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

[Steve]

Tracy- I can send you a copy of the USNI article by McCandless published in the Proceedings in 1958 if you are interested.

[Tracy White]

Thanks, it's OK, I can get it from my local library too if I need it. It's nothing I can post though so there really isn't any need for you to spend the time though.

[Capt652]

Hey Tracy,

Thanks for posting that link for CA-38. Reading the text describing the damage is one thing, but seeing the pictures of shell penetration through various steel structures is quite sobering. I can't imagine living through that.

And having clear, focused pictures is invaluable to us trying to recreate the look of how ships are/were built.

Timm

[Downunder]

I am building the 1/700 USS New Orleans and I was wondering if it would be possible to accurately portray the ship in prewar colours - i.e. teak decks, light gray etc. while also having the 5in shields, 1.1in and 20mm mounts fitted. I have searched all the online photos of the seven ships in that time period, but have come up empty.

[Dick J]

A number of the class, including the San Francisco, received the splinter shields and the 1.1 tubs (with 3" guns while waiting for the 1.1's to become available) while still in the pre-war light gray scheme. Most, if not all, repainted into the camo in the latter half of '41. The 20MM were mostly installed in the first half of '42, and the 1.1's substituted for the 3" at the same time. New Orleans was in Mare Island NY in Feb of '42.

[Tracy White]

Stumbled upon this today on the Navy Historical Center & Heritage Command site:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h83577.jpg

Cruiser Division Seven's South American Cruise, 1939

A local military official tours USS San Francisco (CA-38), as the cruiser visits a South American port. Commander Cruiser Division 7, Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, USN, is at right, behind the Chief Petty Officer who has his back to the camera.
Two Curtiss SOC floatplanes are inside the hangar. The more distant plane, with tail visible, is Bureau # 9957, a SOC-1.

As you can see, the hangar deck was metal, not planked, so those who are opening the hangar on their Trumpeter models should take note.

[Guest]

My Classic Warships New Orleans needs her waterline armor belts rebuilt . I'm planning on doing this using strip styrene. Would it look proper to simply measure, cut, and atach the appropriately sized plastic strips to the side of the model? I ask, because the Classic Warships Minneapolis book seems to show the lower surface of the armor belt faired into the hull, without the step that most external armor belts have. Would the plaijn strip be appropriate, or should I attempt to fair the lower surfaces into the hull?

Thanks,
Robert

[Sleepwalker]

Does anyone have good hull sections/hull lines plans showing knuckle below armor belt?

[LTC J. W. F.]

I just received the last two 1/700 scale New Orleans class cruisers by Trumpeter for Father's Day. They are the Tuscaloosa and Vincennes. I have the other five in various stages of completion. It was obvious when I opened the Tuscaloosa that the arrangement for the second 8" turret is like Quincy and Vincennes rather than the earlier four ships and that the entire conning tower structure needs corrections. From what I have just read of all your previous comments, that will help me figure out how to make it more accurate. Oh, it would be so nice if there was some way to have actual 1/700 scale drawings of the changes necessary for these ships. So much for wishful thinking. From the few Tuscaloosa photos I can find (I have the books that are referenced in here), it looks like the structure just aft of the second funnel and partially inside the well deck is different than another of the other six cruisers. Almost a combination of the first four and last two. As I do not have any clear photos that show that area of the Tuscaloosa, I cannot be sure. The kit, of course, has what goes on the Quincy and Vincennes. Can anybody comment on whether that structure on the Tuscaloosa should resemble the first four ships or the last two or something different from any of the cruisers?

[Quincy]

Later this year there is a Shipcraft book on the New Orleans class cruisers that is to be released. Hopefully everything will be included in it to help us out building the Trumpeter kits.




Bob Pink.

[Steve]

A "Tuscaloosa" search on this board will turn up very informative discussions on both the disappointingTrumpeter kit and the ship herself. Can anyone confirm a publication date for the Shipcraft book?

[Sleepwalker]

Depending on the website dates are from 12 Aug till 20 Aug 2009. I'm waiting for it too.

