The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:52 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 469 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
DrPR wrote:
I think the Cleveland left the yards with 1.1" guns, but after shakedown these were replaced with the dual 40mm guns before heading for combat. I don't know if the 1.1" guns were ever installed on the Columbia.


In the June '42 shots of Cleveland undergoing inclining, the tubs are empty. Photos taken during shakedown on 19 July clearly show twin 40MM. It appears that they waited for the 40MM to be available and it is very unlikely that the 1.1's were ever installed. That makes it extremely unlikely that Columbia had them either.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:58 pm 
Hello DrPR, that's what I was asking about. So Columbia and Montpelier retained this configuration throughout the war. I know Monty did. Any other sisters? Thanks for the input.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
keithhufnagel wrote:
Hello DrPR, that's what I was asking about. So Columbia and Montpelier retained this configuration throughout the war. I know Monty did. Any other sisters? Thanks for the input.


If you had read my previous post, I indicated that Cleveland went to war without any quad 40MM, Columbia and Montpelier received the "box-style" supports for the forward quad 40MM and ALL later Clevelands had the rounded supports. When Cleveland upgraded in '44, she had rounded supports as well. The only ship to alter her tub supports was Manchester, when she upgraded to twin 3" in the 1950's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Dick,

I think you are correct. I have the 30 May 42 inclining experiment photos showing the empty gun tubs - the Mk34 main battery directors are also missing. The 19 July 42 photos taken underway show all the directors and their radars in place, and there are dual 40mms in the gun tubs. It is very unlikely that the 1.1" guns were installed and removed in the six weeks between the two photos. Friedman (U.S. Cruisers) says the 1.1" guns were abandoned in 1941 and Cleveland was initially fitted out with four dual 40mm guns. The Columbia had two duals and two quads, with the box-like O1 level gun tub supports that started this discussion.

It is also interesting that the radar antennas on the Mk 37 directors are raised on the high supports from the very beginning on the Cleveland. So the need for better anti-aircraft coverage was realized even before the ship was completed.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
DrPR wrote:
It is also interesting that the radar antennas on the Mk 37 directors are raised on the high supports from the very beginning on the Cleveland. So the need for better anti-aircraft coverage was realized even before the ship was completed.


The high supports did nothing for the radar coverage of the MK-4/FD antenna. The reason it was raised is that if mounted normally on the director, it would have blocked the visual sight lines of the MK-34 director. That is why the MK-34 and MK-37 directors were transposed on the square-bridge Cleveland's. The MK-8 radar had less height and it was easier to keep both directors relatively low - even at the expense of the range on the MK-34's. (And note that the Fargo's returned the MK-34's to the higher positions.) When the round-bridge Cleveland's upgraded to the MK-12, the extra weight of the antenna would not allow the high supports, so the MK-34's were remounted on taller pedestals to have a clear view over the top, even though this was bad for the topwieght on ships that were already too topheavy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:08 am 
Dick, 'I read your previous post', but I was more interested in the tub construction not the weaponry. I have seen photos of ships labeled as CL-57 which did 'not' have the modified tub. I simply wanted to know how many ships of the class had that 'tub' so that I could decern accurate labeling or not. Apparently 2, right? . . . Got it! Thanks


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Dick,

Thanks! Your argument makes perfect sense. I have stood Director Officer watches and line of sight is all important.

Which of the round-bridge ships were refitted with the higher mounted directors?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
DrPR wrote:
Which of the round-bridge ships were refitted with the higher mounted directors?


Eventually, all 7. It was mostly done during the refits performed from late '44 through '45, although Denver had hers done in the Feb-May '44 repair to her torpedo damage.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Anyone know if detailed plans for the revised Clevelands (USS Vincennes and after) are available?

I think I have most of the blueprints on microfilm from the National Archives for the Clevelands. All of the superstructure blueprints are for the original USS Cleveland CL-55 (round bridge, boat cranes, high mount 40mm guns, and forward position for 5"/38 mounts #4 and #5). I would like to find blueprints (or other accurate detailed drawings) for the superstructure of the modified Clevelands.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
The square-bridge version is available at the floating drydock, by Tom Walkowiak, (CL89 Miami).

Be sure to check out the following astounding site for pictures of the CL90 Astoria:

http://www.mighty90.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
I was curious about the rangefinders on the 6"/47 turrets of the Cleveland class ships. Rangefinders were installed on all superelevated (#2 and #3) turrets on these ships. The rangefinders were never installed on any of the #4 turrets on any of the ships.

