hobby boss USS arizona 1/350 BB-39 [1941]

that was good reading , thanks for the history lesson mate .

I have painted the hull , is this blue a close variant ? and does the hull red look a little high , I'm am no historian , that's why I like listening to you guy's .

This doesnt help the coloring questions. But rather a neat bit of history surrounding the Arizona and the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was a couple with the last name of Oberg that had a bought a color film camera to capture their life together.

The husband was in the Army and got stationed to Pearl Harbor not long before the attack. When the attack took place he rushed to help. His wife grabbed the camera and started filming.

You can find the video on youtube by searching Oberg color film footage of Pearl Harbor. Although you never really directly see the ships in the harbor, they were close enough to capture the smoke and stuff from the ships being hit.

Quite an interesting story with a good history. To date, I believe this was the only colored filmed footage of the attack.

OP, love what you are doing with this kit, Keep it up!

White/ Dark Blue/ Red

I did too, UAL. My Dad was colorblind.

My F-in-Law spent 1943-1944 flying in a Beaufighter in the MTO. 

USAAF reverse lend-lease. 

I built him a model working from b/w photographs.

Two tone camo.

"What color was it?".

"I don't know. I was too busy climbing in and out of the damn thing".

CapnMac82

 

 

kustommodeller1.2

Why is there no one, at all, who can say with 100% certainty,

 

 

If you ask people in criminal justice, there are few things as reliably unreliable as "eyewitness testimony."  And, the further back in time a recollection is the less reliable it becomes.  This is reduced with Subject Matter Experts, but not eliminated.

Around the Navy base the locals, such as they were (Hawai'i did not become an exotic tourist attraction until the late 50s) were used to seeing gray navy ships.  And for many decades, too.  In 1940, they started in with the darker camo schemes, even blue dark enough to be black.  Remember, too, the locals were also used to merchant vessels in every color, too.  Ships were colorful.

Consider how few remember the painting of the turret tops.

Then, in all the time passing, the ships became gray again.

Quick, try and remember what color Delta aircraft are painted.

 

Delta is boring... Southwest has purple fuselage and Orange stripes... that is memorable... TWA, White with Red trim, Pan Am White with Blue trim... American had NMF with Red, White, and Blue livery...

No offense to Delta personnel... I grew up in a TWA household and airlines were a big part of my youth.

kustommodeller1.2

Why is there no one, at all, who can say with 100% certainty,

If you ask people in criminal justice, there are few things as reliably unreliable as "eyewitness testimony."  And, the further back in time a recollection is the less reliable it becomes.  This is reduced with Subject Matter Experts, but not eliminated.

Around the Navy base the locals, such as they were (Hawai'i did not become an exotic tourist attraction until the late 50s) were used to seeing gray navy ships.  And for many decades, too.  In 1940, they started in with the darker camo schemes, even blue dark enough to be black.  Remember, too, the locals were also used to merchant vessels in every color, too.  Ships were colorful.

Consider how few remember the painting of the turret tops.

Then, in all the time passing, the ships became gray again.

Quick, try and remember what color Delta aircraft are painted.

Bill;

     I am going to say your right. I too believe she was in process. Admiral King wasn't really woried about it. Get her done and then we'll leave for a patrol. I have heard that someone tried to get a computer to read the little dots that was print back then, in photos and still didn't get a proper decision.

It would take a written record and some photographs that were demonstrably color correct, to be 100% certain.

Peoples memories aren't much of a help.

I think the conclusion is at about 90% right now.

 FWIW, my thought is that she was being painted at the time.

Bill

I have always  been curious. There were litterally thousands of people who were regulars around Honolulu and Pearl for years who didn't perish in the Pearl Harbor attack. Arizona was a little large to be kept indoors out of public view. Big. Bold. Beautiful.

Why is there no one, at all, who can say with 100% certainty, that BB-39 was either blue or grey in the first week of December? (head scratch)

Should be added to the list of wrold's greatest mysteries.

It was a joke. 

"Color"hadn't been invented yet, judging from the preponderance of b/w photos.

"Color film" of course had.

GMorrison

Vestal anchored next to her port side. Too bad color hadn't been invented yet...

