Calling all "Big 5" Tennessee-class & Colorado-class fans

[Steve]

Announced on Hobby Search for November.

[Steve]

Announced on Hobby Search for November.

The 1941 USS California (1/700 Trumpeter) has "resurfaced" with artwork on their site. There is a photo of the Tennessee model on Hobby Search but no kit contents details yet.

[MartinJQuinn]

Color footage of California backing out of dry-dock after repairs at Pearl Harbor, 1942

[Timmy C]

Nice! Is that 5-S or 5-N?

[Guest]

http://www.lesliejonesphotography.com/c ... 0806006153
there are plenty more photos of various ships, e.g. CV Lexington in Boston drydock, from the 1920s and 30s.
Ship related photos from page 80, roughly.
Cheers, Richard

[Steve]

Kit contents photos are posted on Trumpeter's site. Indications are bridge structure is different and boat deck has different splinter shield configuration compared to Tennessee model photos posted on Hobby Search. A better comparison can be made once this kit is available.

[Brian K.]

I was just looking at the photo's at Hobby Search posted of the built up Pit Road/ Trumpeter 1941 Tennessee kit and it looks like they missed the 3 inch AA platforms on the bridge structure and the one's by the aft mainmast. They do have the 5 inch AA splinter shields without the reinforcement ribs like in PH photo's.

[Guest]

I have a question regarding one of the pics @ LIFE. This one in particular:

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/ac ... f3873.html.

What are the sailors doing in the foreground? Are they painting the deck? (Doing a terrible job it seems.) Or are they spreading a cleaner around prior to holystoning?

There are a couple more like this showing them working their way aft along the turrets. (Great shot of the Maryland, notice no MG on the boat crane kingpost.)

Any thoughts?

[Timmy C]

Looks like sudsy water to me.

[Steve]

Trumpeter advert has Tennessee listed for April release.

[MatthewB]

Color footage of California backing out of dry-dock after repairs at Pearl Harbor, 1942

I am betting that is 5-N, as 5-S would have been greyer in tone than was 5-N.

Plus, look at the upper structures.

I have read that they tended to paint the ships from the top-down, so that the stacks would have been weathering longer than the splinter-shielding on the lower decks, and on the hull. If you look at the upper structures of the ship, you can see the paint has dulled a bit.

Looking at this, this is probably the best preserved (and or corrected) depiction of 5-N that I have seen, as it shows it being darker than most modelers depict it (often over-exaggerating the "scale effects" that lighten it - scale effects call for the exaggeration of shadows, as well as highlights). The brighter coloration of the parts around the sailors on deck looks to be due to the paint being very new in this region. Paints of that era also had a tendency to darken as they aged/cured. And it could take several weeks to get a full cure on a paint-job.

I am making a note of this video to make certain to get all of my Ms. 21 ships paint toned correctly (from the look of my USS San Francisco, I am doing a pretty good job of it already).

I can hardly wait to get the South Dakota finished in Ms. 21.

MB

[Steve]

I was just looking at the photo's at Hobby Search posted of the built up Pit Road/ Trumpeter 1941 Tennessee kit and it looks like they missed the 3 inch AA platforms on the bridge structure and the one's by the aft mainmast. They do have the 5 inch AA splinter shields without the reinforcement ribs like in PH photo's.

The instructions have a supplement that adds the 3" by the mainmast on the aft deck. No indication of any on the bridge structure.

[ArizonaBB39]

I have't re-read through the whole thread, but I had a quick question. I'd like to build a 1/700 1941 USS Colorado, in my research it looks like the Trumpeter USS West Virginia kit would be the best match, is that correct? Pictures of Colorado during this time period are few and far in between, so its hard to tell if the superstructure more resembled West Virginia or Maryland.

[SeanF]

I have't re-read through the whole thread, but I had a quick question. I'd like to build a 1/700 1941 USS Colorado, in my research it looks like the Trumpeter USS West Virginia kit would be the best match, is that correct? Pictures of Colorado during this time period are few and far in between, so its hard to tell if the superstructure more resembled West Virginia or Maryland.

I don't have a direct answer to the superstructure question at the moment, but here are a few other thoughts on this conversion:
Colorado was in for refit at the end of the year, intended to get much the same package of upgrades that Maryland already received. So if you want to depict her prior to the refit, I'd advise starting with the WV kit if you need to start it right now, as you won't have to deal with converting to an unbulged hull. If you can wait a little longer, the 1941 Tennessee and California will soon be available, both with unbulged hulls and with additional choices in superstructure to compare against (and still containing a full set of 16" turrets for easy class-switching).
One item you'll have to add in any case are the seaplane handling rails that are unique to Colorado and which she had for a considerable time before Pearl, and as far as I know, kept till her scrapping. They're molded on to the 1944 Colorado kit's deck, but are correctly absent from kits for other members of the class. (A few segments of stretched sprue or fine brass rod, glued down on top of the deck. No big deal.)
Oh, and another thing to consider adding: The ships still carried their range clocks at least until late August. I don't recall off the top of my head when CO went in for refit, but it may well be that she still had hers until she left for the yard.

- Sean F.

[ArizonaBB39]

Thanks for the info Sean. I won't be doing this for a little while yet, but I like to start collecting information long before I start a project.

[Brian K.]

