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

[Bas]

Thanks for your reply Hank! Your message convinced me to do some more research. I'm struggling to find some color photos of a USN WW2 ship's bridge that is detailed enough to share some light on the navigation light plating. I'll get back to it when I found some feasible pictures.

- Bas

[Chuck Bauer]

Bas,
I agree, I think Hank makes a good point. The bridge bulwark at the Memorial is apparently the one removed when the 1942 battle damage was repaired. It looks like the bulwark itself may have been painted for the exhibit, long after 1942. Therefore, Hank's comment makes sense in that the Memorial could have painted both the bulwark itself and the light backplates in colors that did not reflect absolute historic accuracy.
I have seen photographs of the San Francisco in 1944 after her refit which show the backplates painted the hull color and not the color of the light. So if you are doing a late war model then this could be the way to do it.
Now then, the photo you attached does not appear to be the San Francisco. However, in the 1930's the San Francisco did have dual lights at each mounting position, such as what your photo shows. When I was doing my research I concluded that San Francisco's backplates were painted the color of the light(s). So I used a clear piece of styrene for the lens, painted it a translucent red or green, and then painted the backplate a solid red or green. Gary Kingzett's 1936 rendition shows them this way, also, and at the time I may have been influenced by his build, since it was so finely researched.
I don't recall what year you are building your model to, Bas, but I look forward to seeing what you dig up on this. If need be, it is a simple matter for me to take my 100/0 brush and change those backplates

[BB62vet]

Just a couple other comments re. the painting of artifacts/museum ships:

1) Having been to some of the east coast museum ships and various museums displaying artifacts, I can honestly say that the items open to the public and on display are NOT to be taken as factual in how they were painted during their actual operational service. Many of the ship museums do not adhere to the USN guidelines for that class of ship at the time in which it is being depicted. They are often sloppy about how and what is (or is not) painted, etc.

2) Unfortunately, black & white photos are hard to discern when trying to figure out colors from these photos. I think Rick E. Davis would agree and he's spent countless hours doing serious research with b/w photos from WW1 & WW2, etc.

I've learned to never truly trust museum (ship) items for colors, but only shape/size/construction details. U.S. Navy paint stds. are not all that hard to understand if you have a time period to work within and know that ship's (various) paint scheme(s) during that time period.

Then too, modelers tend to be a bit more discerning when it comes to "getting things right" than the average landlubber!

Hank

[DrPR]

Normal practice was to paint the baffles flat black on the sides facing the lights in order to reduce reflections. The baffles restrict the viewing angles for the lights in accordance with international rules of the road - otherwise the baffles wouldn't even be there.

Reflections off the baffles could screw up the visible angles, especially if they were painted with a glossy paint. The intent is for a sharp cut off for visibility of the light beyond certain angles.

Of course, not everyone followed the rules. Bosuns Mates had a habit of "customizing" things. And time and paint availability sometimes necessitated painting with whatever you had on hand. The seamen doing the work might not know the rules.

I suspect the colored baffles in the photo were lubber's work.

Phil

[raggs]

Spent many nights of my teens having fun in that area.

From what I recall the Memorial was falling into a bit of disrepair in the 80's.
She is, after all, facing into the Pacific with no normal upkeep.
Seems to me she was "refurbished" in the mid eightys, ceremony and all.

What I can remember from my last visit 20+ years ago, paint was fresh, just navy gray.
My old man tried handing me a .38 slug saying he pried it out of the metal, lol.
Dont count what you see as being accurate.

Looks like she could use a little TLC.

Paul

[MatthewB]

Just a couple other comments re. the painting of artifacts/museum ships:

1) Having been to some of the east coast museum ships and various museums displaying artifacts, I can honestly say that the items open to the public and on display are NOT to be taken as factual in how they were painted during their actual operational service. Many of the ship museums do not adhere to the USN guidelines for that class of ship at the time in which it is being depicted. They are often sloppy about how and what is (or is not) painted, etc.

2) Unfortunately, black & white photos are hard to discern when trying to figure out colors from these photos. I think Rick E. Davis would agree and he's spent countless hours doing serious research with b/w photos from WW1 & WW2, etc.