 

Actually, it had been around for quite awhile.  US was a bit slow adapting it.  There was a show, either PBS or History channel, of the best color movie shots from WW2.

finally able to get some primer on her

hi everybody , sorry I was gone for so long , but I just wasn't enjoying modeling that much , and with not recieving emails and the covet19 , this got put on the shelf of doom . over the sulk's now , I got it down from the shelf and found it had suffered a bit of a bump and one of the smaller turrets has disappeared, so I had to make another one and all the PE walls had fallen off . so of to brisbane tomorrow for supplies as we are able to do a bit of traveling now . will post some pic's when able .

it seems I have accidentally muted myself from my own build , am I able to reverse this please .

That was taken by Dr. Haakenson on board USS Solace. The original 8mm film was in color. The Navy department made a black and white copy for study and now only a few stills from the color film exist.

Steve5, How is this build going?

I haven't seen an update for a long time. I really like the PE work your doing as it will really bring this ship to a new level. 

I'm starting this kit for a American Ship GB. I also purchased the metal barrels along with both Eduard and Toms Model Works PE sets. 

I am looking forward to your update. Is there anything since your last update I should know. 

Ben

ddp59 and Model Monkey,

     Thank You.  Those Pics and Post tell the story.

     Separate elevation as per the photo's. 

      I missed the fact of the 2-gun turrets being different. So NY and NV class could elevate those individually.  So only Triple turrets on NV and PA class could not elevate seperately.

 Also, I only meant the 14"/45 BB's.  All 16" guns could elevate individually.

  Correction Much Appreciated!

          Nino

P.S. I did indicate Colorado could elevate individial guns.  My previous post:  "For ..., Colorado, ...(and newer bb's), Trunnion pressue when firing is listed per gun meaning each gun barrel can be elevated/fired, separately.

Nino, New York's main guns can individually elevate. also the Colorado class had twin 16" gun turrets not triple 14".

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013401e.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013424.jpg

Texas

http://navsource.org/archives/01/035/013512t.jpg

http://navsource.org/archives/01/035/013534.jpg

Excellent work!  Really enjoying your build.

Yes, concur with the above posts: barrels mounted together on a single sleeve.

Oddly, Nevada's and Oklahoma's twin-gun turrets' guns could elevate independently.  Like Arizona, their triple-gun turrets could not.  The succeeding New Mexico class had 3-gun turrets with guns that could elevate independently. 

Perhaps putting the guns together in a single sleeve saved space and weight.

Photos indicate Arizona's turrets had a feature that was not present on elder sistership Pennsylvania's turrets.  Arizona's turrets had oval access plates on the external ventilation trunks.  Pennsylvania's did not have the access plates.  Nevada's and Oklahoma's triple-gun turrets did not have external vent trunks.  It seems that as each successive ship was built, a new feature was introduced.

As Dr. McCoy says, "I know engineers, they love to change things."

 I dug out my references for BB-38 regarding the turrets.

EDIT:  My remarkes below are for 3-gun turrets. Please disregard my reference to NY class and the 2-gun turrets on the NV class.

The same 14-inch/45 caliber guns were installed on New York-class, Nevada-class, and Pennsylvania-class battleships. On these BB's the trunnion and all guns in a (3-gun turret) Turret were one unit ,meaning guns could not elevate separately.

 New Mexico , Coloradoo , and Tennessee-class battleships  featured the first "three-gun" turrets, meaning that each gun in each turret could be "individually sleeved" to elevate separately.

Except that as I mentioned before, the Pennsylvania class ships did not do that. There was a big solid piece of steel that held them together at the same angle.

Thgere's a photo of it in Stllwell, but I can't find my copy right now.

I think the modeler has said that in those photos they are loose fitted, not glued in yet.

Nino

 

 

 

steve5

just starting to see what I'm getting myself into . 38 pieces of PE , plus 12 barrel's .

 

 

 

 

 

     The metal barrels look super.   I do note that in your picture they are set to different elevations as if they could be elevated/depressed separately from adjacent barrels in the same turret.  I think that may be wrong.  I was of the opinion that all 3 barrels in a BB-38 and BB-39 turret were set to same elevation on all 3 barrels.   Guess we need a Pennsylvania class expert to answer this one.  

