The Ship Model Forum

That appears to be early on in her career (1912'ish), overhead plans would be stellar if they still exist. Building the model in a more as launched form will alleviate recreating some pretty challenging rigging.

Can't seem to post direct links or attachments (user ineptitude no doubt), but I think you can paste the following and it will take you to a great shot of her conning tower & foremast base area. The lower navigation level and the one just above are the two I'd need clear drawings of.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-54000/NH-54168.html

Really appreciate all the assistance.

Cheers

I scanned plans of Florida at the archives. While looking to see what version they were, I found this (haven't found the plans yet)
[attachment=0]USSFloridaPostCard_082910.jpg[/attachment]

The profile labelled 1912 looks about the same as the 1920's profile, to my eye but will compare more fully when I print both up. Will be interesting what other documents are placed online.

You're a scholar & a gentleman, thanks again.

Thanks David. I have reviewed both those sources and what I'm really in need of is the shape of what I think is the docking bridge (the level even with top of conning tower) which appears to wrap around the cage foremast. If I had my druthers, I modify the ISW kit to closer to as launched, but there's a structure higher up the foremast the shape of which I can't make out from the photos.

Looking for plans of her fit in 1917-18'ish, especially foremast area. Have the set from Model Monkey, but they show her in her 1920's configuration. Appreciate any guidance.

[quote="MartinJQuinn"]Could it be similar to the Semtex coating the RN used, and just "called" cement??[/quote]
The more research I do into Mastic Coatings, the more I believe that to be the case. I have not found a definitive guide to its history/properties/use but putting some various facts together points to it being what we are looking at. It could help seal, easy maintenance and had some semi elastic properties. Looking at these images, it looks like there is a wire mesh laid down on top of the wood decking and then this stuff would be poured and spread smooth. It was similar to asphalt used in roads. So it would have non slip properties, would be easy to repair if damaged and was probably lighter than cement/concrete. Now, question is where and how much of the horizontal surfaces were covered? The hunt continues!

Matt

Could it be similar to the Semtex coating the RN used, and just "called" cement??

I thought the same thing about cement/concrete, lots of weight up high if to be effective. That’s why I’ve never given it much thought. But after going through these these images, there is definitely areas where there is a smooth light colored deck coating. My thing is it seems poured vs linoleum due to the wire mesh visible in some sections and how it cracks and chunks falling away. So if not concrete/cement, what else would be used? A non slip coating makes sense, does nothing for the protection but does make sense in her role. I have seen references on other BOGP’s of something called “Mastic Decking”, my best searches on this turns up a linoleum like product, so perhaps we see some of this here?

And perhaps these images are what gave rise to the claims that she had cement decks, someone interpreting these and similar images as concrete.

Matt

My first thought was that adding enough concrete to protect against practice bombs without cracking would still have to be several inches thick, and that would add a lot of top weight.

The 1950 image suggests linoleum to me. Of course, that would have nothing to do with additional protection.

[quote="taskforce48"]And what was it protecting?[/quote]

Took a bit to circle back around to this, but thank to Rick Davis, we have an answer. There was a MK33 director mounter on the Port Side of the Utah's bridge structure.
[attachment=6]Rg71 small.PNG[/attachment]

The Utah is sped in the background of this image from September of 1941
[attachment=5]Rg71 crop.PNG[/attachment]


Now onto another mystery, the Utah's decks and their composition. We know that she as a typical USN era Dreadnought had wood decks on her Main and Forecastle decks, according to her sisters BOGP's, this was a mix of Yellow Pine and Teak(interesting and would like more info on that, but outside of this query) that covered covered most of the upper decks. But by the time Utah was lost in 1941, she had gone through several refits to make her more than a R/C target, but also a platform to train AA crews. There is multiple references and several photos of the large timbers that would be stacked across the Utah's decks to help protect her from the dummy bombs dropped on her in her Target role. We have survivors accounts of how these timbers were either stacked for removal or still lying on the decks when the Utah began to capsize and became deadly obstacles for men trying to escape as they would either strike them or block hatches. Seems like this is all the references we need to know that she had a typical deck below these timbers, but her August 1941 image at NYPS seems to show something that caught my eye and has had me puzzling over. In this image, there are several parts of the visible deck that have large differences in their tone indicating either a mix of bare and painted wood or something else. There has been a couple of references to the Utah having a cement or concrete deck added to aid in her protection in the Target role. I have not verified this comments with any actual proof, but I am wondering if I have found proof of it, or the origin of the of the myth.

Came across this slide taken by a tourist in the 1960's
[attachment=4]1960's Slide1.PNG[/attachment]
It show the 01 Deck where the 1.1 is mounted as being a smooth Cement like surface as well as a section of deck below it just forward of where the 5/25 was mounted.

