The Ship Model Forum

Here are some photos that may be helpful, taken about 1934-1936.

No vertical ladders are visible in the photos but photo quality might obscure any that are present. General arrangement drawings for [i]Lexington[/i] show one vertical ladder on the port side of her flag bridge. Perhaps [i]Sara[/i] had one there, too.

The object on the roof of the flag bridge is actually a 20' rangefinder. [i]Saratoga[/i] was not fit with radar in 1936. In late 1941, she received her first radar set, a CXAM-1. At bottom is a good photo of sistership [i]Lexington[/i]'s 20' rangefinder.

Hope this helps.

For clarity, the flag bridge is lengthened, leaving enough room to walk on fwd end. That fwd splintershield looks flat to my eye, no angled aspect in the center. The house has to be long enough to fit the radar bit, yet still fit the next layer up, the compass bridge? Also, any photos that show vertical ladders?

Steve, thanks for the timely reply. I have the Squadron at Sea for reference, and it has a plan from '36, which, when compared to photos, shows the extended flag bridge, with the radar bit above, on the roof. I in-dented the O-1level, so it is symetrical, and am working my way up. I'm shooting for the operational window where monoplanes were introduced, and bipes being phased out, so a narrow window.

[quote="Dick J"][quote="Killerbeans"]Apologies if this has been answered, but is there an approximate year/date for the Trumpeter Saratoga kit?
I hope this is ok to ask here.[/quote]
Early 1932 or before. Her flag bridge was enlarged in early 1932 and her rangefinder relocated a deck level higher. The kit lacks the expanded flag bridge.[/quote]
Concur.

The Trumpeter kit's island is actually a better representation of [i]Lexington[/i]'s island circa 1932, not [i]Saratoga[/i]. Compared to [i]Saratoga[/i]'s actual island, the kit's island has a kind of a mix of features making it not entirely accurate for any year or even for [i]Saratoga[/i]. For example, the small flag bridge is accurate for 1932 just as Dick said but the venturi around the pilot house didn't appear until 1936 on [i]Saratoga[/i]. The venturi was present on [i]Lexington[/i] from about 1932. And the deck and splinter shielding shape of the starboard side of the navigating bridge deck are correct for [i]Lexington[/i], not [i]Saratoga[/i]. [i]Lexington[/i]'s starboard side navigating bridge deck was straight. [i]Saratoga[/i]'s was recessed inward.

About 1932, both ships had a small, boxy station suspended from the fighting top called a "Radio-Compass Booth". The Trumpeter kit is missing this feature. Photos indicate that this station was removed from [i]Saratoga[/i] about 1933.

The kit includes F3F, BFC, SBU and TG-1/2 (T4M) aircraft. This poses a bit of an accuracy conundrum with respect to the island since they served aboard circa 1937-1938.
F3F: 1937-1938
BFC: 1937
SBU: 1937
TG-1/2 (T4M): 1930-1937

For modelers who want better accuracy for either ship, we offer several different islands and funnels for both Lexington-class ships as they appeared throughout their service lives. To better match the air group provided in the kit, we recommend replacing the kit's island with one of our 1936-1940 islands. Either [i]Lexington[/i] or [i]Saratoga[/i] can be built with from the Trumpeter kit.

[quote="Killerbeans"]Apologies if this has been answered, but is there an approximate year/date for the Trumpeter Saratoga kit?
I hope this is ok to ask here.[/quote]
Early 1932 or before. Her flag bridge was enlarged in early 1932 and her rangefinder relocated a deck level higher. The kit lacks the expanded flag bridge.

Apologies if this has been answered, but is there an approximate year/date for the Trumpeter Saratoga kit?
I hope this is ok to ask here.

Thank you for the pics. The miracle of Kodachrome, yet again. I'm trying to figure out a realistic way to weather the landing areas, thinking they would have more wear. I've got the base pretty close, given the many variables involved.
The grey for "vertical surfaces" I think can be pushed & pulled, slightly lighter and darker, when closer to completion. The decks might be more difficult to weather.
I'm guessing all the carrier photos are from Enterprise in 1941?

Flight deck would be mahogany deck stain with yellow markings.

[u]Examples:[/u]

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/286a3c259451a27d.html
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/99d275586ac9ec92.html
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/17e4406559b16bd0.html

So, she was light grey/ deck grey until the mid '41 refit?
I'm aiming for '38-'39 period when she carried biplanes and monoplanes.

She had MS-1 from the end of her refit in mid '41 (when she had the bow widened, flightdeck extended aft, and the AA upgrades) until her Oct-Nov update (which switched the 3" guns for quad 1,1's and added life rafts). Photos suggest MS-11 after that, but clear overall shots during the period are lacking, so the actual MS is unproven. Whether in sea blue or navy blue is also unresolved. This later update is why she was still on the west coast on Dec 7th.

