Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[maxs75]

Thank you!
Interestingly there's a photo of Lexington http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021606.jpg
that shows 2 mounts starboard abaft the island.

And what about Bunker Hill? Did she still have 8, or was she upgraded before 1945?

Max

[keithhufnagel]

Max75, Yorktown was built with (8) 40mm mounts but added the two starboard quarter hanger deck level inboard during her shakedown overhaul. She also had the mainmast SG radar moved to a pole portside near 36' searchlight at this time. She sailed for combat July 1, 1943 with this configuration. (see previous posts for entire radar suite) Her SC radar platform was raised sometime after her arrival at Pearl. She carried Mark4/Mark37 directors until her refit in September of 1944 when she upgraded to 12/22 antennae. She was commissioned in MS 12, was first camouflaged in May of 1944 (33-10a), and repainted again (33-10a)in September-October 1944 during her refit. The only thing I am unsure of about her updates are the small details like number of 20mm guns and aux antennae. She did not carry the SP or SM radars until after October 1944. The model I built displayed in the MW gallery shows an accurrate picture of her October refit. Hope this helps, Keith Hufnagel

[Adaks]

I'd like to know how many quad 40 mm were carried by Essex, Yorktown, Intrepid, Lexington and Bunker Hill in late 1943 and early 1944.
AFAIK:
Essex had 8 quad till her refit in april 1944 when she got a total of 11 (4 added and one deleted from island)
Yorktown had 8 or 10 till her late 1944 refit
Intrepid 10 in early 1944?
Lexington 8, then she was repaired and refitted in early 1944. Maybe she had more than Essex? I've read that she got 7 more, but it seems a bit too much for that time.
Bunker Hill 8? 10?

Essex, Yorktown and Lexington were commissioned with eight 40mm quads. Lexington and Yorktown received two more in second part of 1943, Essex did not, she saved eight to her April 1944 overhaul. In case of USS Bunker Hill I do not know � photographic documentation for this ship is poor, but in 1944 (when in dazzle) she had ten for sure.
Lexington received additional 7 quads during her first refit, so from Fabruary 1944 she had 17 quads total

[JosephPatterson]

Hello Group,

I'm a new member and originally posted this in the Main Forum; but after being directed to this thread, I thought it would fit better here.

Does anyone know where I can find a drawing/diagram of the correct deck length of the USS Randolph in WWII? The Dragon 1/700 Kit seems to have the supposed shakedown cruise deck. I'm looking for the lengthened deck that was primarily used during the war. Details like how much was added to each end and specific features (such as catapult placement,etc.) would be helpful. I've studied the photos at Navsource and haven't come up with anything helpful. What other Long Hull Essex class carriers had the same/ or similar deck as the Randolph?

A simple list of what is "wrong" with the Dragon 1/700 kit of the Randolph would be helpful as well. I'd like to get things somewhat correct on my kit. A least a good try at it anyway. I'm not starting this kit anytime soon. So I have a lot of time to gather resources, what good books are out there etc.?

Also, is Dragon's 1/700 USS Hancock kit better suited for the war fit Randolph. I noticed that it has the starbord side 40mm sponsons. The deck appears to be the longer one as well. True? Ideas?


Thank you,

Joseph

[Tracy White]

As I said earlier, the "lengthened" deck on the long hulls was exactly the same as the short hulls; when they made the long hulls all they did was extend the forecastle deck and add a sponson on the stern to push the guns out a bit and then cut the decks back by 7-9 feet (7' on the bow and I think 9' on the stern but this is from memory) to improve the overhead firing arcs. The air group objected to this when the ships were in shakedown as it made recovering & spotting more difficult (as well as the forward big notch for a third Mk 37 director that was never fitted to any of the ships) and plans were made to "restore" the long hulls' decks to the original configuration, but implementation was spotty due to the war.

Randolph had both the fore and aft ends lengthened before she went on her first war cruise, but I don't have the exact dates. The problem with the Dragon deck is that it's only correct for a late-war CV-19 Hancock, which had the Mk47 notch filled in but the decks never lengthened.

