The Ship Model Forum

With improved fire control longer range and probably a slower rate of fire could be tolerated. Pretty good range for a 5", up to 50,00' and 25,000 cards or so. A 75 lb shell would be a beach to hand load after a short time! Scan the crew for gorillas! The extra powder and energy developed would indeed create some muzzle blast. I remember going out to the range in the Winter with my 7mm STW which uses some 80 grains of powder. The blast blew the snow off the metal roof overhead.

Certainly some plans had to be somewhere as the Montana Class was far enough along to start making metal.

Tom

Matt,

Thanks so much for your nice comments and the very interesting account of the 5"-54 mounts in action on MIDWAY. In doing the research for this project, I was curious as to whether or not those mounts were actually fired or not, as the mid-50s weren't exactly years where the U.S.N. was in an active "hot" war. I'm guessing your relative used QUITE a bit of cotton during his time aboard.

Hank

Nice looking display!
A now passed family member served on the USS Midway in 1958 and was stationed on one of the 3-inch twin mounts adjacent to the 5/54's. He said the first time they did live firing drills, they were passing out cotton for the ears and him being of hearty Texan stock declined. He said the first round out of the 5/54 had his head spinning and the subsequent rounds caused some bleeding from his ear facing the mount. For the rest of his time assigned to the twin 3-inch, he always carried a pocket full of cotton. His comment was "I heard 5/38's fire before and they bark but the 5-inchers on the Midway, they bit"

Matt

Inch High, Dan K. -

Thanks so much for your kind words - it was fun and frustrating at the same time - too bad we'll never see this gun produced, whatever the form may have taken. I think the reason this came out as well as it did was doing it in 3D design/printing - at least, that's my take on it.

Hank

Agreed. Beautiful execution and display. And, very cool.

Beautiful work and an outstanding display!

Phil, Pascal -

Thanks! Much appreciated commentary. And I also appreciate the input from Phil, Rick E. Davis, and Tom - always nice to have constructive comments while working on the design of these parts - esp. something that never existed!

Hank

Superb! :thumbs_up_1:

Nice work!

Phil

Yes, Tom - it has been an interesting project. So, after some redesigning and printing, the end result is finalized -
[attachment=2]NTS 5in54 Completed_1.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]NTS 5in54 Completed_2.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]NTS 5in54 Completed_3.jpeg[/attachment]
The mount is located over a 5" Upper Handling Room on the 01 Level on a "conceptual" MONTANA class BB.

Now, on to finish my Mk. 38 Rangefinder w/Mk. 13 RADAR which is my next mini-project.

Hank

Hank et al:

Such may have beens are interesting exercises and often involve much education and research to work out a sensible design. Information about the internal arrangements and especially the shell handling equipment would assist in seeing what the limits of possibilities were. Typically everything shipboard gets saved into some space with only inches available for different arrangement!

Interesting project! Regards: Tom

Phil,

Yes, simply widening the existing single mount was the original idea - based on the only drawings available which are of the single gun mount. I know of no dual gun drawings unless somewhere in the bowels of NARA II a set of plans is gathering dust. So, this concept was entirely my concoction.

I looked over all the usual references to the MONTANA class both on my bookshelf and online (drawings, illustrations, etc.) and came up with the size based on what I was seeing and then scaled the model accordingly - the display is NTS, but the mount is proportionally like the single gun mount, only widened.

The new mount body is currently printing and will finish around 5pm today. Thanks for the nice feedback and comments, it is appreciated.

Contract negotiations with the deadbeat design team are underway.... :deadhorse: floggings may randomly occur until an agreement is reached!

Hank

Hank,

I see where you were coming from - widening the single mount for two guns.

Since this rework is caused by a change of plans you should renegotiate the contract.

Everything else looks good.

Just curious - do you have plans for the 5"/54 gun?

Phil

Rick,

Thanks also for your input regarding the location of the mt. captn's hatch. I'll have to give some thought about that as I can see both locations as viable although when you consider moving the stbd gun closer to the side, it would leave little space for the hatch to remain in it's current location on the single mount.

