The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:12 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 4751
In East Bremerton at the top of the Warren Avenue Bridge is a small monument consisting of one each of Bremerton's anchors and a 40 mm Quad.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3318
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Has the 1/350 Baltimore announced by Trumpeter half a decade ago ever seen the light of day?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:31 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11940
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Not yet.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:36 am 
Online

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:34 am
Posts: 40
Hello!
I have this drawing of the USS Baltimore from around 1944/45 and I don't know how accurate it is.
My issue are the directors for the Bofors guns. The drawing shows what looks like 26 directors while she only carried 12 quad Bofors mounts. I'm sure the red ones are Bofors Directors, the Orange ones are likely Bofors directors but the green and blue ones I do not know.
Did the Baltimores carried more then 1 director for each Bofors mount???
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 276
Location: Colorado
You are seeing a mix of the Mark 51 directors, Mark 57 directors, and sky lookout positions - only the Mark 51 and Mark 57 directors controlled the guns. All of the directors are identifiable in the October 1944 yard photos of CA-68 at Mare Island. It's interesting that BALTIMORE was only fitted with three Mark 57 directors (as I understand it most of the larger units received four of these directors for auxiliary quadrant control for the 5" and 40mm guns), but perhaps other researchers more knowledgeable than me know why.

I labeled the equipment on the drawing here:

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:36 am 
Online

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:34 am
Posts: 40
Thanks that helps, that drawing seems to show her in her between her 1950's and WW2 state as the radar fit seems WW2 but many Oerlikons got removed.
This drawing from Friedman's book shows Oerlikons in place of those directors I could not identify previously:
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 276
Location: Colorado
The drawing from Friedman's US Cruisers shows BALTIMORE in the "as launched" configuration seen prior to her October 1944 refit at Mare Island. The original annotated drawing (from Profile Morskie) shows BALTIMORE in the October 1944 fit, with updated radar fit and changes to the anti-aircraft battery.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:54 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3711
TZoli, that Profile Morski drawing appears to accurate for late 1944. check this link https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/068/04068.htm & do a comparison between the 2 sets of drawings.

Ian, Friedman's BALTIMORE is not "as launched" configuration because that ship had 2 20mm gun mounts on the stern instead of the quad 40mm mount that was installed sometime between July & October1943
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/068/0406811.jpg 15 April 1943
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/068/0406801.jpg 1st July, 1943
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/068/0406853.jpg 25 Oct 1943


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 276
Location: Colorado
Yes, good callout. The Friedman drawing then depicts the ship in late 1943 after radars and the stern 40mm was installed. Profile Morskie shows the October 1944 refit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3318
Location: equidistant to everywhere
“As lunched” configuration would have no guns or turrets of any kind. You mean “as commissioned” configuration?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1555
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Some (all?) of the cruisers were commissioned early in the war without the normal complement of guns, directors and radars. It was common to install one or two 20 mm Oerlikons in place of a 40 mm Bofors for the ship's shakedown cruise. Sometimes the gun directors were not installed. There was a shortage of some of these pieces and substitutions were common.

When the ship went into the yards to correct any deficiencies discovered during the shakedown the normal complement of guns was installed (if available). In some cases the 40 mm guns weren't installed until the ships reached a forward staging area.

For this reason you have to be careful when using shipyard photos taken before the ship was commissioned. They often do not represent the ship's actual fighting configuration.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3757
Phil,

That isn't quite accurate. Many ships, depending on the builder, didn't launch with all or maybe no armament. Weight was a concern and the armament could be installed at fitting-out. Yes there were changes made "Post-Shakedown" on most all ships. On USS BALTIMORE and the class as a whole, the "Authorized Armament" was changing as the war progressed. When "completed" (post commission on 15 April 1943) and went on her Shakedown as the first of her class, many bugs (big and small) likely came to light and corrections made Post-Shakedown. Her initial "authorized armament" had six quad 40-mm mounts and it appears 24 20-mm guns. The 20-mm guns were there because they were authorized. The authorized armament for the BALTIMORE class was changed to twelve quad 40-mm mounts (48 guns) on the first units with two aircraft cranes. BALTIMORE had this change made Post-Shakedown by June 1943. The next BALTIMORE to complete had the full 48 40-mm guns installed prior to completing. The follow-on BALTIMORES with one crane, had eleven quad and two twin 40-mm mounts (keeping the same number of 48 guns). Actually, the BALTIMORE class saw fewer armament changes during the war than many other ships, retaining a 40-mm battery of 48 guns.

