The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu May 24, 2018 6:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 pm
Posts: 1122
Location: Troutdale, OR
For those looking for Pensacola's booklet of General plans, I am sad to report when I pulled those archives last week, this was all that was in the folder. The GP's for 1940 I believe were just the cover page. The other plans for the Superstructure decks came out as about a 8 foot long sheet of linen. Printed in brown so very difficult to get a good shot of, here are a couple of overall shots.

Image

Image

I did not have time to delve into the Microfilms to see if anything existed there. Perhaps next time.

Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6273
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Fresh from his latest trip to the National Archives, Roger Torgeson has passed on this gorgeous photo of Pensacola:


Attachments:
Penscola CA-24 9 June 1944 80-G-239363 crop_1.jpg
Penscola CA-24 9 June 1944 80-G-239363 crop_1.jpg [ 705.87 KiB | Viewed 1052 times ]

_________________
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: Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3093
Well I see Roger's image from last week and add a photo of USS SALT LAKE CITY taken only about five months after she was commissioned that I scanned. Without that ugly dazzle camo and all those AA guns. :big_grin:

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:16 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Sequim, Washington
Ugly, ugly he says. Did you just say ugly to describe the paint scheme on Pensacola? Guess that just goes to show you, spend a week with a fellow scanning at the archives, break bread with him at breakfast, lunch and dinner and just when you think you are getting to know him he calls it UGLY. Now tell the truth Rick you did have both your eyes open when you looked at the photo……right?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:54 pm
Posts: 179
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Those are both nice photos! Thanks so much for sharing! I wish I lived close to a NARA facility that housed my interests!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2618
Location: UK
Great photos of beautiful ships!
Just out of curiosity, why did they have the triple turrets above the twins? From what I understand it is usual to put the heaviest items as near to the waterline as possible to aid stability. I assume the advantage of having six guns able to fire in a heavy sea was deemed more important in the Salt Lake Citys?

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1311
Location: England
Admiral John Byng wrote:
Great photos of beautiful ships!
Just out of curiosity, why did they have the triple turrets above the twins? From what I understand it is usual to put the heaviest items as near to the waterline as possible to aid stability. I assume the advantage of having six guns able to fire in a heavy sea was deemed more important in the Salt Lake Citys?


May need confirmation for this, but I believe that while the barbettes for the twin and triple turrets were the same diameter, the hull was too fine forward and aft to accommodate the larger magazines and other associated equipment of the triple turrets. You're right, having the heavier turrets higher up did have a negative impact on stability, but it seems they didn't have a choice since they could only fit the smaller turrets nearer the ends.

_________________
Vlad

Tired of waiting for a kit? Dare to modify, dare to kitbash! :thumbs_up_1:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:54 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1724
Vlad, what makes you think the barbettes for the twin and triple turrets were the same diameter being the twin turrets are narrower then the triples?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1311
Location: England
DavidP wrote:
Vlad, what makes you think the barbettes for the twin and triple turrets were the same diameter being the twin turrets are narrower then the triples?


Mostly the assumption that Steve has done his homework :big_grin:

https://www.shapeways.com/product/E9N2F ... base-rings

"On the real ship, no matter whether the base ring supported a twin turret or a triple turret, the supporting base ring had the same diameter. True to prototype, these model base rings also have the same diameter."

Also, it does make sense, since although the twin turret is narrower, it is not shorter, so a smaller diameter barbette would not support the overhang sufficiently.

_________________
Vlad

Tired of waiting for a kit? Dare to modify, dare to kitbash! :thumbs_up_1:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:19 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1724
on the Nevada class battleships, the twin gun barbettes are smaller in diameter compared to the triples.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1311
Location: England
True, the balancing thing was just speculation. For now I'm happy to accept Steve's conclusion that on Pensacola all the barbettes were the same unless someone provides specific evidence to the contrary.

_________________
Vlad

Tired of waiting for a kit? Dare to modify, dare to kitbash! :thumbs_up_1:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:01 pm 
PENSACOLA still retained her MK-22 MB/8" director at the time of her (very severe) damage at Tassafaronga [Nov 30/Dec. 1, 1942], and she also still had her MK-19 5" directors as well.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 155
Location: Austin, TX
Now I'm confused - Friedman mentions the PENSACOLA class as mounting "Mark 18" main battery directors. I've never heard of the Mark 22. Do you have any more info on this system?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:53 am 
The type (MK 22) of MB director is noted specifically (& more than once) in her after-action damage reports following the mess off Tassafaronga. Ditto the MK19 for her 5".

Perhaps she was built w/a MK 18 & it was changed sometime later between 1930 & 1941-42(?), but I honestly don't know.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2618
Location: UK
Vlad wrote:
May need confirmation for this, but I believe that while the barbettes for the twin and triple turrets were the same diameter, the hull was too fine forward and aft to accommodate the larger magazines and other associated equipment of the triple turrets. You're right, having the heavier turrets higher up did have a negative impact on stability, but it seems they didn't have a choice since they could only fit the smaller turrets nearer the ends.


Thanks Vlad, interesting stuff! Presumably a compromise made necessary by treaty limitations.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1311
Location: England
Admiral John Byng wrote:
Thanks Vlad, interesting stuff! Presumably a compromise made necessary by treaty limitations.


I think that was it, they couldn't make the hull longer because it would push the displacement up, and they couldn't bulk the lines at the bow/stern without sacrificing speed, so they had to rearrange the turrets to fit and stability ended up being the thing that got compromised. I would still be curious though why the barbettes ended up the same diameter.

_________________
Vlad

Tired of waiting for a kit? Dare to modify, dare to kitbash! :thumbs_up_1:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 587
I suspect that making them smaller in design (diameter) would have further compromised stability. Also from a design and cost perspective it makes sense. Just my opinion based on my naval architecture and mechanical engineering background.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6273
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Salt Lake City in Alaskan waters, March 1943:
Attachment:
80G299022232.jpg
80G299022232.jpg [ 85.73 KiB | Viewed 357 times ]

_________________
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: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:32 am
Posts: 386
Location: Peach State
Can I assume this photo was taken before the Battle of the Komandorski Islands?

There was a time when NARA printed photos in-house and you could request for them to print for detail from the negatives. I did that a few times back then, but I haven't ordered prints recently. Martin's photo would have been a great candidate for that. Sadly, I believe they're all out-sourced now, so I don't know what kind of latitude you have with ordering prints.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:40 pm 
This photo of SLC was taken just after the Battle of the Komandorskis...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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