Since my latest extremely nice 2nd edition will now be obsolete even before the paint dries, I may have to bring you up on "delay of design" charges at Capitan's Mast!! :big_grin:

Here's what it will look like (also moved the hatch back slightly, as well -
[attachment=0]NTS 5in 54 Mk. 16 Mod 0 1945 Dual Mount_4 - Final Version.JPG[/attachment]
Yes, I do think you, Phil, and Tom have all made a good point here and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. :thumbs_up_1:

The design team out back in the model shop have now been put on short rations for dereliction of duty. :bash_2:

Hank

Hank,

Your effort is conceptual and no known plans of the twin mount are available (but quite likely did exist since development started during WWII, but was never finalized and may have been trash canned or is sitting in a BuShips files somewhere). But, I would have to agree with others, that I think the Gun Captain's hatch should logically be on the centerline between the two 5-in guns. The hatch on the single mounts was made off-set to be out of the way of the gun breech and ejector chutes. If you look at photos of the MIDWAY class carriers, the Gun Captain's hatch is on the left side for "Forward stowed" 5-in mounts and on the right side on "Aft stowed" 5-in mounts. In effect a mirror image installation so that the Gun Captain's hatch was "outside" under the overhanging flight deck.

The 5-in/38 mounts were designed based on common (left and right) single mounts mated for twin mounts and explains why there are "left and right" single mounts on destroyers. So I'm guessing that similar arrangements may have been used in designing these new twin mounts.

[url=https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCVA41x14-1946.lr.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds][img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCVA41x14-1946.lr.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/img][/url]

Phil,

Thanks for checking this out! First, YES- my mount design is a "[b]conceptual[/b]" version based on the drawings of the actual single barrel 5"-54, Mk. 39 that was installed on the MIDWAY class CVs in 1945. I agree with your comments regarding the position of the Mount Captain's hatch/hood but I based this on the location of the existing mount. Here is the 1945 U.S. Navy Mount & Turret catalog drawing of the single mount -
[attachment=3]5in 54 Mk. 39,Mod 0 1945.JPG[/attachment]
And here are the accompanying interior illustrations (side/top) of the mount -
[attachment=2]WNUS_5-54_mk16_side_pic.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]WNUS_5-54_mk16_plan_pic.jpg[/attachment]
It would appear that the location was situated ahead of the ventilating motor and behind the trainer's station on the stbd side.
So, beyond that I can't explain why it was designed that way. I simply expanded the width and made a couple individual mods to the location & so forth of access doors, etc. Again, this is my interpretation and thus no "right or wrong" way to explain how it would be done. Perhaps given some thought about a 2-gun mount, one could come up with a different interior arrangement from this. There is one of these singlel mounts situated at White Sands N.M. at the Army artillery range. Any others remaining in existance I'm not aware of - very well could be. Here's a shot of CORAL SEA's port side in the early 1950's -
[attachment=0]cva4319540000MED02GS.jpg[/attachment]


Hank

Hank,

As I understand it, this mount was never actually built. This is your interpretation of what it might have looked like. Right?

Like Tom, I think the mount Captain's hatch position is odd. It places him right over the starboard gun mechanism. When the gun is lowered to it's lowest depression it would be right under his feet. To get into the hatch he would have to climb over the gun.

It was normal to position the mount/turret Captain/Officers station behind the gun mechanisms. In the 5"/38 mounts the Mount Captain was positioned behind the guns, and in the twin mounts he was between the shell casing chutes.

Do you know of any mounts where the Mount Captain's position was not at the rear and on the center line of the mount?

Phil

So, here is the 2nd edition mount body with modifications here & there. It is drying overnight from the deck gray spraying this evening. The floor fits rather well this time around with little sanding, etc. I've got the other parts in the painting stage and hope to have things ready for assembly shortly -
[attachment=1]2nd Edition Mount Body_1.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]2nd Edition Mount Body_2.jpeg[/attachment]

The 2nd edition of the display base is also getting painted and also fit better with a few necessary changes. No pix of it right now!

Hank

Tom,

I've got everything reprinted (2nd edition) and ready to be cleaned, painted, and assembled. The 1st edition had issues and I didn't want to make a display piece that was 2nd rate. So, I'll be working on this and the Mk. 38 rangefinder mini-project along with further STODDARD work.

I used the existing drawings for the single 5"-54 mount as deployed on the MIDWAYs and modifyed them as I've already discussed. The Mount Captn's hatch is in a rather midway location, which does differ from the dual 5"-38 mount arrangement.

I should have photos soon.

Hank

Unusual positioning of the mount Captain's hatch (hatches?). I've never been inside one of these but wit the greater weight of the shells I'd expect a more sophisticated and involved ammunition handling train.

The photos you sent me of your print progress was quite convincing!

Tom