I provided information and consultation to Dragon on some of their Essex class kits, but the Randolph kit was released when I was still working through an intermediary and wasn't able to properly convey how critical this issue was. I've extensively studied the class for their WWII configuration but haven't finished the research on them for a book... I need another trip to NARA in College Park and since I haven't been able to make it for a couple of years my mind is a little rusty on the details. If you can swing it, I'd recommend getting their CV-16 Lexington model and raiding it for parts as it will have a corrected deck, correct port side AA galleries, and some other details I'll mention below.

Other items I can see based on this review are:

* port side roller forward roller doors are incorrect in the area where the two quad 40mms are mounted to a sponson... as they never planned on putting a hangar cat in this area on the long hulls the doors were simplified and there were fewer of them. If you can find photos of this area on Hancock, Ticonderoga, and the later short hulls (I think Boxer perhaps?) you'll have the correct pattern. This one is a little dodgy.

* Port catapult missing, notches in flight deck port side, and the quad 40mms next too the open 5" guns are too high for Randolph; they should be at the same level (looks like part C6???)

* Minor platform differences on the island. Pilot house is the wrong shape (should be more trapezoidal; I've posted a drawing waaaaay back in maybe the first ten pages or so)

Just in case you haven't already, look over her Navsource page.

[Dick J]

As I said earlier, the "lengthened" deck on the long hulls was exactly the same as the short hulls; when they made the long hulls all they did was extend the forecastle deck and add a sponson on the stern to push the guns out a bit and then cut the decks back by 7-9 feet (7' on the bow and I think 9' on the stern but this is from memory) to improve the overhead firing arcs.

The deck was trimmed 11' forward and 7' aft. The Randolph kit deck is only short at the front, making it inaccurate for any Essex. Unfortunately, Dragon also shortened the forward deck on their Antietam angled-deck kit and their Boxer, neither of which ever carried the short deck.

[JosephPatterson]

If you can swing it, I'd recommend getting their CV-16 Lexington model and raiding it for parts as it will have a corrected deck, correct port side AA galleries, and some other details I'll mention below.

Tracy,

Thank you for the helpful information. Sounds like a plan with bashing CV-16 Lexington with CV-15 Randolph.

* Port catapult missing, notches in flight deck port side, and the quad 40mms next too the open 5" guns are too high for Randolph; they should be at the same level (looks like part C6???)

When you say: "Port catapult missing". Do you mean the catapult on the deck? Port side? So the Randolph only had the Starboard Deck catapult? Just wanting to clarify.


What books are out there that you or anyone else think would be helpful?

After reading through some of this "Calling all Essex Class Carrier Fans!" thread, I'm getting excited and might be starting the project sooner than planned! I've never built a ship model before, although I have many in my stash. I'm more an Aircraft, Armour, and Auto model builder (please, no throwing things! ). I really enjoy the research and detailing side of things. The past four years I've been suffering from a neck injury and two surgeries that have put a damper on my hobbies. I've tried to kick start my modeling with a few different projects and failed, for one reason or another. I thought that maybe something completely new would work. So I took down a ship from the shelves and said: "why not?"

Please treat the new guy nice even when I ask a bunch of stupid questions! Thanks again for the help.


Cheers!

Joseph

[Tracy White]

Hi Joseph.... no stupid questions... just a warning. I started out as an airplane guy too!

Regardless.... as far as books go, I don't know of any really good ones on Randolph. I started researching CV-13 myself and found things lacking, and since I had access to the shipyard files that many of these ships were overhauled at (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard records at Seattle NARA) I started working on my own. The goal is to be able to present a modeler with a book that can say "If you want to build AAA ship in BBB scale in CCC year, Start with DDD kit and make EEE changes." However, there's a few details that I haven't tracked down and am loath to release a book with gaping holes for some important ships. So I'm still working on it.

If you're looking for good books on the CLASS I have a couple of suggestions, some more affordable than others.

