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

[Randy Stone]

...sure thought I sent it but obviously it didn't make it. Since I didn't put it on Word I'll have to reconstruct it, which shouldn't be too difficult. It involved the forward main battery fouling of Quincy and the command problems at First Savo.

I did pick up the Yamato and New Orleans books and have them right here; I'm going through them now.

Randy

[Randy Stone]

...to write included passing comment to the effect that I believe Quincy suffered the loss of her forward main battery director at First Savo when gunfire parted her stay between the foremast and the jackstaff, the stay then wrapping itself around the director thus disabling it. Further, if I recall correctly, Vincennes lost internal and external communications within two minutes of first being hit by the Japanese. Obviously, being disabled so quickly would impact her effectiveness rather drastically.

Regarding the two Shipcraft volumes of Yamato and the New Orleans class authored by Steve Wiper and Lester Abbey, respectively, I have managed to add two more reasonable volumes to a complete collection (other than the Specials) of this series. First, the Yamato volume presents a large number of rather familiar photographs which is no dig at all; instead, it exposes a larger, English-speaking audience to what I consider the most beautiful battleships ever built. The kits considered and photographed are the cream of the crop and most recent of releases. Design, building and operational histories of the battleships are included and I saw only the most minor of errors. Shinano is not considered.

Turning to the New Orleans volume, it is difficult to think of a finer topic for this series (other than the Northamptons !). The photographs and drawings are sound and the coverage rather complete considering the confines of the format. A very nice addition is the attention paid to the various individual characteristics of each vessel in the class; given the number built (7) and their extensive careers it is asking too much to expect a comprehensive cataloging of the differences but this volume does a fine job regardless. For once, the signature differences of Quincy and Vincennes are effectively highlighted, no Squadron/Signal rigamarole here. Needless to say, attention is devoted to kits of the most recent vintage--it's hard to believe it took so long for kits of this class to arrive. Design, building and, understandably, very brief operational histories are presented. However, there are some very irritating--and elementary--errors in the text which were quite needless and should be totally disregarded; this is a modeling book. Leave the history for more sound texts, many of which are readily available.

I picked up both volumes for $20.00 each--probably a bit high--and although I usually grab books of one sort or another anyway I would recommend both although I have much of the material both present. If you are willing to part with the money I would suggest doing so; the pictures, the text and the kit ideas are very, very nice.

Randy Stone

[djandj]

Just a great pic site I ran across while researching my SF built. Unfortunately it's the Asty, but they were of the same class, and the color pic was great for getting the blue right.
hope this helps.

http://www.ussastoria.org/USS_ASTORIA_CA-34.html

David

[Steve]

An excellent publication with almost 30 pages covering the kits plus 8 pages of outline/plan drawings including the three lost at Savo in their '42 rig. A welcome addition to my library and recommended to anyone with an interest in the class.

[LTC J.W.F.]

Hey guys, I talked to my local hobby shop. They are saying that the Shipcraft book on New Orleans class cruisers is a reprint of the Classic Warship book on New Orleans class cruisers. Can any of you verify that it is or is not a reprint? Thanks!!!!

[Dick J]

Hey guys, I talked to my local hobby shop. They are saying that the Shipcraft book on New Orleans class cruisers is a reprint of the Classic Warship book on New Orleans class cruisers. Can any of you verify that it is or is not a reprint? Thanks!!!!

The Shipcraft series is published by Classic Warships, as was the Pictorial. Same publisher, different books. The Pictorial covered the ships, period. The Shipcraft series also delves into the available kits, needed corrections, and some of the nicer builds from them.

[taskforce48]

Hey everyone,

A couple of weeks ago I ventured up to Astoria, the Columbia Maritime Museum is an awesome place with some very interesting historical artifacts. They even have the bridge of the Fletcher class, USS Knapp there on display that you can walk around on. They have a section devoted to the USS Astoria with some very interesting items and displays, one of which was some photos from a sailors photo album. One of the more interesting photos was this one,

I was kicking around the idea of displaying my 1/350 USS San Francisco with an open hangar but could not find any good shots, well here one be! If anyone is interested, I have a higher resolution copy available, I just had to size it down for this post. I just wonder what is the stack of round things that sorta look like shells are in the back? I don't know if this has been posted before, but I have never seen it.

Matt

[Bondoman]

Here comes the USS San Francisco, CA38 New Orleans class heavy cruiser as she appeared in November 1942 at Guadalcanal.

The Trumpeter 1/350 kit;






Here are the details I thought would improve the model.

