|
Sorry for a double post. I posted a similar message in the Manufacturers thread. I wasn't sure whether it would reach people on this thread so I've reposted. It was originally a response to the discussion of Model Monkey's (I have no association with Steve) LEX bridge reproductions and the curved 1.1" bulwarks / splinter shields as shown in Steve Wiper's WP #33. I had asked MM to consider producing the curved bulwarks since they are shown in a credible source document (and he did). I have never seen a photo that shows the fore or aft ends of those bulwarks as flat, but have seen models and conversion kits that represent them that way. It was a quiet Sunday, so I thought I might generate some discussion as I have become convinced they were actually rounded on the leading or trailing ends.
After receiving the curved bulwarks for the LEX 1.1" mounts installed at PHNY from Steve, discussed above, I undertook to review the blueprint in Steve Wiper's WP #33 again just for grins. In the early days (a few years back before WP #33 was published) I saw the "pig pen" style of the bulwarks on several models and a conversion kit and agreed that shape made sense. All flat plates with no messy bending or cutting. Must be right. I now think the curved bulwarks are correct, so I'll state my case and let the splinters fly as they may. It's Sunday, and quiet. Why not? I should add that now that my thoughts have changed, it looks to me that the few photos available agree with me - as you'd suspect, you can start to see you are right when you think you are. Human nature.
Starting with the only hard evidence at hand (photos being softer evidence in this case because of distance or blurring), the drawing in Steve's book has lots of stuff that make it interesting. The drawing tells a story - it is not just a drawing a draftsman knocked out, and was checked and approved, end of story. In my training as an engineer, I've done quite a number of these, so it was fun to go back and reacquaint myself with something I'm glad I don't have to do any more.
The drawing in question is actually two drawings, that is, the first drawing was completed and submitted. Based on feedback from a Navy Bureau, changes were made resulting in the second drawing which Steve published. The first drawing was "Pearl Harbor Plan No. CV2-74/2-1" and titled "USS LEXINGTON (CV-2) General Arrangement New Anti-Aircraft Battery & Fire Control" with an original approval date 3-19-42. The three views of the 1.1" batteries and the curved bulwarks were not drawn on this plan as originally drawn. In the original version of the drawing, the 1.1"s forward of the bridge and aft of the stack / uptake group were arranged as pairs - one mount to port, the adjacent mount to starboard - with another pair forward of the first. In the case of the forward two pairs, all four of those mounts are placed on the deck (01 level) where the #2 8" turret had been removed - none of those four 1.1s was located ON the flight deck. A similar arrangement was implemented in the drawing behind the stack, with the exception that the aftmost pair of side by side mounts were to be located on the flight deck. Adjacent to each group of four 1.1" mounts, the plans also show tubs for pairs of directors for the 1.1s. Other work is called out on the plans, but I'll ignore it for this discussion.
However, change was in the wind. At least in the sections of the drawing relating to the installation of 1.1" mounts and fire control after the 8" turrets were removed. In three places above a previous drawing note describing the above discussed 1.1" mounts' and FC installation, a single line is added "Proposed to Bureau But Not Approved". Presumably this is BuAer "not Approving". Tracy has posted a message dated 17 April from the Navy Yard back to Chief Bureau of Ships which says the reason for the disapproval "was an unacceptable encroachment on the flight deck".
In any event, Plan A was out, and Plan B was proposed. Plan B is detailed in the drawing Steve published which is much the same drawing as before, but with some changes and detail drawings newly added. This drawing (from which those detail vignette drawings of the curved 1.1" bulwarks Steve posted above are extracted) is now called "Pearl Harbor Plan No. CV2-74/2-1, Alt. 1"
The 1.1" mounts are still shown in pairs, but each pair is now arranged fore and aft. The two pairs forward of the bridge are arranged with all four mounts in a single line. The end result of this inline arrangement is that now the forward pair is mounted on the flight deck, not at the 01 level as in the previous drawing. It should be noted that the pair of mounts located on the 01 level where the #2 8" mount was removed are offset to starboard as far as possible so that the mounts thensellves are not on the centerline of that platform. All splinter shields on all the mounts are located no further to port than the outer edge of the already existing stack and bridge structures. Each of these newly added vignette drawings has a short paragraph with some details and is preceded by "(Temporary)". In the vignette drawing of the aft 1.1" (Temporary) drawing the aftmost pair of mounts are arranged fore - aft and mounted on the flight deck. From the message dated 17 April referenced above, it appears the original plan was to have three 1.1" mounts located inline and on the flight deck, but there was insufficient time to remove the third 1.1" mount intended for this threesome from its current position forward of the stack and behind the bridge. When LEX sailed, there were three, not the planned four 1.1" mounts aft of the stack and I suggest the drawing represents the ship as completed when she sailed for Coral Sea.