Great minds think alike, I bought the Loose Cannon 1942 Colorado kit just to see what the superstructure looks like. The Loose Cannon Colorado in 1942 fit looks like Maryland (bulged hull) with the exception of a bridge extension and the aircraft handling rails Sean has already mentioned, also it has some extra AA mounts. So I have already purchase a Trumpeter Maryland kit and West Virginia kit to make my Colorado, my plan is to use the WV hull with the Maryland superstructure, cutting pieces H2 H3 and H5 so there is no connection between the armored conning tower and the bridge structure behind the tower. Then just build the rest as Maryland and add the aircraft handling rails and range clocks, I believe this is how a 1941 Colorado looked but I can't find any photo evidence to prove me right. If your going to do another Maryland like you say in your WEE VEE build post, use your old Maryland for the bridge parts and just by another West Virginia. You might have to paint a 1941 Colorado in pre-war standard gray and standard deck gray since I don't know if she ever appeared in this form painted in MS-1.

[SeanF]

Abram -

My '41 Tennessee (Pit Road labeling) just arrived from HobbyLink Japan. I'm pretty impressed - there's a lot of differences in the midship deck areas and superstructure from the MD and WV kits. I'm really hoping they do likewise for the CA release! Anyway, I don't have any plans I'd consider authoritative on me at the moment, but I'll deduce what I can from the photos. I checked all three kits against photos of Colorado... what few I've been able to find. NavSource has distant photos of her at the dock in Bremerton, dated July 25, 1941.
In this one:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014545.jpg
The white top of turret 4 is quite visible... and maybe a white top on turret 3 as well? (We don't see the entire shape of the turret top due to the presence and shadow of the catapult... we know that Maryland had both turret 3 and 4 painted blue, so I guess it's possible... If anyone else has something to add on this, we might be onto something interesting about BatDiv 4!)
Then there's this one, from the side:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014547.jpg

They are distant, but so far the best I've seen for 1941 itself.
Considering the general trends of refits at this time, it's usually adding or moving some platforms, adding the bigger gun directors, and revising open railings to splinter shields as compared to the late 1930s fits, so we can glean at least some ideas from this shot:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014561.jpg
(Note the black top of turret 2 and white top of turret 4, as well as the seaplane trolley rails. Also of note: the individual machine gun tubs fore and aft of the foretop, like those that TN and CA had during the Pearl Harbor attack, but comparing against the '41 side view at Bremerton it would appear they were removed at some point - sisters MD and WV both had them up into the late '30s, but lost them sometime prior to the Pearl Harbor attack - so CO may have lost them prior to that July 25 photo, or they may have been removed at that time. Seeing how there is little happening to her in that Bremerton photo, I'd guess she'd already lost them, probably when getting splinter shields around the midship AA battery like all the other BBs did around late '40/early '41.)
So, from this late '30s shot, imagine adding some shields around the rangefinder & gun director deck and around the 5"/25s, and it looks to me like the '41 MD kit might be the best place to start for superstructure, followed by the '41 WV, which has an extra circular tub (small, like an AA director) right in front of the armored con and has a different shape and size of bridge wings; but when you factor in the bulged vs. unbulged hulls, I would personally lean toward the WV kit, requiring a bit more in the way of superstructure mods but none of the messy hull work.

I don't see any Colorado '40 or '41 plans available on Floating Drydock or Maryland Silver... but I'm sure they must exist somewhere; the yards wouldn't do the work without them (not that the finished job will necessarily match the drawings, of course). And this is another of those things where you just know there must be some pictures out there somewhere... maybe in the background of an SB2U formation flyby or something.

- Sean F.

[ArizonaBB39]

Thanks for the info guys. Sean, do you have a link for the Tennessee you just got? I've found eBay auctions for the California on the European eBay sites. Why is it we (North America) get the kits last? (I can't even find it for pre-order anywhere, but haven't really looked yet). I think I'll go the route Brian suggested and after I buy a new Maryland taking my current one apart and using it, along with a new West Virginia kit, and making Colorado. She'd add some diversity in her pre-war colors next to the other Pacific fleet battleships. Although, in the July 1941 pictures it looks like she is being re-painted, as she looks darker than the other ships. I'm curious why the aft deck is lighter than the fore deck, were they experimenting with deck camouflage? Or just a fact of the lighting? It looks like that from each angle. Nothing is easy about ship colors around the Pearl Harbor attack time frame, is it? Haha. One thing we know for certain is the turret top colors at least.

[SeanF]

Abram -

Sure, this is where I got it:
http://www.hlj.com/product/pitw-180


My best guess about the deck is that the aft deck was recently holystoned, but the yard workers may be active at the front end of the ship so holystoning would wait until they're done. I doubt they'd paint the fore deck right near the beginning of her yard period, but this is just speculation. As for the hull, her coat of 5D may just be fresher than surrounding ships. I don't know much about her specific movements and maintenance periods.

- Sean F.

[ArizonaBB39]

Sean, thanks. I took the four photos of Puget Sound and enlarged the part with Colorado in it. She definitely looks to be in 5D compared to the other ships around her that are much lighter. A thing that I notice that is interesting to me is that her fighting tops don't appear to be a lighter color. It looks to me like the ship is all one solid color. I would think 5L would stick out pretty easily against the 5D and water. This is especially apparent in this photo:



The ship looks to be all one, solid, dark color. The ship docked just below her looks to be in Ms-1. It is dark and it looks like the pole masts are 5L. All of the surrounding ships look to be in a much lighter grey. So I'm curious, would they have painted her overall 5D? Was this a test of a color resembling 5N? It looks too dark to be 5S. OR am I just reading too much into this? (most likely answer? )

Here are the rest of the yard photos with the enlarged portion inset:







Links to originals:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014544.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014545.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014546.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014547.jpg