On the hull I shaved off the prop guards and the hawse hole collars. Replaced the collars with a dollop of white glue. Did not replace the guards, maybe one day. Filled all the portholes from the base of #1 forward- wartime shots show them closed and it looks nice.
On the main deck I carved off the chains- maybe not worth the trouble as their replacements are just mediocre. Replaced the 1.1 guns at the stern with L�arsenal resin bits. The lifelines are one of my favorite parts of the model. A careful look at photos shows that, like most warship main decks, they are a system of folding stanchions that get rigged with line when set up. So I took TMW (Tom�s Modelworks) PE pipe rails and painted them Gull Gray, then painted the bottom bar hull blue to replicate the flange along the edge of the deck. Then, I took a # 11 and using it like a fountain pen, lined the verticals blue as well.
Main battery was left as is, except that the seals around the 8� barrels were a mess. A combination of sink marks on the sides and sprue attachment points in lousy locations. After scraping them a little, I built up three or four layers of white glue, in a folded kind of look. I popped the turrets on with white glue, as I may replace the barrels one day with turned brass.
I added PE ladders to the right side of each turret.
The 5�guns are also L�arsenal resin, and I like them very much, a real improvement over the kit ones. All the little PE seats, parts and pieces were somewhat beyond my abilities, but they build up well.
The aircraft crane booms, catapults, ladders Mk. gun director and SC radar arrays are all TMW PE.
I used the kit 20mm�s but they could be improved or replaced.
The searchlight tower was scratchbuilt. I used the platform but cut off the solid rails that are meant to replicate canvas dodgers, and replaced with open rail. The kit tower is really poorly looking, as are the catapults.
On the catapult towers, I used a saw to open the panoramic operators view window and framed it with scrap PE. This really improved the look.
I added ladders to the front of the stacks and scratched up a little platform for the siren and whistle at the forward stack.
The whip antennas are paintbrush bristles that have a nice taper on the ends. I rigged the stack guys with 270 denier mono, which looks so-so. Then I rigged the masts with 20 denier mono that is much better looking. Did insulators with CA mixed with black paint.
I replaced all of the struts on the Seagulls with PE or just bits of wire. Built up little gearbox covers with sanded sprue and replaced the props with PE.
The whole was painted, mostly before assembly, in Measure 21. I used WEM (White Ensign Models) paints for Navy Blue and Deck Blue, which are almost the same color. The lower hull is Tamiya Hull red. I cannot successfully airbrush Tamiya acrylics, so I brushpainted the color. The props are Testors �Brass. �
No weathering except that the decks were washed with superdiluted black enamel in thinner.
Future for the decals, followed by a good coat of Dulcote. Then I filled all the bridge glass with Krystal Klear.
A piece of oak from the scrap bin at the lumberyard, with a routered detail around the top, clear acrylic coat, some brass standards and we are set to sail for Guadalcanal.
I hope you like her. It�s by far the best ship model kit I have ever built. The Treaty Cruisers are a beautiful era of design.
Here are my main resources:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... geRpt.html
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=37034&start=135
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/038/04038.htm

[taskforce48]

Looking pretty good!

[ArizonaBB39]

I couldn't find the answer to this as I skimmed the thread. I'm waiting on the Trumpeter 1/350 1944 San Francisco kit and was wondering what the ship's full armament was at this time so I can look into getting aftermarket replacements, as Ive heard the guns in the kit aren't satisfactory. Also if anyone could point me to any good online references for the ship in this time period I would appreciate it. The pictures on navsource are good, but there aren't enough! Thanks in advance.

[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.

Has anyone found a source here in NA yet?

[taskforce48]

I couldn't find the answer to this as I skimmed the thread. I'm waiting on the Trumpeter 1/350 1944 San Francisco kit and was wondering what the ship's full armament was at this time so I can look into getting aftermarket replacements, as Ive heard the guns in the kit aren't satisfactory. Also if anyone could point me to any good online references for the ship in this time period I would appreciate it. The pictures on navsource are good, but there aren't enough! Thanks in advance.

The San Francisco carried if memory serves correctly( I still haven't unpacked all of my books) 26-20mm and 6 quad 40mm's in 1944. I did do a review of this kit for this site so you can kinda get an idea and feel for what you have coming.
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html

HTH

Matt

[mw 1378]

Yep,

I�m currently working on the same project. 26x 20mm Oerlikon ( Master ); 6x 40mm Bofors ( l�rsenal upgraded with Master barrels ) and 8x 5"/25 ( Veteran Models upgraded with Master barrels ).
The only thing not quite correct, the Master Oerlikons have a solid base and I think San Francisco had the 3 leg variant in 1944. But you can try to mix the Master Oerlikons with the 3 leg base included in the WEM PE set.
Another Tip, check the MK 51 directors and the target designators from Paper Lab, they are ways better as these plastic things included in the kit.

Best regards

Marc

[MartinJQuinn]

Anyone know of a good set of plans for the San Francisco, circa 1942? One of the reasons my 1/350 Classic Warships SF never progressed any further is the forward superstructure on the kit is barren compared to the real thing. I was hoping there is a set of plans out there for her...

[bwross11]

Greetings all,

I had the opportunity recently to acquire a Trumpeter 1942 San Francisco 1/350, and since I already have a San Francisco in 1/144 scale I was thinking of converting this kit to the Quincy as she appeared at Guadalcanal. I�ve spent a good deal of time reading through this entire excellent string and ferreting out the difference information. I�ve also ordered a set of plans from Floating Drydock. I�d like to run down a list for your consideration and see if there is anything that I�ve left out or aren�t aware of as I plan for this conversion.

