All:
Fist off this is my second post on this topic and my first ship model. I’m gathering information on the USS Arizona. In my last post I had questions about how she was painted in 41 and a few suggested some tips and web pages. The only problem I have wrapping my head around is the red tops on the gun turrets. Has anyone been brave enough to try painting the tops red and do you have pictures?
My second question would be weathering the ship. Since I have read that this was a training ship should I assume that a peace time training ship would show minimal rusting and grime streaks?
My next question is the wood deck. What techniques can you offer or suggest as a monotone deck tan kind of seems boring.
Question three has to do with the deck rails. Has anyone tried anything other than PE? Cant’ spend the big money on something that I would prefer to make myself. Not looking to buy photo etch kit either.
The last question is the rigging. I know the ship had lines for signal flags and wire for communication. My directions are rather vague. What kind of line do you guys like to use and the best way about going about it?



Thanks

Hi Victor!

Excellent questions. Since I am working on the Arizona and Nevada for the Pearl Harbor campaign build, you have brought up a lot of carry-over issues.

On the color scheme, I was a doubter on the color-coded turret tops until I conducted further research and discovered that the 8 battleships featured a two part color code. For confirmation, I scrutinized all the relevant photos of the attack and salvage work and determined that the ships had one of three different colors represented on the forward turrets, and one of three on the fourth turret. For the Arizona, this has been established to be red-red-red from forward to aft. My Nevada will feature red-red-white.

For your model, I suggest going to the Arizona Memorial website and looking at images of their new battleship model which was unveiled only a couple of years ago. One thing to keep in mind about the color red: it fades rather quickly in the real world, no matter the application and this should apply to the turret tops. Dark red would not be appropriate on a model.

On your second question, I prefer restraint on ship weathering in general. With rare exceptions, in the small scales we work in, it is easy to over-weather and detract from the model's accuracy. I am assuming you are building the Arizona in her pre-destruction appearance. For the Measure 1 paint schemes on the Pearl Harbor battle ships, the dark color of the vertical surfaces would lend itself to slight discoloration from salt and sunlight. I use pastel chalk powder to suggest it. Rust would be almost non-existent for this particular subject, too.

Natural wood decks are a real challenge. To me, much depends on the scale. For instance, 1:700 really is quite small and attempting to suggest subtle color variation in the individual planks will produce overscale hues. At most, I would suggest a light tan with a hint of dark gray to bring out planking. ( I know others will disagree, but I subscribe to proportional viewing theory: looking at a 1:700 deck from 12 inches away should reveal what would be seen from 700 feet away on the real ship--in the humid marine environment where the lighting is highly variable and things are not as crystal clear as on the workbench. But, we can agree to disagree. ) For larger scales, 1:400 and up, I turn to my trusty pastel chalks to introduce variations on browns and grays. However, I applaud modelers who patiently mask off individual planks and apply slightly different tints over several airbrushings. (Check out the 1:350 Arizona on the Roll Models site and you will see spectacular results):p

For railings, again, I think it depends on scale. Scratch building realistic railings in 1:700 is EXTREMELY delicate work involving skills I can't even approach. You may be better off investing in PE or foregoing them entirely. In larger scales, since I usually depict ships in combat settings where the deck edge railings are often taken down to work the guns, I avoid the stiff look PE deck edge railings offer. For the Pearl Harbor ships, the railings stayed up, so I will use PE but will paint the vertical stanchions the hull color and the horizontal railings a light gray to minimize their bulkiness. I've attempted using .025" plastic rod and fine clear thread, but the rods are still overscale. Other modelers have gotten spectacular results in using stretched sprue, but I can't manage getting consistent thicknesses.

As for rigging, clear thread is good for running rigging like signal halyards. It also accepts paint well and can represent standing rigging and radio aerials. It's one drawback is tensioning--to apply a correct tautness to the run often puts too much strain on delicate plastic masts and yards. This could be countered with substituting metal wire masts/yards that resist being pulled off kilter. I have recently been introduced to fine copper filaments used in computers. This promises to offer rigging that is to scale yet retains its shape and won't risk bending masts and yards. I'll see if that works for me.

