The Ship Model Forum

Welcome aboard! The "Calling All Ship Fans" threads are generally the best place to start anywhere on the internet to research a ship as a model builder :smallsmile:

Wow, great thread and lots of info!

I just recently got into building 1/700 ship models (used to be an armor guy). I've built a Trumpeter USS Baltimore, a VEE USS New JErsey and working on a Very Fire Montana. I have a VEE USS San Diego ordered.

I just found this thread and the information I've gleaned so far is terrific. I"m definitely going to peruse this thread further. THanks to everyone for their contributions.

Steve

pm your email address so I can send you what I have.

Anybody have or can direct me to a rigging plan/diagram of the Atlanta class cruisers. I've accessed a ton of pictures but would like something more definitive. Thanks.
W. Haynes

[quote="taskforce48"][quote="PeteM"]Building the Very Fire Atlanta. Would her 20mm's have been shielded? The kit does not include shields but I can add them from the spares box if necessary. TIA[/quote]

Yes, this class had the splinter shield on the mount.

Matt[/quote]

Shields it is. Thanks Matt for the quick response.

[quote="PeteM"]Building the Very Fire Atlanta. Would her 20mm's have been shielded? The kit does not include shields but I can add them from the spares box if necessary. TIA[/quote]

Yes, this class had the splinter shield on the mount.

Matt

Building the Very Fire Atlanta. Would her 20mm's have been shielded? The kit does not include shields but I can add them from the spares box if necessary. TIA

On the underside of the Veryfire hull, I count 7 pair of round marks and 4 pair of oval marks. Does anyone have an idea of what openings were actually present? Do such openings correspond with USN DD design practices?
Thanks, John

As Rick says, the armor belt follows the main deck, curving up at the fwd end The model is correct in this respect but the armor belt extends way too far aft.

Here are some images showing the extent of the armor belt. It only covered the machinery spaces, not even the magazine areas. The upper limit of the armor belt followed the sheer of the deck.

[url=https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL53x42-1Jan44.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds][img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL53x42-1Jan44.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/img][/url]

[url=https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL53x43-1Jan44.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds][img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL53x43-1Jan44.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/img][/url]


Here are images showing the knuckle, it should be quite noticeable. Also, this is a complex hull shape; it goes from a v-shape at the bow, works its way to a flat vertical sides for most of the machinery spaces, and becomes tumblehome towards the stern.

[url=https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL54x25b-23Jul42.lr.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds][img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL54x25b-23Jul42.lr.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/img][/url]

[url=https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL95x7-2Aug43.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds][img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/zCL95x7-2Aug43.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/img][/url]

Over the weekend I began sizing up the hull and deck of the Veryfire kit. I
have the plan set drawn by Alan Raven which came bound into my Warship
Perspective book. The plan is 1/192 (1/16 in to 1 ft.)scale. I made some
calculations by measuring the plan, converting the dimensions to 1/350 by
multiplying by 0.55 (192/350=0.548)

I found the following dimensions to be as near correct as my technique could
determine:
-total main deck length
-main deck from bow to front of 1st barbette
-stern to rear of aft barbette
-between fore and aft barbettes
-beam as measured at:
-first barbette centerline
-across front of 2nd deckhouse (thru "tunnel" between stacks)
-centerline of wing barbettes
-centerline of aft barbette
So Far-So Good

Moving to the profile view:

-Bilge keels on kit are slightly too long- about 2mm at forward end and
about 4mm at after end. I admit that measuring the curving hull with a
steel rule is not too easy.
-Bow to forward end of armor belt is very close to correct.
- The Big Problem is the after end of the armor belt. The plan shows the
belt ending about 9 1/2 scale feet aft of the centerline of the wing
barbette. ON THE KIT the belt extends much further aft.

Measuring the plan from the stern at the waterline to the aft end of the
belt shows that the correct distance on the model should be 14.44 cm.
My actual measurement on the model is only 9.5 cm.

The model needs 4.94 cm. (1.9 in.) removed from the after end of the armor belt.
This is a big disappointment!

The question now becomes if the plan is correct or not. I have great
faith in Alan Raven, but I do not know the source of his information.