I note that the Floating Drydock has some Randolph plans in their "BU" series, of questionable value to a 700th scale kit. WR press has an Essex Class book available from ShipCamouflage.com that has a lot of photos of the different ships of the class, but only one of Randolph that I saw with a quick perusal (already on navsource, but if you buy from Randy please tell him you came from ModelWarships). Alan Raven (Actually the same guy as WR press, but this was through a different publisher) has an Essex class book that can be spendy but can also be found for a decent price if you have patience. It covers post war as well though, so it may or may not be of any help to you. There are three drawings of Randolph "as built" in there, which is probably where Dragon got their initial config for the kit from.

[JosephPatterson]

Tracy,

Thanks for the info.

What about the Port Catapult Question? I'm just wanting to clarify if the Randolph did or did not have the port deck catapult? Or I guess to be more specific; what did you mean by: "Port catapult missing" in your previous post?


Cheers!

Joseph

[maxs75]

I'd like to know how many quad 40 mm were carried by Essex, Yorktown, Intrepid, Lexington and Bunker Hill in late 1943 and early 1944.
AFAIK:
Essex had 8 quad till her refit in april 1944 when she got a total of 11 (4 added and one deleted from island)
Yorktown had 8 or 10 till her late 1944 refit
Intrepid 10 in early 1944?
Lexington 8, then she was repaired and refitted in early 1944. Maybe she had more than Essex? I've read that she got 7 more, but it seems a bit too much for that time.
Bunker Hill 8? 10?

Essex, Yorktown and Lexington were commissioned with eight 40mm quads. Lexington and Yorktown received two more in second part of 1943, Essex did not, she saved eight to her April 1944 overhaul. In case of USS Bunker Hill I do not know � photographic documentation for this ship is poor, but in 1944 (when in dazzle) she had ten for sure.
Lexington received additional 7 quads during her first refit, so from Fabruary 1944 she had 17 quads total

Thank you to all.
I didn't know that Lexington had 17 quads in feb 1944? It's strange that later (april) Essex was refitted with only 11 quads and later again in mid 1944 Intrepid was refitted with 16 quads.
Max

[Adaks]

I didn't know that Lexington had 17 quads in feb 1944? It's strange that later (april) Essex was refitted with only 11 quads and later again in mid 1944 Intrepid was refitted with 16 quads.

It is also strange for me. In regard to CV-9 it is possibile that shipyard in San Francisco did not have enough time to perform all modifications and additions. But this is only my guess.
Intrepid during her first refit received �late� island (Lexington did not), so only 16 quads could be installed (3 on island). Except that configuration of 40 mm quads was similar to CV-16.

[Tracy White]

Lexington received the 17 total quads in the Jan/Feb 1944 overhaul according to the Navy paperwork I have scanned in. Essex was a rush job; she was launched with a different catapult than her sister ships and she didn't even have that replaced during the overhaul. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard had the replacement cat and an extra one in storage the entire war for her in case she was damaged and sent back, but she never was. Essex was a lucky ship in some regards....

[maxs75]

Thank you both of you.
Interesting informations about Essex and Lex. Anyway the mistery about Bunker Hill's Bofors continues...
AFAIK Essex was launched and commissioned without catapults, and a spare H2 catapult (of the same type of Yorktown class) was installed in Pearl Harbour only in mid 1943. I read it somewhere but I can't find where. Do you have the same information? By the way, did she received an H4 catapult on port side during the april 1944 refit? I believe that she emerged from refit with two flight deck catapults.

Till now I found the fllowing situation about Bofors in US CVs:
Nov 1943 (Gilbert operation)
ship / No. of Bofors
Essex / 32 (8xIV)
Bunker Hill / 32 OR 40
Lexington / 40 (10xIV)
Yorktown / 40 (10xIV)
Enterprise / 40 (6xIV, 8xII)
Saratoga / 36 (9xIV)

Jan 1944 (Marshall operation)
Essex / 32 (8xIV)
Bunker Hill / 32 OR 40
Intrepid / 40 (10xIV)
Yorktown / 40 (10xIV)
Enterprise / 40 (6xIV, 8xII)
Saratoga / 96 (23xIV, 2xII)

