Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Tracy White]

is the 40mm deck in front of that 5" sponson the same level as the sponson deck or higher as should be same level?

Hancock launched with the original, raised quad 40mms and did not have them lowered during the war. That said, she went in to mothballs with the notch in the deck above filled, but I haven't found when they did that in paperwork yet.

[benjamin.marn]

is the 40mm deck in front of that 5" sponson the same level as the sponson deck or higher as should be same level?

Hancock launched with the original, raised quad 40mms and did not have them lowered during the war. That said, she went in to mothballs with the notch in the deck above filled, but I haven't found when they did that in paperwork yet.

Out of curiosity, why did they lower the port 40mm in front of the 5 inch sponson? Increased firing arc for the 5 inch guns maybe? Based on this picture from 1947, it looks like Boxer still had hers raised.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... v-21-.html

[Tracy White]

Dick actually covered that here:

All of the short hull kits should have the full length flightdeck. However, there is something else you would need to watch out for. As commissioned, the earliest Essex's had only 8 quad 40MM mounts. As a result, the two in the port-side sponsons (with the 5" single guns) were slightly higher than the adjacent 5" guns. This required the flightdeck to be notched so the mounts could rotate freely. This also allowed those 40MM to fire "cross-deck". As the number of 40MM mounts increased, the need for cross-deck firing diminished, so the mounts were lowered to the same level as the 5" guns, and the notches eliminated. (Making the air department happier.) Boxer completed with the lower mounts and the un-notched flightdeck. So any kit you chose for the donner deck would need to be one of the late-war ones without the notches. Not working in 1/350 myself, I can't say exactly which kits have the required features.

Hancock's forward gallery in 1946 clearly shows the notch was planked over but the mount was not lowered. I have to believe that the notch in the vertical support under the deck edge is to allow some clearance for the mount.

[Dick J]

Boxer never had the port side 40MM raised. Look at the forward sponson. If you check the alignment of the underside of the 3 tub overhangs, the extensions (2 for the 5" guns forward and the third for the 40MM quad) are totally in line. Compare that alignment with the equivalent overhangs on Tracy's Hancock photo. If you are thinking about the after tub, Boxer still had the outboard 40MM in this photo, and one of those might be giving a false impression of height, actually obscuring the 40MM on the 5" gun sponson. The photo you referenced is a composite, with the ship photo pasted above the crew photo. Therefore, they did not have to be taken at the same time, and the ship photo may have been (most likely was) from earlier than the 1947 caption for the crew photo.

[Tracy White]

CV-15 Randolph was the last Essex commissioned of 1944 (October) and then CV-36 Antietam in January 1945 before Boxer in April 1945. Both of those ships have the lowered quad 40mm platforms (Ticonderoga, commissioned in May of 1944 does not). The lowered quad 40MM layout was an official ShipAlt with drawings and plans (note: I have never found a group of records that were wither "all" shipalts or a collection for one class or type) that could be easily applied to work orders or put into revised drawings and I'm pretty confident that all ships past X time frame would be built with a shipalt applied (see: the long hull design). Long winded way of saying that Boxer never had the original, raised quad 40mms in the port 5" galleries.

[benjamin.marn]

I see, I got a bit confused about the 40mm and notches thing. I have a painting question, I made the dumb decision to glue most of the mk 51 directors into their tubs before painting them. Would Mk 51 directors be painted the vertical color or horizontal color?

[Tracy White]

Bottom of the tubs would be deck color, directors would be vertical. Bottom of the tub's going to be the hardest part.

[benjamin.marn]

Bottom of the tubs would be deck color, directors would be vertical. Bottom of the tub's going to be the hardest part.

I was worried that would be the answer. In my defense the painting diagram depicted the directors as the same color as the horizontal surfaces, I'm starting to think I shouldn't take Trumpeter's building and painting advice as gospel

[Tracy White]

First thing I do when I open a new Trumpeter kit is throw the color guide away!

[benjamin.marn]

Would anybody happen to have a nice detailed picture of Ticonderoga or Hancock's aft starboard catwalks? I'm trying to find the correct location of the tubs for the two aftmost (not stern) 40mm directors and theres some discrepancies between the Bunker Hill drawings and the actual model that might be due to the flight deck length.

[benjamin.marn]

Alright so I think I figured out the dimensions of the catwalks on the starboard side aft area, as you can see by this picture, I've gotten 3 out of the 4 whip antennae attached. I also managed to make the counterweighed mounts that they're on. They're probably out of scale and a bit rough looking, but they're relatively small and its good enough for my first model. I think designing and etching a photoetch part from brass sheet will be the way forward with my Boxer model. There is one concern that has popped up and that is the director tub on the port side aft 5 inch gun sponsons. As you can see, its too tall and preventing the flight deck from fitting flush. Is this a stupid mistake by me or another oversight by Trumpeter? Its the same height as the one at the bow, so it seems like it should be the right part.

[Timmy C]

I'd doublecheck to make sure you're using H6 and not H5 for the director tub, which is a bit taller.

[benjamin.marn]

I'd doublecheck to make sure you're using H6 and not H5 for the director tub, which is a bit taller.

Other way around, the H5 ones are the taller ones, but I already glued both of those in at the bow so its definitely H6 which is the right one. perhaps its placement as David suggested? But how far forward does it need to go is the question.

[benjamin.marn]

is there 1 in between the 2 port bow 5" guns on your model & if so where is it located on that sponson?

3/16 inches from the front edge of the sponson, same distance between the two. Perhaps the stern one is in line with the guns themselves?

[Dick J]

One thing to note in the Hancock model photo you just posted. There are vents in the vertical panel just aft of the 5" gun gallery. That is accurate for the early members of the class, including Hancock. It was an intake for a ventilation trunk that ran from there forward, but that was later found to suck in smoke from fires further forward, gassing out the crew for most of the length of the ship. It was deleted in favor of a number of smaller vents up the port side, which you can see between the hangar openings in your previous crew photo. These ran down the outside of the hangar, entering the ship just below the armored hangar deck. Boxer completed with the improved ventilation arrangement. So it is still correct for Hancock, but wrong for Boxer.

[benjamin.marn]

Good to know, thanks!

[benjamin.marn]

Benjamin, does the port bow sponson director look to be in the right location on the model compared to the linked picture?

It sorta looks like it needs to go forwards a bit. I mean, I will have to do it anyway for it to fit right, but we'll see if this is a trumpeter mistake or mine when I build Boxer.

[Mikevpd]

Greetings, all:
I have been looking through all the photos I can find but haven't been able to convince myself whether or not Bennington had the two quad 40mm mounts on her aft starboard side at the hangar deck level. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[Charybdis]

I have a photo in San Diego in November 1945 that shows no mounts in that position. It's quite possible she was rushed to the front line due to the damage done to carriers from kamikaze attacks. Essex carriers usually got extra 40mm mounts at Hunters Point or Puget Sound after crossing the Panama Canal. It seems that Bennington stopped briefly at NAS San Diego and then straight to Pearl.

[Ian Roberts]

Question here -- I've been combing my files trying to find any mention of the length of the Douglas Fir planking used aboard the CVs on the flight decks. I've found many references stating they were either 3" or 4" thick on the YORKTOWN class, but no mention of the actual length of these planks. My gut feel is that the length would be similar across the YORKTOWN and ESSEX class CVs, but of course this is just a guess. Does anyone know?