Trumpeter 1/350 San Francisco

ps1scw wrote:

ps1scw wrote: I'd like to see some WIP pic's ..

..

Hey Mac, it all depends on who and what you build for. If it's for fun I say just pop the decals on and enjoy yourself.

But if it does concern you, well, correcting the details can bring a whole new level of either pain, prid, and joy. For the most part ships aren't THAT hard to modify, at least the ships of the 20th century and later have fairly straight superstructures with very little in the way of the compund curves you see on aircraft.

Thanks for the link, Tracy. That thread is extermely useful. Unfortunately, it looks like the San Francisco and Astoria have visible differences (shows you how far along I am in my research!).

Are the differences enough to scare me away from putting to-be-obtained '34' decals on a supposedly pretty accurate 1/350 model of the San Francisco in 1942? I haven't determined that yet. Anyone I showed a finished model to wouldn't know the difference. But I would know. :)

 

Welcome to ship modeling! I was an airplane guy once.....

You might check out  ModelWarship's "Calling all New Orleans Class" thread as there is information on Astoria there.

I just bought this kit as well. I plan to build it as the USS Astoria (CA-34) in 1942 though. I'm not sure what the differences are between the San Francisco and Astoria. With my luck Trumpeter will release an Astoria right after I finish.

I plan to do Measure 21, hull build, with 4 visible SOC Seagulls and an open hangar. I ordered the Trump Seagull kit, PE details for the Seagulls, the WE New Orleans Heavy Cruiser PE kit, and a few of the other WE kits.

This will be my first ship model.

I'd like to replace the anchor chain but I haven't researched how to do this or what chain to buy.

I need to get a decal source for the '34' hull numbers as well.

You've done well, my friend. I have not might not go out to Alcatraz, although I've lived within sight of it for 50 plus years. the Red Oak Victory is in Richmond, in the East Bay, as part of the Rosie The Riveter Memorial site.

bondoman wrote:

You are correct and thank you. Back in the day it was stored off somewhere; now there's an appropriate display. http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/sanfranciscophoto1/ig/outerrichmond/rcusssf.htm Which I have not been to see, but need to. There's the seaplane base on Treasure Island which is now the War in the Pacific museum, the Hornet in Alameda, the Jeremiah O'Brien Liberty ship, The Red Oak Victory ship, and my favorite, the Balao class sub Pampanito. It's apretty rich environment. We also have all of the old Nike missile sites, including one which goes through the whole missile raising drill once a month. And if you have a car and care to tour around, the coastal battery ranging lookouts are fun. They have the big concrete tables with ranging line pointed out into the shipping channel. Bill Thanks, Bill

Been on the Jerimiah O'brien and Pampanito, haven't made it to see the Hornet yet and didn't know about the museum on TI or the Red Oak. I used to go to Ft Point and the gun emplacements on the Marin Headlands all the time when I was living in the East Bay, fun to hike around them. My son will be 8 in May, thats probably old enough to enjoy a sub, and I still need to go to Alcatraz, I lived in the Bay Area for 28 years and never made it to "The Rock". Haven't been on the Balcutha forever either, probably need to revisit it again as well.

Looking forward to seeing the San Francisco built, its tempting in 1/350 but I'm hoping Trumpeter will re-scale it for 1/700 which will be more kind to my shelving and wallet, although this kit is surprisingly affordable for the size.

ps1scw wrote:

I'd like to see some WIP pic's

..

That looks like a book I need. the gun enclosures looked funny to me, as tho they were rotated, not mirrored, from side to side. But if thats correct, good. I think from looking at photos they might be each a little more unique than the model, but it's hard to tell.

I've been working on her this week. It seems to be a very nice model. One thing in particular is how the parts are designed to be separated by color- very little masking will be required.

I've got all the PE I need, except I wish there was a replacement searchlight tower. I'm going to work over the one from the kit as it stands out compared to all the really nice PE for the seaplane operation.

