Shipbucket

That really IS good work Aercastro old chap.

Jolly well done sir

Colosseum wrote: ↑October 31st, 2017, 11:49 pmI'm sure Colombamike will have commentary to add though.

@aercastro82,

Point proven.

He is not a "naysayer" - he has a point (at least in this case). Rarely has his criticism ever been incorrect, it's just the matter in which it is delivered that leaves room for improvement.

Anyway, relatively few errors and all of them easily fixed.

For me it's okay that he is correct. The most important thing for me, is that he is willing to take the time to detail check our work

Thanks for the correction.
You are right.
USS PORTLAND did not have SG radar.

Anyways,
I couldn't draw more details on the aft-mast rails because the June 1942 picture is shown forward-starboard side.
If there are any pictures showing complete starboard side, that will help me draw those details.

I looked on this picture but the quality is too low.
[img]

This one as close as I can get:
[img]

I added the canvas on searchlight rails but I don't know if that's the proper way to do it?

[img]

Very nice work!

NHHC has 30MB TIFFs available of the Feb 1942 Mare Island photos taken of CA-33 during a refit period:

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 28193.html

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 28196.html

19-N-28193 has what you're looking for, albeit from the port side (but the details are still visible). Download the full resolution TIFF and then convert it to JPG for easier viewing.

Most of the detail I'm able to add to my work comes from careful scrutiny of the Mare Island photos. Out of all the yards they took the best pictures and usually circled any modifications made (especially later in the war), and this makes our job much easier.

NHHC has photos for most of the surface units, just search by hull number. Good luck!

PS: I'm not sure why you removed all the detail I had added on the underwater hull. This was drawn using the A.D. Baker III plan in Friedman's Cruisers, which were plotted from original hull lines. The "booklet of general plans" you have based your underwater hull on is just a generic sketch of the hull, and should not be taken as an accurate representation of the hull openings and rudder form etc.

Colosseum wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2017, 1:51 pm NHHC has 30MB TIFFs available of the Feb 1942 Mare Island photos taken of CA-33 during a refit period:

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 28193.html

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 28196.html

Thanks for the information

Colosseum wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2017, 1:51 pmPS: I'm not sure why you removed all the detail I had added on the underwater hull. This was drawn using the A.D. Baker III plan in Friedman's Cruisers, which were plotted from original hull lines. The "booklet of general plans" you have based your underwater hull on is just a generic sketch of the hull, and should not be taken as an accurate representation of the hull openings and rudder form etc.

I am more than happy to input the details back on the hull.
I was not sure if those details were on that ship in 1942 since your drawing was based in 1943.

I am not an expert of this sort of stuff and I will not claim my drawings as accurate.
I only rely on the sources I have available.
I cannot tell if my sources are accurate.
I just do what I can.

I only draw this stuff for the fun of it but I appreciate the corrections and also the additional sources you have input like this
"A.D. Baker III plan in Friedman's Cruisers".
I never heard of it but I will look for it and see what I can find.

Best Regards,
Apollo

Sure - I mean, unfortunately we will likely never know FOR SURE what the underwater hull looked like except via plans like that (or by ordering microfilm from NARA and examining it, but a lot of times the originals are long gone). We can usually get a "close enough" estimate that looks good and makes sense based on what we know to be true - in this case, I doubt the hull openings changed much as time went on (though I could be wrong) - and the sea chests were probably identical on Portland and Indianapolis. Until we find evidence that suggests otherwise, we're fairly good to just "assume"... but this comes with the territory.