1945.html
http://www.mn-modelar.com/en-detail-902 ... -1945.html

[Betelguese90]

There are there:

http://www.mn-modelar.com/en-detail-902 ... -1945.html
http://www.mn-modelar.com/en-detail-902 ... -1945.html

from the link, I went and placed an order. surprised that they have it.

[Betelguese90]

OK got my hands on a 1/700 USS Guam from ROP s.o (former Samek) and it does not include masts. The template for the masts seem to small for 1/700, so does anyone have an estimate size on what diameter turned brass I would need to make them? Wish there was a detail up kit that included them, but alas, there is not.

[Betelguese90]

Does anyone know if there still is a 1/700 photo etch detail set for Alaska class still in production? Midship models had one a few years ago I found but it's out of production now. Or could u get away with using a USN heavy cruiser or fast battleship detail up sheet from Tom's modelworks? The little sheet that comes with the samek Guam is not detailed at all.

[Gabor]

As far as I know there is no PE set for this kit, so I would use a fast battleship set if I were you. Because it contains more radars and directors than the cruiser set. I'm planning to use the Gold Medal set when I build my Guam.

[Betelguese90]

As far as I know there is no PE set for this kit, so I would use a fast battleship set if I were you. Because it contains more radars and directors than the cruiser set. I'm planning to use the Gold Medal set when I build my Guam.

That is the one I am probably going to settle on. Seems to be the best bang for your buck.

[prowler0000]

Anybody know how different the 1/350 Guam kit is from the Alaska? Is it just the paintjob? or are there more fundamental differences?

I ask as i already have Alaska, & don't really wanna 'double up'.

[Jasonmusashi]

You can buy a 1/72 scale hull and then scratch build the ship you want.

[pequa1]

just ordered the Hobby Boss 1/350 USS Alaska from sunlightmodelstore.com. Britmodeller and Modelshipwrights posted good reviews of the kit. (4 sheets of P/E, even an anchor chain incl.) Anyone have any experience ordering from sunlight in China ? No real rush to get it as I do most modelling in winter months, but price was best I found and just hoping it comes through unscathed in light of the tariff issues.

[Fliger747]

I haven't ordered any Ship model items directly from China, but have ordered and received small photo accessories from China found on E-bay etc with decent results. In Shanghai and Hong Kong there were a number roof well stocked Hobby shops that I would visit on occasion.

Good Luck!

[pequa1]

Update: Sunlightmodelstore.com shipped the USS Alaska almost immediately and I received it, well packaged and intact, in well under four weeks. (I think they are located in Hong Kong.)
Haven't started it as modelling for me is really confined to the winter months here, December through March, with time out for some hunting. I did inventory the parts, all good.

[Fliger747]

A beautiful ship, like the F8F Bearcat, too late to really fulfill it's purpose. Before and early in the War the Japanese Kongo's presented some thorny potential tactical issues for the US carrier forces, escorted by cruisers. The Alaska's fit much into the same mold as the Kongo's, similar tonnage, somewhat similar armor and the Alaska's twelves were at least as good as the Japanese fourteens. As useful in the carrier escort role in many ways as an Iowa. They were occasionally badmouthed for a poor turning radius but in fact had an almost identical tactical radius as compared to the Iowa's and the Fletcher's. Discussion was made about deleting the float plane hangars and installing two more twin 5"38 mounts, but as with many things not carried out due to the delay that would ensue.

As a practical manner, an Alaska could do just about anything an Iowa could do as the Pacific war unfolded. Would six Alaska's have been as useful as the four Iowa's? Yes the Iowa's were a super ships, maybe the best Battleships ever constructed, but their talents were largely wasted as overkill...

[Fliger747]

I hadn't realized why the Montana's and the last three of the six Alaska's were canceled. Steel shortage! The more prosaic landing craft, escorts and merchant hulls were pressing needs, especially in a two ocean war with amphibious needs. Of all those ships, only Hawaii was continued and Kentucky and Illinois partially constructed. Attrition of landing craft during an operation and restoration afterwards were important considerations. Most of the larger amphibious operations later in the war had ARL's accompanying the invasion armada.

Beautiful ships indeed!

[pequa1]

dry fit, dry fit and dry fit again !

[alexkon3]

Hello folks!

I always really liked the Alaska class, but I have a bit of a dislike for open Bridges. I just don't really like them aesthetically. What really remedied them for me is, after I read more into US cruisers, when I found out that most US Cruisers had plexiglass windscreens installed on them which, in my honest opinion, makes them look a bit like racing boats... and thus look pretty awesome
Now, back to Alaska. I first noticed a similar installation of windscreens on her because she's an upcomming ship in World of Warships and the screenshots clearly show those screens. I looked all over the Internet to find any source and picture for those windscreens, but most pictures are a very low resolution or bad quality. I have looked at countless line drawings and shipplans and none ever include those windscreens.
Now, my question would be: Has anyone any more infromation on those windscreens? When did the Alaska class get them installed (Did Guam get them?) or any more pictures or plans concerning this? I know its a very specific and obscure thing but this is giving me no rest, I need to know more about Alaskas Windscreens. xD

[Fliger747]

Remember the bridge was on I believe the 08 level of the fire control tower. Yes there were windscreens installed here, somewhere there is a photo of the Captain on the bridge and you can see the windows maybe 2-2.5' above the bulwark, attached to verticals maybe 4' apart? I presume these were either retractable or removable for battle.

[alexkon3]

Remember the bridge was on I believe the 08 level of the fire control tower. Yes there were windscreens installed here, somewhere there is a photo of the Captain on the bridge and you can see the windows maybe 2-2.5' above the bulwark, attached to verticals maybe 4' apart? I presume these were either retractable or removable for battle.

Thank you. Yes thats the one picture of captain noble I've seen where he's on the bridge. Why would you remove them for battle? Wouldn't it be better to keep those screens because of splinters and weather?

[Ian Roberts]

Ha, I answered this exact same question (a literal cut and paste) over on the Shipbucket forum and even told the guy to come ask here if what I had provided wasn't useful enough. Here's the post: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 01#p186601

I bet Rick Davis might know the exact date the windshields became widespread!