The CLEVELAND class went through many more "authorized" armament changes because they started to be built and completed well before the BALTIMORE class.

40-mm gun installations were not and generally COULD NOT be installed in a forward staging area. Too many structural changes were needed to be done to install these mounts from providing power to operate the mounts, interfacing to the fire control, ammo magazines and the methods to get ammo to the mounts. The only way that 40-mm mounts could be installed in a forward area, was as replacements to existing mounts. During construction there were periods when all of the 40-mm mounts were not available to be installed prior to Shakedown, due to demand for the guns. The ship's infrastructure to operate the 40-mm mounts were completed and the missing 40-mm mounts would be installed Post-Shakedown or as could be arranged. 20-mm guns on the other hand, could be installed in a forward area. The only complication, were the power and interface connections for the Mk 14 gunsights. Mostly the forward area 20-mm guns were "authorized" installations, but rules could be bent and more added than authorized, but would be corrected during the next overhaul. :Mad_6:

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1917
There was one other consideration leading to the changes being made post-shakedown, especially for ships built in "private" (not navy owned) shipyards. Ships were built to "contract plans", and any deviation from those plans involved extra money for the alterations. When global changes were made to a design, the navy would specify that all after this or that ship would have the altered configuration done by the builder, while those before the specified change point would continue using existing plans and have the alterations done by a navy yard post-shakedown. This was especially true for alterations involving ripping out of previously completed work. This kept the cost down and limited the construction bottlenecks that slowed down production.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 276
Location: Colorado
chuck wrote:
“As lunched” configuration would have no guns or turrets of any kind. You mean “as commissioned” configuration?


Yes this is what I was trying to say - apologies for using the incorrect terminology unintentionally while wrangling a toddler :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3757
Dick is right, but the matter of who would make changes to the contracted design of a ship often depended on the builder. As Dick says, any change the USN made to a ship a given builder was building, would require a change order and an extra payment to the private builder. However, with some builders, the USN had a contentious relationship about contract mods. An example, with the FLETCHER class, the USN agent for the class (BosNY) had a "good" working arrangement with Bath Iron Works (BIW) and frequently BIW would "welcome" making mods for reasonable negotiated cost. That was partly because BIW ordered parts during the whole building process only as needed, so changes weren't as disruptive to their building schedule. On the other hand, with Federal-Kearny the USN would get kickback from making any changes involving REWORK. Federal ordered and assembled ALL the items needed to build the FLETCHER class destroyers before laying the keel. This allowed FEDERAL to build the destroyers on a stable schedule and build times were among the shortest for the FLETCHER class. BIW's build schedule on the other hand was longer. The USN liked FEDERAL's quick builds, but not their resistance to make changes AFTER the keel was laid. FEDERAL was willing to make mods after the ship was launched during Fitting-Out, but by a separate group not part of the building yard crew and given allowance for not making the contracted delivery date ... at a high cost to the USN. So, the USN decided accepting the destroyer and then letting New York Navy Yard (NYNY) make the update mod was the best option. Sometimes the USN would tell FEDERAL to not install certain items that would not be needed with a configuration update, and pay them for not installing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:34 am
Posts: 40
Hmm. You guys consider the Baltimores as a whole class? Not into two classes or at least two sub classes?
Baltimore and Oregon City (sub)classes?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:58 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3711
they use the same hull so the only real difference is the stack(s).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:29 am 
Online

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:34 am
Posts: 40
DavidP wrote:
they use the same hull so the only real difference is the stack(s).


