The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Quincy"]With Vee Hobby future release of a 1944 Honolulu, how difficult would it be to backdate it to a 1942 version?



Bob[/quote]


Does anyone have any info on when this kit will be released?

Steve

CL-46 USS Phoenix Booklet of General Plans (19XX) (version 1) https://archive.org/details/cl46bogp19xx
CL-46 USS Phoenix Booklet of General Plans (19XX) (version 2) https://archive.org/details/cl46bogp19xxv2
CL-46 USS Phoenix Booklet of General Plans (19XX) (version 3) https://archive.org/details/cl46bogp19xxv3

Thank you Maxim :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:



Bob

If it helps, here is a youtube about Cleveland class hangar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT6pRbK4bfg

There would be many differences, the most extensive changes were made to the bridge:

1939
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/USS_Honolulu_%28CL-48%29_underway_at_sea_on_9_February_1939_%28NH_53562%29.jpg/800px-USS_Honolulu_%28CL-48%29_underway_at_sea_on_9_February_1939_%28NH_53562%29.jpg?20170801145249[/img]
[url]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Honolulu_(CL-48)_underway_at_sea_on_9_February_1939_(NH_53562).jpg[/url]

1942
[url]https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/048/0404822.jpg[/url]
[url]https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/048/04048.htm[/url]

1944
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/USS_Honolulu_%28CL-48%29_at_anchor_in_1944.jpeg/782px-USS_Honolulu_%28CL-48%29_at_anchor_in_1944.jpeg?20130105230510[/img]
[url]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Honolulu_(CL-48)_at_anchor_in_1944.jpeg[/url]

With Vee Hobby future release of a 1944 Honolulu, how difficult would it be to backdate it to a 1942 version?



Bob

[quote="bwross11"]Greetings all,

This is a bit of a long shot, but I have in mind a project to build the aft section of a Brooklyn/St. Louis CL where the hangar cover would open by motor.

I have found a picture taken at the aft end of the hangar deck looking forward, but I'm wondering if anyone else has found any kind of pictures of the insides, or a general plan illustrating the general layout that I could use to fill in some of the blanks.

Thanks in advance,[/quote]
Too late?

I'm pretty sure the wooden decking did not go past the red arrow in your drawing. In the photo you can see the line of the transverse margin board (there the wood decking stops) crossing the deck just aft of the vents and other equipment.

The hanger cover front end is where your blue arrow shows [b]when the hanger is closed[/b]. But when it opens if rolls forward on the two tracks visible in the photo and drawing to where your red arrow points. There is no wood decking between these rails.

The Clevelands were like this too.

I would guess that the catapults, hanger cover rollers, airplanes and such would leak oils and grease that would stain wood decking. Also, for the lower 6"/47 triple turrets the blast from the guns might also burn the decking. At least the wood decking stops aft of the gun barrel muzzles up forward, and ahead of the muzzles aft. I don't think this was a real problem though. The USS [i]Oklahoma City[/i] CLG-5 had wooden decking extending far forward of the 6"/47 turret and it pumped about 18,000 6 inch rounds out of the forward turret in Vietnam. If there was any charring of the teak it was easily removed by holystoning.

Phil

Random one for you all, decking on the stern of the USS Helena in 1942.

[attachment=1]Aft Planking plan.PNG[/attachment]

All drawing I can find of the Helena all show her deck planking ending just fore of the Hangar cover.(Blue arrow) which is supported by an image of her fitting out on page 4 of Leeward's Damage Report No.1.

However, this image of St. Louis in March of 1942 shows the planks ending further forward (Red arrow)

[attachment=0]St Louis 3-42 crop.PNG[/attachment]

Question, did the Helena get the same treatment post 12/7/41 repairs or was St Louis built this way? On page 26 of the Leeward publication, there are two images I have not seen elsewhere of the Helena finishing her refit, one shows a potential answer shot but in the book it's not high resolution enough to pick out the decking. I have found two of the images in high resolution that are on that page, but the one in the bottom left corner I have been unsuccessful in tracking down.

TIA
Matt

Trying to contact maccrage of Milwaukee, OR regarding your Shapeways Brooklyn superstructure. Haven't seen you post since 13NOV2021.

Greetings all,

This is a bit of a long shot, but I have in mind a project to build the aft section of a Brooklyn/St. Louis CL where the hangar cover would open by motor.

I have found a picture taken at the aft end of the hangar deck looking forward, but I'm wondering if anyone else has found any kind of pictures of the insides, or a general plan illustrating the general layout that I could use to fill in some of the blanks.

Thanks in advance,

Hi, maccrage
How did your 1942 Nashville with the Shapeways Brooklyn superstructure (16OCT2021) turn out?
Who can I contact regarding the Brooklyn superstructure?
R/David

Thanks so very much Dick... exactly what I was looking for.

Best,

Mike E.

In mid 1944, they were similar, but not totally identical. Aside from the inevitable minute differences, the most significant and visible differences were in the searchlight config (and other between-the-stacks features), main masts (very different) and Honolulu had caps on both stacks where Nashville had no caps.

By the end of 1945, Honolulu was closer to Savannah than any of her other sisters. Honolulu was rebuilt after being torpedoed off the Philippines in late 1944.

All:

A quick question: were USS Nashville and USS Honolulu identical sisters by 1944? I'd like to use the Niko USS Nashville kit to build USS Honolulu in 1944 or so, and it looks like there would be few if any changes needed to do so.

Am I correct, or were there subtle differences between the two ships in 1944?

Please advise.

Thanks!

Mike E.

So, the article is technically correct, but, as you note, FC radar is not search radar.

I find this mention a little misleading.

Thank you, Dick.

[quote="Dan K"]Ok, I have another Boise question. The February, 2022 issue of Naval History Magazine has a great article on the Battle of Balikpapan. Boise was tasked as flagship for the force that attacked the Japanese transports there until she ran aground on a reef in the run-up to battle.

In mentioning Boise, the article states that she was the only radar-equipped ship in that region. Is that true? If so, then what type radar? I was under the impression that all the CXAM and CXAM-1 units were otherwise accounted for.[/quote]
This photo https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/047/0404704.jpg from November 1941 shows one of the "tall" FC (MK-3) sets on Boise's forward MK-34 director. No air search set is visible in the photo. So she was radar equipped, just not with either air or surface [i]search[/i] sets.

[quote="DavidP"]Dan, which "Battle of Balikpapan" are you talking about, 1942 or 1945?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balikpapan_(1942)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balikpapan_(1945)[/quote]
1942

Ok, I have another Boise question. The February, 2022 issue of Naval History Magazine has a great article on the Battle of Balikpapan. Boise was tasked as flagship for the force that attacked the Japanese transports there until she ran aground on a reef in the run-up to battle.

In mentioning Boise, the article states that she was the only radar-equipped ship in that region. Is that true? If so, then what type radar? I was under the impression that all the CXAM and CXAM-1 units were otherwise accounted for.

The photo of "Honolulu" steaming ahead is interesting as it caught the moment of launch of her SOC Seaplane and you can see the smoke puff for the powder charge of the catapult.

Tom