The Ship Model Forum

Thanks for that! I converted the jpg into a PDF, if you'd like a copy of it, I can send you one.

Okay so this might be a long shot but does anyone have any dimensional drawings of the whip antenna mounting bracket and counterweight? I am considering making them of either PE and polystyrene sheet stock or finding someone to make them from resin.

thanks for the galley deck drawings. They're somewhat helpful, because they do give me the width and length, but what I was hoping for dimensional drawings of the mounts themselves. Its possible that those drawings are long gone, but if there are dimensional drawings for the bitts in the AOTS book on Intrepid, maybe drawings of the mounts still exist somewhere.

How close to Maryland are you?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I'm in Milwaukee, WI, so about 12 hours away by car. I presume by the way you posed the question that that's where the drawings are. For the Hancock model, no, I am not willing to go all that way. For the Boxer model, however, I would be. I really do want it to be as accurate to the ship my grandfather knew as possible. For what it's worth, I have toyed with the idea of scratchbuilding Boxer in 1/192 scale, perhaps with soldered tinned brass plates to simulate the shell plating instead of plastic, as I was sort of inspired by this article.https://www.modelboats.co.uk/news/artic ... -steel/480 Out of curiosity, if I were to go in person, would the National Archives allow for 1/1 copies/scans of the blueprints to be made, or can I only view them?

There *may* be drawings there, but I haven't dipped into the Essex class nor have I gone looking for a general collection of parts. I can say that I've looked through various microfilm and paper plans there and I can speak in general about that.

The only time they will not let researchers copy plans is if they are too fragile to handle or if they are still copywritten and the researcher doesn't show up with some written permission from the copyright holder (two instances/subjects I cans speak to are airships built for the Navy by Goodyear as well as engine parts from Pratt & Whitney - the plans are still copywriten).

The Navy copies the vast majority of their paper plans to microfilm some time ago and not all of the plans made it, and not all of the work was "quality." Linen plans may have produced some distortion and long plans were chopped up to fit the camera and the different segments may not match up due to lens distortion, etc. Sometimes the reproduction is dark, faint, or you just can't quite eek out enough to read the text.

Not all ships are covered, and plans, if they exist, are more likely to be the final fit (because it costs money to store paper and who's ever going to be interested in the fit of this ship before the present time?). I spent time goint through the Pennsylvania class battleship and Yorktown class aircraft carrier microfilm and neither had an index roll, so you were stuck going through each roll of film looking for things of interest. They were *loosely* chronologically sequenced. Yorktown class had about 25 rolls and Pennsylvania class had about 35. You can make it through about a roll an hour but there's a chance that all of the side scrolling will make you a bit dizzy.

Reproductions of microfilm can be to 11x17 paper for $.40 a sheet (prices - https://www.archives.gov/research/order/fees) or scan to USB (grumbles - but I guess they have to pay to keep the equipment running). Scan to digital of oversized plans used to be $3.50 per sheet, versus $3.50 per linear foot for paper to pare, but I'm not seeing that listed and don't want to miss-quote.

That's mostly "negative" news. I will say I saw and copied some amazing stuff while there. It can be tedious, but I don't know of any other potential source let along better one. Pre-pandemic I was going once or twice a year, mostly for textual and photographic records.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Good to know. I guess I will have my work cut out for myself if I do go down to Maryland. On a different topic, I am still trying to find out what color USS Boxer was in 1945. When was 5-N Navy Gray made available to the shipyards and when did its use begin? I know Boxer was launched a few days before the order came out to use 5-N Navy Gray instead of 5-N Navy Blue, would paint have already been applied by then?

Complex question we'll likely never have fully answered. There's another poster here by the name of Michael Potter who has a different opinion than I and I will state up front that there are different opinions and your mileage may vary. He generally believes the neutral grays were in use and applied earlier in 1944 but I'm going to provide the background for why I believe "potentially limited application very early in 1945."

A little history lesson for background and foundation.

At the start of the War, the Navy had two "Paint Manufacturing Yards" (one on each coast, Norfolk Navy Yard for the Atlantic and Mare Island Navy Yard for the Pacific, although the Asiatic fleet is a separate issue) and one Yard for the development of new paint formulas (Philadelphia Navy Yard). Efforts by civilian companies to get the new formulas (mostly for merchant marine ships) were rebuffed. That started to change in 1943 and 44, when BuShips (Bureau of Ships) found out that BuOrd (Bureau of Ordnance) had sent out the formula for 5-O Ocean gray in reference to ordnance painting (It was supposed to be delivered in 5-O) and they allowed civilian companies to posses the formulas and manufacture paint for various contracts; however the initial yard assignments remained in place.

