The Ship Model Forum

I wanted to post a reply to some of the questions Jester63 had concerning the Trumpeter Quincy and the corrections that are needed for this kit. If you go back to page 7 of this topic you will find a post that I made noting the corrections and calling out the kit parts. There is a very good series of posts talking about this. I think it will be very helpful. I did not address the thickness of the smoke stackes in the post. Since it came up in the above posts I pulled out the Floating Drydock plans I have for Quincy, Vincennes and Astoria. I took measurements of the stacks from the plans at 90 degrees to the sides of the stack edges not parallel to the stack base or deck. All three plan sets are 1/16" = 1 foot. The Astoria stack comes out at 15/16" from the plans or 15 feet. Both the Quincy and Vincennes plans scale out at 13.5/16" or 13.5 feet. In 1/700 scale the Astoria stack should be 0.25" and the Quincy/Vincennes stack 0.23". The stacks in all the Trumpeter kits measure very close to 0.25" so we are talking about trying to remove 0.02". I took a look at the old Loose Cannon/Classic Warships Quincy and Vincennes resin kits and the WSW Quincy resin kit and the stacks in these three kits measure 0.23".

Dick J.,
Back in April of 2009 you asked if the plans show any difference in the main battery directors for the Vincennes. I noted that they did not; however, your question has bugged me for all this time. I have really been looking at various photos of the Vincennes, the other members of the class and the Brooklyns to try and see this difference. I finally see the different director for the Vincennes. I took another look at the plans along with the Astoria to look at any differences. All the plans only note that they are 8" directors, they do not call out the MK; however, the Vincennes plan in the profile shows the front of the director notched like the Brooklyn directors. The plan view omits the notch and just shows a circle for the director. The Astoria plan just shows a circle for the 8" directors with no notch in both views. The Vincennes director is also a little bigger. The only bad thing about this is that the Quincy plan set is drawn like the Vincennes with the 8" directors showing the notch in the profile view.

The question was also asked about the height of the forward superstructure of the other Trumpeter kits (Astoria, Minnie, NO, and SF). I used the Astoria plans and converted the overall height measured from the plans to 1/700 scale. Based on the plans the overall height of the forward superstructure should be 0.91". The kit parts come out to 0.90" so this is very close for these kits.

Dick J. also asked about the placement of the two center midship 5"/25 guns on the Vincennes. While Vincennes has the same general 5"/25 layout and shield pattern as the NO, SF, Minnie and Astoria, Dick had pointed out that the center gun on each side seemed to be closer to the deck edge on the Vincennes as compared to these four ships. This is correct according to the plan sets the center guns on Vincennes are 0.025" closer to the deck edge in 1/700 scale and the shield for each overhangs the deck edge more than in the NO, SF, Minnie and Astoria (by approximately 0.015" in 1/700). Quincy's center 5" guns match the placement location of the Vincennes; however, Quincy has a different pattern for the shields.

I hope this information helps.

Thanks to Dick that pointed me out about many things regarding directors and AA weapons, I made some research myself. Friedman in "Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era" at page 200 says that the follow on [follows Mk31] cruiser director, Mk 34 was first installed in Brooklyn class cruisers and the heavy cruiser Vincennes (CA-44).
Anyway from photo I can't see the differences between the two types.

Max

Thanks, Max. That finally confirms something that I have only suspected, based on the photos of the ships.

So if I am understanding from page 7 right, I also need to move the capstans forward and shorten the anchor chains, right? Or is that only on the Vincennes? If it is on the Quincy, how do I go about that?

Thanks for all the advice guys. I really do appreciate it. Page 7 was a great help. I look forward to more tips!

