The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 314 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:13 pm 
pbudzik wrote:
Rick,
Actually, the main purpose of the photo was to address Michael's previous post where he mentioned ..."The bow bulwark needs to extend aft to end above the hawsepipe". The armor belt comment was sort of secondary. And my comments were only meant to temper the remark from Jon and Fred. There is no intention here to start a war, they are simply observations from personal experience and preference.

That being said, the hull casting looks very nice, much better than I have ever received. I am used to pits galore, missing corners, half cast shields etc. If I could be assured of an equal casting, I would be tempted to order. But it's always been like Charlie Brown and the football ...even when they send a "replacement".


Paul


So Paul, just so I understand. My demonstrating that I used the plans suggested needed tempering how? As for the bow bulwark, as you can see from this photo of San Juan:

Image

if you run a straight line across the bow from hawse pipe to hawse pipe, the bow bulwark terminates exactly where the plans show they terminate, forward of the hawse pipes not at, and those are the plans that were used. Now, since that is resolved, shall we get back to the armor belt that is .01" too thick, or have we found something else even more inconsequential to pic at?

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Don't concern yourself with your last comment. It won't be an issue for you...

Jon


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 550
Location: California
Jon,
I'm sorry you have taken such offense. Yes, you nailed the plans, but the plans aren't correct and the photo you posted shows the base of the fillet at the hawse pipe - further back than the model. It's not worth arguing over, I'm just commenting on both Michael's posting and your sarcastic posting of the drawing. In effect you are both wrong. And again, as I also said, had I not had such bad luck with previous resin hulls, I would buy one. The issues with the armor belt and bulwarks would not be a deal breaker for me, I would be the first to defend you on that. The armor belt can be easily reduced and I could give a rat about the small difference in the bulwarks. I think most board members know me for correcting issues rather than hyperbolic rants about small errors like several on here seem to revel in. I don't think Micheal's tone rose to that level. I understand your sensitivity to constant complaints (as many manufacturers unfortunately have to endure), but I don't think Michael or I were nasty.

As to my comment on my past experience with the quality of previous cast hulls, I would be happy to share photos of exactly what I have received. I am not in the habit of posting companies failures in public rants. I can assure you I have understated the problems. I have worked with several well respected resin casters and I know what amazing things can be done and how demanding it is to be constantly making new molds. I also have a pretty good idea when something gets fluffed off.

My apologies again,
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: Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3169
A new photo of USS SAN DIEGO (CL-53) taken in likely September 1942 by USS SAN FRANCISCO (CA-38). I looked through sources of photos of SAN DIEGO, Navsource, NHHC, SAN DIEGO/ATLANTA reunion websites, etc. and didn't find this image.

I found this very nice nearly broadside photo (80-G-391485) of USS SAN DIEGO by complete luck while at NARA II last Saturday going through random 80-G collection boxes. There was a group of photos taken by USS SAN FRANCISCO with unreliable dates. The SAN DIEGO photo had an April 1943 date, which had to be wrong. I had found earlier in the week in BuShips files for SAN DIEGO that her SG radar was installed by USS DIXIE in late January 1942 after the SG radar was removed from USS MINNEAPOLIS. And other photos dated February 1943 show SAN DIEGO with a 5N painted hull. In cross checking what I can in DANFS and Task Force databases, the only time SAN FRANCISCO and SAN DIEGO were together appears to be in September (and maybe August) 1942. I'll need to check War Diaries for SAN FRANCISCO to get a listing of dates she was with SAN DIEGO. SAN DIEGO's War Diaries I have been in are really poor and don't often mention what ships she was with.

Image

Also, I came across among the same photos taken by SAN FRANCISCO, was one of USS ATLANTA (CL-51) that has been in the NHHC collection for sometime, but this is the first time I have seen the same photo at NARA. The mounting card caption for 80-G-391482 didn't have a date for the photo, but the NHHC version of this photo, #NH97807, has 16 October 1942 as the date she was alongside SAN FRANCISCO.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Austin, TX
Question for those better versed in the CL-51 class than I: what electronics fit was present on CL-51 when the ship was lost? I'm trying to make a drawing of the ship in 11/42 and having some difficulties. I know the ship had an SC on the foremast, but for the life of me I can't figure out what was on top of the little platform on the mainmast.

The SC mattress is clearly visible here - but what's on the mainmast? Is it an SG? For some reason I don't recall reading about CL-51 ever being fitted with SG (I believe it would have made a world of difference in the early night actions). Any help would be appreciated.



