The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:18 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The last I heard you can order the microfilm images on DVDs. However, I don't know what resolution they use. I have been scanning microfilm with a machine at our local library. It allows enlarging the image 2-3x for scanning just a part of a frame.

I have been scanning each 35mm frame in six overlapping magnified images and saving them as Photoshop files. Then at home I use Photoshop to paste all of the scans into a single drawing. This gives me something like 8000 dpi resolution on the film, and you can see tiny details like the pencil points the draftsman used to mark centers of circles or to space lines of text. More importantly, the smallest text is very legible.

An original large drawing like a whole ship outboard profile was something like 3x11 feet on paper. It might be 5 separate overlapping photos on the microfilm, or 30 individual scans. When pasted together the whole image is about 29,000 x 8000 pixels. If then printed on a wide bed plotter 36x130 inches it gives resolution equivalent to scanning the original paper drawing sheet at about 220 dpi.

I have a 4000 dpi film scanner and I have tried to scan the microfilm with it. But the smallest text sometimes is not legible. My guess is that the minimum acceptable resolution for scanning microfilm is 6000 dpi. Anything less and you might not be able to read the small text. I do not know what resolution you get on the DVDs from the National Archives.

****

You are right about the expense. I started ordering reels of microfilm when they were $35 each. There are 19 reels for the original Cleveland class blueprints. I bought another 8 reels of later Cleveland drawings and 13 for the CLG guided missile conversions. That's 40 reels for $1400. Now I think they want $65 per reel.

Of course not all of the drawings are useful for modeling. Many are wiring, plumbing and ventilation diagrams, or pages of door, furniture and label lists, etc. I have actually scanned only about 500 of the original approximately 9600 blueprints.

Another expense is the time involved. I have no idea how many days I have spent sitting in front of the microfilm scanners - when they were not already being used by someone else. Then there have been months of work piecing the scans together into the drawings. It can take two days to piece together a large drawing, correcting for pincushion distortion in the original camera lens that photographed the drawings, and more distortion from the microfilm scanner optics. That's one reason it has taken 12 years to get as far along on my model as I have so far. But I have the satisfaction of knowing that my CAD model is accurate!

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:32 am
Posts: 414
Location: Peach State
It would be great if they could go from microfilm reader to jump drive. I bought a bunch of rolls about 30 years ago, along with a reader. That allowed me to go through the rolls for useful pages, make a note of the frame numbers, then take the reels to a document service for paper blowbacks. Kinkos has copiers that can resize those architectural-size drawings down to working size on one sheet. Quality varies all along the chain; some microfilm images were shot from VERY faded originals. Some of the obscure details on those microfilm reels are amazing, though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Gents -

Does anyone know the exact 5"/38 twin gun mount mark/mod used the refitted Savannah? The usual suspects have no detailed info about the mark/mod, just "twin gun mounts". From examining photos, they appear to be the usual Mark 28 or Mark 32 twin mounts without the gun captain's sight hoods.

Another question involves the Mark 34 main battery director shields - any idea of the mark/mod of this? The type used on the Brooklyn class seems to be the earlier mark/mod (as opposed to "Shield Mark 7 Mod.0" used aboard the St. Louis and Cleveland classes).

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:27 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1992
look at these 3
http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0422.htm
http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0424.htm
http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0426.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
OP 805 (First Revision) page 553 says CL 40-42 received Mk 32 dual 5"/38 mounts, but doesn't say which Mods. Since they had 5"/25s initially, the 5"/38s would have been retrofitted later, as when the Savannah was in the Philadelphia yards to repair bomb damage.

One telltale to look for identifying dual mount types is whether or not a training stop buffer is attached to the bottom front of the mount. It is on the lower front of some Mk 32s (Mods 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12). Some Mk 32s (Mods 0, 1, 2 and 6) have the training stop buffer at the rear of the stand or mounting ring, internally or under the rear overhang of the mount (there were no Mk 32 Mods 7 and 11).

In 1944 the Savanna dual mounts did not have external training stop buffers. So they must have been Mk 32 Mods 0, 1, 2 or 6.

Mods 0 and 2 were similar, some with lighter armor than the others - the lighter versions were for destroyers. Mod 1 had the heaviest armor of the Mk 32s without the front training stop buffer. Mod 6 was a light weight version for destroyers.

Mods 0, 1 and 2 would have been used on cruisers (the heavier versions of 0 and 2). There wasn't much visible difference. The heavier Mod 0 and 2 had 1" front armor and 0.75" side/top. Mod 1 had 1.25" armor all around.

