The Ship Model Forum

Brent Jones has just posted a bunch of new photos of the USS Astoria CA-34 "Nasty Asty" at:

http://www.ussastoria.org/

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

The parts noted are an assembly shown on the bottom of page 4. They include B15 and C1 which make up the 1.1" directors found in step 7 and at the stern in step 8.

Thanks for the help. Now you have raised another question. How does a director work? I understand or think I do about the radar directors for the big guns but I figured the smaller guns incl. the 1.1's would just be manual line of sight operation.
This forum is really great. I have learned so much and used to be more of an airplane buff. I completed a Hasegawa Nachi cruiser a couple of months ago and then started reading about Guadalcanal/Solomon islands and thats all she wrote. I'm hooked.

Stand by, you have just entered the twilight zone. There is NO known cure for this insufferable disease, other than a pine box. I've been away from these circles for a couple of years but I decided to come slinking back. The entire Solomon's campaign is a bit of history I never get tired of researching.

_________________
The closer the correspondence between a man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man. - Renato Constantino

If you really want to know how directors work, look around on the Historic Naval Ships Association documents pages:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/index.htm

You can find documents on oll sorts of naval systems.

Also, Gerne Slover's Gunnery and Fire control pages have a lot of information:

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/FIRE-CONTROL-PAGE.html

I say really because there is everything you want to know and a lot more!

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

Thanks very much for the link. I read some of it and am very impressed. You guys on this forum are very knowledgeable.
Kevin

I cannot fathom how spectacular but tragic the level of firepower that could stop and sink a 600' ship and sink it----sometimes w/in several minutes. If you survived the initial hit think about how difficult it would be to unass a ship in the dark, sometimes on fire and disoriented as to where you were.
I was in Vietnam on a UH1 in combat. I think that when you are young you don't think too much of what can happen to you. It might sound funny or strange now but at the time we looked forward to getting some "action". Now I'm just a big chicken-----ok maybe I just don't go looking for trouble

I've finally caught up on some of the reading in this thread I've missed long ago. Recently it looks like everyone is fixated on the Trumpy kits both 1/700 and 1/350. While perhaps not as "glamorous" I decided to pull out the 'ol Loose Cannon USS Vincennes that has been sitting around 1/3rd of the the way completed. Perhaps I can get some snapshots up soon to see how this resin build compared with the ones you guys may be working on.

I can say it is a very rough kit and at first glance, didn't think it would be worth cleaning up but boy was I wrong. This thing is turning out to be a real jewel even if most of the top-hamper is scratch built or heavily modified.


The most difficult part that I've run into so far is getting the bridge structure brutally accurate. Most of the surviving photos just before her loss does not get "up close and personal". Even with a set of CA44 plans a lot of my efforts are conjecture at best..... plus a little help with plans from the Quincy!

_________________
The closer the correspondence between a man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man. - Renato Constantino

Hey tenacioustanaka,

I also have the old Loose cannon 1/700 Vincennes as well as Quincy in my collection. I've been reading a lot about these ships as of late and were going to give these kits a go. I'd love to hear (or see in picture) about what corrections you've done to your Vincennes.

Does anyone else on this thread have any thoughts or advice on either of these old kits?

Thanks!

I took a bunch of photos and was prepared to post but after reviewing them, I've realized my photography skills are pathetic. Once I can figure out a better setup that produces satisfactory results I shall post.

Recently I've been working on the bridge structure and while the general shapes are correct I've had to use them as templates to fabricate new levels out of sheet styrene. The original pieces are very rough cast with a lot of flash and (for me at least) difficult to clean up. Bridge windows are all brass ladder stock now and the Captain's lookout tub positions on the bridge wings are formed copper strips. Almost all of the bulkheads and splinter protection has been redone with metal stock.

I think the hardest thing is to replicate the perforated trusses that line the base of each superstructure level. They are very difficult to install without showing glue globs and even after an initial shot of primer, the holes tend to close up and must be drilled out after each coat of paint. They are just that fine. At this rate I may finish her by the next ice age.

