The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:05 pm 
Thanks Gary,

Familar with her story as I have several books on the Asiatic Fleet and have been to a couple of their reunions in the past. What I'm referring to is the color demarkation line on the hull by the name plate(its not reversed by the way) There seems to be an attempt to 'shorten the hull' by painting out the stern. Similar to a MS 6 or 7 scheme. USS Stewart capsized in a drydock in Java shows a similar painting, but hers is painted out fore and aft, as are the funnels! Just trying to get some feed back on this pic.

Mac


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
Anyone know if the Omahas were around at Omaha Beach??? :heh:

These ships are one of the most potent escort vessels I've seen. The cats, the battery of 6 inch guns, and the other weapons make this the Cleveland's little cousin. But does anyone know exactly what type of operstions these went through?

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
You can find their histories on the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) website:

Omaha
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Raleigh
Detroit
Richmond
Concord
Trenton
Marblehead
Memphis

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
I see... not much of action... I guess that fits for old cruisers. But still, why weren't these used for more purposeful things, like maybe...Scout Ships??? Like they were meant to do? Seriously, they were exceptionally fast - like destroyers. Why not make these the radar pickets? Makes sense, the 6 inchers could knock out aircraft, and the 3 inch guns too. The numerous 20mms and 40mms could make a difference.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Sr. Gopher wrote:
the 6 inchers could knock out aircraft

Not the ones on the Omahas - low angle (30 degrees for the twins, 20 for the casemates) and no AA ammo, according to Navweaps: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-53_mk12.htm

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
They could, but the Torpedo Bombers, and low flying aircraft...

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Sunrise Florida
this ones for gone asiatict
I have all 3 of the kits of these ships if you want to do a marblehead conversion
the best one would be the NIKO marblehead i took all three kits and laid them out the marblehead was the winner it has all the right shaped deck houses the others are a bit different you will have to do some chopping and such but its way more doable then the other kits
Gerry

_________________
Anytime Baby


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2010 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:45 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Toronto
Sr. Gopher wrote:
They could, but the Torpedo Bombers, and low flying aircraft...



Actually no. The 6" guns on the Omahas were incapable of any form of AA fire. Aside from the elevation issues and lack of 6" fused shells for AA there was no fire control onboard that could hope to hit any aircraft. They didn't even have any fire control worth mentioning for their heavy AA battery (3" guns).

In all honesty, these ships were grossly outdated by the time WWII rolled around, and it was only the war itself that kept them in service. They were fast and well designed for their weight, but that was also their shortcoming. According to Friedman the ships were too light and fast for their own good. They were lightly armoured, very uncomfortable (hot in the tropics, cold in the north), dirty (due to the absence of scuppers), had inadequate facilities for the number of crew aboard and actually leaked.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Sunrise Florida
Hey guys
I am working on converting the NIKO Marblehead right now
unfortunately I am taking a few liberties because of the lack of good fotos of her in the early war years
my question is does anyone know if she carried 50s and if so where I am assuming she did as most of the ships in the Asiatic fleet added them or had them
just not sure where to put em
thanks Gerry

_________________
Anytime Baby


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:25 am
Posts: 69
I've got the Niko Milwaukee and it looks like a real jewel but would rather build as the Richmond. Any major changes I'd have to make? While I have tried comparing photos on Navsource you guys always seem to have amazing information.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Posts: 953
AndrexP wrote:
So, there I was, rummaging through the boxes of pictures at NARA in College Park, MD, when I found a treasure trove of shipyard facility construction pictures (I have a thing for Graving Docks, you see).

One of the pictures of the brand-new drydock at San Juan Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico was documenting a crane-tipping incident at the brand-new dock.

Within the picture is a mighty-fine looking four-piper, which seems to me an Omaha-class CL.

Image

The picture is dated 17 November 1941.

Any guesses who the ship in the background might be? I have my guess, and if I'm right, you're seeing the culmination of a pretty interesting nautical tale of adventure at sea.

Here's a blow-up of the ship in question:

Image

Any correct reply earns the inquisitor a free beer or fruity soft drink... :big_grin:

Any takers?