I began to look for photographic evidence. In the USS San Diego section of Navsource, the 29th photo, #0405332 shows the port quarter near the wing 5 in. mount. The armor belt doesn’t show because of the boot topping, but about 10 ft aft of the mount, water can be seen flowing from a discharge near the waterline. Since holes weren’t drilled thru armor for water discharges, I think this is proof that the belt does end where the plan shows it ending.

It looks like a lot of scraping is in store to correct this. The photos really show how smooth these hulls were. I’m going to sand almost everything off except the armor belt.

I tried to evaluate the “knuckle controversy” using the hull lines on the plan. They do not show it to be that prominent, and the best I could measure suggests it might be one mm too narrow on the kit, but no more than that. When I have finished sanding the hull, I will see what the rest of you think. I might lay a thin strip of styrene over it, but it doesn’t look that that much of an issue.

Thanks, John

When Oakland first commissioned, the lower tub forward of the bridge was separate from the the bridge wings.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/095/0409521.jpg
But this was altered post shakedown, at which time the guns forward of the bridge were also raised slightly. Note that this was one of the alterations circled on the following photo.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/095/0409513.jpg
The three later sisters completed to the revised arrangement.

Interesting observation on the turrets! So for CL51-54 you will need MK28 5/38's but for CL95-98 the included MK32's will work, good to know.
I am looking for some information on the the CL95 class, particularly the transition between the bridge wings down to the 20mm tub in front of the bridge. The Floating Dry Dock and Profile Morskie USS Oakland plans both show it unclear as if its open between them or not. Seems plausible if there was a short set of stairs linking them as it seems like a steep angle, but again I have no good images looking down into that area. On Navsource (https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/095/0409521.jpg) there is a very good shot of the Oakland showing me the area in question, but it was before the bridge wing and Venturi wrapped down and around the 20mm tub. This earlier image would say that they are not connected, however I am not sure of the reason to extend the splinter shield and wind baffles to connect them if there wasn't going to be any passage between the two. Navsource has an image dated 10/27/43(https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/095/0409513.jpg) with the 20mm enclosure circled and we see the modification has occurred, but it's from too low of an angle to see if they joined the two deck levels. Small snips of the Profile Morskie plans to help illustrate
[attachment=0]Oakland Profile.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Oakland plan.JPG[/attachment]

Matt

From USS JUNEAU's Wreck, her portside 5-in mount showing damage (I suspect from the battle). You can get an idea of the shell thickness.

[url=https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/CL_52_Torpedo_preview.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds][img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/p303/TincanREDavis/CL_52_Torpedo_preview.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/img][/url]

I agree with Steve. The mounts on the Atlanta look like the Mk 28, and certainly would have had the lighter shell.

Phil

[quote="DrPR"]I looked through the OP 805 (page 548) for the dual 5"/38 mount shields, and the mounts used on battleships (Iowas, etc.) had 2" thick shields. The battleship shields would be much too heavy (65,000 pounds for the shield only) for light cruisers.

The Mk 32 mounts on the Clevelands had the Mk 31 shield (31,400 pounds) with much thinner armor (3/4" and 1/2") and destroyers had something like 1/4" thick shields (14,500 pounds).

Note: shield Mark numbers are not the same as the gun mount Mark numbers. Each mount Mark number had an associate shield Mark number that was usually not the same as the mount Mark number.

Phil[/quote]
Yes, which is why the mounts on early Atlanta class ships may be Mk.28 Mod.1 mounts which had a shield thickness of 1.25 inches and were intended specifically for light cruisers according to the gun catalog. This is the mount David suggested and he may be right. Link: http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0250.htm

[b]The shape of the mounts on the early Atlanta class cruisers does not match the shape of Mk.32 mount gunhouses. So with respect to the Very Fire kit, the [u]shape[/u] of the mounts included with the Very Fire Atlanta kit does not match photos of the mounts on the actual ships.[/b]

Compare the photos below of the 5" mounts on [i]Atlanta[/i] and [i]San Diego[/i] with the mounts fit to Cleveland-class ship USS [i]Biloxi[/i]. Pay particular attention to the height of the vertical glacis plate (frontal armor plate). The Atlanta-class gunhouses are noticeably differently shaped than those of the Cleveland-class ship. The Atlanta-class 5" mounts' vertical glacis is much taller than the vertical glacis of the Mk.32 mounts fit to the Clevelands. The tall Atlanta vertical glacis looks to be the same height we see on Mk.28 mounts fit to fast battleships. I am [u]not[/u] suggesting that the Atlantas were fit with the same mount as fast battleships. I am saying that the [u]shape[/u] is the same or nearly the same.

