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

[Timmy C]

This set of plans should help you with finding those locations: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb48.pdf

The inboard profile has the rooms/holds clearly marked, as well as the frames.

Basically, the only thing you'll have to do is the Upper Deck stuff at the bow and the motor launch.

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

Thanks! That helped a lot; I've got the approximate location of the forward bomb hit now, the only question now being, should I put it near the centerline, to port or to starboard? Trouble no matter how I guess it....

Also the motor launch...I don't know much about the launches, but was this one of the launches with the two roofed sections for officers? And, should I just make one missing since apparently it was destroyed by oil fires on the water? And if so, did the #3 m-launch have a designated stowage point, or is it enough just to have one missing?

[Timmy C]

I'm going to say the bomb went off on the port side, based on the Shell and Bottom's entry of "frame 10 port about 22 feet below the waterline".

As for the motor launch - if they used the word "launch" on purpose instead of "boat", then that would suggest one of the two crafts labelled "50 FT M.L." in the external profile and as "50'0" M.S.L." in the top view.

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

*whew* okay, now this is starting to seem doable. Only thing left to decide is which of the 2 to delete...or actually, I wonder if there would be several missing due to all the activity going on between the BB's and the shore after the attack....

Hey, sometimes I just seem to beg for trouble...

[PetrolGator]

I've searched NavSource and Time for some good pictures on deck of the USS Maryland. I'm trying to detail some of the bulkheads on the 1/700 Trumpy kit and haven't had a whole lot of luck. I'm mainly looking for detail along the bulkhead aft of the rear funnel.

If you have anything, such as plans that you can share freely, please let me know.

[Michael Potter]

Guys, based on the Gallery photos of Trumpeter's 1/700 USS Maryland, verify the waterline of this kit.

Some recent model kits and some computer graphics images show the ship riding at her "low waterline," meaning unladen as in a dockyard, instead of her "load waterline," meaning full load for combat. Trumpeter's 1/700 USS Maryland appears to repeat that flaw.

The producers of these kits and images either failed to notice the difference or did not know what to do about it so gave us more hull. Alas, it's too much of a good thing.

With kits I measure down from the main deck and mark the load waterline. If the kitted hull is too high, I sand the waterline to reduce freeboard until the hull represents full-load deep draft. Otherwise, the model would have a distorted profile and an unstable appearance.

[Timmy C]

Conversely, I think more hull is better than less hull, since it gives you the option to sink the model into the base up to the desired level or for you to remove material as necessary. A kit that's moulded at the high waterline would require you to add material to it if you wish to portray her in an unladen state, which is a bit more work than simply sinking your model into the base (or building the water base up higher).

[GMG4RWF]

Just got the USS Maryland BB-46. Always wanted a model with Cage masts - the epitome of Battleship Majesty (always loved them) thought it would be 2 piece (split down the middle) plastic to glue together, but its brass - never worked with brass - any advice? Also can make it full hull or WL (I like WL cause it sits easier & I can visualize better what the real one looked like)

[Vlad]

I find most battleships, no matter how good looking in pictures, end up looking a bit "fat" as full hull builds. Maybe an as-built Maryland could be full hull, but a 1941 version with those bulges (bear in mind Trumpeter's bulges are also way too big to be accurate) is not appealing. Make her waterline (I did ).

The kit is great overall but the PE is quite soft and a bit fragile. I have worked with PE before but never cage masts so this was a bit new for me also.

For the cage masts, basically you need a tapered tube, something like a pen or a fat paintbrush handle will do provided it has a constant slope from one end to the other. Then you just roll it up. Like I said it is very soft so it will roll readily. Do it slowly and carefully, it is MUCH harder to undo if you roll too far. Once the seam touches, run some CA glue down it to finish it off. You will find once it's glue up like this it's surprisingly stiff and strong (the shape is very good structurally, hence why it was used). Still handle it with care as you can dent it and make it oval if you fiddle with it too much. I would not roll them up until you are also ready to stick them to the hull. Again, use CA for this as nothing else will stick brass. Position it carefully because it sets super-fast so you don't get a second chance.

Also, always paint all the PE on the fret before trying to remove it or put it together.

Good luck, the Colorados are a majestic class of ship indeed!

