Calling all Brooklyn-class (CL-40) fans

[Seasick]

The camera has problems with the camouflage.

[Kazec]

Take note of the shape of those caps too while you're at it! Friedman's Cruiser book has a large version of that photo and you can clearly see that they are OCTAGONS and not CIRCLES. Just an FYI Saw that the other day and found it interesting. Anyone else seen ships with covers like that? They are welded plates right?

Interesting, never imagined that it would be in octagonal shape, but I think round-shaped PE is virtually undistinguishable in 1/700 for that. Well, I have already put those seal caps with reference to pre-war photos.

Stepping forward, I would like to seek clarifications on the radar configuration in 1942 since most photos I found had the radar censored. From what I read, the Helena carried a SC radar and a SG radar on her foremast. When was the radar changed to CXAM type?

Besides, What are the differences between the 1943 and 1942 configurations? I learned that she was overhauled in Sydney in Feb 1943 and some modifications might be made during that occasion, perhaps the radar was changed? The Niko kit claims to be 1942 fit but I cannot find much differences (errors aside) from my Profile Morskie�s 1943 plan.

[Dick J]

Stepping forward, I would like to seek clarifications on the radar configuration in 1942 since most photos I found had the radar censored. From what I read, the Helena carried a SC radar and a SG radar on her foremast. When was the radar changed to CXAM type?

Besides, What are the differences between the 1943 and 1942 configurations? I learned that she was overhauled in Sydney in Feb 1943 and some modifications might be made during that occasion, perhaps the radar was changed? The Niko kit claims to be 1942 fit but I cannot find much differences (errors aside) from my Profile Morskie�s 1943 plan.

To the best of my knowledge Helena carried her SC set to the end. The "X" in CXAM was for "experimental". Only 6 CXAM sets were produced. They were carried by Yorktown, California, Pensacola, Chicago, Chester, and Northampton. California's set was relocated to the Hornet after Midway. At some point Northamption's set was replaced by a CXAM-1, but I haven't been able to find out exactly when and why, and this specific substitution (CXAM-1 for CXAM) appears to have been unique. I am not sure how many CXAM-1 sets were produced, but while there were more of them than the 6 original CXAM's, their numbers were still very limited. SC was supposed to be the "production" set, but in actual service was found to be inadequate for the task. But until the SK became available, variants of the SC were all that could be installed in numbers. Radar installations on US ships were almost never done in non-US yards, no matter how friendly the nation. Also few, if any, mods were done outside of US shipyards. The period Helena spent in Sydney was probably more to correct issues, such as fixing the field repairs from the Nov 13 '42 battle and other "wear-and-tear" items. Sydney was very busy during this period just keeping up with the emergency temporary (or in some cases permanent but incomplete) repairs to battle damaged ships from all of the allied powers fighting at Guadalcanal. US ships requiring limited mods usually went to Pearl Harbor. The more extensive mods were done on the US west coast.

One thing that has always bothered me about plans drawn up for the Helena is the width of the open bridge added in early '42 at Mare Island. If you look at the bow shot on the inside back cover of the Profile Morskie book, note that the rangefinder for the MK-34 director is noticeably wider than the face of the open bridge. NOBODY ever draws the plans that way, and if you look at the Profile Morskie plan view, the bridge is wider than the rangefinder. The open bridge is drawn too wide, and that carries down through all of the lower bridge decks. The bridge was redesigned from the original Brooklyn plan specifically to allow the forward 5" twin mounts to fire at aircraft directly ahead of the ship. The plans show the bridge wings at the pilothouse level overhanging the inboard barrels of the 5" mounts. That is wrong. The 5" guns elevated together, and that would have prevented even the outboard guns from elevating to fire on high targets forward. This width mistake throws off a few other bridge block proportions as well.

[Kazec]

Stepping forward, I would like to seek clarifications on the radar configuration in 1942 since most photos I found had the radar censored. From what I read, the Helena carried a SC radar and a SG radar on her foremast. When was the radar changed to CXAM type?

Besides, What are the differences between the 1943 and 1942 configurations? I learned that she was overhauled in Sydney in Feb 1943 and some modifications might be made during that occasion, perhaps the radar was changed? The Niko kit claims to be 1942 fit but I cannot find much differences (errors aside) from my Profile Morskie�s 1943 plan.

