Calling all USN, RN Escort Carriers (CVE) fans

[Tracy White]

I've been meaning to find & copy a set at NARA but keep getting sidetracked.....

[Ed Roth]

I don't have plans, but according to Friedman in U.S. Aircraft Carrier An Illustrated Design History, Bogue class used C-3 hulls. The first four AVGs were converted from C-3s under construction and were launched with hangar decks that followed the sheer and camber of the original merchant ship deck. This practice was followed on the remainder of the class. A modified C-3 conversion was considered to increase speed and improve survivability in 1942. The C-3 hull would be extended by 35 feet amidships while increasing flight deck length to 477 feet and additional longitudinal bulkheads would be fitted. However, this modification would cause delays and was abandoned. Also note the C-3 design was different from the Victory ship (VC2-S-AP1 design).

[Neptune]

That is annoying since I have Victory Ship plans which state C2/C3 version since the only difference between those two classes was supposed to be the engines (and therefore speed)...
Along with the HNSA plans I could have probably come to a decent hull shape for a large scale build. As it is, things are still too scetchy to even consider a build I guess.

[Guest]

I don't have the details of each design, but the C3 hull was 37 ft longer and 7.5 ft wider.

[Pieter]

The Nederlands Vereniging voor Modelbouwers has lines plans for the C3's available (Roepat class, SMN, catalogue number 16.10.017). Its a bit expensive though: 35.55 euros + postage.

That is annoying since I have Victory Ship plans which state C2/C3 version since the only difference between those two classes was supposed to be the engines (and therefore speed)...
Along with the HNSA plans I could have probably come to a decent hull shape for a large scale build. As it is, things are still too scetchy to even consider a build I guess.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Hi guys,

Liberty, Victory, C2, C3 and so forth where all separate designs, and the hulls are not interchangeable!

http://www.usmaritimecommission.de/
http://www.usmm.org/ships.html

For instance: the Liberty, C2 and C3 hulls have conventional sheer, curved from stem to stern, the Victory on the other hand has two distinct kinks in the deck line, but is straight fore, between and aft of these kinks.

Only within a hull design some lengthening could be applied.

[Neptune]

My dear, but evil, Maarten,

are you trying to discourage me and push me in the Nassau direction???

Anyway, I was thinking a little and I was wondering if anybody happens to have downloaded the "Dixmude" plans of the French Naval archives? They still appear to be gone from the net, so can't do it now anymore, but perhaps somebody got them in the past? How similar or useful would they be for a Bogue?
I do have the Arromanches plans, and they are VERY suitable for a modelling job of a Colossus as they contain a full frame plan for the Colossus class. Perhaps the Dixmude contains a frame plan for the Bogue?

[Pieter]

Maarten is the guy who talked me into scratchbuilding so one should be really careful here...
Anyway, Dixmude was an early C3 and was present on the french archive site but alas, no frame plans or lines. I do have some 11 sections and some deck plans in my little 'service historique' archive though. They should be useful for working out lines. I collected them with an eye to turning the Skywave/Tamiya Bogue into a dutch postwar C3. PM me if you're interested.

My dear, but evil, Maarten,

are you trying to discourage me and push me in the Nassau direction???

Anyway, I was thinking a little and I was wondering if anybody happens to have downloaded the "Dixmude" plans of the French Naval archives? They still appear to be gone from the net, so can't do it now anymore, but perhaps somebody got them in the past? How similar or useful would they be for a Bogue?
I do have the Arromanches plans, and they are VERY suitable for a modelling job of a Colossus as they contain a full frame plan for the Colossus class. Perhaps the Dixmude contains a frame plan for the Bogue?

[NCMac]

Hello gentlemen,

Did U.S. CVEs display flight deck ship numbers?

To be more specific, I am building a Tamiya Bogue as U.S.S. Nassau post April 1944 Mare Island refit, that is, with the "dazzle camouflage" and it doesn't appear that she wore any flight deck numbers but I'd like to be sure. I can't seem to find any aerial views of her while wearing dazzle. I don't see any numbers in any of the views I do have.

Thanks for any assistance.

Mac

[Timmy C]

Some did, sometimes - here are a couple examples:
Bismarck Sea: http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0309506.jpg
Attu, in both dazzle and with flight deck numbers: http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0310204.jpg
Charger: http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0303001.jpg

[NCMac]

Thanks Timmy,

That's about what my surfing through NavSource got me.