I have replacement 5" guns which are much nicer than the kit ones, but those were not horrible, esp. if you added railings from a stash of stock.

Trump nicely did not include cast railings where PE would go, and the ladders are easy to shave off.

Right off though, the hawse holes for the anchors look wimpy, so I shaved them off and will replace with the deeper cone shaped surrounds in the photos, and the fouling guards on the sides looked wrong built up of solid plate- they should be tubular I would guess, so I shaved them off too but kept them for now in the box.

This weekend I'll start spraying on the sprues.

Bill

It appears that I need to offer a retraction on my earlier statement regarding the open mount gun shields being incorrect. I talked with Steve Wiper, author of this book, this weekend, and he said that he thought they had actually gotten this correct; instead of making a custom shield for each mount they had made two of each and simply rotated them when mounting, so that each side was different. Regrettably, as cruisers aren't really my main area of interest I have absolutely no references on her that are of any help in this regard.

I'd like to see some WIP pic's

You are correct and thank you. Back in the day it was stored off somewhere; now there's an appropriate display.

http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/sanfranciscophoto1/ig/outerrichmond/rcusssf.htm

Which I have not been to see, but need to.

There's the seaplane base on Treasure Island which is now the War in the Pacific museum, the Hornet in Alameda, the Jeremiah O'Brien Liberty ship, The Red Oak Victory ship, and my favorite, the Balao class sub Pampanito.

It's apretty rich environment. We also have all of the old Nike missile sites, including one which goes through the whole missile raising drill once a month. And if you have a car and care to tour around, the coastal battery ranging lookouts are fun. They have the big concrete tables with ranging line pointed out into the shipping channel.

Bill

Thanks, Bill

Bondoman, you may already know this but there is a chunk of the San Francisco in San Francisco somewhere over by Ocean Beach and the Cliff House. Not that it would be of any help with the build detailwise but since you are in the area it might provide some inspiration being able to walk around part of the real thing. I've forgotten now what it is, part of the bridge as I recall, possibly a gun tub. It's been years since I was over there so I don't remember the details, just thought it was neat.

It's too bad the SF Bay Area has lost almost all of its military bases, as a kid it was great getting to tour the ships in port. I went on the Enterprise, & Coral Sea, as well as a number of smaller ships. Also being able to look down on the bay from the hills and seeing ships sailing into Alameda, Hunters Point or Vallejo. They still do fleet week but its not really the same. Oh, well rambling.  

Thanks!!!!!

As promised but a little lateHere are some of the pics from my dads book.Some of these are of the '43 convertion and few are not but of '39 convertion which is what the model is based on.I hope ya'll like and help some of you out.There were very little of the guns but some of these images are of the ship and crew.Enjoy.....Digger

The last one is during the battle of Guadallcanal and in the upper right hand corner you can see one of the two quad 40's mm.

i will have photos up on what i have tomorrow for you guys,Digger.

Chuck Hansen published a book in 1978, titled USS San Francisco, A Technical History, ~100 pages, with photos, drawings, technical descriptions of ship's systems and history. Two copies are for sale on the internet for $55 & $58 plus shipping (www.addall.com).

 

I think it may also have been an effect of simply running out of 'appropriate' names, as the number of cruisers built exceeded the numbers of cities available.  There was also a problem in the pre-dreadnought era, when armored cruisers began to be named after states (and so were battleships!), and then it was decided in 1912 that only battleships should be named after states and all the armored cruisers had their names changed as a result (AC New York was changed to Saratoga, and then to Rochester).  But there didn't seem to be any emphasis on the relative importance of the cities chosen for the AC's.   Heavy cruisers started out as state capitals, with light cruisers as secondary cities (especially those along the coast, and/or whose names had been used by the old sail navy), but that didn't last too long, especially when political favors needed to be handed out, etc.  And you can see how far that has gone, with Navy ships now named almost anything, with no rhyme or reason to it.  This may not necessarily be a bad thing, as now an enemy overhearing/intercepting communications, or even just dockside chatter will get no real clues as to what kind of ship is being discussed, simply because of the kind of name the ship has..... OPSEC! 

