The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:59 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2341 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:38 am
Posts: 271
Location: Czech Republic
You are right, sorry for my mistake(s) :)

_________________
My Gallery | At works: 1/700 Yunagi 8/1942 | Coming: 1/700 USS Chicago 8/1942; 1/700 Kinugasa 8/1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 138
Tracy White wrote:
There's been a lot of refinement and expansion to what we know about the class in the last decade. Still a lot to nail down, too. I'm still working on the AN/APS-6 and SCR-70 radars and any sort of documentation for deck spotting. But, I would say we have all of the large featured for the class nailed down at least.

Yes, our knowledge is getting better and better. Also thanks to your great work. But "old common knowledge" :) is still present in some books, magazines, on the internet.

skrakow wrote:
Thanks, Tracy. That's conclusive enough for me - Bunker Hill indeed had two additional quad sets (and not the 'elaborate' ones on blister platforms) starboard aft, during her 'dazzle period'. Which is, by the way, contradicting res. correcting the info contained here:

http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm ... iconderoga

However, it does confirm info given in here:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/bo ... craft.html

Will divert my Dragon CV-9 Essex into an early CV-10 Yorktown, and will use the Dragon Hornet as basis for Bunker Hill.

We have also photographic confirmation:

Image

It is censored photograph, but 40 mm quads are visable.

I think that early ships of the class (CV-9, CV-10, CV-16 and CV-17) were completed without these two quads, but Yorktown, Lexington and Bunker Hill received them shortly after. I believe only USS Essex went to war zone without them. So if you want to build USS Yorktown during Pacific War you will also need sprue R from Dragon Hornet kit.

Regards

Adam


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Germany
Hi Adam,

What makes the starboard aft quad question confusing is the fact that there are two different versions how to mount them (either directly on the hangar deck, or on 'blister platforms' for lack of a better word protruding from the hull side. The latter obviously offering a better arc of fire), and when which ship received what version. And how all that is being documented and presented to the casual researcher in the various resources, which are partly contradicting in a lot of details on these ships.
By the way, Hornet also received the hangar deck version of the aft quads at some point. And the Trumpeter 1/700 Essex model also includes two mounts for the hangar deck version. Last not least, those initial mounts should be easy enough to replicate with plastic sheet. The remaining question always is: On what ship, and since when?

It might be old news for most, but I just discovered this site with its excellent collection of large hi-res photographs of a lot of Essex class carriers. Just type the ship's name into the search field. CV-10 Yorktown for example is extensively covered, so it is quite easy to determine radar and AA rig at various points of time:

http://collections.naval.aviation.museu ... /Query.php

_________________
Best regards from Germany,

Stefan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 138
Hi Stefan,

skrakow wrote:
What makes the starboard aft quad question confusing is the fact that there are two different versions how to mount them (either directly on the hangar deck, or on 'blister platforms' for lack of a better word protruding from the hull side. The latter obviously offering a better arc of fire), and when which ship received what version. And how all that is being documented and presented to the casual researcher in the various resources, which are partly contradicting in a lot of details on these ships.

You are right, there were two versions: "inboard position" and "outboard position". General rule was that two hangar level 40 mm quads were moved outboard when ships received three 40 mm quads on the side below the island. Of course there was at least one exception. :)

skrakow wrote:
And the Trumpeter 1/700 Essex model also includes two mounts for the hangar deck version. Last not least, those initial mounts should be easy enough to replicate with plastic sheet.

Yes. Of course, I am talking about out-of-the-box build. I am 1/350 guy and I can be wrong (I do not have these kits), but based on instructions we have parts for "inboard position" on sprue R and parts for "outboard position" on sprue G.

Regards

Adam


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9571
Location: EG48
For what it's worth, the two versions would either be "deck mount" or "sponson mount." The "blisters" are termed sponsons in Navy parlance.

Differences such as these are what I've been working on in book form for about a decade... :dead:

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 176
If I were to build a 1/700 1945 Antietam, I surmise I would have use the Trumpy Ticonderoga as a starter?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Which leads me to ask about the starboard miship 40mm tubs on the last few ships delivered to the Pacific.