Taking a look at the above photo, it is a very interesting one indeed. It is without a doubt not Omaha. Notice the ribbing around the fighting top and birdbath. Omaha did not have these ribs. Given this info and the style of windows on the fighting top, the only ship that this could be is Milwaukee. The REALLY interesting thing about this photo given the date is the Paint scheme! Not MS-1 with 5-L on the fighting top, but it definitely looks like the ship was painted in 5-D. What is going on with that fighting top?

Here is a photo of Omaha in '41 for comparison. Notice her 5-L top and no ribs on that top.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:57 am
Posts: 234
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Not OMAHA?
Image

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


Last edited by AndrexP on Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
In the photo that you are questioning, note the wind baffles beneath the windows of the foretop and above them on the bulwarks for the "birdbath" above the foretop. Three Omaha's are confirmed to have had them in both locations prior to Pearl Harbor; CL-5, CL-6, and CL-13. Therefore, this photo is probably not Omaha, CL-4.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:57 am
Posts: 234
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Dick J wrote:
In the photo that you are questioning, note the wind baffles beneath the windows of the foretop and above them on the bulwarks for the "birdbath" above the foretop. Three Omaha's are confirmed to have had them in both locations prior to Pearl Harbor; CL-5, CL-6, and CL-13. Therefore, this photo is probably not Omaha, CL-4.

Bummer. I so wanted to tie this photo to tales of smuggling, blockade running, and prize money...
:lol_spit_1:

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Posts: 953
AndrexP wrote:
Not OMAHA?


No, not Omaha. What you have found here is a very historically significant photograph of USS Milwaukee. Well, maybe "historically significant" is a bit dramatic! But to me it is an awesome photograph that puts another wrinkle in the camouflage puzzle that was happening to the US Navy in 1941.

Congratulations on a cool find!

I do like Guinness Stout! :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: USS Richmond CL-9
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:38 am
Posts: 707
Location: Czech Republic
Hello everyone,
my friend Martin plans building USS Richmond CL-9 (from the Niko 1/700 USS Marblehead resin kit) from the Battle of the Komandorski Islands time. Unfortunately, we are lacking photo documentation on her setup as what we could find on the web (Navsource, Shipmodels.info etc.) and in Norman Friedman´s US Cruisers book was not really enough. Unfortunately, Steve Wiper´s Warship Pictorial volume on the Omahas is out of print and the cost of a used book + shipping is quite prohibitive. We need to be able to tell the differences between the kit (Marblehead) and Richmond. We are aware of the differences in the funnels area, but any photos of the rear funnels & catapult area showing how it looked like in 1943 would be helpful as well as any additional information.
Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Here is a photo of USS RICHMOND (CL-9) taken in about November 1942, which likely shows her configuration in March 1943. Looks like at this point she had ten 6-in guns, eight 3-in guns, three twin 40-mm mounts, and I count at least ten-twelve 20-mm guns. This is the only WWII photo of RICHMOND I have except for a photo dated October 1945, when her armament looks to be the same but the radar suite is different.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:38 am
Posts: 707
Location: Czech Republic
Dear Rick, thank you very much, this is a very nice photo. There is a larger crop of the same shot at http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/009/0400906.jpg which includes the original navy yard caption in the bottom right corner dating this one to September 15, 1943, not November 1942. But it is still a great photo!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Vladi,

It wouldn't surprise me that the date is wrong. The 80-G "100000" number series of photos is a strange lot. Many without dates provided on the mounting card caption. Also, a high number of photos in this series are censored images made for Public Release during WWII. This view shows no censoring of radars, but they did crop out the MINY labels. Since this is a MINY yard photo available in 19-LCM collection, the September 1943 dates are 99.9% chance of being accurate (I have found a few photos with "typo" date errors). Sorry, I don't know how close this photo or the others in the MINY series are to what RICHMOND looked like in March 1943.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:38 am
Posts: 707
Location: Czech Republic
Hi Rick, thanks, this happens all the time. We can only be grateful to the fact that there usually are dates provided for USN photos. My main domain is IJN and the situation there is far far worse... Anyway, thanks for your help!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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