JTilley...often wondered that myself about cruiser names.....I believe it was somewhat prejudiced as to size of city etc. I mean there are the old CL's like Dover and Marblehead that would hardly capture the Nation's imagination by name alone....

Cleveland, Montpelier, Columbia and Richmond (et al)....well, who knows what the National opinion was of those cities was during the 'naming' meetings. Plus, as ship builds and steel, and other funds are allocated....adding Congressional input at the time.....anything could happen.

They had to build Heavies and Lights and give them names. Look at CLAA Atlanta, San Juan and Juneau......it fits a pattern and bucks the pattern at the same time. 

EDIT HERE: The Navy also lauded cities nere the shorline, and that had bases nearby. 

For what it's worth, here's a link to the NAVSOURCE page about the Toledo:  http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/133/04133.htm

She was indeed a heavy cruiser of the Baltimore class, started during WWII but not commissioned till 1947.  She did indeed serve in the Korean unpleasantness. 

As a transplanted Ohioan I wonder:  why did Toledo get a heavy cruiser named after it and Cleveland, which is a much bigger city, a light cruiser?  For that matter, why did my home town, Columbus, get a heavy cruiser named after it and Cincinnati (which until fairly recently was bigger than Columbus) a light cruiser?  I guess they don't take the size of the community into consideration when they assign the ship names.

Hi Shippers!

I nose into the "Gray Side" every now and then to learn things an A/C builder wouldn't know about the hobby!

On a different, although related tack: I was able to get aboard the heavy cruiser USS Toledo...(hull # in the mid-hundreds) while she was in the San Diego 'Mothball Fleet' back in 1974. She was due to be scrapped, and active commands were allowed aboard to 'salvage' useable parts and items.

I got to walk on real teak decks, got inside the forward 8" mount (M-1?), went to the bridge and signal bridge....saw the armored combat pilot house.....and...visited a couple of the old 40mm quad mounts. The tubs were 1/4" (perhaps a little less) steel with a rounded coaming.....steel gussets in isoceles triangle shape attaching tub to deck. The 40's were not there, of course, but I sqatted on the mount base peering over the coaming at the ocean....and really got the feel of seeing as a gunner might have.

Toledo (hull# 146, I think....not into looking her up) either got in the war at the end or just after VJ Day....but went to mothball soon after. She showed some signs of modernization, maybe for a Korean re-commission?

 

Bondoman,

 

This is the 5" 25 caliber on board the USS Astoria (courtesy of the Naval Historical Center).  The mount is quite a bit different from the 5" 38 caliber.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I'll put up sprue shots this weekend. I'm no one to do a box review, but it looks great to me so far.

I'll also put up the AM kits I've assembled.

Anyone got an in-box review or sprue shots link?

 

Thanks

I have to appolloiges for not having any pics up for you all.I have been busy and forgot.I will try in the next two days.Digger

Thats what I was thinking. I wouldn't want to show fouling, just a flat red color. But I also wouldn't want a blue bathtub toy.

Thanks, food for thought.

 

bondoman wrote:

I'm big into tradition.

Who's tradition though? Most shipyard and presentation models are pristine.  A lot of people choose to weather above the waterline but leave the hull red alone; in a "perfect" world it would also include the under water fouling, etc, but really, it's about what the modeler wants.

Personaly, I don't do 100% pristine because I like to take light and distance into account and provide some shadowing and fading. I haven't been able to replicate underwater fouling to my liking though, and I prefer a cleaner look underneath anyway, so I usually keep the weathering in general fairly minimal and don't worry about the hull too much.

Depends on the year you want to do it in.

Thanks Tracy.

If the model is on pedestals, should it look like a real ship flying through the air that was in the ocean immediately before? or should it look like a pristine admiralty model? Does this vary by type and era. I'm big into tradition.