Yeah, when we were learning Colorization (this was before Photoshop, but they also teach it in advanced Photoshop classes) of B&W Photos, a few of the crucial things we were taught was:

1) What kind of a film is being used (Panchromatic or Orthochromatic)?
This made a HUGE difference in how Reds, Greens, Yellows, and Blues showed up on film.
2) What in the image is White and what in the image is Black?
This is important to setting the "Neutral Value" shades/tints of all colors in the space.
3) How blown-out is the brightest object in the photo (On old B&W Cameras, they had no aperture settings to avoid blowing blowing out your whites in a really sunny shot)?
This would tell you that some things that looked white might not BE White. And to be careful about anything that "looked" Black/Dark.

At real Museums (Art Museums, and official Military Museums), they will employ Art Preservation Experts that know these things (A dept I worked in when I was very young back in the late-70s/early-80s at the Dallas Museum of Art, learning the trade).

Now, you have bigger museums like the NY Met employing huge teams of people to correct Prints in PS to adjust them to clear up things like Blown-out skies, or lack of details in a shadow (there is usually information in the negative for what is in the shadow, but you have to expose just that portion of the negative for something like half an hour to get the details to start coming out).

I've learned to never truly trust museum (ship) items for colors, but only shape/size/construction details. U.S. Navy paint stds. are not all that hard to understand if you have a time period to work within and know that ship's (various) paint scheme(s) during that time period.

Then too, modelers tend to be a bit more discerning when it comes to "getting things right" than the average landlubber!

Hank

But, yeah, when it comes to Museum Ships, they rarely have endowments big enough to hire such specialists to check for if they have got the colors on the Ships accurate to the actual paint or pigments that would be used.

MB

[DrPR]

Although the Navy has standards for colors, they aren't always followed.

I was Engineering Officer on a small minesweeper, and we followed the book for painting piping with colors to show what each pipe carried.

Later I was assigned to a cruiser (fleet flagship). We got a new XO on board who decided to paint everything according to his own color scheme, interior and exterior, with lots of polished brass and McNamara's lace. His color scheme for piping was unique! I remember being on bridge watch when the new XO was telling the Captain all the changes he wanted to make. Our no-nonsense Captain told the new XO, "Rodney, you want to turn my ship into a circus boat!"

Later, after that Captain had moved on, we got a new Captain who had very little at sea experience. His previous commands had been LMDs (Large Mahogany Desks). He let the XO run amok and we got his "circus ship."

In some cases individual Divisions, especially deck Divisions, create their own unique color schemes. Things like the wildcats and chain pipes are painted green on the starboard side and red on the port. In our Division the missile guys painted shark teeth (like the Flying Tigers) on the trainer missiles that are supposed to be painted blue (inert).

So you can't always depend upon the "standard" Navy color schemes.

Phil

[ArizonaBB39]

Found some good video on YouTube this evening (I apologize if this has been seen already.

Video shot from San Francisco of a trio of her sisters pre-war in heavy seas (notice on the deck shots the identification stripe on the turrets)
https://youtu.be/FZE438Z64vM

Video shot from San Francisco later on in the war
https://youtu.be/OvZ3-vyrtkQ

[Tu11iy]

Hello to all you comrades New Orleans fans.

I am a modeller from Russia. My best friend is going to build (well, start building) a model of USS San-Francisco CA-38 for 1942 from a Trumpeter 1/350 kit. What are the problems with this kit? What needs to be added or change for historical accuracy?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Dick J]

What are the problems with this kit? What needs to be added or change for historical accuracy?

Since I work in 1/700 scale, I do not have this kit and don't know all of the issues. But one problem I have noticed is kit part # 4, the hangar roof. In 1942, the roof of the hangar did project beyond the back of the hangar, as the part shows. However, except for the 20MM gun tubs, that overhang did not have a solid vertical bulwark, or splinter screen, around it. That should have railings.

[Quincy]

I am backdating my 1/700 Trumpy New Orleans to a mid to late Dec. 1941 fit. So, no 20mm singles at all. How about the 1.1's, and their locations if she had them? Anything else to eliminate on the Trumpy kit, splinter shields etc.?

Many thanks.


Bob Pink.

[taskforce48]

I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that New Orleans had 3inch guns at Pearl Harbor. However according to her CO on the after action report from December 7th-

December 13, 1941.





From: The Commanding Officer, U.S.S. New Orleans.
To: The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Subject: Report of actions taken during Air Raid of December 7, 1941.