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri

In these two shots of Tuscaloosa and Minneapolis, you can see that the capstans are right up against the barbette for turret I. This was true for the first 5 ships in the class.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/037/0403702.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/036/0403612.jpg

The last pair was modified to make them lighter, in order to have the weight allowance for additional medium AA guns. Turret I was moved 8' aft, to shorten the side armor belt. The wings were deleted from the comm bridge level. (The wings, not the whole level. These two did not have a "shorter" bridge.) Moving the capstans forward, out from under the barrels of turret I, shortened the amount of chain on deck, and allowed the overall length of chain to be reduced by a few feet. (Vincennnes was further modified by substituting a MK-34 director for the MK-31. She was, as built, otherwise identical toQuincy.) The distance the capstans were moved can be gauged by this photo.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/039/0403901.jpg

Moving the capstan on the kit is easy. Simply scrape off the necessary distance of chain and glue the capstans on at the new location. The difficulty will be in replacing the short length of chain from the capstans to where the chain drops through the deck into the chain lockers. I'm still working on that one.

Ok, I finally found some time to start working on my Quincy kit. I have moved turret #1 aft 3.56mm per the recommendations on this thread. Removed the aft guntubs, and replaced them with teardrop shaped tubs made from spare photoetch, and removed all necessary portholes, and the propguards. I still have to do some work on the superstructure, though.........

I had a couple more questions for you fella's. What type of radar was the Quincy, Vincennes, and Astoria, equipped with at the time of sinking. I have the WEM New Orleans photoetch set, so I am assuming I have the right one, but I just wanted to make sure.

Also, at the time of their sinking, were they equipped with smoke generators? From the pictures I have looked at from close to that time period, it appears that they did not have them. It is kinda hard to tell though. The Quincy kit calls for what appears to be depth charge racks too. I can't find any pics that seem to show either one of these options on the Quincy, Vinny, or Astoria close to that time period. Just thought I would double check, though.

The Astoria as she comes in the Trumpeter kit is pretty much completely accurate isn't she? I have read that all the early NO class cruiser kits by Trumpeter were very accurate. Is this true?

Thanks in advance guys!

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri

No kit is entirely accurate. Most of the Trumpy early NO class are reasonably accurate, but all have at least minor errors. Astoria is one of the better ones. (I am still going to make corrections, but, that's just me.) The Quincy is a bit less accurate. The bridge block is not tall enough and Turret I is, as you indicated, out of position. Vincennes has the same issues as Quincy plus has the wrong main battery directors. The Vinnie kit also has the 5" splinter shield arrangement of the Quincy, which is wrong for her. I haven't yet positively located the last pair of 20MM positions, but the kit location on the quarterdeck is wrong. Also, Vinnie had other bridge mods by the time of her loss which are not reflected in the kit. The big disappointment of the early kits was the Tuscaloosa. None of the Tuscaloosa-specific features are there, but the kit is the same as the Quincy - totally wrong for Tuscaloosa.

Thanks Dick! If you dont mind, could you tell me what changes should be made to the Astoria? I want to make these as accurate as I can.

When you say Quincys bridge block is not tall enough, which part are you talking about? The base of the superstructure, or the block that is molded on the bridge part with wings? I am assuming it is the bridge part, but just want to make sure. So if that is the case, do I need to add some styrene to the top of that to make it accurate? And if so, do you happen to know how much?

Also the 20mm platform in front of the bridge, I know that it needs to be lowered, but when I look at the part, I see no way of doing that unless I make an entirely new part. Is there any easier way to do this? Preferably without scratchbuilding?

Does anyone happen to know whether the Quincy, Vincennes, or Astoria were equipped with smoke generators, or depth charge racks on the stern, at the time of their sinking? And also what radar they all had? From the pics I have seen they all look like they had the same radar.

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri

By "bridge block" I am meaning the entire structure. Something that might help is to place the Quincy and Astoria structures side-by-side. Each level of the structure on one should match the height of the corresponding level on the other. Quincy is short between the O-1 (the level of turret II) and the bottom of the pilothouse level. Also, the "birdbath" for Quincy's rangefinder is poorly rendered. The Astoria bridge is slightly short at the top. Notice the splinter screens at the level of the 1.1's. They almost touch the base of the battle-lookout level above. However, that should be a full deck-height between levels, and the splinter screens should only be as high as half of the level. Also, on Astoria, there should be 5 windows in the angled bulkhead on each side of the pilothouse rather than the 4 depicted.

