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

[MartinJQuinn]

Nice photo from LIFE, circa 1941, of one of the class at sea. Question is, which one?

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l? ... a2cd49ac97

[Dick J]

Nice photo from LIFE, circa 1941, of one of the class at sea. Question is, which one?

Astoria. Features also match Minneapolis, generally, but Astoria was with Portland and Lex when the Dec '41 Life Magazine photos were taken.

[Randy Stone]

...that we are looking at Astoria but Minnie was out there and so was Indianapolis, btw.

I have to look further but I would like to be absolutely sure. And, for the patient, the pictures out of Life are filled with all sorts of goodies.

Randy Stone

[Bondoman]

Remarkable. Just remarkable. There is for instance a photo of a line handling party on the hangar deck, maybe stabilizing the SOC as it comes in on the crane. In the foreground is a trolly for handling the plane around the deck. I've looked long for a photo of that as I have a 1/72 SOC that came with a v-block of plastic to pose it on. Off to the bench!

The other detail that I've been studying the last two days is the guardrail around the main deck. It appears to be a complicated system of folding stanchions with lines that are run through the same when they are upright. Not a pipe rail system with solid bars.

[Dick J]

...that we are looking at Astoria but Minnie was out there and so was Indianapolis, btw.

Randy, a question. Pre-war, Minnie retained what had been the lower bracket for the forward range clock while Astoria did not. That has been the best ID point I have found for determining which is which in pre-war photos. By the time the 20MM were installed, this small projection had been removed. Do you know when it was removed? If it was at the same time that the 20MM were installed, that would be a positive ID point for this photo. If you look closely at the photo, Astoria is post initial King Board upgrades, but pre-20MM fit. There is no lower bracket in the photo. Also, do you have any photos of Minnie just before the 20MM upgrade?

[djandj]

OK Technical question: The SOC seaplanes on SF in 1942 Savo Island. What color(s) were they? Anyone with a bead on this?

Thanks in advance b/c I know someone out there knows,


David

[Cliffy B]

They should still be Blue Gray over Light Gray. Not sure if the National Insignia still has the little red "meatball" in the center of the star or not by then though. Tri-color camo didn't come around until sometime in 1943. I want to say mid year.

Model Master makes both:
Navy Blue Gray FS ? MM 2055
Light Gray FS 36495 MM 1732

The FS numbers are "modern equivalents" but they're listed on the bottles so I included them.

Hope that helps.

[Dick J]

The "meatball" in the US insignia disappeared between the time of the Coral Sea Battle and Midway.

[djandj]

Thanks Cliffy, I'm on it.

David

[Bondoman]

Here comes the Trumpeter 1/350 CA38 USS San Francisco.

I really like this model, although the opportunities to improve it are endless.

So far I've put together the major parts, and have painted Measure 21.

The 5" and 1.1" guns are from L'Arsenal.
...
I've scratchbuilt the searchlight tower, added detail to the stacks.
...
Washed the deck with diluted black paint in alcohol.
...

[Steve]

Can anyone advise of a North American source for the Pitroad PE 189 for this class? It is a nice limited scope PE for OOB builders who would like to replace such items as catapults and cranes but do not want to attempt many of the smaller options found on the extensive frets.

[LTC J.W.F.]

Hey everybody, I have not been on here in about 6 months, but I do remember you guys talking about the new book from Shipcraft. Has anybody seen/gotten it? If so, is it worth getting? After I got the Tuscaloosa, I ended up buying a second San Francisco to make the Tuscaloosa. I have some photos of it, but not enough to get everything accurately. Same for the Vincennes.

[Randy Stone]

Dick:

You're the expert on ships, not me ! What I have been going by is raw instinct and various movement reports. Most of my decklogs and other records lie in the Guadalcanal Campaign although I have begun collecting more and more material for the previous months of '42. Much of the commentary here and at the Steel Nursery centers about questions easily answered where the observer looks at a given ship and readily IDs it by obvious characteristics: for example, the fore funnels on Portland and Northampton, the mainmast CXAM on Chicago and easy calls like that. Once we get into less obvious details, I start looking into specific assignments and known movements. Of course, with the cruisers it's pretty easy since there were so few but it can get tricky, as you well know. Anyway, your detail here about various fittings and such leaves me in the dirt. I'm having a rough enough time deciding when, why and how Vincennes had her forward superstructure modified and how that was (if it was at all) related to future mods performed on the survivors.

LTC:

I'm picking up the new Shipwright's (?) books on the New Orleans and Yamato classes on Monday and can say more later. Sadly, Aurora's Yamato is supposedly not included in the latter--with so many renditions, that's no surprise but since I'm building one right now....

