The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.
Page 8 of 8

Author:  Navybrat85 [ March 24th, 2017, 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.

acelanceloet wrote: *
bezobrazov wrote:
I will eventually do the war versions too, to avoid any unnecessary reworking. Might take time, but I'll do them, whatever my personal sentiments about them are. Ian: sounds easy, but doesn't look so when opening the program, alas. Whenever you've have time, would you care to drop me a message explaining in a "dummie"-way how to do it?
GD: I know...never volunteered you, so, you're off the never unleashed hook....
If you want an easy switch, you could look at not as many options as GIMP, but a lot closer in ms paint in setup. you get layers, magic wand and some more text editing options then paint offers, which is all you need for sb works IMO :P
I always used PDN. Still use it for cover art.

Author:  bezobrazov [ July 14th, 2017, 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.

Working links!

Author:  bezobrazov [ July 21st, 2017, 3:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.

So, based on the exchange of remarks about this class in Ian's (Colosseum) thread, and the excellent picture he provided, which I've not been able to find elsewhere, I decided to go back to my drawings and update them. I ended up scrapping the catapult as well as the boat crane and aircraft crane. Numerous other changes were made, including an attempt to better - and more seamlessly - illustrate the flattened-out face aspect of the cat. towers, which I think improves on both my old rendition and Ian's.

Again, in the end it's in the eye of the beholder, but I think these renditions now come closest to how the ships looked like, absent a real ship to study.

I'm very appreciative to Ian for having inspired me to revisit these beautiful American racehorses, and I'm looking forward to a continuation of his thread.

Author:  Colosseum [ July 21st, 2017, 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.

Cool. The way you've illustrated the catapult tower works for your style, which uses forward highlights. My style does not. They are both "correct" depictions in the personal formats we use.

I had never studied this class in any particular detail until I drew CA-30 in 1942. After having spent a substantial amount of time doing my usual photo research, I've assembled a large collection of high res photos of each of the ships of this class, mainly pulled from the Naval History and Heritage Command website here:

If you search for any of the hull numbers of these ships, you'll get tons of high-res (6000x5000 pixel TIFF) photos available for download. These are recent scans done at NARA of the BuShips photo collections, and are extremely detailed and useful for model builders and artists alike. Just from a cursory glance there are a few areas that should be looked at on your drawings... I will make a list below for your drawing of CA-30 in 1935 only; correcting the rest is up to you. In a few I'll post links to imgur albums for all the ships' photos I've assembled, to save you some effort of digging through the NHHC website and downloading/converting to JPG.

First, here's a link to most of the HOUSTON materials I've assembled: (Dates and approximate locations are taken from the captions on the NHHC website.)

1. The small platform just below the foremast spotting top is incorrect - there was not a bulwark on the aft side, and the forward side (likely a battle lookout or service platform for the concentration dial below) was fully enclosed with an outwardly curving wind deflector above. This is visible in the 2nd photo in the album (80-G-455964), which shows CA-30 in the Gatun Locks in 1934.

2. The machine gun platform on the foremast did not have a splinter shield bulwark until the late 1930s. This is evident in the first and second photos in the album (1935 and 1934 respectively). The ship's whistle and siren assembly is mounted between the round machine gun platforms and will be visible if the platform is only protected by pipe railing.

3. The forward yardarms do not extend aft at all - the way your halyards have been drawn seems to suggest so. They extended directly port & starboard with no angle aft. Also - the yards had a series of blinker lights attached to the top that should be visible in your drawing.

4. The fore and main tops are probably too thick and should be represented by uniform-width black-grey-black pixels.

5. The venturi shields (wind deflectors/baffles) on the pilot house level do not have supports that project downwards and should just be shown with standard shading below them to account for their shape. This was a standard USN wind deflector design visible on most of the pre-war ships and I have correctly drawn it on my depictions of the PORTER, SOMERS, and NORTHAMPTON classes. The 2nd photo in the album (CA-30 in the Gatun Locks) shows the area very well. Some photos with the sun directly overhead will show the shadows of the internal supports making it look like there are steel reinforcement tabs extending downward but there are not.

6. Your brass ship's bell is very bright! :)

7. The side lights on the bridge wings don't look right to me - they should be square, with two levels shown (see the Mare Island closeups of CA-29 for this).

8. I don't think it's worthwhile to show awnings erected over the ship's decks but that is a personal choice.

9. Your style uses highlights on surfaces, but not consistently - for instance, surely the turret tops (with their prominent P&S curves) should be highlighted on top?

10. The small derrick shown abeam the no.2 turret is actually a paravane boom.

11. I'm not sure why you've redrawn the catapult entirely - it was the exact same model used on every other USN cruiser of the time (the P-type Mark 6) which I have drawn from official BuShips plans, to scale.

12. The vent trunking and structures in the well deck near the hangars are dark grey (I'm not sure why) - they are normal structures and should be shown as such.

I really hesitated to make this post, but if these drawings are being touted as "the closest renditions to how the ships looked", then the details need to be correct.

I hope you take this post in the spirit it was meant - as a way of making these drawings accurate and not a personal attack. ;)


Other ships photos:

CA-27 CHESTER: (mostly wartime photos)
CA-28 LOUISVILLE: (only 3)

Author:  bezobrazov [ July 21st, 2017, 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.

Ian, thank you for the photos supplied. As I'm writing this, I've not yet had an opportunity to study them in detail.

I've tried to search by their numbers and I did get a lot, but, you may have a different way though. Anyhow I'm grateful that you took time doing it.

I'm obviously not taking this as an attack, as well as you never considered my remarks re your Houston as being such, so no worries.
It may take a little while before I can repost edited versions, since I do have to balance this activity with my hectic family life and work, so just be patient about it.

Author:  Colombamike [ July 21st, 2017, 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.

Colosseum wrote: *
Other ships photos:
CA-27 CHESTER: (mostly wartime photos)
CA-28 LOUISVILLE: (only 3)
Thank you Very Much for sharing these very high-resolution pics
I hope you will do the same with yours each new drawings :) :D ;) :mrgreen:
Best Regards

Page 8 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited