The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 468 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
Rick E Davis wrote:
A weird thing I noticed was where they painted the "stern" hull number.


Some Brooklyn's had the same thing.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/043/0404302.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Photo 5208-43 dated 18 July 1943 at Mare Island, CA, shows the Mobile's aft 20mm mounts, shields and 20mm ammo storage boxes. Looks like the shields were "aftermarket" add ons that were welded to the chocks.


Attachments:
Mobile 5208-43 cropped.jpg
Mobile 5208-43 cropped.jpg [ 112.13 KiB | Viewed 6220 times ]

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
I could see why the crew would want that. Cat launches are when the stern of the ship is vulnerable.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Wartime modifications
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
About the rangefinders on the triple 6"/47 turrets - I was just looking at the Booklet of General Plans for the USS Miami CL-89 and it shows rangefinders on turrets 2, 3 and 4 but none on turret 1!

Of course this is wrong, for none of the Clevelands had rangefinders on turret 4, and it looks like all originally had rangefinders on turrets 1, 2 and 3. However, later photos of the Miami (July 1945) show the rangefinders had been removed from turret 1 (a topside weight reduction measure). The rangefinders were removed from all of the CLG turrets, even the Galveston and Topeka that didn't have the extensive flag modifications to the forward superstructure.

The Plans Booklet also shows dual 40mm guns on the main deck port and starboard aft of turret 2, forward of turret 3 and in gun tubs on the fantail. Photos show that the ship originally (Jan 1944) had a pair of single 20mm mounts at the first two positions and no gun tubs at the stern (but one 20mm gun port and starboard). However later photos (July 1945) show dual 40mm at these positions, including gun tubs on the fantail.

The plans also show a 20mm midships port and starboard on the main deck. Early photos (Jan 1944) show a gun tub with a dual 40mm on the O1 level at this position. The July 1945 photos show the O1 gun tub and its main deck support gone, with a 20mm gun tub on the main deck.

Just goes to show how many modifications were made during the war. The Plans Booklet latest corrections date was June 4, 1946.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Here is a view you rarely see of the Cleveland class hull - the bottom. There is quite a bit of detail that can be modeled at the larger scales.

This CAD model is very accurate. It was built from the offsets tables, including plating sight lines used in assembling the actual ships. The model was constructed plate by plate, using actual plate thicknesses - nearly 400 plates in all, in nine strakes, and the port and starboard sides are not the same (that would be too easy)!

Note all of the sea chests (hull openings), 32 in all, some up to 27 inches diameter - that's 0.28" at 1:96 scale. The larger openings had "portable" (removable) flat bars across them to keep out larger marine animals. Mid sized intakes had perforated plates. Smaller openings and exhausts were just open holes. Also note the portable plates over the stern tube openings that faired the surface where the prop shafts exit the hull.

Not shown are the armor belts and upper hull openings (in progress).


Attachments:
Cleveland class hull 1.jpg
Cleveland class hull 1.jpg [ 130.81 KiB | Viewed 6065 times ]
Cleveland class hull 2.jpg
Cleveland class hull 2.jpg [ 141.01 KiB | Viewed 6065 times ]

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:20 am
Posts: 10
Hello DrPR, being an AutoCAD enthusiast myself, I was wondering if you could show a view which shows the distinctive "tumble home or is it tumble down?" feature of the Cleveland Class ships. Although I am modeling a 1/350 kit I am still a bit curious as to how it should actually look and to exactly it's design function. Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
keith hufnagel wrote:
Hello DrPR, being an AutoCAD enthusiast myself, I was wondering if you could show a view which shows the distinctive "tumble home or is it tumble down?" feature of the Cleveland Class ships. Although I am modeling a 1/350 kit I am still a bit curious as to how it should actually look and to exactly it's design function. Thanks!