[GaryJ in NC]

One of my frustrations is the lack of clear, close-up photos of TUSCALOOSA in the spring and summer of 1942, which is the period in which I want to depict her. I have a Trumpeter TUSACALOOSA kit which is largely relegated to being spare parts. I will use a 1942 Trumpeter SAN FRANCISCO kit as the starting point.

As has been noted previously in this Forum, TUSCALOOSA is closest to SAN FRANCISCO in appearance, but there are several differences in the bridge levels, the 5" mount splinter shielding, the AA arrangement, the searchlight tower, and other places. One question that I still have is: When did TUSCALOOSA replace the birdbath platform atop the bridge structure? The 1942 photos are not very clear, but she looks more like SAN FRANCSICO there. Can anyone confirm this? I realize that the west coast and east coast Navy Yards didn't make the same changes at the same times, which really makes these ships unique.

If the birdbath is gone, then only QUINCY still had that platform by the summer of '42. If not, then it is back to the workbench....

Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

In the book US Warships of WW2 by Silverstone, on pg 75 there is a photo of Tuscaloosa with the birdbath director tup from 1943. The angle is bad for this, but it appears it has two levels of 20mm guns above #3 turret. I am only speculating that the lower level has 20 mm as it is not a very clear photo. The best photo I have seen of Tuscaloosa is in Squadron Signal book US Heavy Cruisers in action Part 1 on pg 42. It shows clearly shows Tuscaloosa with the birdbath and is dated Nov 42. Unfortunately, I have seen photos of cruisers in different books that say it is a certain ship at a certain date when it is not that ship and in many cases, the date is wrong for what the ship looks like.

[GaryJ in NC]

Thank you. I don't have the Silverstone book, but did check the Squadron picture and the birdbath platform is clearly in the picture. While Squadron publications has been known to contain significant errors, this does, indeed, appear to be TUSCALOOSA after her fall 1942 refit and repainting into MS 22. I found another photo of TUSCALOOSA, dated October 1942 (NH 97938), and it shows the birdbath platform as well. I think this settles the question for me regarding TUSCALOOSA.

Now, regarding my earlier point about errors, if you will look on page 43 of the Squadron publication, the photograph purported to be SAN FRANCSICO in August 1942 is a pre-war shot of either QUINCY or VINCENNES. Please note the exposed barbette on turret #2 and the searchlight structure resting on top of the vent (instead of overlapping the vent) which clearly marks the ship as either QUINCY or VINCENNES. There is no funnel cap on the forward stack, no splinter shields for the 5"/25 mounts, and the foremast is at the pre-war height. So, be careful with Squadron publications.

[Dick J]

Now, regarding my earlier point about errors, if you will look on page 43 of the Squadron publication, the photograph purported to be SAN FRANCSICO in August 1942 is a pre-war shot of either QUINCY or VINCENNES. Please note the exposed barbette on turret #2 and the searchlight structure resting on top of the vent (instead of overlapping the vent) which clearly marks the ship as either QUINCY or VINCENNES. There is no funnel cap on the forward stack, no splinter shields for the 5"/25 mounts, and the foremast is at the pre-war height. So, be careful with Squadron publications.

If you are talking about the photo on the bottom of page 43, it really IS the San Fran. (But you are correct about it being a pre-war photo.) The angle of the shot and the darkness of the print have created a couple of optical illusions. The angle has fore-shortened the appearance of the sides of the searchlight tower and the darkness prevents you from seeing that the forward corners actually extend to the forward edge of the intake vent and then to the deck. The barbette for turret II is surrounded by the O1 level, but again, the darkness of the print distorts the image to the point that the illusion is possible. The forward extension of the O1 projects behind turret I. Two other features confirm the ID. The style of glassed in communications deck on the bridge block was limited to three members of the class - Astoria, Minneapolis, and San Francisco. Of these, only San Fran had the flat-faced turrets visible in this shot.

Like you, I have recognized that too many of the Squadron publications don't accurately identify the rare shots that they have. I still buy them for the pictures, but I try to confirm the captions before I accept their claims. As for the text - (I leave this one to your imagination). Too bad for Garth that I am not into the PT's in the same way that I am into the larger ships. His books might give me a reason to re-evaluate my opinion of the series.