My thought is that the Bogues weren't often used in operational groups where aircrews needed to distinguish between largely identical carriers. The Casablancas were, notably "Taffy" groups, and I think more likely to carry deck markings. Don't really have enough photographic evidence to support this but it's the best I can do.

Interesting note on the Charger photo. Couldn't help but notice the large white "X" aft on the deck. In a photo further along on NavSource, they identify the "X" as meaning the flight deck isn't operational, yet it is one ship that does clearly displays numbers both fore and aft!

Anyway, think I'll build without without number. If a photo turns up I can always add it.

Thanks again,

Mac

[Timmy C]

Attu also has numbers both fore and aft while in camo (you can see the aft one just barely in the linked photo, and a much clearer one on Navsource), if that changes anything.

[Tracy White]

My thought is that the Bogues weren't often used in operational groups where aircrews needed to distinguish between largely identical carriers.

Possible, I wouldn't bet my life on it. One thing to keep in mind with Yard photos is that the decks were always the last thing painted, because of the beating they took from equipment as it was being moved around. So for carriers or ships with deck patterns shots dockside are not a good source. Not germane to this conversation at this point, but perhaps later, depending on what you dig up. For what it's worth, I couldn't find any dazzle-painted Bogue class CVE photos in my research materials.

[Neptune]

From the received plans of the Dixmude, it appears that it doesn't match the C3 Victory ship plans I have. Although I still have to compare the lines of both, the bow is definitaly not a Victory ship bow, the hull shape could however be more similar, this I have to check out.
The Dixmude plan is a docking plan, it only contains 10 (half) frames. We'll see where we get, still have to finish the other builds before I can really get started.

[NCMac]

Tracy,

Thanks, your point about yard photos with regards to decks is very well taken. NavSource has two deck photos from an August 1943 yard period and the repair clutter, stores, and general messiness is evident. The photos from the April 1944 period has bow, stern, port, and starboard views of the measure 32 (or 33) but nothing of the flight deck.

I keep coming back to the ships that do clearly display flight deck numbers (Attu & Bismarck Sea) are Casablancas rather than Bogues. Where I did find deck photos of other Bogues they didn't appear to display numbers. I'm not convinced Nassau didn't carry numbers; I just can't confirm that she did.

This is my first carrier build and I confess to a lack of carrier knowledge. I thought there might be a document(s) that addressed flight deck numbers known to some of our members but unknown to me. It seems this may be an area worthy of further research.

Thanks again to you and Timmy.

Mac

[Tracy White]

I have a lot of Bogue class photos, but they're all pretty early in the ships' service, before dazzle schemes. I've been looking for deck marking documentation for a long time for the Essex class, but have come across nothing of real consequence for any of the carriers.

[Carter]

Is anyone familiar with the Five Star 1/700 photo etch set for the Tamiya Bogue?

http://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/page/data_i ... 700025.jpg

Thanks!

[Graham121]

Is anyone familiar with the Five Star 1/700 photo etch set for the Tamiya Bogue?

http://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/page/data_i ... 700025.jpg

Thanks!

I was about to ask the same question to until I saw this post.

It 'looks' good, maybe I will have to jump in the deep end and get in and then let you know.

[Quaestor]

I am building a Tamiya Bogue as U.S.S. Nassau post April 1944 Mare Island refit, that is, with the "dazzle camouflage"
Mac

How goes your build, Mac?

By coincidence, I've just acquired the kit and plan to build it as Nassau prior to your chosen period; in Measure 14. I'm wondering about that big radar Tamiya provides (molded rather like 1/2 of a waffle iron ). So many surviving photos have the radars censored out. Does anyone have info on what radar the class (or member ships) carried as commissioned, or what antennas may have been changed/added during the war?
TIA
Harold

[Skybert]

Dear Jose and others,
I stumbled across this thread since i have plans to build 1/72 waterline model of the Rapana Class MAC ship HMS Macoma
.I have some drawings in good side and topviews but no hull drawings. The Macoma was a 146 m x18 m hull width and 12000 tons. Would the Casablanca class hull drawings or any other escort carrier drawings available provide enough similarity and basis to draw my own hull cross sections? after all, Most of the Escortcarriers were based on bulky merchantmen and tankers and they all had basic hull shapes I believe...

If so, is there anyone who can provide we with suitable hull drawings?

best regards

Bert