Jun 1944 (Marianas operation)
Essex / 44 (11xIV)
Bunker Hill / 32 OR 40
Wasp / 40 (10xIV)
Yorktown / 40 (10xIV)
Hornet / 40 (10xIV)
Enterprise / 40 (6xIV, 8xII)
Lexington / 68 (17xIV)

Max

[MM2CVS9]

AFAIK Essex was launched and commissioned without catapults, and a spare H2 catapult (of the same type of Yorktown class) was installed in Pearl Harbour only in mid 1943. I read it somewhere but I can't find where. Do you have the same information? By the way, did she received an H4 catapult on port side during the april 1944 refit? I believe that she emerged from refit with two flight deck catapults.

Max

In late 1944 there were still two H-4 cats in storage, earmarked for ESSEX CV-9, Catapult #H251B and #H252B, but were not installed during her 1944 Hunters Point yard period due to technical difficulties and time constraints. She remained with one H2 catapult on the starboard side.
Reference from - Box 878, folder C-CV9 class/S83 v.2, BuAer speedletter Aer-E-341-JES file CV9-21/S83-2(H4-5) to Cmdt PS NSYR dated 10 Oct, 1944.

EJ

[Tracy White]

Reference from - Box 878, folder C-CV9 class/S83 v.2, BuAer speedletter Aer-E-341-JES file CV9-21/S83-2(H4-5) to Cmdt PS NSYR dated 10 Oct, 1944.

What Record Group / Accession? Otherwise the box number, etc., isn't going to provide a good reference. For what it's worth, I can corroborate it with records I found at Seattle NARA. I also have records from about April of 1943 (from memory, don't trust it implicitly) of the H2 being installed in about April. The track was there from the beginning, so it would show on the deck, but the rest of the gear did not make it in until later. She never upgraded to an H4 during the war; she had the H2 for the entire war and did not upgrade until after she was reactivated.

What is the mystery of CV-17's quad 40mms?

[MM2CVS9]

Reasearched through National Archives.

[Tracy White]

No Duh.

That's essentially a worthless cite. Things that were missing:

1) Which branch of the National Archives. In addition to the main branch at College Park there are many regional archives that hold records as well. I happen to research mainly in the Seattle and San Bruno (aka San Francisco) archives.

2) What Record Group. Record Group 19 perhaps, or maybe Record Group 80? Since you cite a Bureau of Aeronautics Speedletter, Record Group 72 is a strong possibility as well, but we don't know based on what you provided.

3) What Accession. As an example, a lot of my Essex class information is from "Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS from here out) Ship Files, 1940-1950," a little is from "PSNS Formerly Classified Ship Files, 1940-1950," and some is from "PSNS Central Subject Files, 1936-61," and there's smatterings from a lot of different other accessions at Seattle NARA.

If I just gave you the box and folder number for a piece of research that I have you would not know which facility to go to, which record group to look in, nor which accession to start.

I am not doubting in the slightest the material; as I said I have some that corroborates with it. I'm just trying to demonstrate how to properly cite so that worthwhile information is passed between parties. There's a shortage of people who CAN provide that level of information...

[MM2CVS9]

No Duh.

That's essentially a worthless cite. Things that were missing:

1) Which branch of the National Archives. In addition to the main branch at College Park there are many regional archives that hold records as well. I happen to research mainly in the Seattle and San Bruno (aka San Francisco) archives.

2) What Record Group. Record Group 19 perhaps, or maybe Record Group 80? Since you cite a Bureau of Aeronautics Speedletter, Record Group 72 is a strong possibility as well, but we don't know based on what you provided.

3) What Accession. As an example, a lot of my Essex class information is from "Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS from here out) Ship Files, 1940-1950," a little is from "PSNS Formerly Classified Ship Files, 1940-1950," and some is from "PSNS Central Subject Files, 1936-61," and there's smatterings from a lot of different other accessions at Seattle NARA.

If I just gave you the box and folder number for a piece of research that I have you would not know which facility to go to, which record group to look in, nor which accession to start.

I am not doubting in the slightest the material; as I said I have some that corroborates with it. I'm just trying to demonstrate how to properly cite so that worthwhile information is passed between parties. There's a shortage of people who CAN provide that level of information...