   Something to consider before you use glue!

   Nino

( My hand written notes that I have in my old Dragon Pennsylvania  kit box says "...the guns could not elevate independently".  Not a reference I would bet the farm on but something that will need to be confirmed.)

 

 

 

Actually The gimick Trumpeter used for the Arizona's barrels is suprisingly accurate it actually allows you to pose the barrels at different elevations seperately. Which means you can pose all guns elevated to firing position or you can pose two barrels in post firing(loading) position with the last gun in the turret firing.

I've updated my CL-52 build (hull) over on my WIP thread.

As far as BB-39 is concerned, Steve5 you need to rent "Here Comes The Navy".

Sorry to hijack, or pirate more appropriate, this thread.

Just finished a book about 19th Century merchant ship design. Unlike the Navy, they pay taxes and the tonnage is entirely a formula based on just a handful of overall dimensions.

The art was in building a beamy ship with convex bows that could still sail reasonably fast.

It was seriously thought that deeper ships sailed faster.

CapnMac82

The CL(AA) were taught at Newport because, as over-sized destroyers, they had pretty dramatic stability equations.  The CLs had more beam and did not produce the same sort of head-desking equations.

My Basic Naval Architecture class at CGA used the DD-692 (long hull).  I still have the book and the graphs -  for solving tons per inch immersion/stability problems...

CapnMac82

Displacement tonnage is base on volume, not weight; adding and subtracting weight gets complicated.

In the case of an Atlanta, your expendables are all the bunker fuel, all the ammo (5", 40mm, 20mm, and torpedoes), potable water, food stuffs, and all the spares.

The CL(AA) were taught at Newport becasue, as over-sized destroyers, they had pretty dramatic stability equations.  The CLs had more beam and did not produce the same sort of head-desking equations.

 

The 100 pounds/ sailor wasn't the warm body; it's the expendables and it's a low estimate.

Displacement tonnage is base on volume, not weight; adding and subtracting weight gets complicated.

In the case of an Atlanta, your expendables are all the bunker fuel, all the ammo (5", 40mm, 20mm, and torpedoes), potable water, food stuffs, and all the spares.

The CL(AA) were taught at Newport becasue, as over-sized destroyers, they had pretty dramatic stability equations.  The CLs had more beam and did not produce the same sort of head-desking equations.

You're right.

gmorrison

I followed your logic until the end. When you divided pounds to get tons I think you dropped zeros. So instead of 16 tons of ammunition it should be 160 tons and for the crew instead of 5 tons, 50 tons. Also I think the average weight of a crew member should probably be 150 lbs not 100.

One last comment. In the case of my ship (at a much later date) the magazines were always kept full only being topped off for ammunition expended in practice shoots. Since we were using ammo left over from WWII we were encouraged to use as much as we wanted. In the case of the Atlanta I would expect it would return from a battle with a reserve  still in the magazines and be immediately rearmed so it was ready for the next one.

CapnMac82

Somewhere in my pile of refernce material is a guidline to boot topping widths, which was by class/size of ships.

I'd really like to know what that manual is, because it flies in the face of the technical documentation I've read.

since this subject has come up , I have decided to glue the two halve's together , thought it would be pretty simple , but they didn't line too well . the top halve was a bit wider than the bottom , it has taken a bit of sanding to get it too primer stage , [ that's next ] it will still need a fair bit of work after that .

Well you caught me. I think 6' is the deal for a big BB but it seemed a little beyond- memory fails.

It's hard to paint the stripe while afloat, and to be anywhere below light would be impossible.

Interesting though, and again not as big a deal on BB-39 as on my current builds the CL's.

Ammunition was loaded in advance of a mission, not much before. An Atlanta Class CL had 16 5" guns and each had 200 rounds on board for a battle. That's 3200 rounds at 100 pounds or so each, 320,000 pounds.

That equates to 16 tons, which on a 5,000 ton displacement ship is a 0.3% difference. Assuming 20 foot freeboard, thats about 9".

Add 100 pounds per sailor (1,000) another 5 tons or 2-3".

Then fuel.

You get 24" or so of difference.