Calling all Baltimore-class (CA-68) fans

[ar]

well,the plans were meant to check the fit,and also help with the WEM PE set,since the only book I have is the US Heavy Cruisers part 2. In it,there is a nice side and overhead plan showing a lot more quad bofors than on the Trumpeter kit,so I assume that is the `44 fit?

"Heavy Cruisers Part Two". Good only for use in the toilet.

[GaryJ in NC]

The Trumpeter 1943 BALTIMORE portrays the ship "as commissioned" on April 15, 1943. However, by June she had received additional quad 40mm mounts, including the fantail mount offset to port. She also received some bridge modifications which included a square front bridge top. By the time she deployed in September 1943, BALTIMORE looked more like the 1944 PITTSBURGH kit in the superstructure; therefore, I am using parts from an extra PITTSBURGH in order to represent BALTIMORE as she appeared in September 1943. As can be seen in the Trumpeter 1944 BALTIMORE kit, the July-October 1944 refit made further changes.

I have no idea why Trumpeter made the 1943 kit "as commissioned" instead of "first deployment." She was in that configuration for less than 60 days. The "first deployment" variation is much more interesting from a historical standpoint.

[lisec]

yes,I see that modifications will be necessary...

[Dave Hill]

Hi all!

I'm a 1/350 guy and I love the Baltimore class cruisers!!!...I want to model one but resin seems to be my only option...does anyone have and or built the Yankee Modeworks USS Baltimore kit?...I have searched the MW review archives but it seems this kit was never reviewed...if anyone has this kit could you post your comments or a mini-review?...Thanks!

Dave

[GaryJ in NC]

How accurate is the Trumpeter`s kit of the Baltimore in the `43 fit?
also,does anybody have any plans for that fit?

The short answer is "Partially." The Trumpeter kit represents the BALTIMORE "as commissioned" in April 1943. Within a few weeks during her work-up period, she underwent several changes in armament, including the addition of the 40mm mount on the platform on her stern, and changes to her superstructure. I am at work right now and do not have access to my files, but I will try to post more details later. The bottom line is that BALTIMORE looked considerably different when she deployed in September 1943. You will need some parts from PITTSBURGH or the 1944 BALTIMORE kit to make a 1943 version as deployed.

[Dave Hill]

Hi guys,

Does anyone know of any photos of Baltimore in her 1945 MS-22 camo?...TIA!!!!!!!!!

Dave

[Mike Sills]

Hello all.

I am building BALTIMORE CA-68 as she was configured 11/43. Like GaryJ, I am cross-kitting the 1/700 Trumepter 1943 and 44 versions. I have found reasonably good reference on the bridge and AA revisions from the "as fitted" configuration, but still have some questions. Does anyone have a source for good close-ups of the area around the aft stack? BALTIMORE was unique in not having the "box" structure depicted in both kits, and I am having trouble defining what was actually there. Also, she is listed as having Mk 49 directors as built. I cannot find where these were located, and suspect that they were removed/replaced with the Mk 51 before she deployed. Can anyone confirm?

Thanks!

Mike

[zerstorer]

Hi all, I am doing a scratchbuilt Baltimore and am wondering about something. Both the squadron signal heavy cruiser book and wikipedia list the beam as 70' 10". But Tom Wolkoviaks drawings list it as 69' 8-1/16". Any idea who is correct?

[Russ2146]

Mike try these photos
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-u ... b/ca68.htm

CLASS - BALTIMORE
Displacement 13,600 Tons, Dimensions, 673' 5" (oa) x 70' 10" x 26' 10" (Max)
Armament 9 x 8"/55, 12 x 5"/38AA, 48 x 40mm, 24 x 20mm, 4 Aircraft
Armor, 6" Belt, 8" Turrets, 2 1/2" Deck, 6 1/2" Conning Tower.
Machinery, 120,000 SHP; G. E. Geared Turbines, 4 screws
Speed, 33 Knots, Crew 2000.
Operational and Building Data
Keel Laid on 26 MAY 1941 by Bethlehem Steel Co., Fore River, MA
Launched 28 JUL 1942
Commissioned 15 APR 1943
Decommissioned 8 JUL 1946
Commissioned 28 NOV 1951
Decommissioned 31 MAY 1956
Stricken FEB 1971
Fate Sold for scrap MAY 1972

[Russ2146]

Dave,

Wouldn't be much different from this

[zerstorer]

Thank you, Russ. Another friend also states that Conway's also says 70' 10". My next question is where can I find some good images of Baltimores hanger? I have a pretty decent set of photos for her but not one of the hanger open.