There's more. See page 39 of WP#33 for the following part of the discussion. The upper right hand corner of the full drawing lists applicable references for the drawing, and they are numbered A - X, with each ref having a drawing number and title. Somewhat below that box is a smaller but similar box marker "Alterations". In between these two boxes is some Text titled "General Notes". And here is where the story becomes a bit clearer when taken in conjunction with Tracy's letter of 17 April 1942, a "Clipper Air Mail" letter from PHNY back to DC telling the Boss what was accomplished to LEX. (This letter was also published in Steve Wiper's earlier WP #11 "LEXINGTON Class Carriers".)
Going back to the original version of the drawing, and taking a closer look at each of the blocks of handwritten text under the "Proposed to Bureau But Not Approved", the very last words in each block of text is "See Ref 'V'" From the list of references, Ref V is P.H.No. CV2-74/2-8 New Proposed Location of 1.1" Guns & Dir Gen'l Arrgmt 'C' - a drawing attached to the Clipper letter of 17 April as Enclosure (B). While that drawing is not any that I've seen, it seems to be a modification of the original drawing we are discussing here before the "Temporary" Plan B was added and (I say) implemented before LEX sailed. Paragraph 4 of the 17 April letter seems to be devoted to convincing the Bureau that the original proposal with port and starboard pairs should not have been disapproved, and should be implemented when the ship is next available. Part of that paragraph: "The Commanding Officer has stated, and this opinion is concurred with by the Yard, that the arrangement shown on Enclosure (B) is much more preferable than an "in line" arrangement, and offers much less restriction to flight operations." There is a reasonable point here since none of the 1.1" tubs would have been on the flight deck forward of the bridge, and only a single pair aft of the stack would be on the flight deck, but offset to starboard and actually partially overhanging the side of the hull.
Applying the same scrutiny to the handwritten blocks of text under the heading "Temporary 1.1" Gun Installation - Ford. / - Aft.", the very last words in each block are "See Ref G". Ref G is titled "P.H.No. CV2 - 74/2-3 Temp Inst'l'n of 7-1.1 A.A.M. Guns". The 7 is not aligned with the other text, almost as though an 8 was erased and a 7 put in its place. Yeah, I know some will roll there eyes on that one.
Finally to the General Notes section. There is a triangular flag labelled Alt 1. with two arrows drawn from it. The first arrow points to this text: 1 - Work to be installed at a later date includes references U, V, T, W, X. The second arrow points to: 2. Work now installed includes references L,I,G,A,B,D,E,F,C,H,M,Q,P,R,O,S.
In the Alterations block, next to Alt 1. it states "Added General Notes # 1. & 2." followed by two sets of initials and dated 4/15/42.
While I certainly believe there are times when blueprints are not necessarily indicative of work actually completed, in this case I do believe these blueprint drawings show work actually completed on LEX. The dated drawings would seem to be documents showing what had already been accomplished rather than the proposed work. I'm even betting that the number 7 was changed from an 8 in ref g. indicating the lack of time to complete the installation of all 8 for reasons described in para 3 of the 17 April Clipper letter. OBTW, I suspect LEX was out of the PHNY by 15 April, if so these drawings and correspondence represent after the fact documentation vice proposed or as yet uncompleted work.
By extension, this line of reasoning supports, in my view, the shape of the 1.1" splinter shields / bulwarks as being curved at the fore or aft ends as the subject drawing shows.
I always like to say that a picture saves a thousand words. This one didn't.
_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)
Last edited by John W. on Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