I know being East Coast builds they had to pass thru the canal, these tubs restricted passage placed as they were.
Upon arrival to the Pacific, you'd believe these tubs would be added on at some yard or forward base to achieve
the maximum fire power of the AA battery given the fact that we were now operating in Empire home waters.
The service squadron had to have plans of how to fabricate these. From the west coast to the Phillipines there
are bases to get his done efficiently.

This apparently was not done on the Bennington CV20 as indicated by Navsource dates & pics.
I know the dates can be subjective, but from what I read, most agree she didnt have the tubs.

For Antietam, CV36, all pics that I can locate are absent of these tubs also. Eric W posted an overhead shot of CV36 on page 108,
and I'd really like those waves on the starboard side to be tubs, but they are not. Granted there are not alot of pics to found after
7/45 when she left Pearl.

For CV38, ShangriLa, I dont see where she ever got them mounted either. Capt652 has a great midships shot on page 20 from 9/45,
fresh paint to boot, but no tubs. Earlier pics show no tubs either.

All of these ships had the availability in port to get the mounts once past the canal.
Perhaps, though I doubt, the damaging of Bunker Hill & Franklin, had CV 38 & 36 pressed into the front a little faster.
Clearly not the case with Bennington. She paid a couple trips to Ulithi for "R&R", they could have easily been added on then
by the Service Squadron, or much less earlier on her way across the Pacific.
If the tubs were fitted I cannot see them being taken off RIGHT AFTER the war, like Septmber 45. Just too fast.
The conundrum is then the Boxer gets them mounted, strange. Any input appreciated.

Paul


Last edited by raggs on Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1725
raggs wrote:
For Antietam, CV36, all pics that I can locate are absent of these tubs also. Eric W posted an overhead shot of CV36 on page 108, and I'd really like those waves on the starboard side to be tubs, but they are not. Granted there are not alot of pics to found after 7/45 when she left Pearl.
I have to disagree with you on this one. If you save that overhead photo on page 108 to your own hard drive, you can open and enlarge it. Look at the circled areas on the starboard quarter. The one abreast the after "36" is pretty fuzzy, but the next one up is as clearly a quad 40MM as any object at that resolution can be. I know of NO instance where a starboard quarter quad 40MM was extended outboard without the rest of the outboards being in place as well. (Although Intrepid had her after starboard quarter quad still inboard for a time after all the other outboards were added.) Bon Homme Richard got the outboards prior to first combat. Likewise, Randolph had the outboards added before heading west. Boxer reported to the Pac Fleet and had the outboards added before she went west, and that was after the cessation of hostilities. Shang seems to be the last Essex class sent to join the Pacific task forces without the outboards.

Link to photo of Boxer with outboard quads: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022132.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9571
Location: EG48
I agree with Dick. Unfortunately in this case since Antietam didn't see combat I haven't studied her or gone through her textual records like the other WWII Essexes, so I don't have any textual records to fall back on, but I'm pretty sure I see the starboard midships quads and signs of them afterwards (the narrow catwalk linking the three sponsons was kept after the quads and sponsons were removed). The sponsons themselves were manufactured at the west coast yards for sure, never seen photos of them being built at Pearl Harbor or forward of the west coast, although I haven't seen anything that shows they weren't.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 176
Thanks for the replies guys.

Dick J, I see the guns on the starboard quarter you are referring to on Antietam,
my question is the 3 mid ships 40mm mounts BELOW the island.

Tracy, if you see signs that these guns were installed then removed, would you please
show me how you came to that conclusion. Thats interesting.

As a side note, I watched "Saga of the Franklin" last night and noticed that when her midship
tubs were removed there are what looked like white tarps strung over where the tubs used to be.
I didnt think these mounts and sponsons penetrated the hull, but if there were clipping rooms
associated with them it makes sense.

Paul


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1837
3 mid ships 40mm mounts are BELOW the island not deck level.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 176
After spouting off that Antietam didnt have the starboard midship 40mm mounts, I prove myself wrong.

I have no clue when or where this was taken, obviously after war with the name being painted.
Still in MS21.

So are the Bennington & Shang the only wartime delivery ships that didnt get the midship 40 mm mounts?