As far as I have been able to determine, rangefinders were installed on #1 turret on most of the Cleveland class ships. However, near the end of the war these were removed (from #1 only) as a weight saving measure on some (not all) ships. Later, during the CLG conversions in the 1950s, the rangefinders were removed from all #1 turrets. I searched through the Navsource archives to determine which ships were delivered without rangefinders on the #1 turret.

These photos show rangefinders on the #1 turrets:

Cleveland CL-55 1942 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/055/0405509.jpg
Columbia CL-56 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/056/0405615.jpg
Montpelier CL-57 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/057/0405703.jpg
Denver CL-58 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/058/0405802.jpg
Santa Fe CL-60 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/060/0406008.jpg
Birmingham CL-62 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/062/0406228.jpg
Mobile CL-63 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/063/0406316.jpg
Vincennes CL-64 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/064/0406402.jpg
Pasadena CL-65 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/065/0406510.jpg
Springfield CL-66 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/066/0406603.jpg
Topeka CL-67 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/067/0406703.jpg
Biloxi CL-80 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/080/0408013.jpg
Houston CL-81 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/081/0408112.jpg
Providence CL-82 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/082/0408201.jpg
Vicksburg CL-86 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/086/0408601.jpg
Duluth CL-87 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/087/0408701.jpg
Miami CL-89 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/089/0408909.jpg
Astoria CL-90 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/090/0409011.jpg
Amsterdam CL-101 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/101/0410105.jpg
Portsmouth CL-102 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/102/0410203.jpg
Wilkes-Barr CL-103 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/103/0410310.jpg
Atlanta CL-104 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/104/0410426.jpg

These ships were delivered without rangefinders on #1 turret (I have no way to know if the rangefinders were installed initially and then removed later):

Manchester CL-83 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/083/0408314.jpg
Oklahoma City CL-91 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/091/0409107.jpg
Little Rock CL-92 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/092/0409201.jpg
Galveston CL-93 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1103/0409301.jpg
Dayton CL-105 http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/105/0410501.jpg

It is interesting that some ships with rangefinders on #1 were commissioned after some ships without rangefinders on #1. Ships without rangefinders were not all built in the same yard.

The rangefinders were removed from Manchester's #2 and #3 turrets during the late 40s or early 50s (it was the only Cleveland class ship active during the Korean War).

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
Removal of the rangefinder in Turret 1 depended on exactly when the ship went in for refit. As for ships being completed with the RF after others began having them removed, that type of thing was not unusual. Speed of construction was king during the war. Changes slowed down construction. So, many ships were delivered with items that had been officially deleted because it was easier (and faster) to handle it in a navy yard during the post-shakedown overhaul. You see this a lot in DD construction. Change orders would specify which construction numbers to begin incorporating the mod, and that was predicated on having the drawings available as well as not requiring any "rip-out" on the part of the builder.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Hello,
I'm trying to find out the radar and weapons outfit of US Navy cruisers in late 1943/early 1944.
I see that there is much knowledge about Cleveland cruisers here, and I have the some questions:
I saw an interesting post about the original armament of those ships, but some of them could have been updated before being in action in late 1943.
I am interested in the number of 40 mm mounts and radars in Cleveland through Biloxi.
Birmingham and Denver were damaged and refitted in that period, and I am interested in knowing the configuration before and after damage.
Most probably they had SG surface search, SC or SK air search (I guess SC for the earlier units only), Mk8 F.C. radars, and Mk4 or Mk12/22 (which one got Mk4?)
Thank you in advance for the info you can provide

Max


Rick E Davis wrote:
I tried several years back to catalog the configuration changes for the CLEVELAND class and found it difficult. The first seven or so completed units went through numerous changes. As the authorized armament changed for the class (or sub-groups with-in the class), the changes were made unless a further change superseded it before a yard period was accomplished. The next five units went through just a couple of major changes. Yes twin 20-mm mounts were installed starting in early to mid-1945, I can't remember the number of twin mounts right now and which single mounts they replaced. The CLEVELAND class was always weight and space limited and it prevented the addition of more 40-mm mounts. I was surprised that MANCHESTER was the only one of the class to get twin 3-in mounts and then she got eight of them in 1953!!!

To really track these ships configurations will require a fair amount of work. I started by listing all units in order by commission date and noted which of four builders built them. Then I went on photo searches. I started to note when changes in configuration (mostly 40-mm mounts). After a point I gave up trying to find when updates occurred, I just didn't have enough data. I didn't even try tracking numbers of 20-mm guns mounted. To do it right, I need to spend time at NARA and I have other priorities. Here is a thumbnail of what I found.

