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

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

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.

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, the BOTTOM of the bulges on the kit are okay, but they need to lessen in width as you go up?

[GMG4RWF]

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, the BOTTOM of the bulges on the kit are okay, but they need to lessen in width as you go up?

It's more of a "step-in" just above the WL (like a ledge).

[Dick J]

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, the BOTTOM of the bulges on the kit are okay, but they need to lessen in width as you go up?

Yes, the waterline plate is probably close, according to those who have measured it. And the bulge should taper in (not "step" in) from the waterline to the top. At the widest point of the ship, the width of the blister at the top appears to be about 1/2 to 2/3 of the width at the waterline. (Shave off about 1/3 of the thickness at the top.) That is just based on the appearance in photos and drawings, and is not a precise measurement.

[GMG4RWF]

(not "step" in) from the waterline to the top.

actually there is a step in - you can see it in the picks - at the top of the bulge - you can distinctly see the "ledge"

[Dick J]

First, you said there was a step "just above" the waterline. There is not. I said there was no step in the blister from the waterline to the top. "To the top" in this case means the top of the blister. The top of the blister is the step you are now talking about. There is no step between the waterline and the top of the blister. And the height of the top of the blister relative to the overall height of the hull is not "just above" the waterline.

[GMG4RWF]

First, you said there was a step "just above" the waterline. There is not. I said there was no step in the blister from the waterline to the top. "To the top" in this case means the top of the blister. The top of the blister is the step you are now talking about. There is no step between the waterline and the top of the blister. And the height of the top of the blister relative to the overall height of the hull is not "just above" the waterline.

you didn't specify "Blister" you just said top - which would indicate that you meant it tapered till it became flush with the original hull. "Near the WL" is a relative term - remember I'm use to 2400 scale .

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

Okay, so, how's this for the modified blister? Not sure I'll worry about the "step" since I'm portraying her at PH just after the attack, down by the bow by 5'.

[Dick J]

That does look closer. The only "step" in the blister is the one at the top of the blister where it "steps" back to the original hull, so you are on the right track with your mod.

[Quincy]

Looks good! I will have to do that to mine when I get the chance.



Bob Pink.

[Andrew D BB39 Sec]

Thanks! It's really not a filing job; I actually cut out the whole blister except for the upper step. Then just trimmed it back, sanded it with a sanding block for a more uniform finish, then installed strip styrene to rebuild the side. Really surprisingly simple, looking back on it.

[blw]

I'm interested in Maryland/Colorado as built. There don't seem to be any kits of this per se. How hard is it to backdate the Pearl Harbor versions? Fairly extensive, I'd guess (I have clearly not done the research on this). No only would Maryland need to remove the blisters, but there seem to be fairly numerous above-decks changes too. I don't recall a Colorado 1941 offering - and the 1942 (Loose Cannon? Niko?) would be post-rebuild too.

Am I generally on the right track here?

I'd prefer a less expensive solution, as what I really am doing is using this as a donor for a Lexington-class battlecruiser. The above-decks components would go on the Lex, and the hull of the MD/CO would be used in another project from the same time period.

[GMG4RWF]

I'm interested in Maryland/Colorado as built. There don't seem to be any kits of this per se. How hard is it to backdate the Pearl Harbor versions? Fairly extensive, I'd guess (I have clearly not done the research on this). No only would Maryland need to remove the blisters, but there seem to be fairly numerous above-decks changes too. I don't recall a Colorado 1941 offering - and the 1942 (Loose Cannon? Niko?) would be post-rebuild too.

Am I generally on the right track here?

I'd prefer a less expensive solution, as what I really am doing is using this as a donor for a Lexington-class battlecruiser. The above-decks components would go on the Lex, and the hull of the MD/CO would be used in another project from the same time period.

I have the "Trumpeter 5769 USS Maryland BB-46 Battleship" $35 well detailed with brass cage masts - '41 PH mod - It would take some work to backdate but not nearly as much as Arizona or NM. I wish they would come out with a whole series of pre-'30s 700 scale US Battleships for cheap - I'd buy'em up (also includes triple 14" so you can make Tennessee's instead - 5 kits gets you all 5 - no decals for the others though)

[Haijun watcher]

Does anyone know if there are PE sets, aside from Five-Star's set for Trumpeter's 1/700 1941-era Maryland, which are dedicated to the Maryland or Colorado?

I did a search on Ebay for Eduard, Voyager or Gold Medal sets for this class but couldn't find any.

My local model store doesn't seem to have the Gold Medal railings that are made specifically for this class...unless one can use the set meant for the 1/700 New Jersey from Fujimi?

[Timmy C]

Blue Ridge Hobbies, in cooperation with Tom's Modelworks, has a set: http://www.freetimehobbies.com/1-700-bl ... -maryland/

The railings are not pre-sized, though, and the set does not include the Blue Ridge 3D-printed accurate cage masts.