Sara wearing MS-1

[url=https://postimg.cc/rDQRgKKz][img]https://i.postimg.cc/nLtKFmxK/Screen-Shot-2025-04-12-at-5-46-33-PM.png[/img][/url]

Yet another mystery: dead astern, on the upper hull is what appears to be two vertically arranged lights. The lenses appear dark. What are they?

Well, regarding my gun galleries on Sara, I found a pic that shows the folding section to be pierced steel. I assumed Sara and Lex would be similar, but I guess not. The entirety seems the same grey. I'm working on guns to move forward.

Tracy,

I got my "Mastic" reference from the 1941 Booklet of General Plans for Oklahoma, where it seems to correspond to where we saw it on the Idaho photo - that is, the exterior surface of the Signal Bridge platform, which includes a notation of "MASTIC DECK COVERG.". The Navigating Bridge level likewise indicates "MASTIC DECK COVER". The Main and Upper decks note "3 1/2" TEAK", but aside from that I don't see any other surfacing notation at the other exterior decks (at the interior levels of the spotting tops, there's a note of "B & P", not sure what that means). As for specific mention of linoleum, within the Captain's Cabin, Office, Etc. on the Superstructure Deck level, it notes "LINO." in just about every room, and at the Upper Deck there is a lot of reference to "D.C. LINO." "D.C. TILE" and D.C. PAINTED" with similar tags continuing down into the bowels of the ship.
From what I've seen of Booklets of General Plans, there's a lot of inconsistencies in just what information is noted - and how - from ship to ship. And from photos, it's clear that a lot of things varied from ship to ship in actual execution. Clearly, a red-brown topping that was not mahogany-stained wood was used. Whether it corresponds to "Mastic Deck Covering" and whether it was called something else on other BoGPs, I don't know.
For my modelling purposes, it feels like a decent enough excuse to justify a little more color in my early/pre-WWII USN builds when I can discern from black and white photos a definitively darker horizontal surface known not to be 1. wood planked, and 2. a color-coded turret top. To that, I expect we can confidently add 3. known pierced or expanded mental decks (localized areas on most ship types, but pretty extensive on most carriers). Those should have plenty of grip no matter what paint is used and have no need for a special coating.
Now, where exactly they used the rubber matting... even if formally prescribed, I'd bet the crew might move them from time to time. I check pictures, when I can find 'em, but I figure you can only do so much, and no model is ever entirely perfect.

Killerbeans,

Sorry to be confusing! Just trying to point out that what looks like a simply dark gray deck paint in black and white photos might actually be a bit more colorful. I just pulled up the Lexington's 1941 BoGPs, and no... unlike the Oklahoma, there's no notes of what the deck covering was (aside from the forward elevator - and just the forward elevator - which is noted as being teak.) I haven't seen anything earlier for Lexington, and the only Saratoga plans I've seen are from 1944 or 45. It's great when there is a clear answer, but a lot of times I find certain aspects of ship modeling end up as matters of interpretation of photos against, or or extrapolation from, known trends or practices - then applying them to unknown specifics to get your model finished.

- Sean F.

I deal in archival records - if I haven't found it, I don't know for sure. This is the first time I've heard of Mastic - for a while some of us have been thinking that [url=http://images.google.com/hosted/life/a0df3993f76c1b29.html]Idaho Platform[/url] was linoleum. I will now write a bunch of stuff that the conclusion is "it's your model, build it how you want to" if your eyes glaze and you want to skip it. :big_grin:

Sean linked to some photos on Navsource, here's crops from a larger copy you can look at from [url=https://catalog.archives.gov/id/178141228]NARA directly[/url]. Good shot, unfortunately not super crisp at full resolution. Enough, however, to show that there is variance in the paint on the gun galleries and island:

[attachment=3]CV-7 March 1942 Port fwd 20mm gallery.jpg[/attachment]

Port forward 20mm gallery looks like most of the gun tubs are red brown, but a hint of the catwalk forward appears deck blue.

[attachment=2]CV-7 March 1942 Starboard fwd 20mm and 5-inch gallery.jpg[/attachment]

*some* of the starboard forward 20mm gallery is red-brown but not all. Catwalks definitely aren't and the black square between the two 5" mounts is the rubber matting I mentioned earlier (I finally found the prime example of that matting that was in my head - [url=https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020542.jpg]CV-5 Yorktown in 1937[/url] from her [url=https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/05.htm]Navsource page[/url]).

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nara-series/80-g-k/80-G-K-14000/80-g-k-14254-uss-enterprise--cv-6-.html

[attachment=1]CV-7 March 1942 Island.jpg[/attachment]

The top of the navigation bridge looks red brown but none of the other platforms really look like they are, and the catwalk outboard of the stack itself looks like it might even have some of the rubber matting on it.