As originally designed, the Cleveland hull was shaped much like the Brooklyn hull, but with 12-18 more inches of beam to improve stability, and the corners knocked off of the main deck at the stern. When 1.1"/40MM mounts were later specified, it was determined that this extra beam was not enough to keep the design stable without ballast. The lower part of the hull was already in frame, making a simple addition to the beam difficult. But New York Shipbuilding came up with the solution of tilting the armor belt outward rather than inward (the original design had a slight tumblehome - the wider waterline with the slimmer deck promotes stability) but left the deck size unchanged. The idea was workable because construction had not het reached that level. This created a "knuckle" just above the armor belt, and increased the tumblehome above the knuckle. The main deck was not widened because that would have negated much of the stability gained from the revised "tilt". I have referenced a few online photos to illustrate.

The first shot is of Miami.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/089/0408917.jpg

Contrast that with this shot of Helena.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/050/0405029.jpg

These shots of Wilkes-Barre show the knuckle both forward and aft of the belt.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/103/0410309.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/103/0410310.jpg

This shot of Dayton shows the tumblehome above the belt.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/105/0410512.jpg

The shot of the Wilkes-Barre's after end shows the tumblehome at the extreme stern created when the corners were essentially knocked off the maindeck at the back of the ship, while the corners at the waterline were left untouched.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Here are some pictures showing the tumblehome. I have always been fond of ships with tumblehome - from the wooden sailing ship days. I think it gives a ship a "gothic" look, or something like that.

The bow and stern views show the way the armor belt was tilted out. A new knuckle was formed in the hull plating above the armor, and the plating sloped inward (tumblehome) up to the main deck. On the Brooklyns and Baltimores the hull sides were more or less vertical from the bottom of the armor belt to the main deck. The original Clevelands were too unstable after all the added antiaircraft armament was added. Broadening the beam at the waterline (just below the top of the armor belt) improved stability.

You can also see the radical inward slope of the hull at the stern in the stern view image. The starboard quarter image shows this even more. The hull formed a smooth curve at the main deck level, but the transom was squared off at the water line - this also increased stability and added buoyancy to support the weight of the aircraft catapults and crane.

The transition from sharp knuckle at the bottom of the transom to the smooth curve along the hull side was the hardest part to model (and probably the most inaccurate part). The blueprints show four contradicting versions, from a sharp point at the the outboard end of the transom to a broad curving transition. The hull plate edge sightlines in the Table of Offsets gave the curvature at the top of the strake at the outboard end of the stern knuckle. Fortunately I have photos of the stern while the ship was in drydock to help me interpret the drawings.

The knuckle below the armor belt gradually gives way aft to the smooth curve from the vertical sides to the bottom plating. Then the knuckle starts again at the bottom of the transom. The Baltimore hull was much easier to model because the knuckle continues unbroken all the way aft and under the stern.


Attachments:
OK City hull bow view.jpg
OK City hull bow view.jpg [ 139.17 KiB | Viewed 5972 times ]
OK City hull stern view.jpg
OK City hull stern view.jpg [ 147.96 KiB | Viewed 5972 times ]
OK City hul stbd quarter.jpg
OK City hul stbd quarter.jpg [ 121.42 KiB | Viewed 5972 times ]

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:59 am 
Offline
Modellmarine Shop
Modellmarine Shop

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:34 am
Posts: 31
Location: Dransfeld, Niedersachsen, Germany
Hi,

BMK work on a "replacement hull" for the PitRoad/Skywave and Midship Models "roundbrigde" Cleveland-class ´(´42 - end ´43) kits in 1:700! You can use the injection molded kit parts for this replacement hull.

Image

_________________
https://shop.modellmarine.de


Last edited by Burkhardt on Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
How much would that cost?

_________________
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 Jul 05, 2010 12:13 pm 
Offline
Modellmarine Shop
Modellmarine Shop

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:34 am
Posts: 31
Location: Dransfeld, Niedersachsen, Germany
I wait for the kit and the price! Sorry

_________________
https://shop.modellmarine.de


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Sunrise Florida
well i would buy two for sure

_________________
Anytime Baby


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:05 am 
Offline
Modellmarine Shop
Modellmarine Shop

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:34 am
Posts: 31
Location: Dransfeld, Niedersachsen, Germany
Hi,


I got the "replacement hull" for the PitRoad/Skywave and Midship Models "roundbrigde" Cleveland-class ´(´42 - end ´43) kits in 1:700 today and the "replacement hull" cost 17 Euro + shipping.


here some better photos:

Image
Photo with 1Mb
Image
Photo with 1Mb

"replacement hull" on shop.modellmarine.de

_________________
https://shop.modellmarine.de


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

I am curious about the 1:700 models - I have never built one. However some of the projects on this web site have an amazing amount of detail for such a small scale.