Also, does anyone know the specific camouflage scheme? It looks to me as if a mixture of the Measure 21 overall 5-N Navy Blue and Measure 12 modified splotch schemes is happening. Any ideas?

edit: anyway, here's a preview of the Shipbucket drawing I've been reworking. The original was horridly inaccurate.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3169
When the first two units completed of the ATLANTA class arrived in the Pacific, USS ATLANTA and USS SAN DIEGO didn't have SG radars installed. They had the SC radar installed on the foremast, which was replaced with the SC-1 at Pearl Harbor. USS SAN DIEGO had the SG radar installed in late January 1943 on a platform below the SC-1 antenna on the foremast. As far as is known, and photos dating to late October 1942 (see attached) seem to verify that USS ATLANTA never had a SG radar installed prior to her loss. No antenna was installed atop the mainmast of USS ATLANTA.

Meanwhile, USS JUNEAU and USS SAN JUAN had the SC-1 radar installed on the mainmast and the SG installed on the foremast prior to arriving in the Pacific.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 218
Location: Fullerton, CA
Does anyone know what the inside of the pilot house looks like?

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:19 am 
James M wrote:
Does anyone know what the inside of the pilot house looks like? James

On Atlanta? Yeah, a real mess after that 8" shell from USS San Francisco passed though it! (My apologies James, I just couldn't resist. :-)


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: NAZARETH PA
James

I have been through all of the 19 LCM and 80 G photos at NARA for Atlanta class ships. I did not find interior pilot house photos, or any other interior shots that I can remember, in any of them nor did I find any via google search. A few larger ships like Wasp CV7 did have interior photos. I have 4 sheets of detailed exterior plans I am using for an in progress model of Juneau unfortunately no interior details. If you are close to NARA you might want to try to get a copy of plans there. There are DD pilot house photos on navsource and I suspect they are pretty similar to Atlanta class ships, only slightly smaller.

Sorry I could not help you.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 218
Location: Fullerton, CA
Somewhere I have seen a compartment and access drawing of the bridge, that would be good enough if anyone has it.

There were a lot of lockers along the bulkheads . In photos of the Atlanta wreck these lockers are scattered all over the wreck site.
There was a lot more damage to her bridge area than San Franciscos 8" round. She was hit from both sides by American ships And Japanese ships.

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 12:37 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Austin, TX
Does anybody have any information on the "2-1/2M range finder" mounted above the pilot house on the early units? The TFW plans from Floating Drydock show it, along with a pretty decent set of views of it separate from the starboard outboard profile, but I can't find any other info about it (mark and mod numbers, ordnance pamphlets, etc).

In my experience the equipment and directors later in the war are much better documented on the internet (and in books) than the earlier stuff that seems to come about in the 1930s.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 445
Location: San Diego
I think the rangefinder atop the pilot house was for navigation, apparently a binocular periscope. If so, that could explain why BuOrd did not identify it. Surface search radar superseded such devices, as with the crow's nest.

Decades later, USN interest returned to passive sensors for ships to operate under EMCON restrictions.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:57 am
Posts: 229
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Folks: Is the new ISW Atlanta discussed here available for sale yet? I couldn't find it here: http://ironshipwrights.com/ships_350.html

_________________
Andrew P, PBFHS
Chesapeake, Virginia
www.PBFHS.org


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: NAZARETH PA
Andrew

To my knowledge it is not yet for sale although I suspect it will be sometime in the next 4-8 weeks although that is pure guess. I would suggest you send an email to Jon at their site to get a more accurate estimate of when it will be for sale.

I will say again in my opinion the kit is light years better than prior resin Atlanta models. In addition to the one piece hull ISW also sent me the superstructure pieces that do not match the BWN/YKM kits. The kit is much easier to construct than the other 2. So by the time the dust settles there will be very few BWN parts on the model, perhaps the masts and some other small details and their PE. All of the guns will be after market, same for the props, whaleboats, lights etc.

I just finished putting the superstructure camo on my Juneau model. The hull is already painted. If you want photos of it and/or the unpainted hull let me know.

Good luck.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2016 1:07 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Austin, TX
Interesting note re: the 2.5m rangefinder above the pilot house.

Another question: The FDD plans very clearly show Mark 49 directors for the 1.1" quads mounted on CL-51 in November, 1942. I thought surely the 1.1" quads would be directed by the earlier Mark 44s. Any comments?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2016 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3169
The four Early ATLANTA's had Mk 44 directors. The Mk 49 directors weren't available until the Fall of 1942.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 4:32 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Austin, TX
That was my understanding too - but wouldn't that make them available for CL-51 by November, 1942 (when the FDD plans show it)?