Now, as to the composition of that material ... I don't remember hearing about Mastic, but I've got a head like a stainless steel colander and that doesn't really mean anything. I post documents to my site so it's easier to find them, not because I have them memorized. So I went looking at the "Painting and Cementing" guide, which was the Navy's main booklet on paints (separate from camouflage). Paint and cementing was released generally every two years and it's a good resource to consult on Navy colors and formulas up to the start of the war (they stopped including the formulas with the outbreak of the war, but we have the exterior paint formulas from other documents)

[url=https://www.shipcamouflage.com/painting_and_cementing_chapter2.htm]Painting and Cementing, 1943 edition, Chapter 2[/url] has the following paragraph:

[quote]Decks and platforms to be covered with cement, or composition deck coverings ([b]mastic[/b] or the like) shall not be given a priming coat of paint, unless the decks during the construction period are to be left sufficiently long for corrosion to be of a serious nature, in which case they shall be painted for protective purposes as directed by the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. Before coating with cement or composition, the paint shall be removed down to bare metal.[/quote]

No formula, so I went and looked at the [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D3ZrVkMjDVAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false]1937[/url] and [url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/igqcmwzEqbYC?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRpvmfwOWLAxVPDzQIHYKmPIYQ7_IDegQIFxAC]1939[/url] editions and found the same paragraph line for line on page 6 of the 1937 edition and pages 5-6 of the 1939 edition. Neither edition has "Mastic" in the Cement & compounds sections (Pages 67-68 in the 1937 edition and Page 73 in the 1939 edition)
(or the "Miscellaneous paints" sections), material specifications (page 69 in 1937 and 75 in the 1939 edition), or indexes. This certainly does not mean that the Navy didn't use such a compound - they reference it earlier in the document. However, it doesn't appear to be a compound the Navy manufactured and I have no directives I've found at the US National archives as to its use. At this point no one can really tell you authoritatively that you are wrong or right. However, as the flight deck was stained Maroon (Page 72 1939 edition) with yellow striping, I don't think the inclusion of a few red brown patches on platforms will materially add a lot (I've been hoping to add "linoleum" to a platform or two on my early 1941 Arizona build to give it some extra color) of pop, but at this point I wouldn't advise against any either.

Now, what I will say is that most pre-war carriers had a lot of pierced deck catwalks. It doesn't show up well in a lot of photos, but this underside shot of Ranger's catwalks shows it well:

[attachment=0]CV-4 Ranger Port Forward Catwalk Oct 1934.jpg[/attachment]

I've been looking for a memo I have scanned somewhere but not online wherein the Navy acknowledged the problems of painting the TOP of such a surface one color and the BOTTOM another (#20 deck gray versus #5 Standard Navy Gray) and made a directive, but I can't remember specifically what it was and when (other than pre-war). I'll keep looking for it after work hours and post info when I find it. That much to say this - I doubt they would have used a cement in such an area. Generally speaking, the pierced decking was used in the light catwalk areas between gun galleries, and I would really only expect it on Saratoga's stern catwalks and some of the island.

Possibly. Some decks had it, some didn't.
Here's the Idaho pic I mentioned (it's on the signal deck):
https://navsource.org/archives/01/042/014200a.jpg

And the Wasp:
https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020706.jpg
Look at the light AA galleries around the flight deck edges and above the bridge; but also note the dark gray decks at the middle and aft of the conning tower, and the deck blue at most of the other catwalks and 5" gun tubs.

- Sean F.

So, my catwalks, and possibly deck around the gun sponsons would be brown? I have a decent photo in my Sara book that makes the sponson deck look grey, but the outboard portion is definetly a darker color, perhaps the brown? I'm trying to get the color sequence straight.

[quote="Tracy White"]Non-skid didn't really exist until early WWII.
Prior to that rubber and metal mats were used - I know of photos in some of my reference books but they're packed away at present and I haven't been able to find any photos online.

Airgroups were covered a bit [url=http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9899&p=107548&hilit=lakes#p107548]here[/url].[/quote]

Well... pre-WWII there [i]was[/i] the "mastic" (brown, textured stuff) topping that we've seen in the 1940 color Idaho photos, and which can be seen in some of the color overhead shots of the Wasp in '42.

- Sean F.

Non-skid didn't really exist until early WWII.
Prior to that rubber and metal mats were used - I know of photos in some of my reference books but they're packed away at present and I haven't been able to find any photos online.

Airgroups were covered a bit [url=http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9899&p=107548&hilit=lakes#p107548]here[/url].

Taking a break from PE railings. Started guns.
In looking at the island/ funnel, I'm wondering were catwalks nonskidded?(dark grey?) Island & funnel will almost be a seperate kit, prolly added last. But, I'm trying to advance construction and paint in sequence.
I'm guessing there is a narrow window with bipes and monoplanes onboard. Has this been covered?