To the best of my knowledge Helena carried her SC set to the end. The "X" in CXAM was for "experimental". Only 6 CXAM sets were produced. They were carried by Yorktown, California, Pensacola, Chicago, Chester, and Northampton. California's set was relocated to the Hornet after Midway. At some point Northamption's set was replaced by a CXAM-1, but I haven't been able to find out exactly when and why, and this specific substitution (CXAM-1 for CXAM) appears to have been unique. I am not sure how many CXAM-1 sets were produced, but while there were more of them than the 6 original CXAM's, their numbers were still very limited. SC was supposed to be the "production" set, but in actual service was found to be inadequate for the task. But until the SK became available, variants of the SC were all that could be installed in numbers. Radar installations on US ships were almost never done in non-US yards, no matter how friendly the nation. Also few, if any, mods were done outside of US shipyards. The period Helena spent in Sydney was probably more to correct issues, such as fixing the field repairs from the Nov 13 '42 battle and other "wear-and-tear" items. Sydney was very busy during this period just keeping up with the emergency temporary (or in some cases permanent but incomplete) repairs to battle damaged ships from all of the allied powers fighting at Guadalcanal. US ships requiring limited mods usually went to Pearl Harbor. The more extensive mods were done on the US west coast.

One thing that has always bothered me about plans drawn up for the Helena is the width of the open bridge added in early '42 at Mare Island. If you look at the bow shot on the inside back cover of the Profile Morskie book, note that the rangefinder for the MK-34 director is noticeably wider than the face of the open bridge. NOBODY ever draws the plans that way, and if you look at the Profile Morskie plan view, the bridge is wider than the rangefinder. The open bridge is drawn too wide, and that carries down through all of the lower bridge decks. The bridge was redesigned from the original Brooklyn plan specifically to allow the forward 5" twin mounts to fire at aircraft directly ahead of the ship. The plans show the bridge wings at the pilothouse level overhanging the inboard barrels of the 5" mounts. That is wrong. The 5" guns elevated together, and that would have prevented even the outboard guns from elevating to fire on high targets forward. This width mistake throws off a few other bridge block proportions as well.

I see. Actually the radar provided by the kit is much alike a CXAM-1, but I will change it to a SC.

Your observation on the bridge width, I don't have enough information to judge it. I just note that the bridge width of the Niko kit conforms to the PM plan. If the plan is wrong in that part, so do the kit. But it will be too late to correct it, if necessary. However, I also note that the Classic Warship kit's pilothouse wings also overhang part of the 5" turrets.



Below is the latest progress of my Helena.

[Dick J]

Just as a heads-up, you might want to relocate the after MK-33 director. The NIKO instructions say to place it too far aft. It should be at that step in the top of the after superstructure just forward of where you currently have it placed. Notice the location on the St Louis.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/049/0404933.jpg
Helena was the same, and the director wasn't relocated. Some new structure was added aft of the director, and Niko incorrectly put the director on the back of that addition.

[Cadman]

However, I also note that the Classic Warship kit's pilothouse wings also overhang part of the 5" turrets.

That looks vaguely familiar.

[Kazec]

However, I also note that the Classic Warship kit's pilothouse wings also overhang part of the 5" turrets.

That looks vaguely familiar.

This is obviously from this site.

[Kazec]

Just as a heads-up, you might want to relocate the after MK-33 director. The NIKO instructions say to place it too far aft. It should be at that step in the top of the after superstructure just forward of where you currently have it placed. Notice the location on the St Louis.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/049/0404933.jpg
Helena was the same, and the director wasn't relocated. Some new structure was added aft of the director, and Niko incorrectly put the director on the back of that addition.

Ah, yes, this is an obvious error which has been overlooked. Thanks for reminding!

[maxim]

Here is my Helena sunk today 70 years ago - the Mk. 33 position was corrected thanks to the advice here:



viewtopic.php?f=60&t=153103
http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php?op ... d=112:lars

[Kazec]

Mine is also finished...

[maxim]

Congrats! Your Helena is more detailed and you apparently also corrected the wrong position for the hawsepipe of the anchors.

[maxim]

Does someone know why Savannah had in 1944 these dark panels on the superstructure below the 4 cm quads? And on the front plate of the turrets? Usually measure 22 did not feature any dark panels on the superstructure. Where these parts painted Navy Blue? Or Deck blue in case of the front plate of the turrets?

[Cliffy B]

Does someone know why Savannah had in 1944 these dark panels on the superstructure below the 4 cm quads? And on the front plate of the turrets? Usually measure 22 did not feature any dark panels on the superstructure. Where these parts painted Navy Blue? Or Deck blue in case of the front plate of the turrets?

Found a photo of said panels.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/0404220.jpg

If you look at the last few photos on her NavSource page: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/04042.htm

The panels appear in photos dated from September 1944, October 1944, and April 1945. The last photo shows her on Navy Day October 27, 1945 WITHOUT the panels.

I'm rather intrigued about this now as I never noticed them before. My first thought was primer since the first photo shows her fresh from her conversion running trials but after seeing that they were there for almost an entire year they had to have been deliberate, why though I have no clue. Thoughts gents?