So take your choice of Mk 32 Mods 0-2.

Phil

PS: Looking over OP 805 again, the Mk 32 Mod 1 mounts were installed on CL-95 through CL-98 and CL-119 through CL-121.

Mk 32 Mods 0 and 2 were installed on Clevelands from CL-55 on except CL-87 that had Mod 0. Mk 32 Mod 2 was installed on late war Clevelands CL-89-93.

Since Mod 2s were being built for Clevelands at the time the Savanna was refitted, I'd bet Savanna got Mk 32 Mod 2 mounts.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1739
DrPR wrote:
OP 805 (First Revision) page 553 says CL 40-42 received Mk 32 dual 5"/38 mounts,
It is interesting that the reference includes CL-40 and CL-41 as having the dual mounts since the photos of them in foreign service prove they did not. They did, however, receive the hull blisters. Only CL-42 and CL-48 got the full mod with the twin 5" mounts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Excellent info in here - thanks all. Much appreciated. The level of collective knowledge on this board is simply unsurpassed.

Any ideas on the mark/mod of the Mark 34 director shields? This is an area I consistently am unable to find good info on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1739
The original Brooklyn MK-34 directors lacked the rangefinder found on all later models of the director. These were later modified to incorporate a rangefinder, but the resulting structure was the more bulky version seen in the photos. I don't know how the documentation described the change, but in all probability, they didn't assign a new mark to it, just a mod. The same early version was installed on the heavy cruiser Vincennes, but she was lost with her directors unmodified.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Makes sense - I'm now remembering how I asked this question in another thread a while back and got the same answer. ;)

Next question for you guys: all the photos of CL-42 Savannah show the ship with a section of dark paint on the amidships quad Bofors towers. Since all the photos are B&W, no idea what color this was - but my guess is Navy Blue (5-N) based on the Measure 22 scheme as well as the fact it seems to match the tone of the hull in some photos. This area is painted in a dark color in the September & October 1944 photos as well as the April 1945 photos, which leads me to believe it isn't just a missed area of primer or "underway painting". The pattern is identical port & starboard as well. Is this just an attempt to break up a rather flat and featureless grey area with some dark color?

Image

Interestingly, by Navy Day of 1945 it seems to be grey:

Image

Any ideas?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:33 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1992
just as a reference. http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/0404220.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:43 pm
Posts: 43
What kits are available for a build of a 1/350th USS Savannah during either 1939-1941 or during her South Atlantic Patrol in 1943.

_________________
Planned projects
1/700 USS Macon CA-132
1/350 USS Wasp CV-18
1/350 USS Alabama BB-60


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:15 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:16 pm
Posts: 145
Location: Sequim, Washington
Only one i know of is the old Classic Warships 1/350 Brooklyn kit, not sure Yankee Model Works ever got around to re-releasing it. Best of luck finding one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Here's the result of all my questioning in this thread - a Shipbucket format illustration of CL-42 in 1944.

Special thanks to Roger Torgeson (who provided many awesome high-res photos via email), and Rick Davis and the rest of the gents in this thread for their extremely helpful guidance getting everything right. Thanks guys!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Gents -

I was wanting to draw some more of the class, so I started lining up sources for the USS Boise CL-47 and noticed that the rest of the Brooklyn class reference drawings I have don't match up with the Profile Morskie plans I used as a dimensional reference for the drawing of Savannah (what a surprise). Interestingly enough, the Profile Morskie plans of Nashville don't match Savannah either! Both CL-42 and CL-43 were built at Camden by NYSB... so in my mind, there's no reason for there to be such a discrepancy in layout for the two (as my comparison of plans seems to indicate). My sad suspicion is that the plans from Profile Morskie are just (as many of the modellers here have discovered to their dismay) just inaccurate...

Here's a comparison of the two. Nashville 1944 is green, Savannah 1944 is red: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... nknown.png

Any ideas?

Interestingly, the Profile Morskie plans of Nashville 1944 perfectly match the Floating Drydock "TFW" series drawings for Nashville 1944 (I suspect they were traced). These drawings also match the Alan Raven drawings of Brooklyn "as built" and a copy of Phoenix's outboard profile from the Booklet of General Plans from 1944. This leaves me with no other conclusion than to judge the Profile Morskie Savannah drawings as inaccurate.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Another query for you guys - are there any photos existing of Boise (or any of the class) with King Board modifications prior to the war, other than the usual stuff available on Navsource? For Boise, I have 80-G-279384, which shows the ship in Measure 1 camouflage off Hawaii. I'm wondering if there are any good closeup shots of the bridge area, since it looks like some parts of it have been modified from the as-built config. The splinter shielding around the Mark 34 director foundation looks to be built up, with small platforms aft (for .50 cals or searchlights?), and I imagine there are other areas I'm missing. It also looks like splinter shielding (or maybe just canvas) is mounted ahead of the conning tower.