_________________
The closer the correspondence between a man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man. - Renato Constantino

Can anyone confirm whether New Orleans had quad 40mm bofors or 1.1 in on her fantail in November 1942? My research in this thread so far has indicated that she may have had the bofors in the smaller tubs, but the following photo from Navsource of her at Espiritu Santo seems to show a bofors to starboard and a 1.1in quad to port - a somewhat unusual arrangement. Any help would be much appreciated. Ross

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/032/0403203.jpg

Both fantail mounts were quad 40MM. The quad 40MM were installed at Pearl on the fantails of both New Orleans and Minneapolis. The New Orleans retained these fantail tubs for the rest of her career. Minneapolis had hers replaced by tubs that slightly overhung the deckedge while undergoing the later torpedo damage repairs. This difference always ID'd N.O. since all of the surviving sisters had the overhanging tubs. The two tubs high on the bridge structure still contained the 1.1's on both N.O. and Minnie until they had their bridges remodeled and quad 40MM could be fitted in lower tubs just behind the forward (elevated) 5" single mounts.

Thanks so much for that confirmation, Dick. Now I can complete my 1/700 NO as she was at ES in 11/42.

Ross

Does anyone have any photos of the interior of a New Orleans class hanger?

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea

Check page 11 of this thread about halfway down.

_________________
Fred Luhrs

]

Thank you!

_________________
Current Builds:
1-350 DKM Z-39
1-350 USS Philippine Sea

First off, I am new to this site. I have read quite a bit of this thread and have been very impressed by the amount of knowlege abounding here! I am currently building the 1/350 San Francisco 1942 version. Through reading the posts in this thread and doing what research I can on the internet I have been able to resolve most of my questions. One that I have not found the answer to is whether or not the 8 inch guns in the main battery were able to be elevated independently of each other. To clarify, I am wondering if, for example, one gun in turret 1 would be able to be elevated separately from the remaining two guns. It may be a stupid question, but I am admittedly a warship novice compared to most on this site. Can anyone be so kind as to provide the answer to this question for me? Or maybe point me towards a good comprehensive reference for this ship? I am planning on eventually posting some pictures of the completed build as my first submission.

_________________
Cap'n Price

Fitting out:
1/350 USS Saratoga 1936

On the ways:
1/72 Gato

I do not think they could be individually elevated. According to navweaps.com the first CAs to have individually sleeved guns were the Wichita CA-45 class.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The guns of the New Orleans class could not elevate independently. The guns of the first three were identical to those of the previous Portland and Northampton classes for the simple reason that CA's 32-36 were all originally ordered as a single class following the Portland design. The design for CA-37 was so superior that CA's 32, 34 and 36 (all being built in Navy Yards, so no major renegotiation for contract changes) were switched to the new design. But the guns had already been started, so their turrets were adapted to the existing guns and mountings. That is why the first three had the curved-faced turrets and the later 4 had the flat-faced turrets.

However, it was becoming apparent that the closeness of the guns was causing unacceptable shot dispersion. When Wichita was designed, she was supposed to copy the later New Orleans (flat-faced) turrets. When the dispersion issue was identified, the turrets were redesigned. They couldn't give them enough distance between gun barrels to stop the dispersion directly, but they could get enough distance to allow independent elevation, making it possible for the center gun to load, elevate, and fire on a different part of the firing cycle from the wing guns, fixing the problem. But the larger turrets, coupled with the upgunning of the 5"/25's to 5"/38's, created a major stability problem. The Baltimore was started with the intent of growing the original Wichita design to properly support the bigger turrets.

If you want a good reference, try Norman Friedman's US Cruisers book.

Hey guys,

Thanks for the prompt and detailed response! I really appreciate it!

_________________
Cap'n Price

Fitting out:
1/350 USS Saratoga 1936

On the ways:
1/72 Gato