[GMG4RWF]

I find most battleships, no matter how good looking in pictures, end up looking a bit "fat" as full hull builds. Maybe an as-built Maryland could be full hull, but a 1941 version with those bulges (bear in mind Trumpeter's bulges are also way too big to be accurate) is not appealing. Make her waterline

That's what I thought to (but I think they are fairly accurate - the bulges weren't part of the design and did make them too fat )

the PE is quite soft and a bit fragile.

what I was afraid of.

...use CA for this...always paint all the PE...before trying to remove it

ah - thanks for the tips (all of them.)

[Hallis]

I find most battleships, no matter how good looking in pictures, end up looking a bit "fat" as full hull builds. Maybe an as-built Maryland could be full hull, but a 1941 version with those bulges (bear in mind Trumpeter's bulges are also way too big to be accurate) is not appealing. Make her waterline

That's what I thought to (but I think they are fairly accurate - the bulges weren't part of the design and did make them too fat )

the PE is quite soft and a bit fragile.

what I was afraid of.

...use CA for this...always paint all the PE...before trying to remove it

ah - thanks for the tips (all of them.)

Can't wait to see how it comes out.

Also I like the fat hulls of the Dreadnoughts. One reason why I actually like full hull kits. Especially the ones with big chins like the Arizona. Although admittedly the most impressive builds i've seen were waterline with some EXCELLENT water effects.

[GMG4RWF]

did they combined my post with this one??? - I didn't know what this post was - (Maryland was a Colorado class, though Maryland got in the water first {due to delays} Colorado was ordered & numbered first - BB-45 Maryland was 46 - despite what some publisher in England claims )...anyway...Here's my 2400 scale - still working on WVs paint.

[GMG4RWF]

oh, yea - I guess - heres my Tennessee's as well - paint in progress.

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

Ya know, speaking for myself, I just really don't enjoy full hull builds simply because that is not the appearance of the ship that I love. I love how they look in their element, sleek and cutting through the water. Full hull seems to me like a beached whale.

As far as the Maryland build, since I'm building her in the after-hours of the Pearl Harbor attack, it's perfect for me to simply file/grind/sand down the bow-bottom a bit to replicate her down by the bow 5 ft or so. Win-win!

[GMG4RWF]

Ya know, speaking for myself, I just really don't enjoy full hull builds simply because that is not the appearance of the ship that I love. I love how they look in their element, sleek and cutting through the water. Full hull seems to me like a beached whale...

Exactly - same here.

[Jeff Sharp]

As far as the Maryland build, since I'm building her in the after-hours of the Pearl Harbor attack, it's perfect for me to simply file/grind/sand down the bow-bottom a bit to replicate her down by the bow 5 ft or so. Win-win!

Hi Andrew, don't forget to file the width of the bulge down a bit and eliminate the center anchor, plate, chain, and capstan to be accurate for a 12/7 appearance. Also, I think in my research I found that Mary only had one motor launch left onboard (doubt this was the one that suffered fire damage). It was on the starboard side under the boat crane. I believe all of her other boats were offboard.
HTH

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

Any idea of the specifics of how wide the torpedo bulges should be, then? Beyond just eyeballing it for TLAR ("That Looks About Right...."). 3mm? 2?

[GMG4RWF]

Any idea of the specifics of how wide the torpedo bulges should be, then? Beyond just eyeballing it for TLAR ("That Looks About Right...."). 3mm? 2?

Don't know exact - but you can see from my minis above Ml. & Col. received much less extensive bulging than W.V. (Or Cal. & Tenn.) - theres were as wide as the Mk38s

[Dick J]

Original beam on the Tennessee's and Colorado's was 97'. Maryland and Colorado blisters increased beam to 108' at the waterline. It tapered in somewhat above the waterline, and that is where Trumpy went wrong. The blisters are a uniform width all the way up on their kit. The Tennessee's and West Virginia were 114' wide after blistering, but their blisters actually did maintain a uniform width all the way up.

[GMG4RWF]

...Maryland and Colorado blisters increased beam...at the waterline. It tapered in somewhat above the waterline...

You can see that above (prev page) - if you look at my top pick - Maryland '44/5 is the bottom painted next to unpainted WV you can see the tan main deck & to the sides are the tapered bulges in grey.