Reference: (a) Cincpac confidential despatch of 10 December 1941 (cincpac despatch 102102).
On 7 December 1941 the U.S.S. New Orleans was moored at Berth 16, Navy Yard Pearl Harbor undergoing engine repairs. The ship was taking power and light from the dock. There was no ship's power available.
Offensive measures -- NONE.
Defensive measures:
At 0757 sighted enemy planes "dive bombing" Ford Island and went to General Quarters immediately. At 0805 sighted enemy torpedo planes on port quarter flying low across our stern. Rifle fire and Pistol fire was opened from our fantail as the first planes flew by to launch their torpedoes at the battleships. This ship saw several planes launch their torpedoes headed in the direction of the battleships. Our 1.1/75 battery and Machine Guns aft were manned in time to actually fire at three or four enemy planes passing our stern. About 0810 all batteries, except the 8" battery, were in action engaging such enemy planes a presented themselves as targets.

I imagine she would have had some .50cals somewhere along the hangar roof or near the aft con.

Matt

[Jeff Sharp]

This is a look at New Orleans on 12/10/41. It does appear that she has 1.1 tubs on her stern. Also worth noting, there is no evidence of the single black stripe on either of her forward turret tops to identify her as part of VCS-6.

[Rick E Davis]

From King Board ADI Program report, dated 1 September 1941, USS NEW ORLEANS was having her quad 1.1-in mounts installed at PSNY during her 11 August to 28 October 1941 "Regular Overhaul" yard period (actual completion date could have changed after this report). She still lacked the motor-drives, unless that too changed during her overhaul, but based on directions that came out in October, such upgrade work was going to be done at PHNY in the future. (Note, the "1.1-in Motor Driven Pump" was for water cooling)

[taskforce48]

One other thing I would add, it appears that her Fire Control Level was modified in February of 42, so she probably still had the �Birdbath� forward vs what the kit gives you.

HTH

Matt

[DavidK]

From King Board ADI Program report, dated 1 September 1941, USS NEW ORLEANS was having her quad 1.1-in mounts installed at PSNY during her 11 August to 28 October 1941 "Regular Overhaul" yard period (actual completion date could have changed after this report). She still lacked the motor-drives, unless that too changed during her overhaul, but based on directions that came out in October, such upgrade work was going to be done at PHNY in the future. (Note, the "1.1-in Motor Driven Pump" was for water cooling)

Do I read this correctly that the third column under "Status First Part" indicates that the splinter protection for the 5" and 1.1" guns was being installed in this upgrade?

DavidK

[Rick E Davis]

Yes.

This photo I came across in 80-G at NARA II and identified as NEW ORLEANS by Dick Jensen, shows her in May 1941, just three months before her overhaul. You can see that she has not had the protective bulwarks installed yet. This was pretty early in the camo painting of Pacific Fleet ships and it appears that NEW ORLEANS is still in the Peacetime scheme.

[Dick J]

One other thing I would add, it appears that her Fire Control Level was modified in February of 42, so she probably still had the �Birdbath� forward vs what the kit gives you.

The Mare Island photos from Feb '42 show the additional bulwark that replace the birdbath still painted in primer, meaning it had just been added. So, yes, she did still have the birdbath before that early '42 refit. Rick's mid '41 overhead shot only shows one concession to the war up to that point - a few rafts on the turret tops.

Astoria still had her birdbath until after Midway when the last 2 20MM were added, although her other 10 20MM guns had been added in the brief stop at Pearl between Coral Sea and Midway. With all the war pressures on scheduling, updates were often "catch as catch can".

[Quincy]

Rick�s photo of the New Orleans looks like either her aft deck looks like it�s in the process of being painted weather deck blue, or is it just wet from the water? Thank you guys for all of this information!



Bob Pink

[DavidK]

One other thing I would add, it appears that her Fire Control Level was modified in February of 42, so she probably still had the �Birdbath� forward vs what the kit gives you.

The Mare Island photos from Feb '42 show the additional bulwark that replace the birdbath still painted in primer, meaning it had just been added. So, yes, she did still have the birdbath before that early '42 refit. Rick's mid '41 overhead shot only shows one concession to the war up to that point - a few rafts on the turret tops.

Astoria still had her birdbath until after Midway when the last 2 20MM were added, although her other 10 20MM guns had been added in the brief stop at Pearl between Coral Sea and Midway. With all the war pressures on scheduling, updates were often "catch as catch can".

Can you post a link to the Mare Island photos of New Orleans from Feb. 1942? I don't think I've come across them in looking for early 1942 photos of New Orleans.
Thanks.
DavidK