This 1970's post card shows much the same, but we see the effects of time beginning to take it's toll
[attachment=3]1970's Postcard.PNG[/attachment]

This lead me to dig a little deeper and found this image from 1950
[attachment=2]80-G-484354 crop.PNG[/attachment]

I originally though this was perhaps some remnant of the salvage work, somewhere they laid concrete to aid in the rolling over process, but that just doesn't make sense as it adds weight and would have been difficult to do while she was inverted.

In the Post Card and Slide images, we see a line running perpendicular to the centerline of the ship coming out just forward of the 5/25 mount which is also seen in the August of 1941 image.
[attachment=1]NH71234 crop.PNG[/attachment]

Moving away from this area, I started looking for other parts of the wreck to help show Wood or not. I found this image of what is reported to be the Utah,
[attachment=0]1941-war-photographs-pearl-harbor-uss_1_a856841c9d925113b9c044a627c2d48d.jpg[/attachment]
But I feel this in fact the Oklahoma based on the shape of the hull and the Mountain range in the background

This video of the dive on the wreck in 2021 does show wood decking on the aft part of the ship near the stern.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQipLBHohU]PHNM USS Utah Dive[/url]

So my search has yet to yield any conclusive wreck or just prior to loss images to decide the rest of the decks. Anyone else have any thoughts on this or proof one way or another?

Matt

Ok, long shot here. I remember reading a long time ago somewhere that the Utah had a MK37 Director mounted on her during her last refit. I have searched in vain for where I read that and after some years of wreck study and sinking image, gave it up as an error. Now, in looking at the details of the Utah yet again, I know she had an old style open MK19 Director mounted on her Starboard bridge wing, moved during her last refit. That makes sense as she had 5/25’s forward and on her Starboard side. Question is did she have some sort of Director for the aft and port 5/38’s? I thought perhaps not but in looking at the image of her capsizing, we can see a shed mounted up high on the Port side. Why would that be there if there was nothing sensitive to protect? And what was it protecting?

Matt

Any one have this kit or built it? Is it worth getting for a 12/7/41 build? Iron Shipwright/Commanders Models 1/350 USS Utah

Hi Rob, are you still working on this kit?
I've just restarted the kit as I want to compare the scratchbuilt cage mast which I did for Florida some years ago with the 3d printed masts for California which I've just ordered.
Thanks to the hourglass shape of a scratchbuilt cage I did not need to hollow out the superstructure parts.
The bulges are another story. I spent some two hours scraping and sanding the bulges to a more convincing shape and then realized that the kit has Utah's casemates rather than Florida's. This was corrected easily by adding styrene strips to the bottom of the casemates.
Niko's 12"guns were also bit problematic -not that straight and they'll have to be cut to length. But we're getting there
[quote="Rob"]I thought it was nowhere near as good as the Waveline kits of pre-war US battleships.

The bulges are a bit of a let-down and the superstructure needs hollowing-out until it is paper-thin to be able to fit it round the cage mast without causing the cage-mast to crimp.

Rob[/quote]

[quote="Leftenant Nemo"]Hi Y'all,
For a very long time a 1:72nd scale model of the USS Utha BB31 resided in the UtahState Capitol bldg. I wonder where it ended up when remodeled the place.
V/r,

Leftenant Nemo[/quote]

How long ago was that? I can't remember [i]ever[/i] seeing it in the UT capitol building, even before they restored the building.

Hi Y'all,
For a very long time a 1:72nd scale model of the USS Utha BB31 resided in the UtahState Capitol bldg. I wonder where it ended up when remodeled the place.
V/r,

Leftenant Nemo

Iron Shipwright/Commanders Models has had a 1/350 hull of USS Utah at some of the recent shows they have been attending. The model will depict Utah as of 12/7/41. Ted Paris indicated they [i]may [/i]be doing an earlier version of the kit at Florida as well.

I thought it was nowhere near as good as the Waveline kits of pre-war US battleships.

The bulges are a bit of a let-down and the superstructure needs hollowing-out until it is paper-thin to be able to fit it round the cage mast without causing the cage-mast to crimp.

Rob

USS Florida website:

http://www.geocities.com/bb-30/index.html

Navsource.org has a fairly good frontal view of Utah bulged that gives a fair idea of the bulge shape midships. It is the last photo for the 1917-26 time frame. That photo when clicked on to enlarge will disclose a completely different photo (the one I'm speaking of).

The Niko kit is pretty good, but the bulges are wrong. They should only stick out about half as far, and not be nearly flat on the top .It looks to me like they took the absolute beam of the ship and assumed it occurred at the waterline - actually, the bulges were at their maximum considerably below the waterline. I'm not entirely sure how I'd go about reshaping the bulges to keep them even.

- Sean F.