Also, is that the elusive "FA" fire control radar I see above the Mark 34 director? :wave_1:

I'm trying to make a drawing of Boise during the ship's time with the Asiatic Fleet and want to make sure it's as accurate as possible.

Image

The photo of Phoenix underway out of Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec has a similar configuration, but I haven't found a higher-resolution copy of this photo (NH 50766) - and I can't find anything else on NHHC or Navsource.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1739
Colosseum wrote:
Also, is that the elusive "FA" fire control radar I see above the Mark 34 director?

There were two versions of the FC radar (later known as MK-3). One was narrow vertically and wider than the director base as seen here on the Chicago: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/029/0402932.jpg
The other version was more square as seen here on Helena: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/050/0405006.jpg
Your Boise photo appears to show the square version of the FC antenna.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Dick J wrote:
Colosseum wrote:
Also, is that the elusive "FA" fire control radar I see above the Mark 34 director?

There were two versions of the FC radar (later known as MK-3). One was narrow vertically and wider than the director base as seen here on the Chicago: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/029/0402932.jpg
The other version was more square as seen here on Helena: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/050/0405006.jpg
Your Boise photo appears to show the square version of the FC antenna.


Right - I've seen the two types of the Mark 3 "FC" before. Friedman mentions the "square" type as the Mark 3 Mod.1, with the "oblong" type as the Mark 3 Mod.2. I wasn't aware this radar was available pre-war. Friedman's Naval Radar mentions the "Mark 1 (CXAS) / FA":

Image

He states that "ten were built for use with Mk 34 directors", but only mentions Wichita as the first installation in June of 1941 - hence my initial confusion. The Mark 3 entry clarifies that Philadelphia was the first to receive a Mark 3 set (in October of 1941), so seems very likely that Phoenix and Boise also received Mark 3 Mod.1 "square" types too.

Thanks for the clarification Dick J!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3205
Finding photos of any USN ships in the immediate period before the USA entered WWII showing King Board mods, is difficult. The USN tried to restrict photos of their ships starting in that period from being released for public publication. Not many have survived.

As for the radar in question being the "FA" model, I'm not sure, but would guess it is. The replacement radar was the FC and the first Mods (Mod 1 or 3) of this radar "appears" to have used the same "square"antenna that was roughly 6x6-ft square. Mod 0 or 2 FC radar used the oblong antenna roughly 12x3-ft. Only ten FA sets were built, the first set was installed on USS WICHITA in June 1941, having a short range of detection (about 3-5 miles for surface ships) and were replaced with the improved "FC" radar. The first FC radar was installed on USS PHILADELPHIA in October 1941. This short period and poor reliability of the FA radar likely means it was replaced pretty rapidly. The shape of the antenna reflector on BOISE and BROOKLYN would indicate a fairly "fat" radar beam with poor angular direction, whereas the antenna for the FC radar would give a narrower fan beam providing better angular direction.

I can't speak to exact locations or even the numbers of the 50-cal MGs in the pre 20-mm gun era on this class.

Even the installation of the quad 1.1-in mounts on this class was limited prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. I believe only BROOKLYN, PHILADELPHIA, St LOUIS and HELENA had them installed or were in the process of having them installed from the records I have seen. Once the war with Japan started, armament upgrades accelerated so that by 1 July 1942 all but one of the class had their quad 1.1-in mounts and about twelve 20-mm guns.

Here are a couple views of the bridge area for BROOKLYN class cruisers based in the Atlantic early in WWII.

The image below and close-crop of the bridge is USS BROOKLYN (CL-40) dated 8 December 1941 (never quite trust dates on 80-G captions without additional info)

Image

Image

This close-crop image of USS PHILADELPHIA (CL-41) bridge is dated sometime in January 1942. She has the FC radar installed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Posts: 577
Boise Aug. '41
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 175
Location: Austin, TX
Beautiful photos guys - extremely helpful even if there aren't that many existing from the period.

Any idea on the color scheme for the SOC Seagull floatplanes embarked at the time? I'm not sure where to even start for this kind of stuff.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  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