Randy

[Dick J]

Randy,

Thanks for the complement! Vincennes had the rudimentary open bridge and the narrowed bridge windows prior to Midway, which means that those features were done on the east coast. I have a starboard side photo from Jan '42 (courtesy of Sean Hert) that is prior to the install of the 20MM. The bridge windows are as-built and the "birdbath" for the R/F is still in place, so the most likely time for those changes was her last stateside refit, when she got the 20MM. The first photo referenced below shows her just before Midway, and she still has the full bridge wings and lacks the wind baffles on the open bridge.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/044/0404401.jpg

By the time of this second photo, 8 Jul '42 (referenced below), the bridge wings have been cut back and the baffles installed. The only place that this could have been done this quickly was at Pearl. After Midway, there was not really enough time for a stateside run with yard work in the middle. No additional 20MM are in evidence. In fact, I am still having a hard time pinning down the last pair of the original 12. (I guess that 10 is possible, but that would be unusual, since all of her sisters received 12.) The only inference I can draw is that the changes to the bridge were somehow a reaction to Vinnie's experience with Yorktown at Midway. After this photo, she went to Guadalcanal, and only had a short time in combat before she was lost. Perhaps there is some mention of the effectiveness of the changes (for AA actions) in the reports you have? If so, that might have influenced the refit eventually given to the San Fran, but I have no proof of this.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/044/0404402.jpg

[Randy Stone]

...separate sources I have refer to clearing the directors (at least forward) by modification to preclude any fouling of same in the event of damage. In fact, Quincy definitely had her forward director (I believe the main battery director, I'd have to look) fouled in action at First Savo. There was also the weight considerations always present in this particular class; in '41 or '42 was the Navy anticipating the mounting of 40mm low (say, the communications deck) since opening sky arcs wasn't really a factor which concerned the 1.1's ?

By the way, conversing with Norman Friedman about conical barbettes for 39 & 44 (the pics I have of Quincy on the stocks are sufficiently indistinct as to suggest the possibility) he discounts the likelihood for various and sound reasons. I'm convinced that the barbettes were standard wrt the remainder of the class. The changes at Pearl--for that is where they must have been performed--may show up in something which Riefkohl wrote for he would have had a big hand in those alterations. Reifkohl was pretty vocal, as you probably know, and I'll take a look in the Log of the Vincennes, which is a pretty good book, for any clues. It's too bad Riefkohl was tarred by First Savo, he appears to have been a fine officer.

Randy Stone

[djandj]

OK Guys reference question for SF 1942 (Savo battle). Center search light platform. Where are the ladders to get into the searchlight rings up top. None of the models of the gallery show it nor can I find anything but broadside pics of the ship which don't show the ladders. Are they Internal to the scaffolding?

Thanks,

David

[Dick J]

Many separate sources I have refer to clearing the directors (at least forward) by modification to preclude any fouling of same in the event of damage. In fact, Quincy definitely had her forward director (I believe the main battery director, I'd have to look) fouled in action at First Savo.

I am not sure what the source of the fouling would have been. There were no real structures immediately adjacent to the directors, at least, not on the same level. If the mast collapsed and fouled the director, that would be difficult to design around. Likewise, if the MK-28 AA director landed on the MK-31, that would be hard to prevent without a major redesign - which didn't happen on the 4 survivors. Checking Ballard's book, it looks like Quincy's forward main director is missing.

There was also the weight considerations always present in this particular class; in '41 or '42 was the Navy anticipating the mounting of 40mm low (say, the communications deck) since opening sky arcs wasn't really a factor which concerned the 1.1's ?

I am sure that weight was always somewhat of a factor. Quincy and Vincennes had already been redesigned (compared to the rest of the class) to reduce weight to allow an increased AA battery. However, the mods Vinnie received at Pearl would probably be more related to clearing AA arcs for the maindeck 5" guns. The location of the 40MM on the 4 survivors confirms that had they survived, Q & V would have carried theirs on the same level, which would have required further trimming of the bridge wings. (The 40MM location was probably 90% responsible for the slimming of the bridge structures on the 4 survivors.) Swapping enclosed MK-33's for the open-topped MK-28's would definitely add weight high in the ships. As I review this, the open bridge design ultimately adopted for the survivors seems to owe more to the '42 mod done to the Boise, Savannah, and Helena than it does to the Vinnie's alteration. It seems ironic that the Brooklyn variant mod would be extended to the N.O. class at the same time that it was ultimately rejected for the Brooklyn's themselves in favor of something more radical.

The changes at Pearl--for that is where they must have been performed--may show up in something which Riefkohl wrote for he would have had a big hand in those alterations. Reifkohl was pretty vocal, as you probably know, and I'll take a look in the Log of the Vincennes, which is a pretty good book, for any clues. It's too bad Riefkohl was tarred by First Savo, he appears to have been a fine officer.

Unfortunately, when the attack came, Reifkohl failed to issue any orders to the other ships. His failure to increase speed and expedite the turn to port resulted in the IJN ships maintaining their position off the sterns of the Americans, and the shelling down the length of the US ships contributed substantially to their quick disabling and loss. Would another commander have done any better? We will never know for sure. On the other hand, since he had been "burned", would Reifkohl have learned from the mistake and become that much better? Again, we will never know.

[LTC J. W. F.]

Hey Randy, did you get the new book on the New Orleans CA's. If so, is it good?

[Randy Stone]

LTC:

I'm going to pick it up in the next hour or two.

Dick:

I posted a response which hasn't made it to the Board as yet.

Randy Stone

[Timmy C]

Randy, there are no further pending posts. Are you sure it got sent?