At any rate, finding any photos of those areas of the ship is (of course) seemingly impossible...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3169
The four early ATLANTA's were kept pretty busy in the period of May to November 1942. Although I have not double checked, I don't think that ATLANTA got updated with Mk 51 directors before her loss. JUNEAU certainly didn't have Mk 51 directors from the records I have looked at (After Action Report for Santa Cruz specifically says she had Mk 44 directors). It would be possible for a forward tender to upgrade directors, but Mk 51 directors couldn't have reached the forward areas until late in 1942.

You have to understand that the first installs of Mk 51 directors was in July 1942 with the first 40-mm mount installs. For the remainder of 1942, new-builds got priority for both 40-mm mount and Mk 51 director installations. Pearl Harbor Navy yard didn't get her first shipment of 40-mm mounts (and certainly Mk 51 directors for them) to use for upgrade installations on existing ships until the Fall of 1942. (I have a copy of a series of reports PHNY submitted listing which ships got the twin 40-mm mounts, but I can't find it right now) There simply wasn't any time for these cruisers to return to PHNY or the West Coast to have this work done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: NAZARETH PA
I have a scan of a paper copy of 80 G 34733 which clearly shows the number 3 1.1 gun on San Juan with a MK 51 director at Santa Cruz. How/when/where it was installed I have no info and I have no idea if the other 3 guns got them. By the way the 1.1 has dark color flash hiders on the barrels while the fantail 1.1 in the Russell-Juneau photo appears to have bare metal ones. FYI in case you are a magician that can duplicate flash hiders in 1/700 or 1/350. Anyone who needs the photo let me know still no luck trying to upload a photo to this site. 80 G 34751 shows a whaleboat on the port side which is also rather interesting since a San Diego crewman told me all boats were gone by Santa Cruz. Said whaleboat has a weather cover on it for lack of the correct nomenclature seems to be a very rare practice based on other fall 42 USN ship photos. Juneau appears to have had whaleboats on both sides based on the Avenger photo and crew reports of the port whaleboat being blown off by the first torpedo hit.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3169
USS SAN JUAN is unusual for the first four ATLANTA class cruisers. ATLANTA and SAN DIEGO spent a fair amount of time at Pearl Harbor before going to the South Pacific, but the left Pearl before any Mk 51 directors COULD possibly have been installed. SAN JUAN however went to PHNY in late September 1942 and was there into October getting her 51 mount repaired/replaced because of damage off Guadalcanal. She had additional 20-mm guns installed then. It is possible that she also had a couple of Mk 51 directors installed then and hence during the Battle of Santa Cruz.

As a reminder; The original intent was that the "new generation" of medium gun AA directors were "suppose" to be Mk 45 and Mk 49 directors. But, the development took longer than anticipated. So Mk 44 directors were a "stopgap" interim replacement for them. But, the Mk 44 director didn't have any lead-angle bias calculator. As the Mk 45 and 49 directors delayed even more, the Mk 51 director was developed quickly utilizing the Mk 14 lead angle calculator developed for use on 20-mm guns. The Mk 51 was just another "interim" director that ended up being the standard bearer for the USN AA director installs.

JUNEAU was listed with only two Mk 44 directors installed at the Battle of Santa Cruz. See excerpt from JUNEAU's After Action Report.

Machine Gun Battery

(a) Two of the ship's 1:1 machine gun mounts have Mark
44 directors. The other two use local control. It is thought
that the mounts without Mark 44 directors did better than those
with Mark 44 directors. In many cases it is impossible to see
the tracer stream in the director spotting glass due to opening
fire too far ahead or behind the target. In addition the after
director (mount "D") vibrates at battle speeds too much to per-
mit satisfactory operation.



Also, because the Mk 44 was a small size director, telling the difference of the two in photos taken at any distance is difficult. Finding good photos of the Mk 44 director (only about seven dozen were built and installed largely on early cruisers and carriers) is hard.

... http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57mk.htm ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: NAZARETH PA
For the benefit of Juneau model builders the fantail and starboard forward/bridge 1.1s had directors. The other 2 did not. However from the records I know of it appears that all 4 had director tubs.

If anyone has the skill to make 1/700 or 1/350 MK 44 directors I have 4 photos of them. One of them shows the entire rear of the unit top to bottom from a range of about 20 yds. The others show mostly the top front or top rear from varying ranges. Armed with these plus the navsource MK 44 photos it would probably be possible to do a decent duplicate in either scale.

For San Juan/San Diego model builders the color San Juan/Noume photo shows at least 2 and possibly 3 20MM guns directly below and to the rear of the aft director. I do not have a high res copy of that photo if anyone has such a copy a precise answer on that issue might be possible. I have photos of San Diego which appear to show only 1 20MM cannon on the same deck forward of the director tower. These are all fall 42 photos. I missed the single 20 when I built the San Diego model.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 314 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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