Shipbucket

Speaking of the 1935 fleet days, here's a pic from that very period, showing three beautiful ladies: the Statue of Liberty, U.S.S. Indianapolis, and R.M.S. Aquitania.

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Thank you, Colosseum and Emperor_andress. Later today I'll check out Navsource. I have already, from the Wikipedia articles alone, noticed the differences in the foremast "as built" and "at war".

As far as the 5/25s go, I found a plan for them from the source Timothy linked. I'm going to give it a try drawing it from the plan. If I can't make it look right, I'll probably use bezobrazov's 5/25s from Northampton.

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

Well, you need to know the exact Mark and Mod numbers for the gun - then I would check the USN Systems thread to see if it's been drawn already. If not, then go ahead and try to draw it using the ordnance pamphlets available on the HNSA website Tim linked.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I'll scour the parts sheet thread and see if it's in there. I believe it is a Mk 10 or Mk 11.

What I've learned so far: I know already I messed up the degaussing cable. the area around the 5" secondaries appears to have handrails in the older Northampton class, but all the pictures I've seen of both CA-33 and CA-35 appear to have solid bulwarks around the secondaries, which I included but in at least one spot rendered incorrectly. Also the general shape of the bow appears off. Some of the errors could be because I scaled up my source drawing to Shipbucket scale. I've made some alterations, but nothing significant enough to warrant re-uploading. I'd expect to have an updated WIP up probably by Monday (four consecutive overnight shifts isn't conducive to long periods of drawing.)

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

While Bezo's sentiments are harsh, I fear they may be rather accurate. Back when I was more involved in drawing SB ships I assembled all of the resources to draw the 1930s USN heavy cruisers, and I drew much of Houston before handing it off to Bezo. The Portlands were low on my priority list since they had neither the elegant tripods of the Northamptons or the brawler good looks of the New Orleans; but I can immediately point out several areas for improvement.

Colo references the drawings from Friedman's Cruisers: I have one of those three drawings here for your enlightenment. This is A.L. Raven's depiction of Indianapolis as completed in 1932. Friedman additionally shows the refitted Portland and the refitted Indianapolis.



I do not appear to have scanned the other two drawings Colo references, but they show Portland as refitted post Tassafaronga (in other words, as she looked from '43 onward). The other two drawings show Indianapolis, which has some differences both in original construction and as refitted.

I also have this line drawing of Portland in 1945 configuration. At a glance, it looks mostly correct, but I cannot vouch for the source. I tend to be a bit... uh... distrustful of Russian sources: in the past I've found that at least one Russian "source" decided that a forum post I'd made for a naval game constituted a proper cite. However, in this case, the drawing does not have any flaws that jump out at me. Let the buyer beware!

The bridge structure appears to be the most incorrect thing I can see at first glance: the upper decks loom outward over the turrets in haphazard fashion, and the legs of the tripod - all three legs - are too thick and do not appear to be at the correct angle. The mast rising from the top of the tripod ought to be very thin (I have my doubts that it should even be three pixels wide).

In an as-completed state, she did NOT have 20mm Oerlikons or 40mm Bofors guns installed on her bridge superstructure. I don't know when they were placed there, but I can tell you they were there by mid-1944. At a guess - and I'd urge you to confirm this with photographic evidence - they were probably installed in her post-Tassafaronga refit.

I drew the 5"/25 guns that were used on the Houston drawing, researching it from photographs. Someone else redrew them completely differently for the New Orleans, with a much longer barrel which I believe to be incorrect. It is my impression that was the 5"/25 added to the parts sheet. Sounds like Bezo redrew them again more recently, though, and I trust his judgment and research skills explicitly.

From the photographic evidence I have, neither of these two cruisers had an angled funnel cap until their later refit, which saw the reconstruction of much of their aft superstructure. It appears you've drawn the aft superstructure in an as-completed fashion (1932) rather than as it was after repairs following Tassafaronga. If your goal is to show her in 1942 as at Midway, this picture and this picture demonstrate that she lacked the funnel cap.

Please note that, according to what photographic and illustrative evidence I have, the deck break on the Indianapolis was located further astern than on the Portland. This imitates what occurs in the Northampton class. It's something to mind if you want to draw both ships.