Sorry I'm not as clear as you require.
Most of my information I obtained for personal use. My interest lies in that I served on ESSEX CVS-9 in the sixties.
I never dreamed I would be able to share this info with others, much less asked to document the stuff.

While I was researching, I kept a few notes on things I thought were important to me at the time. I have over the years used the National Archives in various locations, records from naval museums, pictures and notes from actual ESSEX crewmen (I'm a member of the ESSEX Association), and stored this stuff rather randomly in my own files ( I have a four drawer file cabinet full of stuff) for use in modeling aircraft carriers.

Some things I've learned from the oral histories of crewmen that were plank owners and WWII vets that served on her. Some of that information is not in the "official" records, and I realize you cannot use that info as it is not documented. That said, I can tell you things about ESSEX from the sixties that are not in the official documents either, but they did happen.

The WWII info I have on the cats ( I don't even know why I was looking into that at the time) I got in about 1997 or 1998, from the National Archives in College Park, MD and National Archives Washington DC. I was in contact with three or four people that worked there at the time who helped me get the information I wanted. I might have their names somewhere but it would take me a while to find them if I do. As for record groups and Accession, I didn't keep that info as it meant nothing to me.

I was just trying to be of some help, but it seems my information is not really relevant, so I'll just stay out of the conversation from here out.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your book on the ESSEX class carriers. I can never seem to get enough reading on them. But - I'm getting older and can't wait forever.

EJ

[Tracy White]

I wasn't trying to shut you down.. What you did was great and I just wanted to show how there were gaps in what you were presenting. I think for the most part simply saying the actual document and "national archives" would be enough for some people. But when you get people like me it's little bit of a letdown.... sort of "Ohh !! Ohh!!! Awwwwww.w......"

Keep in mind that usually the first thing I do when I get a book is to flip to the back so that I can look at their citings and sources.
I spent 4 hours once at the Laguna Niguel NARA (now at Riverside, CA trying to track down some radio direction finder correspondence referenced by Robert Stinnett in Day of Deceit. His source was listed as something like "Secret A6-3 files, NARA Laguna Niguel." A6-3 is the Navy's file code in WWII for correspondence regarding codes and signals. It was a COMPLETELY worthless cite, as there was no Secret A6-3 accession and so there was no way of knowing precisely where those files might have been. It made it impossible to look at a statement and eithe rprove or disprove it, because we didn't have the full document to see if he was quoting out of context (as he often did) or flat-out not understanding what he was talking about. That's where my intensity on citing started.

It's my intent to try and get other people interested in researching, which is one reason I try and pop so much online. There's great stuff that should exists in more than just seldom-accessed folders. So please, don't feel like I'm trying to keep you from popping ANY of that research anywhere!

[maxs75]

What Record Group / Accession? Otherwise the box number, etc., isn't going to provide a good reference. For what it's worth, I can corroborate it with records I found at Seattle NARA. I also have records from about April of 1943 (from memory, don't trust it implicitly) of the H2 being installed in about April. The track was there from the beginning, so it would show on the deck, but the rest of the gear did not make it in until later. She never upgraded to an H4 during the war; she had the H2 for the entire war and did not upgrade until after she was reactivated.

What is the mystery of CV-17's quad 40mms?

I remember reading that the catapult was installed in Pearl, and (if correct) it should be sometime after may 1943.
Does it mean that Essex had only one, and less capable, catapult during the entire WW2? Yesterday I didn't get that "Puget Sound Naval Shipyard had the replacement cat and an extra one in storage the entire war for her... "


The "mystery" of CV-17 is: She was completed with 8 quad 40mm Bofors, but it seems that she was upgraded to 10 quads (See post by Adak).

In case of USS Bunker Hill I do not know � photographic documentation for this ship is poor, but in 1944 (when in dazzle) she had ten for sure.

When was she upgraded to 10 mounts? She arrived in Pacific after Lex and York, and both of them had already been upgraded to 10xIV Bofors. Was she carrying 10 quads as well?

Max