[LTC J. W. F.]

Can anybody discuss the structure aft of #2 funnel on Tuscaloosa? I don't know what it is called, but it is just aft of the #2 funnel on the center line and is partially into the well deck (hanger deck). In the photos I have of Tuscaloosa, regardless of time period, it appears to be different from any of the other New Orleans cruisers. It appears to be similar to that of the Quincy and Vincennes, but has some sort of enlarged top that is wider and more rounder (almost like a quensut hut perpendicular to the center line) than what is on New Orleans, Astoria, Minneapolis and San Francisco. The photos I have do not show the entire structure and I do not have a line drawing of the Tuscaloosa.

[GaryJ in NC]

Now, regarding my earlier point about errors, if you will look on page 43 of the Squadron publication, the photograph purported to be SAN FRANCSICO in August 1942 is a pre-war shot of either QUINCY or VINCENNES. Please note the exposed barbette on turret #2 and the searchlight structure resting on top of the vent (instead of overlapping the vent) which clearly marks the ship as either QUINCY or VINCENNES. There is no funnel cap on the forward stack, no splinter shields for the 5"/25 mounts, and the foremast is at the pre-war height. So, be careful with Squadron publications.

If you are talking about the photo on the bottom of page 43, it really IS the San Fran. (But you are correct about it being a pre-war photo.) The angle of the shot and the darkness of the print have created a couple of optical illusions. The angle has fore-shortened the appearance of the sides of the searchlight tower and the darkness prevents you from seeing that the forward corners actually extend to the forward edge of the intake vent and then to the deck. The barbette for turret II is surrounded by the O1 level, but again, the darkness of the print distorts the image to the point that the illusion is possible. The forward extension of the O1 projects behind turret I. Two other features confirm the ID. The style of glassed in communications deck on the bridge block was limited to three members of the class - Astoria, Minneapolis, and San Francisco. Of these, only San Fran had the flat-faced turrets visible in this shot.

Like you, I have recognized that too many of the Squadron publications don't accurately identify the rare shots that they have. I still buy them for the pictures, but I try to confirm the captions before I accept their claims. As for the text - (I leave this one to your imagination). Too bad for Garth that I am not into the PT's in the same way that I am into the larger ships. His books might give me a reason to re-evaluate my opinion of the series.

Thanks, Dick. It wasn't a great photograph, but I should have picked up on the window arrangement on the comunications level as you noted. Given how much modelers rely on inexpensive publications as aids, I really wish that the publishers would do a better job of researching their photographs. However, I am confident that Garth has been meticulous in his research on the PT boats and I will probably order a copy of that booklet.

[snipechief]

Can anybody discuss the structure aft of #2 funnel on Tuscaloosa? I don't know what it is called, but it is just aft of the #2 funnel on the center line and is partially into the well deck (hanger deck). In the photos I have of Tuscaloosa, regardless of time period, it appears to be different from any of the other New Orleans cruisers. It appears to be similar to that of the Quincy and Vincennes, but has some sort of enlarged top that is wider and more rounder (almost like a quensut hut perpendicular to the center line) than what is on New Orleans, Astoria, Minneapolis and San Francisco. The photos I have do not show the entire structure and I do not have a line drawing of the Tuscaloosa.

A plan view of the upper deck of Tuscaloosa shows the structure aft of the no. 2 stack is fireroom vents and "movie projector room" and a storage room. The URL for the plan is:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~keylimep ... prints.htm


Jim

[LTC J. W. F.]

I have a number of questions I hope you all can help me with anwers.

What is the specific name of the new Shipcraft book that is coming out? What is the specific release date?

A couple of you mentioned a site for "calling all ship fans". Does anybody know the specific web site? I tried a google scearch, but could not find it.

Does anybody know of a site with Ballards photos of ships in Iron Bottom Sound?

Because the searchlight towers on the Trumpeter kits are all basically the same, does anybody have any suggestions as to how to make them more accurate for the first 4 ships verses the last 3?