So, in June of 1944 we see a directive to develop new neutral paint formulas. A proposed formula for #37 gray (the neutral "Light Gray") was approved in late November 1944 with the note "The information in reference (a) will be sent to the paint manufacturing yards for guidance in making the neutral gray paints from mixtures of white and black paints." We have a memo the same day (November 23rd) sent to the paint manufacturing yards Mare Island and Norfolk with *approximate* formulas.

BuShips sends a warning of sorts to various commands and activities of the Pacific fleet in November (keep in mind that this was before email so there was some delay). There's no real mention of the new paints in a December memo, however a January 3, 1945 letter to a civilian paint company indicates Mare Island and Norfolk have already changed to the new formulas by that date.

On January 18, 1945 Pacific Fleet Maintenance letter # 4-45 is issued, which describes the new paints to the Pacific Fleet and has this tidbit:



So, the new paints are being manufactured by the Navy Yards in January, but not by civilian paint companies. The Yards are also ordered to issue old stocks of paint. I haven't found anything yet that discusses the amount of paint on hand anywhere and we *do not* know at this time when any particular activity ran out of the old paints and transitioned to the new ones.

Boxer is launched in December 1944 and commissioned in April of 1945. Boxer had been ordered into Measure 21 in January 1945 (second page) and PacFleet Fleet Maintenance Office still defines Measure 21 as all over Navy Blue on February 3rd. Is Pac Fleet FMO just behind/uninformed or were they waiting on the official order to switch a little over two weeks later?

Boxer does her Shakedown in June and is on her way to the Pacific in late July. Questions I don't have answers for:


Is July enough time from January that the east coast would have exhausted their supply of 5-N Navy Blue?
Would they have repainted following shakedown or waited until on the west coast as part of clean up after installation of the non-panama canal compatible gun sponsons?
Is August enough time from January that Hunters Point would have used up their stock of 5-N Navy Blue?

I would tend to lean towards Navy Gray, but I have no documentation at this point that states one way or the other.
Was Hunters Point getting their paint from Mare Island or a local company?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Thanks for the info, I was leaning towards navy gray as well.

Okay, next question, this time about my Hancock model itself. Are these holes on the aft starboard side and these tubs that attach under the flight deck on the aft port side tubs/holes for mk51 director tubs for the outboard 40mm guns? They're just there and they aren't mentioned in the instructions for the kit, just like the outboard guns themselves.

Yes they are according to my Franklin kit.

Good to know, thanks!

The directors are up in the island with the 20mm's. The Anatomy of the ship book on Intrepid shows them there if it is of any help. I think that area of the Franklin kit may be wrong, and I need to check pictures of the real ship to be sure.

Thanks for the info. If there are drawings in the anatomy of the ship book, those would be helpful. I also believe they are on page 6 of the 1946 booklet of general plans for Bunker Hill.

Thanks!

Okay, another question. I am going to be investing in resin 20mm Oerlikons because the ones from the kit lack a lot of detail, by 1945, would Hancock, or Boxer for that matter, have single or double 20mm guns?

Finished with the modifications to the island catwalks for the directors for the outboard 40mm! This was my first time doing radical modifications to parts/scratchbuilding, I think I did okay. Everything checks out with the drawings of Bunker Hill so they should be good.

They are holes for the CV-9 kit, which featured the earlier installation of quad 40MM guns. By the time Hancock and Boxer received theirs there was a different design that moved the gun further outboard in a new sponson. It also moved the Mk 52 director to the catwalk above the guns - you can see the general layout on this picture on CV-16 Lexington's Navsource page. Just another hole that needs filling.




There is no mention of modification to 20mm armament in Hancock's April-May overhaul/repair at Pearl Harbor in her departure report (i.e. single 20MMs would have remained). Reasonably confident they were single-barrel throughout the war.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Another question about the model. I don't know if I am missing a part or something but there's this gap leading into the hangar deck where one would expect there a wall to be. Is this supposed to be there or an oversight by Trumpeter?

Yes. It says there's a crew shelter there. I'm not the best at interpreting these drawings but it does look like there is supposed to be a solid wall there and that this was an oversight by Trumpeter.