Is this hull injection molded or cast resin? It looks like there is flash at the waterline forward, and there appears to be a large glob of something on the hull side aft of midships. Is this sort of thing normal for these models?

It also appears that the transom is rounded too much at the waterline. Look at the photo of the Mobile's stern posted earlier. The hull is quite rounded at the main deck but squared off at the waterline. It is a very distinctive characteristic of the Cleveland class hulls.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:10 am 
Offline
Modellmarine Shop
Modellmarine Shop

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:34 am
Posts: 31
Location: Dransfeld, Niedersachsen, Germany
Hi DrPR,


this is a complete resin hull and the flash/glob on the hull side is from bottom side and not at the hull! Is not the best photo I know.......... I make next time a better photo and then see you the details better! The hull has all this characteristics you mean!

_________________
https://shop.modellmarine.de


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:10 pm 
Hello Cleveland class enthusiats! Has anyone noticed the unusual construction under the forward 40MM quad mounts on CL-57 Montpelier. I noticed it early in my research, for she, instead of USS Mobile, was the original subject of my build. She appears to have been the only ship in the class with such a 'construct' ,though I have seen several photos listed as Montpeiler which in fact were not. It is very distinctive, sort of a one of a kind gun tub. She appears to have retained it all through her service career, at least WWII. I read James Fahey's war diary about his service on "Monty" but he does not mention anything about it. I was just curious if I was the only one who noticed it or if anyone knew any more about it? . . . 'the World Wonders?'


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1949
Cleveland went to war without any quad 40MM. She had 6 twins. Where the quad 40MM were eventually installed, she had single 20MM at the O-1 level. Columbia and Montpelier had the "box style" supports for the first quad installation added on top of the original support for the 20MM single. After those two, the more rounded support was devised, and installed on all sublequent ships of the class. A variation of the rounded support was back-fitted to Cleveland when she went in for her 1944 AA upgrade. http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/055/0405502.jpg There is a photo of Denver http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/057/0405706.jpg that is often misidentified as Montpelier, and that is probably the one you referenced earlier. Also, there are photos in the Columbia file at Navsource that are clearly either Denver (the only Cleveland variant to have the second pair of quad 40MM installed at the O-1 level rather than the O-2) http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/056/0405605.jpg or even a square-bridge Cleveland type! http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/056/0405616.jpg But if you find actual Columbia photos http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h98064.jpg, you will see the same support as on Montpelier.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1643
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Is this what you are talking about? (I hope there are two photos attached, the Browse button shows only one although I tried to attach two)

One picture is of the Montpelier - the yard photo is clearly labeled CL57.

The other photo is of the Columbia. On the original photo that this was cut from the 56 is clearly visible on the bow.

The Denver CL-58 and later ships had the more common cylindrical support.

The 40mm gun locations are interesting. On the original Cleveland blueprints the forward dual 40mm were on the O4 level (these were originally supposed to have been quad 1.1", but they were replaced with dual 40mm) The quad 40mm guns were too heavy to be placed that high, so the Columbia was modified to carry the quads on the O2 level.

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.


Attachments:
Montpelier fwd quad 40mm.jpg
Montpelier fwd quad 40mm.jpg [ 73.12 KiB | Viewed 5523 times ]
Columbia fwd quad 40mm.jpg
Columbia fwd quad 40mm.jpg [ 62.74 KiB | Viewed 5523 times ]

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


Last edited by DrPR on Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Dr, did you click "Add the file" after browsing for the photos? Also, you have to do that for each photo.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Duh! That was the problem.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 468 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 24  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vlad and 46 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