The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 569
Location: California
It is obvious that you really have an affinity for the Alaska, and while I agree she was lovely to look at, she had a number of design flaws...

From Friedman (Cruisers p303)

From Captain P.K Fischer:
She was the “the finest example of the shipbuilding art” he had ever seen, but she was sadly defective in details…

…Moreover, the estimated tactical diameter exceeded that of any ship in the fleet except perhaps the Saratoga, which was notoriously unmaneuverable.

Paul

_________________
Image

http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
Yes, as much as I love the designs, they were expensive and basically "white elephants". Doesn't make them any less cool though. ;)

Question for you guys: seems to me that all the places normally stocking the YMW 1/350 Alaska have sold out. Any idea where to find this kit?

Thanks
Ian


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Brandon at Freetime Hobbies took over all of YMW's molds. I believe he will be re-releasing most if not all of their kits under the Blueridge Models name once they are re-worked and cleaned up but don't quote me on it. Might want shoot him a message and see what he says.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
Ah, interesting - well glad to know it's not gone forever.

Was also curious about the hullform of the ship. Some models (YMW included) offer it with a strange "step" in the bow at the waterline, though the plans I have say this feature was only on CB-2. Anyone know anything about this?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Can you elaborate on said "step" please. I'm intrigued and befuddled.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11301
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Just below the waterline in this photo of the YKM, I think: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... cb1-03.jpg

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:47 pm
Posts: 3133
Location: Oslo, Norway
Fliger747 wrote:
The Alaska's were armored against their own 12 rifles, a very powerful weapon, as good a penetrator as the British 15" weapon. The main driver of crew size was the Plethora of small and medium AA, which was sort of a function of deck size. Only one US fast Battleship ever took a torpedo, North Carolina.... The experience of the carriers was redundancy, subdivision, hull strength and damage control were often critical factors. The cruisers per se did not have the long range BB type fire control to take advantage of the long range of the 12 nor the displacement to really handle such a weapon in any number at all. Maneuverability, not as good as the Iowas which had dual rudders, but up to cruiser standards and as good as the Essex boats and better than Lex and Sara. A small tactical radius can be good for evasion etc, but in Battle the speed loss and the time it takes to work back up to speed can obviate much of its utility.

The real reason the last Iowa,s were not finished? Probably steel for landing craft and escorts. By then we had plenty of fast and otherwise Battleships for escort and shore bombardment. Postwar certainly a lot of the liabilities went away. Every ship is a compromise, and the Iowa' were probably the best all around BB's built, if in a war in which they ceased to be arbiter of sea power. Hard act to follow.

Sitting here by the beach in Hono, heading to Missouri for another visit soon....

T

In the '80s there was no big guns to threaten the ship. USS Des Moines CA class was far better for shore bombardment compared to USS Alaska class(economically). There was nothing a USS South Dakota class battleship(In my personal opinion the culmination of USA battleship design)for example couldn't do compared to an USS Iowa class in the '80s. In a war in which they ceased to be arbiter of sea power(the battleships) USS Iowa class was the worst cause of high drain in manpower compared to others, just expensive AA and shore bombardments platforms. There is not such a thing as the best battleships ever not even when the guns ruled the waves for example. In the '50's when finally the French finished Jean Bart she had much better torpedo protection, AA and FC wise than than a USS Iowa but USS Iowa had better main weapons.
USS Alaska class was a superb ship. But definitely not a battlecruiser, IJN Kongo class for example was far better protected than USS Alaska. And definitely a white elephant, like the HMS Courageous class.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
Timmy C wrote:
Just below the waterline in this photo of the YKM, I think: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... cb1-03.jpg


Exactly this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Strange indeed. You said plans for CB-2 show it? Any notations or anything? Seems rather odd and serves no real purpose although I'm not an engineer. First I've ever seen anything about it. Any ideas guys?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
My Floating Drydock plans included a section that shows a 'stem addition with CB-2', but makes no mention of CB-1 having it. The full-size drawing of CB-1 in 1945 shows the step, though, which I find a little strange.

The drawing in Friedman's Cruisers does not show the stem extension.

The Floating Drydock drawing has a notation pointing to the stem extension that reads "Stem extension for CB-2 - see gen note No.6". General Note No.6 reads: "Details covered by Alt (R) to be accomplished after delivery by the Govt for CB2".

I'm stumped. Very good chance that this was a modification made by the yard at request of the government - is what I'm thinking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
The Yankee Modelworks model is really nice. I don't know if I just have one of the first pulls, but it is really great. It will be great when the company that bought up the YMW molds begins to reproduce this kit. :D

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2498
Interesting about the bow step. I hadn't know about that as my plans are for CB1. Any launching photos of Guam?