[Frank Fowler]

I am looking for information concerning the 20 mm gun locations for the St. Louis after the November 1942 repairs/refit. During this refit she received 4 twin 40 mm in tubs on the main deck, two forward on either side of the bridge, and two aft on either side of turret 3. She also still had her original 4 quad 1.1 inch mounts. I have been able to determine the locations of some of the 20 mm, but not how many total. There is a nice large scale model of the St. Louis at this year's IPMS Nationals. Looking at photos of the model it has two 20 mm behind shields on the main deck adjacent to the forward twin 40 mm positions for a total of 4 guns (I know there was at least one 20 mm adjacent to the 40 mm mounts from photos, but can't confirm two each side). The model has the 20 mm on top of the pilot house which is confirmed by photos of the ship. The model has 3 20 mm behind shields on the main deck each side of the forward funnel for a total of 6 more and a single 20 mm each side of the aft funnel in place of the cranes for 2 more. These positions amidships with 8 total look like they are there in photos, but can't count the total number of guns. The last 2 20 mm on the model are in tubs on the main deck just aft of the aft 40 mm tubs. I can't confirm these two. From photos it appears she may of had 2 on the stern like the Helena (not present on the model). The model has a total of 15 20 mm mounts.

Any help would be appreciated. I would like to update the Classic/Midship Models kit that represents the March to November 1942 fit to the later November 1942 to summer 1943 fit.

[taskforce48]

Howdy neighbor,

You might reference this build and contact this builder for his info sources.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

HTH and Good luck!

Matt

[Frank Fowler]

Thanks Taskforce 48. That looks like the model from the Nationals this year, but it seems to be an older gallery model on this site. This helps some with the photos I have of the ship and I was off one gun in the count, 14 20 mm on the model instead of 15. I will try to contact the builder.

Since you are in Clovis, CA are you aware of the local IMPS chapter if you are interested?

[Richard S.]

Frank, The gallery USS St. Louis CL-49 model is the same one that was at last years Nats. I took off the cover and counted the 20mm guns--there are 14 in total. I used photos from the Nov. 1942 yard refit to determine the 20mm gun locations. Photos confirm the 4 (port and starboard0 on the main deck aft of the #3 turret and the single one on the bridge. Photos confirm 3 on the port side in the previous boat storage area (I could not find a starboard view so assume there were 3 on that side); and, one on the former crane mounting base (the starboard side did not have a crane and there did not appear to be space for a 20mm in the corresponding position--different O-1 deck structure configuration). Photos also confirm the two on the main deck near the #4 turret and none (At least on Nov. 28, 1942) on the stern. There may been two on the stern later--20mm gun mounts apparently were not that difficult to be added or relocated as conditions dictated. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll try to answer.
Richard

[Frank Fowler]

Richard, Thanks for posting. I really like your 1/350 St. Louis. I do have the photos from the November 1942 refit, but seem to be having trouble picking up some of the details for the 20 mm. Back in the 1990s when Steve Wiper did his 1/700 Helena I asked him if he would do the St. Louis since he already had so many of the parts common to both. I still have the letters and marked up drawings I sent him showing how easy it would be for early 1942 version of St. Louis and the post November 1942 version. He chose to kit the eailer version. However, the conversion of his kit to the later version should not be hard if I can pick up the details for the 20 mm. Your model and posting will be very helpful. The only area I still question is the 2 mounts aft of the aft twin 40 mm positions as opposed to them being moved to the stern. In my letters and drawings to Steve in the 1990s I had these two 20 mm mounts in the same location as you have and none on the stern. I guess my eyes were better back then. Thanks again for your help.

[Cliffy B]

Question regarding late war conning towers for the CL-40s; were there different designs or just one? I want to build CL-48 as she appeared in late 1943 after receiving her new bow and dazzle and I'm confused as to the shape of her new conning tower.

Looking at this photo of CL-43, you can clearly see that the conning tower extends back all the way to the pilot house bulkhead.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/043/0404311.jpg

My confusion comes from this photo of CL-42 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/0404220.jpg and a set of plans I got from the Floating Drydock for CL-48 that shows the same style tower installed but its only a sliver of a tower and does not go all the back to the pilot house bulkhead. Instead it looks like its barely large enough for a man to stand sideways in it. The photo of a rebuilt CL-42 seems to confirm it. The plans confirm it as well but I've yet to find ANY other photo that confirms it so I'm a little leery.

I can't find any info about the rebuilt conning towers either other than "they got new ones and their old ones went to the rebuilt Big 5 BBs." Can anyone enlighten me please?

[maxim]

I think that Savannah had after the rebuilt no closed conning tower, but only armour at the front and sides - but open to the back. This armour was removed completely in 1945.