[grim reaper]

I found this pic closest shot i've seen with the hanger open. Chad

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/132/0413225.jpg

[zerstorer]

HA! I have this picture and didn't even remember it until you posted it, Thanks Chad!

[Russ2146]

Dave,
Have you seen this?
http://www.acepilots.com/ships/baltimore.html

[Dave Hill]

Hi guys,

I Googled "USS Baltimore" and one of the images I found was this:

This is clearly a Baltimore class cruiser but is it CA-68?...this image is from the USS Mahan DD-364 website and the photo caption reads: " Passing mail to USS Baltimore CA-68"...Finally I thought I had a photo of her in late war camo...I checked out the website and what's got me confused is that Mahan was lost in a Kamikaze attack Dec.1944...Baltimore still wore MS 32/16D at the end of a refit in Oct. '44...I'm no expert on USN procedures but I'd assume if she was re-painted into MS 22 it whould've been durring the refit not after...so...I'm wondering if this photo is not of CA-68.

Dave

[jud]

Never built the model of the Helena CA 75, but when I was aboard from 60 till decommissioning in 63, she was very prototypical as I recall. Heard that word from a RR modeler. Would like to find a good full hull model about 3 feet long. The 8"55 guns were Mark 15's, was a gunners mate in Turret 2.
jud

[DrPR]

Hi,

I have been working on a CAD model of the Pittsburg hull. In response to the posts about conflicting beam measurements, keep in mind that ALL blueprint measurements (hull line drawings) show "molded" dimensions to the inside of the hull plating. For the correct overall dimensions you must add the plating thickness. Of course, in any scale less than 1:150 this really doesn't matter since the scale plating thickness is more or less the same as a layer of paint. At larger scales plating thickness does matter.

The blueprints show the "molded breadth" (inside the plating) to be 69 feet 8 1/2 inches.

Also, the overall beam includes the armor belt, which was 6 inches on each side. So add 2 x 6" to the molded breadth and you get 70 feet 8 1/2 inches. I don't know what the plating thickness was amidships at the water line (it varied in thickness from the keel to the main deck) but it was probably about 3/4 to 1 inch. Add this to the molded breadth plus armor belt and you get about 70 feet and 10 inches.

At room temperature, of course. The beam would be slightly less in polar waters, and larger at the equator. The thermal coefficient for linear expansion for steel is about 0.000012 inch per inch per degree Celsius. So for a 674' 11" ship like the Pittsburgh the overall length would change about 3 1/2 inches between polar waters and equatorial waters, and the beam would change about 3/8 inch.

In other words, don't sweat the small stuff.

[AndrexP]

In other words, don't sweat the small stuff.

Hmmm.. .good point.

Indeed, even at at 1/96 scale, an difference (error) of 1 foot amounts to about 3mm difference.

In 350 scale, it's about .08mm. You can sand that much off in seconds, or add it with a layer of paint.

Suggestion: Round to the nearest increment on your scale ruler, and stick to it. No one will ever measure it.

[zerstorer]

That is awesome, can you post a few screengrabs for us to see?

[Rick E Davis]

Dave,

Don't rule out that the posted photo ISN'T BALTIMORE because she is painted in Ms 22. The USN started to paint out the dazzle schemes ... thank God ... in late 1944. BALTIMORE left the West Coast in late October 1944 and went to Pearl Harbor and operated out of there until 11 November 1944. She could have easily been repainted while at Pearl or at Ulithi. There is a lack of photos of BALTIMORE after her overhaul in October 1944, until after the war and this photo is cropped so that no hull numbers or even the twin cranes show.