The original "round-face" bridge units were the first commissioned;

CL-55 CLEVELAND -- 15 June 1942 -- 4x2-40mm mounts (8-40mm)
CL-56 COLUMBIA -- 29 June 1942 -- 2x4 & 2x2-40mm mounts (12-40mm)
CL-57 MONTPELIER -- 9 September 1942 -- same
CL-58 DENVER -- 15 October 1942 -- same
CL-60 SANTA FE -- 24 November 1942 -- same?
CL-62 BIRMINGHAM -- 29 January 1943 -- 2x4 & 4x2-40mm mounts (16-40mm)
CL-63 MOBILE -- 24 March 1943 -- same

The "squared-face" bridge units were next;

CL-80 BILOXI -- 31 August 1943 -- 4x4 & 4x2-40mm mounts (20-40mm)
CL-81 HOUSTON -- 20 December 1943 -- same
CL-89 MIAMI -- 28 December 1943 -- same
CL-64 VINCENNES -- 21 January 1944 -- same
CL-90 ASTORIA -- 17 May 1944 -- same
CL-65 PASADENA -- 8 June 1943 -- 4x4 & 6x2-40mm (28-40mm)

From PASADENA on all units were commissioned (one suspended) with 28-40mm guns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
maxs75 wrote:
I am interested in the number of 40 mm mounts and radars in Cleveland through Biloxi.
Birmingham and Denver were damaged and refitted in that period, and I am interested in knowing the configuration before and after damage.
Most probably they had SG surface search, SC or SK air search (I guess SC for the earlier units only), Mk8 F.C. radars, and Mk4 or Mk12/22 (which one got Mk4?)
Rick E Davis wrote:
The original "round-face" bridge units were the first commissioned;

CL-55 CLEVELAND -- 15 June 1942 -- 4x2-40mm mounts (8-40mm)
CL-56 COLUMBIA -- 29 June 1942 -- 2x4 & 2x2-40mm mounts (12-40mm)
CL-57 MONTPELIER -- 9 September 1942 -- same
CL-58 DENVER -- 15 October 1942 -- same
CL-60 SANTA FE -- 24 November 1942 -- same?
CL-62 BIRMINGHAM -- 29 January 1943 -- 2x4 & 4x2-40mm mounts (16-40mm)
CL-63 MOBILE -- 24 March 1943 -- same

The "squared-face" bridge units were next;

CL-80 BILOXI -- 31 August 1943 -- 4x4 & 4x2-40mm mounts (20-40mm)
CL-81 HOUSTON -- 20 December 1943 -- same
CL-89 MIAMI -- 28 December 1943 -- same
CL-64 VINCENNES -- 21 January 1944 -- same
CL-90 ASTORIA -- 17 May 1944 -- same
CL-65 PASADENA -- 8 June 1943 -- 4x4 & 6x2-40mm (28-40mm)

From PASADENA on all units were commissioned (one suspended) with 28-40mm guns.


Rick is close on many of these figures, but some corrections are necessary. The Biloxi commissioned with 4x4 & 2x2 40MM. This was the standard until the number of twins was increased to 6. (4 quads and 4 twins is a combination that I have found on no ships of the class.) The numbers of 20MM varied - decreasing as the number of 40MM increased. The first 4 round-bridge units added another pair of twin 40MM prior to deploying to the Pacific. I am not sure whether CL-60 added that pair or commissioned with them.

Cleveland and Columbia commissioned with MK-3 on the MK-34's, all others had MK-8. Sometime before 1944, Cleveland and Columbia replaced the forward MK-3 with a MK-8. On Cleveland, the MK-3 aft was retained until her major overhaul in which she upgraded to 28 40MM. I have been unable to determine when Columbia upgraded her after MK-3 to a MK-8. All of the "round bridge" units completed with MK-4 on the MK-37's, as did the first few square-bridge units. There were also a few installations of MK-12's without the associated MK-22's. All had SG radar. It appears that the square-bridge units all had one of the SK variants, but the earlier ships had either SC or SC-3 on commissioning.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The earlier reference I had to a 4x4 and 4x2-40mm mount configuration was in error ... it should have been 4x4 and 2x2-40mm mounts on BILOXI, HOUSTON, MIAMI, VINCENNES and ASTORIA as completed according to my notes.

It appears that SANTA FE (CL-60) had two quad 40-mm and four twin 40-mm mounts in January 1943. The twin 40-mm mounts were amidships, port and starboard, on the main deck and in the over the aft port and starboard twin 5-in mounts. I don't know how long this configuration lasted. How she was armed with 40-mm guns at commissioning I don't know.