And the stern and the superstructure and to some extent the light AA layout.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1555
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Rick and Dick,

Thanks for the information. I was thinking of the early Clevelands, which I am very familiar with. After production got into full swing there were fewer changes after the shakedown cruise when supplies of guns and such were much better. However, there were a lot of modifications to the original design as production continued during the war.

There are many photos of early Clevelands with 20 mm guns on the shakedown cruises that were replaced by twin 40 mm later. This was especially true of the twin 40 mm mounts outboard of turrets 2 and 3. All of the 40 mm support installation (foundations, ammo hoists, wiring, etc.) seems to have been installed during construction but the initial fit out was with one or two single 20mm guns at these 40 mm positions. Ditto for some of the gun directors. I am pretty sure some of these ships carried the 20 mm guns in lieu of the dual 40 mm after deployment, possibly to be replaced at Pearl Harbor with the twin 40 mm guns, but I would have to go back through the many hundreds of photos I have to verify this. It would be easy for a repair ship to swap the guns if all the 40mm support had already been installed. And when ships suffered enough damage to have to return to the States there were a lot of changes to the 20 mm and 40 mm gun complements.

I have thousands of blueprints for the Clevelands, and it was interesting that several of the yards made changes to the original design that were unique to ships constructed in that yard. It appears they got blueprints of the original BuShips drawings and hand copied them in house. While doing this they changed the drawing numbers to the format the shipyard used, so each drawing package has a cross reference list of yard drawing numbers to BuShips numbers. In some cases they didn't use the BuShips drawings but substituted in house drawings (I have several examples).

You only need to look at the profile photos of some of the ships to identify which yard they were constructed in. Two good examples are the aircraft crane on the stern and the smoke pipes for the trash burner. Most cranes were pipe lattice but ships built at Quincy had a crane with metal web with lightening holes.

The trash burners were usually in the after part of the midships superstructure between the smoke pipes, some external on the aft side of the deck house and some internal. But the trash burner stacks were built several ways:

New York Shipbuilding put the trash burner pipe up the port side of the aft smoke pipe on early builds, but later ran it up the forward center of the after smoke pipe. Columbia CL-56 had the trash burner pipe moved twice after initial construction!

Quincy built them all with the trash burner pipe running up the forward center of the aft smoke pipe.

Cramp built them all with the trash burner pipe running up the forward center of the after smoke pipe.

Newport News ran the trash burner pipe up the port side of the aft smoke pipe on the first two ships, but built later ships (Biloxi CL-80, Houston CL-81, Vickburg CL 86, Duluth CL-87 Amsterdam CL-101, and Portsmouth CL-102) with the trash burner pipe routed forward to the aft port side of the forward smoke pipe. Photos show they moved the trash burner to a different location near the center part of the midships deck house based upon the photos. There appear to be two configurations (high and low) for this forward routed pipe. This forward routing of the trash burner pipe has always seemed odd to me.

When some of the Clevelands were converted to guided missile cruisers each yard had its own way of constructing the radar towers, and you can identify the yard just by looking at the photos. I also know that there were a lot of other small changes to vents, internal phone positions, etc. on ships built indifferent yards.

I am pretty sure there were no two ships exactly alike, even vessels built side by side in the same yards. I suspect the same is true of the Baltimores.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3757
TZoli,

Some references identify the OREGON CITY group as a separate class, others define them as a sub-group. In my view they should be defined as a different class. Likely the USN initially looked at the OREGON CITY units as a sub-group of the BALTIMORE class because they were basically just an alteration of the superstructure arrangement. Much as the USN initially called the SUMNER and GEARING classes as SUMNER-short hull and SUMNER-long hull until the early 1950's, I suspect the USN officially classified the OREGON CITY units post-WWII.

The BALTIMORE class proper, has two sub-groups. The first four ordered (CA-68-71) had the two cranes and a different shape stern, from the rest of the class with one crane.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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