[Haijun watcher]

Short of using a superset customized for this class, what general railings set would best work for the Colorado class?

There doesn't seem to be a general Gold Medal models set for US battleships per se, even if they have general sets dedicated to cruisers, destroyers, CVEs and CVLs.

Our local model store does have a Gold Medal models PE set for a 1/700 New Jersey (presumably Fujimi), but I am not sure if this will even work for the Maryland kit I have.

[Vladi]

(sorry if it appeared already somewhere else) I just noticed photos of the new 1/700 BB-48 West Virginia 1941 from Pit_Road (Trumpeter) at Hobby Search - the anti-torpedo blister appears to reasonably thin there, see http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10282766a3/20/3

[Haijun watcher]

Does anyone here know the Tamiya or Humbrol equivalents of the paint colours below? The Trumpeter colour page for the Maryland kit clearly lists Tamiya XF-20 (Medium Grey) as the main colour in the USN MS1 paint scheme; I assume this colour page is wrong.

I assume Sean F. and previous posters were referring to these USN (prewar?) colours:
5-D: Dark Grey
5-B: Navy Blue (I assume Tamiya spray AS-5 Navy Blue is identical to this)
5-S: Sea Blue

So, now that we have the Big 5 appearing in styrene in 1941 fit, is there any consensus (yeah... sure there is...) on 5-D vs. 5-S for each of them?

Looking at Martin's post on page 2 of this topic, I think he makes a pretty good argument for Maryland being in 5-D (particularly since the color seems to match that of the Oklahoma's boats, and as far as I recall no one has ever argued that OK wasn't in 5-D at the time. Though maybe her boats weren't for some reason...?)
California looks very dark in pretty much every photo I've seen, so I lean toward 5-D.
West Virginia got scorched, but many surfaces still look the same as those on the Tennessee. I lean toward 5-S on both of these, with a painted deck on TN (based on the overhead shot of the ruined battleship row) - but a deck blue, or some kind of gray?

- Sean F.

I've bought into the 5B color for the battle line but I can't remember the turret top for WeeVee. I'm hoping to have her ready for VaB next year.

[SeanF]

I don't know the Humbrol line very well, but in the Tamiya line there is really nothing that matches any of these out of the bottle. If you really wanted to use straigt-up Tamiya colors with no mixing and are willing to accept the deviations:
The closest you can get to 5-D is German Gray XF-63, but you'd need to mix in a lot of black to get closer to accurate (more like adding German Gray to black, really).
The spray Navy Blue is more of the aircraft color than the ship hull color. The closest thing in the Tamiya line is Field Blue XF-50.
The closest to Sea Blue would be their Medium Blue XF-18, though this is a bit too light.

- Sean F.

Does anyone here know the Tamiya or Humbrol equivalents of the paint colours below? The Trumpeter colour page for the Maryland kit clearly lists Tamiya XF-20 (Medium Grey) as the main colour in the USN MS1 paint scheme; I assume this colour page is wrong.

I assume Sean F. and previous posters were referring to these USN (prewar?) colours:
5-D: Dark Grey
5-B: Navy Blue (I assume Tamiya spray AS-5 Navy Blue is identical to this)
5-S: Sea Blue

So, now that we have the Big 5 appearing in styrene in 1941 fit, is there any consensus (yeah... sure there is...) on 5-D vs. 5-S for each of them?

Looking at Martin's post on page 2 of this topic, I think he makes a pretty good argument for Maryland being in 5-D (particularly since the color seems to match that of the Oklahoma's boats, and as far as I recall no one has ever argued that OK wasn't in 5-D at the time. Though maybe her boats weren't for some reason...?)
California looks very dark in pretty much every photo I've seen, so I lean toward 5-D.
West Virginia got scorched, but many surfaces still look the same as those on the Tennessee. I lean toward 5-S on both of these, with a painted deck on TN (based on the overhead shot of the ruined battleship row) - but a deck blue, or some kind of gray?

- Sean F.

I've bought into the 5B color for the battle line but I can't remember the turret top for WeeVee. I'm hoping to have her ready for VaB next year.

[Haijun watcher]

Thanks Sean for your feedback as always.

So 5-L/Light Grey would be the the main pre-war light colour used by USN BBs in 1940 and earlier then? Or is it white?

I'm surprised most of the previous discussion on this thread focused more on the MS1 paint scheme the BBs wore in 1941 just before and during the Pearl Harbour attack, and very little if any focused on what they wore in 1940 or earlier.

[Timmy C]

The main prewar colour was #5 Standard Navy Grey - similar to 5-L but slightly darker and you can probably get away with using 5-L given scale effect, weathering, etc.

You can get a rough idea of the relative differences between the colours here: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/bo ... usn-1.html

Don't use it for absolute reference though, as it's been colour-shifted and your computer monitor displays them differently from what they're supposed to in real life.