... http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/060/04060.htm ...

And in this 5 March 1943 photo

Image


The photos of BIRMINGHAM (CL-62) taken on 20 February 1943 showed her with two quad 40-mm and four twin 40-mm mounts. The twin 40-mm mounts were also amidships, port and starboard, on the main deck and in the over the aft port and starboard twin 5-in mounts. I don't know how long this configuration lasted.


... http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/062/0406233.jpg ...

And in this 15 June 1943 photo

Image


Photos of MOBILE (CL-63) taken 14 April and 18 July 1943 (at Norfolk and Mare Island Navy Yards respectively) show the same two quad and four twin 40-mm mounts.

... http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/063/04063.htm ...

And in this 11 December 1943 photo

Image


I'm not as sure about DENVER (CL-58), I have notes taken at USNI that she also had this configuration in January 1943, but photos on Navsource are not clear about it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Thank you both of you. Very interesting informations!
In summary
Re 40 mm mounts: it means that there were 6 positions for 40 mm Bofors (till, I guess, about mid 1944) filled with only twin mounts (Cleveland) or 4 twins and 2 quad (Columbia trough Mobile) or 4 quad and 2 twins (from Biloxi to Astoria).

Re radars: Biloxi was the first to have SK instead of SC, but she still had Mk4. Do you know which one was the first to get Mk12?

Thank you very very much
Max


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
For the ships with four quads, I recall that the splinter shields were not added in order to save weight. Were any of the quads ever fitted with shields, for example when the number of quads was only two?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
EJFoeth wrote:
For the ships with four quads, I recall that the splinter shields were not added in order to save weight. Were any of the quads ever fitted with shields, for example when the number of quads was only two?


There were two types of splinter screens. The first were "fixed" and are generally referred to as the "tubs". These were provided for most of the 40MM installations, regardless of the ship type. But I believe you are referring to the "on-mount" or "rotating" splinter shields. These were never installed on Cleveland's. The Baltimore's were the only class of US cruiser to carry them. (It appears that even the Oregon City class may not have had them.) The Alaska's (one could argue that these were also cruisers) and all of the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class BB's had them, but the modernized "old" BB's did not. As for CV's, the wartime Essex's, Midway's (first two) and last 4 Independence class ships carried them as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Mk4 radar
PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Dick J wrote:
Hi Martin,

I have an answer for your first question. This proves that these ships were NOT designed to include the fire control radar. The MK-4 antenna would interfere with the sight lines for the optical part of the MK-34 directors. (Or the after MK-38's in the North Carolina's.) That is why they were elevated in the first 7 (round bridge units) Cleveland's - less view was obstructed by the struts than by the antenna itself. The North Carolina's, at first, omitted the MK-4 from only the after director when the other 3 were fitted, and when the last one was finally installed, it was elevated. When the ships upgraded antennas from the MK-4's to the MK-12's, the new antenna was too heavy to elevate this way, so the MK-34's were raised to have a clear view over the top. This was not good for the topweight in these ships, but was seen as necessary. This optical interference was the reason the square-bridge units transposed the MK-34's with the MK-37's, placing the MK-37's above. The low MK-8 radars required less elevation in the MK-37's to see over the top. When the Fargo's were designed, the MK-34's again were placed in the preferred high position. When MK-12's were installed in the North Carolina's, the optical interference was simply tolerated - they had little choice.


Hello,
regarding this old post, wasn't it possible to fit Mk4 radar like in those following photos (lower instead of higher):
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0540807.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... n53408.jpg

Max


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
maxs75 wrote:
regarding this old post, wasn't it possible to fit Mk4 radar like in those following photos (lower instead of higher):
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0540807.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... n53408.jpg


The directors you are showing are MK-33's. There were examples of the MK-4 being added to this director either on the face or on the top. However, the Cleveland's carried MK-37's, which always mounted the MK-4 on top. The reason is that with the computing elements and stable element below decks, that allowed the MK-37 to be rearranged internally. The rangefinder was placed in the "back row" (both types of directors had two "rows" of operators) with the RF itself protruding from the sides. The visual spotting and tracking elements were in front, and therefore were positioned lower than their equivalents on the MK-33. Mounting the MK-4 antenna on the front would have blocked some of the MK-37's own visual sight lines, which was unacceptable. Notice that on your photos of the MK-33, the face-mounted antenna is low enough that the elements protruding from the director's roof had a clear view forward.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 469 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 24  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 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