I hope all this has been helpful and look forward to seeing your completed ship!

--Karl

I am curious about your statement that Arizona was a "training ship". It is my understanding that she was very much part of the battleline of the Pacific Fleet.

John

Thanks John:
since the ship was built and according to my research and my battleship book she was employed as a trainning ship. The new battleship operated out of Norfolk throughout fist war, serving as a gunnery training ship. This is no surprise as Navel tech was changing. the Navy had ships that were outdated before they were finished . The US Navy still had outdated monitor ships in inventory. the new ship had new guns and with that new tacics. lpus what was being learn from in Europe. In the 1940's to quote wikipedia The battleship returned to Pearl Harbor on 3 February to resume the intensive training maintained by the Pacific Fleet. She made one last visit to the west coast, clearing "Pearl" on 11 June for Long Beach, ultimately returning to her Hawaiian base on 8 July. Over the next five months, she continued exercises and battle problems of various kinds on type training and tactical exercises in the Hawaiian operating area. She underwent a brief overhaul at the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard commencing on 27 October, receiving the foundation for a search radar atop her foremast. She conducted her last training in company with her division mates Nevada and Oklahoma, conducting a night firing exercise on the night of 4 December.
While it could be argued that most ships in peace time are in some kind of state of trainning and preparness this ship had always been in that state never really servering in battle. The history of the ship between the wars was of refits and dog and pony shows. Being that it seems that she was having trainning and then in spit and polish reviews I felt that the ships condition would have shown very little ware and tear. Her Transfer to the west coast then the pearl was clear. The Navy understood that Japan was growing and it's Navy proved itself capable.

I think the issue is terminology. During peacetime, all military units (ground, sea and air) are constanly involved in extensive training to prepare for war. So while it is correct to say that the battleships moored on battleship row the morning of December 7th were involved in training, that doesn't make them "training ships".

I believe it is incorrect to refer to the Arizona as a "training ship" just because during the period preceding the attack she and all the other ships in the fleet were involved in training exercises. Using that definition, you'd have to consider the Enterprise and all the other carriers in the fleet as "training ships" as well.

The battleships in Pearl Harbor (with the exception of the USS Utah moored on the other side of Ford Island) were classified as "BB", and were part of the US Pacific Fleet. It was fully intended that when war came, all of these ships would go to war as they were considered combat units.

A "training ship" is generally considered one whose sole purpose is training, and the Navy has a specific classification for ships in this category, considering them "Auxiliaries". Utah was no longer classifed as a "BB", but had been re-numbered as "AG-16" and was considered a "Mobile Target Ship", and USS Wyoming, also an old BB had been re-classified from "BB-31" to "AG-17" and was designated as a "training ship".

Tom

This is interesting. I've never seen the Arizona modeled nor illustrated with red turret tops. Very interesting!

In 1917 on the outbreak of war, Arizona was one of three ships that made up the 4th Squadron 8th Division, Atlantic fleet. In 1918 she was part of the 4th Squadron, 8th Division, Atlantic Fleet, along with her sister, USS Pennsylvania. In late 1918 she joined the 6th Battle Squadron, part of the US Navy operating in European waters.

The US Navy didn't participate in any of the battleship actions of WW1. Arizona's participation in WW1 is not noticeably different then her sisters. She did serve a short period after the outbreak of war as a gunnery training ship. this was as much to work up her own crew as to train those of other's.

Post war, as with most of the other ships, she conducted many training exercises, this is not noticeably different than the peacetime duties of the Navy even today.

Prior to her sinking, she always carried the designation BB, or "Battleship." She was designed to stand in line of battle, and had the fleet sortied from Pearl, she would surely have taken her place as on of the most powerful units in the line.

John

Thanks all for the history but could anyone else add to the questions about the building of this model. so far I have some great note was looking for tips on the building of this kit

Hi Victor!

I can think of no better source on building this kit than Charles Landrum's on-line article. It can be found at:

www.rollmodels.net/nworkbench/onlinebuild/arizona/arizona1.php

Remember, however, Mr. Landrum was back-dating his kit to the 1930's instead of 1941, but the article is still relevant, detailed, and step-by-step.

Good luck!

--Karl