Very Fire included Cleveland-class Mk.32s with their Atlanta kit, probably the very same models included in their very nicely done Cleveland class kit. But photos indicate that the early Atlantas did not have Mk.32s installed. The early Atlanta class had something else. What that something else is, I do not know. The shape of the mounts fit to the early Atlantas most closely matches the [i]shape[/i] of a Mk.28 mount. My guess is that the Atlanta-class 5 inch mount may be a Mk.28 Mod.1 mount, which had thinner shields and was therefore lighter than the fast battleship Mod 0 mounts. Whatever was actually fit to early Atlanta class ships, it is certainly [u]not[/u] a Mk.32 like the Clevelands had.

As you pointed out, fast battleships were fit with Mk.28 Mod 0, which had a 2" thick shield. We are in complete agreement that the Mk.28 Mod 0 mount was likely far too heavy for an Atlanta class ship. But perhaps the lighter-weight, thinner-shield, Mk.28 Mod 1 mount is correct for early Atlanta-class ships. The Mod 1 shape matches photos of early Atlanta-class mounts, the gun catalog states that the Mod 1 mount was explicitly intended for light cruisers, and the Mod 1 mount is significantly lighter than the Mod 0 mount fit to fast battleships.

Having said all that, later Atlantas, more properly known as Oakland class ships, are different. The Oaklands do indeed have what looks like Mk.32s, same as Clevelands. Reports indicate that the early Atlantas were dangerously top heavy which would account for lighter weight Mk.32 mounts being installed on the follow-on Oaklands, which also had two fewer 5" mounts than early Atlantas.

If true, [b]the Very Fire kit has an Atlanta-class hull and superstructure with Oakland/Cleveland-class 5" mounts. This is an error[/b], and an easy error to make, because these different mounts are so similar. If the real ships were fit with Mk.28 mounts, this is an easy error to correct with aftermarket Mk.28 mounts.

Trumpeter made a similar error with their 1/200 scale Iowa class ships. Their Iowa class kits have Mk.32 mounts. The real Iowa class ships had Mk.28s. And the difference is noticeable.

Regarding the Juneau sublcass (CLAA-119) did they had wood planking on the decks or was it full metal cover?

I looked through the OP 805 (page 548) for the dual 5"/38 mount shields, and the mounts used on battleships (Iowas, etc.) had 2" thick shields. The battleship shields would be much too heavy (65,000 pounds for the shield only) for light cruisers.

The Mk 32 mounts on the Clevelands had the Mk 31 shield (31,400 pounds) with much thinner armor (3/4" and 1/2") and destroyers had something like 1/4" thick shields (14,500 pounds).

Note: shield Mark numbers are not the same as the gun mount Mark numbers. Each mount Mark number had an associate shield Mark number that was usually not the same as the mount Mark number.

Phil

[quote="Timmy C"][quote="ModelMonkey"]

Can anyone confirm or deny?[/quote]

Confirm or deny the kit's parts or the real thing? If the kit's parts, Martin's review of the kit indicates they're the same 5" turrets as the ones provided in their Cleveland kit: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cl/cl-51/Atlanta-350-vf/VeryFire350Atlanta.htm[/quote]

Both the kit and the real thing, actually. For many modelers, the difference will probably not be bothersome. But for others, aftermarket to the rescue.

In any case, the Very Fire kit appears to be very nicely done.

[quote="ModelMonkey"]

Can anyone confirm or deny?[/quote]

Confirm or deny the kit's parts or the real thing? If the kit's parts, Martin's review of the kit indicates they're the same 5" turrets as the ones provided in their Cleveland kit: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cl/cl-51/Atlanta-350-vf/VeryFire350Atlanta.htm