So basically I need to try to replace the bottom pieces of the superstructure? Make it taller? I guess that would make the 20mm platform easier to fix. Any other ideas?

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri

Anybody?...........^^^

Also my question, again, from above:

Does anyone happen to know whether the Quincy, Vincennes, or Astoria were equipped with smoke generators, or depth charge racks on the stern, at the time of their sinking? And also what radar they all had? From the pics I have seen they all look like they had the same radar.

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri

None of the three had depth charges, at least as of July. So I would guess that they still didn't by the first week of August. I have also seen no evidence of smoke canisters. All three had SC air search radar and MK-3's on both main battery directors. The MK-28 AA directors would not really support the weight of a MK-4 radar, since they lacked the power drives of the later MK-33's. The director was heavy enough without.

Thanks again, Dick! Man, I am glad you're on this forum, or id be at a loss! Lol! You seem to be the man to go to on info for the NO CA's. Thank you sooo much. That helps a ton.

_________________
The Workbench:
1/350 USS Vincennes
1/350 USS Indianapolis
Future Builds:
1/350 USS Quincy
1/350 Tam USS Missouri

Hi
I wander if somebody could help me understand certain things about Astoria bridge layout. Below is a fragment of well known general plan of the ship on which I have marked, in different colors, what I perceive as different levels of the bridge. The numbers indicate height above comm platform. I can't make sense of "stores" level at elevation 3' ( or 8' ?). There is a passage there marked in red - from where it was accessible?

The passageway in red is accessed by an inclined ladder in the center of the passageway. It is a rectangular opening with radius (rounded) corners. There is a railing around three sides. Looks like the port side is open. I can't talk to the numbers.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia

I don't have the plans to confirm the numbers that way. However, the "3" should probably be an "8". The original signal bridge deck was a full level above the deck listed as the "communications platform". The base of the conning tower was a partial level higher in order to allow the CT to have forward visibility over Turret II. (Since the nav-bridge was immediately above the CT, placing the CT a full level higher would have raised every deck above it correspondingly higher, negatively impacting stability.) Tuscaloosa was the first unit to glass in the signal bridge, but it was done at the original level. The view forward from the windows was, not surprisingly, blocked by Turret II. So, Astoria, Minneapolis, and San Francisco all extended the small, slightly raised CT base level to the full dimensions of the signal bridge level, and the new signal bridge was glassed in at the higher level. This created a partial-height level between the old and new signal bridges, which according to your plans, was used for stores. The ladder from the communications level to the original signal bridge was extended up to the new signal bridge level. Since it extended through the partial deck level in the "red" passage, I would agree with Charles that this was probably the access point to this low-overhead storage. Changing the "3" to an "8" would place the original signal bridge a full level above the communications deck and the new signal bridge 3' 10" above that.

Thanks Charles and Dick
It makes sense for me now.
So there is a kind of crawl space under the new signal platform, 3' high, which was used for storage.
In this case the "doors" marked in red passage are not really doors but hatches to storage spaces and one would not be able to stand there.

Hi, new to this forum. Hope someone can help me on a small problem. Both the Trumpeter USS Astoria and Minneapolis kits have two parts step 7 of the bridge assy. that are not identified by sprue location. They are round in shape. I have used the magnifying glass on the instructions and actual sprue and cannot figure out what they are and where they are located on the tree.
Thanks for any help. Kevin

When they don't have a part number assigned, it usually means the piece is made up of two or more parts that the instructions told you to put together at an earlier step. In this case, it's referring to the director in the tub that you put together the box at the bottom right corner in step 2. Hope that helps!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Thanks very much Timmy C. I am not working on the kit yet. I had it out because of the forum's discussion of the different cruiser bridges. I kind of long for the day when I just used to glue em together and they became bb/firecracker targets the next year.