Attachments:
antietam 1945.PNG
antietam 1945.PNG [ 248.26 KiB | Viewed 267 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:28 pm
Posts: 18
Quote:
So are the Bennington & Shang the only wartime delivery ships that didnt get the midship 40 mm mounts?


And Essex, I believe.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1837
USS Shangri-La
July 1945 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/023870.jpg No
3 September 1945 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/023818.jpg No

USS Essex
March 1945 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020947.jpg No

USS Bennington
July 1945 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022012.jpg No

USS Hornet
March 1945 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/0212ab.jpg No
September 1945 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021269.jpg Yes following repairs from June typhoon & refit


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
USS Shangri La at the return from WWII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV33lffjDzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WwOgjKdRE

Unfortunately a large water sign in the footage! Does naybody have it without? There are also a few seconds of Hancock in the first film...again covered by that dreadful water mark!

cheers
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9571
Location: EG48
raggs wrote:
Tracy, if you see signs that these guns were installed then removed, would you please show me how you came to that conclusion. Thats interesting.


If you're talking on the ship itself, well that question has been answered.

However, the sponsons themselves were merely welded to the outside of the ship. There was no heavy "wing spar" type of structure to brace them. Clipping was done inside the ship and passed through the doors to the sponsons. I can't remember which ship - I think it is Philippine Sea but I can't remember where the photos are or if they're online. It's post war, heading east through the Panama Canal, and a couple of the sponsons were cut off and set on the flight deck for the transit. I have photos of sponsons after fabrication at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and they're just sitting in the bottom of a drydock in storage (they're in the background of a photo and I'm not sure . There's not a lot to them. You can see their outline in some post-war shots where they were cut off.

The Franklin shots were most likely white paint and not tarp.

anj4de wrote:
Does naybody have it without?


US National Archives, 4th floor. That's where Critical Past records their footage. They should have links to where you can pay for non-watermarked versions of the clips if you can't make it to archives.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Tracy White wrote:
raggs wrote:
Tracy, if you see signs that these guns were installed then removed, would you please show me how you came to that conclusion. Thats interesting.




anj4de wrote:
Does anybody have it without?


US National Archives, 4th floor. That's where Critical Past records their footage. They should have links to where you can pay for non-watermarked versions of the clips if you can't make it to archives.


Critical Past asks 200$ for those 2min of footage...! :big_eyes:
Not sure if this is the current rate for public domain material?

cheers
Uwe

PS: Got..."Franklin, Honor restored" the other day. I can highly recommenend that DVD. The color footage at the beginning, is that Franklin? It's a short hull for sure...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 176
NICE JOB FELLAS!!

I really appreciate the input. Looks like we can midships triple quad question to rest.

So,,,,,

Back to my orig question, do I use the Trumpy Tico for my 1/700 Atietam build.


Last edited by raggs on Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1837
anj4de, both videos show without those 3 starboard sponsons.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9571
Location: EG48
raggs wrote:
Back to my orig question, do I use the Trumpy Tico for my 1/700 Atietam build.


It looks like so.

anj4de wrote:
Critical Past asks 200$ for those 2min of footage...! :big_eyes:
Not sure if this is the current rate for public domain material?


You're actually paying for their time to go to the archives, get a good set up, and record the footage. While I can empathize with the desire to get all of our research for free, not everyone can work for free. I used to think that the $80 I spent on a Maryland Silver plans book was over priced, but after researching myself and having to deal with the microfilm, and realizing that that book probably took a couple of weeks of going through microfilm, then paying the reproduction costs for each printed page that gets turned into a page of the book, then the time to assemble all of that and get it printed and bound..... there's a reason that stuff costs money.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1725
Tracy White wrote:
The sponsons themselves were manufactured at the west coast yards for sure, never seen photos of them being built at Pearl Harbor or forward of the west coast, although I haven't seen anything that shows they weren't.
Hancock received her outboards at Pearl during her repair. (Had she hit one of the west coast yards she would most likely have had her flightdeck extended to full length.) Also, I believe that neither Antietam nor Boxer stopped at a west coast yard en route west. But both were at Pearl. Of course, that doesn't say where the sponsons were fabricated. But it would be easier to fabricate on site than to ship the parts pre-fabbed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2341 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group