After Portland's refit, it appears she had a thin tripod mast installed overhead her second funnel, while the original tripod mast and the boat crane (together with the boats) were removed entirely. A radar set and numerous 20mm guns were added in their place, and two twin 40mm Bofors guns were added on the main deck. The original bridge structure was reconstructed, and the windows and balconies of the original (which you tried to draw) were erased.

You are correct in pointing out that the curve and angle of the bow is off.

The key question, as Colo asked earlier, is what date you wish to draw this ship. You said you're going for the '42 look and would then draw them as built... but the '1942 look' is fairly close to the as-built design. It was not until the end of 1942 that Portland was rebuilt as a result of Tassafaronga. You've included elements from both pre- and post-Tassafaronga periods, and it sounds like you believe your drawing represents post-refit. In fact, it more approximately represents pre-refit, albeit with some post-refit touches like the funnel cap.

I'd highly suggest that you put together a lot more research and source drawings, then find a time period where you have good photographic evidence to support your drawing choices. Once you've figured out approximately what time periods you have the most photographs and information from, then choose that as the period to set your drawing.

In any case, I'm not an expert on these ships, so I'm just pointing out a few of the big things that jump out at me.

I have no comments on the 5"/25s as I have not specifically worked with them (well, since the Brooklyn class, but that needs an update anyway). I'd like to one day get all USN parts up to the same standard I've drawn things for the Alaska: all views drawn to scale, all marks and mods depicted and clearly labelled on a sheet that provides all the information you could want about that specific piece.

This probably won't happen unless I specifically do so myself unfortunately.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I do apologize to Navybrat if I came out a tad harsh, but, colo, you should absolutely not be talking, ye Lord All Mighty of the USN. Oh, yes, I've noticed your comments to other people! So, I'll say this and then be quiet about it.
As for the references, such as the 5/25, I have drawn t: its on the Northamptons! Since I've used actual drawings for the mount, there shouldn't be any need to replicate it - just nick it! Unfortunately, I never got to submit it as a part, which was dumb, but, even if its on a ships drawing, you're free to use it. My good friend Brockpaine submitted A. L. Raven' drawing of the Indy. That was excellent, but please keep in mind to modify that drawing to her 1935 version - one that I seriously think you should do, due to the historical connection with that Sailor President FDR! As for underwater hull use the one I and Brock drew for the Northamptons, as well as gun houses, directors etc. you can pretty much "cannibalize" our drawings to obtain yours. I'm sure Brockpaine shares my view on this.
As for my erroneous statement about Portand being lost at Guadalcanal -yes, I was wrong! She did, in fact participate in that campaign and was severely damaged, but it was the Northampton I had in mind when writing my last post.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Thanks again for the input....I am gonna throw this out so you can all have a laugh with me, because this is the reference my rendering in the original post is based off of. After several hours of picture-browsing, I've come to realize this image was...well, kinda useless.

Can't remember the site I got it from, but after looking at lots of pictures, and even looking in the Janes Fighting Ships book I have, I noticed that this is probably NOT the source I want to be using.

Edit: bezobrazov, thank you for the apology, though I really didn't take any offense to your comments, actually. I don't have a reputation as being one of the more skilled artists on this forum. I am smart enough to realize this, and also to realize that going from an AU artist with only 1 real design (the Proteksan Turqouis yacht) this project is going to stretch and test my skills.

That said, I do feel like a real idjit for not doing more homework to start with before drawing from such flawed reference material.

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

Please go and find me a recent example where I have written a disparaging, bombastic, overbearing reply (like yours) to someone drawing a real life ship. I eagerly await your response.

The replies I make are intended to be helpful based on the experience I have gained drawing most of the USN cruiser force of World War II. Usually they are backed up by what is becoming an extremely extensive library of books on the subject, and more often than not I can reference wartime publications (such as those listed on HNSA) or other reputable sources (navweaps, etc) to back up my comments. You on the other hand seem to delight in posting heavy language laden with irrelevancies ("the Sailor President FDR! The glory of the Fleet Review!") that don't really help anyone but instead make you look like someone who just wants to lord their knowledge over everyone else.

Personally, and I apologize if this offends you, but I don't consider you to be very helpful at all. BrockPaine's post above is ten times as useful and you'll note that he doesn't use a single exclamation point... just facts, backed up with photos and good information about the refits. :/

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

....VOFF?!


I know, I know... but I had to! the mode in here did look a bit... yeah!