All ships are design compromises, their success often depends on how versatile they are. It is mostly by accident or happenstance how such ships were employed in action, if any. The Kongo's were really reconstructed into a fast Battleship, really a pretty amazing feat. Hood was slowly upgraded in a similar fashion, though they hadn't up rated the deck armor quite in time for her final engagement. None of the Battle Cruisers that had to slug it out with Battleships came out well in the exchange. One of the best examples of battleship armor working as designed was SODAK, and one of the best examples of shooting was Washington. Scharnhorst and Gniessnau were designed to outshoot any cruiser, much in the way American Frigates of the war of 1812 outweighed and outclassed everyone else's ships nominally of that class. They also endeavor end to stay away from Battleships, even such as an elderly Malaya. In the event it was not possible to evade Duke of York. However they did tie up a lot of resources to have the Atlantic convoys escorted by heavy units.

Much like the Iowa's the Alaska's didn't have much of a combat record. We don't know how they would have stood the heat and dished it out. Alaska was considered a large cruiser by USN, employed as a super cruiser they were probably great escorts, certainly praised as magnificent steamers. At that point in the Pacific war shipboard aircraft may have been a redundancy, but say searching the South Atlantic for shipping or a raider in a traditional Cruiser role, they were really the eyes. For such operations the large mid ships hangar was probably quite valuable, the German ships suffered availability of their aircraft not having such facilities. A compromise. Most late and post war cruisers of US design went to single trucked stacks to clear the sky arcs. That of course drew critisism for the long uptake trunks, a feature shared by almost all the carriers as well. The centerline 5"38 mounts added to the practical effect of the battery having a wide arc. These ships did have a better AA battery than almost any other foreign capital ship. As an escort for the fast carriers they were just about as valuable as a battleship, and certainly a great deterrent to any cruiser threat. To up the surface threat to the carriers to battleship encounters really reduces the likely hood of any threat.

I am not sure in such a ship what the application of tactical diameter is except for say torpedo avoidance. The Iowas had very good manuverability in this respect, but such a sharp turn would bleed so much speed as to be a tactical blunder, taking a very long time to work up to flank speed again, obviating one of the ships big advantages. I never did hear anyone complain operationally about this as impacting their mission. Perhaps twin rudders would have been better, my understanding is that structurally it was considered a better compromise. Perhaps another pair of twin 5"38 mounts amidships might have been more effaceous us by late war.

SODAK and kin were the ultimate 35000 ton Battleships, an amazing design really, having a good chance at a go with anything, though the Iowas had a better weapon. Because of their compromises they were quite cramped internally which was OK for the war but not after. It may well be that the Iowas were retained mostly because Harry Truman was from Missouri.

In the event it could be argued six Alaskas would have been as useful to the fleet as four Iowas.

Both beautiful ships, I am scratch building both, the Missouri in modern configuration. I chipped a little paint on her as a young man....

Be a while till I get back to Building on Alaska.

Regards. Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:05 pm
Posts: 537
Location: Massachusetts, USA
I hadn't heard about the bow step before. Of course, I build 1/700 waterline, so I guess it wouldn't have been on my Samek or Midship kits anyhow.

Now I am curious, what was the function or purpose of the bow step?

_________________
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1178
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Turn radius (tactical diameter) was immensely important during WWII. Ships steamed in task forces, with the ships arranged around the capital ships (usually carriers) in the center. These formations maneuvered frequently, changing courses to confuse submarine attacks, changing positions within the formation for underway replenishment, changing course for aircraft launch and recovery, and changing formation in response to air and submarine attacks.

The maneuverability of the entire formation was limited by the least maneuverable ship. High speed battleships and cruisers were primarily anti-aircraft gun platforms to protect the carriers. Any capital ship that was less maneuverable than a carrier had little value for this purpose.

Less maneuverable ships would have to plod along with the old battleships and serve as artillery platforms for invasions. Or they might serve as slow convoy escorts. In any case they were of limited usefulness.

The major threat to ships were torpedos (airplane and submarine) and bombs. The probability of being hit was inversely proportional to the turn radius. Speed was of secondary importance - a fast ship going in a straight line was (is) an easy target.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
My 1/700 Samek kit arrived - time to call in sick. ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Something that I find interesting is that people are crapping all over the Alaskas as if they were garbage ships. Maybe to the standards of the time, but consider this: How would the Alaskas be considered to modern standards?

Being intimately familiar with modern ships, I can tell you that short of CVNs, the Alaskas in their original configuration would be the most survivable ships the USN could produce today. If they were built to their original standards of the torpedo blister, twin rudders, additional 1,000 tons of armor, and a below decks stern aircraft hangar, they would be the most capable and survivable modern warships.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: New Orleans, LA
Colosseum wrote:
My 1/700 Samek kit arrived - time to call in sick. ;)



How is this kit? I keep convincing myself NOT to buy it... need a reason to stop doing that. :)

_________________
- Chris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:55 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11301
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
navydavesof wrote:
Something that I find interesting is that people are crapping all over the Alaskas as if they were garbage ships. Maybe to the standards of the time, but consider this: How would the Alaskas be considered to modern standards?

Because this is the historical thread! Get ye back to the What-if section!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
It seems quite nice - it will be the first time I've worked in resin outside of tabletop models. I will try to post pictures of the build if time permits!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
...okay :pout:

:wave_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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

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