So, starting at the bow and moving aft:
1. The anchor windlass and the associated chain pipes need to be moved forward on the forecastle.
2. Mount 81 has to be moved back a scale 8� (.27� in this scale).
3. The 01 structure around the base of mount 82 needs to be cut back due to mount 81�s move.
4. The forward superstructure:
a. The comm. deck has to be cut way back and lowered to one deck height above 01.
b. 20mm gallery added at the 1-1/2 deck height above 01.
c. New bracing for the Nav Bridge due to comm. deck being cut back.
d. Conning tower removed and replaced with a clipping room
e. Navigation bridge shape changed aft to accommodate the movement of the flag bags up a level.
f. 1.1 tubs on the battle lookout level moved forward and deck plan shape revised.
g. The director sits in a birdbath tub that will need to be created.
h. The structure aft of the director will need to be rebuilt to shape.
i. I believe that the Mk 34 director will need to be revised as well.
j. The 1.1 directors will require a new tub both sides.
5. 5� gun deck � mounts 55 & 56 will need to be moved outboard a bit.
6. The 5� gun shield revised to one long continuous version.
7. The searchlight platform on the force draft blower vent will need to be slimmed up in the fore & aft direction and the upper structure revised.
8. It appears that the movie projector and incinerator enclosures aft of stack #2 will need to be revised as well.
9. 20mms placed fore & aft of crane on the over hanger deck.
10. The secondary comm. Structure and battle look out position will need to be reshaped and the over hangar deck level platform that overhangs mount 83 will need to be removed.
11. The 20mm platform over mount 83 will need to be reshaped.
12. The 1.1 tubs and directors will need to be reshaped.
13. And finally, it appears from the pictures that I�ve reviewed that Quincy did not carry the depth charge racks or smoke generator tanks that the San Francisco did.

So, what have I missed or have incorrectly interrupted? Your thoughts, suggestions, and ideas are gladly accepted.

My thanks and regards,

Bruce

[Dick J]

4. The forward superstructure:
a. The comm. deck has to be cut way back and lowered to one deck height above 01.

I am unsure what you are meaning. The comm level needs to remain 1 1/2 levels in height. However, you are correct in that the actual "walking" deck is 1/2 level lower, since the raised 1/2 level deck was never added. You are also correct in that the deck was only one level above the O1. Be sure not to lower the Nav bridge level with this change.

4. The forward superstructure:
e. Navigation bridge shape changed aft to accommodate the movement of the flag bags up a level.

Not only that, but the bridge windows need to be modified. The San Fran had the three in the middle "panel" and 5 on each side, two close to each other adjacent to the middle panel, a slightly larger space between the first pair and the second (the second pair was spaced closely like the first pair) and then the fifth window is somewhat by itself. On Quincy, the middle panel had the same three windows. (The panel was the same width on both ships - the 1/700 kits incorrectly show a slightly wider middle panel on Quincy.) However, on Quincy, the side panels only had 3 evenly spaced windows.

4. The forward superstructure:
i. I believe that the Mk 34 director will need to be revised as well.

On Quincy, the main battery director was the MK-31, the same as on San Fran. It was the Vincennes that had the larger directors that appear to be the same as the early MK-34's on the Brooklyn's.

5. 5� gun deck � mounts 55 & 56 will need to be moved outboard a bit.

These guns were a bit further outboard on Quincy and Vinnie, but not as far outboard as the other guns on the maindeck. If you chose not to move them, only a few of us "rivet counting nerds" would notice. Your model, your call.

[bwross11]

Thank you Dick for the feedback; this is exactly what I was hoping for.

Bad terminalolgy on my part regarding the comm deck and the walking area; you grasped what I actually meant. Good input on the Nav Bridge windows; that one had escaped me; it is duly noted and added to the change order.

Using the same Mk 31 as the San Francisco will make that part much easier.

And regarding the movement of mounts 55 & 56; I tend toward rivet counter unfortunately so I will be moving them.

thanks again for the feedback.

Bruce

[Dick J]

One more difference to make note of. When the 1.1's were installed, the forward ones on the first 5 ships (including San Fran) were supported by two posts that went all the way down to the O1 level. They tied into the existing bridge wing structure, and so are easy to miss. Quincy and Vinnie didn't have the same bridge wing structures and so had only a single post. As a result, the 1.1 tubs on the bridge were somewhat further forward than on the other five. You will have to move them. (If you hadn't already noticed.)

[bwross11]

I had noticed that the tubs were further forward then the first five as you point out. The issue I've got at this point is I haven't been able to find a picture that is clear enough, or close enough for that matter, to completely make out what the entire support system under the wings looked like. I'm hoping that the plans that are in-route will shed some light on this issue.

Bruce

[bwross11]

Dick,

I got the Floating Drydock plans of the Quincy today, and as I was studying them I noticed that there is a step level on the Navigation Bridge just forward of the searchlights; you know anything about this?

Bruce