Calling Alaska-class (CB-1) fans

[CAG-1NUT]

Cruisers don't usually do anything for me, but I do dig the Alaska Class... VERY pleasing to the eyes!

Indeed, the Alaska and Guam had splendid lines. So much so IMO that I painted my 1/120 RC scratch build of the Alaska in the false horizon rather than the disruptive dazzle pattern.

[Fliger747]

Perhaps 20 years ago I visited the Intrepid in NYC and on the hangar deck was a huge Alaska model, not there on a later visit. Might have been a builders model? Wish I had taken a zillion photos, but of course that was in the analog capture "film" era. I have been avoiding making new rubber molds for some small and oft repeated items, think I should certainly do new bitts and chocks rather than just produce more of my BB 63 ones.

I do like the ship in Measure 22. Working on the superstructure at the moment so no rush to come to a final paint color choice (blue purple tints or neutral gray. Guessing the former will be correct?

An overall pleasing line but more stuff here and there cluttering the decks and superstructure than one might guess!

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

[/attachment]

Aft superstructure with a few additions. Awaiting a little more info on a few items to further modify existing structure. Ancient rail PE (1980's) may get replaced, but at least it is hell for stout. Unfortunately some modification of the stack top is necessary.

Adding the cranes, myriad of small AA and whatever detail i can dredge up from any and all photos will slowly give the ship its proper busy small detail look.

Cheers: T

Sorry about the double photo post!

[ModelMonkey]

Perfection.

[Fliger747]

Question:

Both extensions of the fore and aft (main??) masts appear to have carried a smallish radar unit, removed in mothballs and oft obliterated by censors in wartime photos. Any hot ideas on what units these were?

Steve's 5" twins do look awesome, not sure if Alaska carried the blast hoods at which point in her career. My mounts currently are carrying them but some photos are without.

Cheers: Tom

[Timmy C]

If by extensions you mean the poles whose ends are the tallest points on the ship, they appear to be SG radars. Here's a nice sharp photo of them: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1201/04020143.jpg

[Fliger747]

Thanks TC!

[Fliger747]

Steve:

Here is a photo of the Missouri Blast hoods, I don't believe they changed these since day one...

They were attached with two bolts on the sides near the front, and also had a small hold open cylinder on the back of the mount (connecting through the back of the hood) to hold the mount captains hatch open.

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Your AL is coming along very nicely - the detail is excellent! Glad to see the photo update!

Hank

[ModelMonkey]

Steve:

Here is a photo of the Missouri Blast hoods, I don't believe they changed these since day one...

They were attached with two bolts on the sides near the front, and also had a small hold open cylinder on the back of the mount (connecting through the back of the hood) to hold the mount captains hatch open.

The attachment blast hood_MG_6092.jpg is no longer available

How's this?

[Fliger747]

Absolutely super! Probably the wave of the future! It may doom the last vestiges of scratch building as we have known it.

Regards: Tom

[Ian Roberts]

If by extensions you mean the poles whose ends are the tallest points on the ship, they appear to be SG radars. Here's a nice sharp photo of them: http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1201/04020143.jpg

They are definitely SG surface search sets - standard on almost all wartime USN fleet units.

Re: the blast hoods on the 5" mounts, I don't think either of the CBs actually had them. This photo of CB-1 shows the gun captain's hatch open, which could appear to be the blast hood. NavWeaps lists the 5" mounts present on the Alaska CBs as the Mark 32 Mod 4 (this page, about 2/3rds of the way down under "Mount Turret Data"). Using this information, we can consult the Gun Mount and Turret Catalogue posted on HNSA - and from there, the specific ordnance pamphlet page on the Mark 32 Mod 4 mount. This shows no blast hoods present.

This excellent high res photo shows the hatches on the 5" mounts being open (which likely leads to confusion).

This photo and this photo also show the hatches open - I suspect this was because of the intense Pacific heat.

During all my research I have never been able to find any evidence of gun captain's sight hoods being present on the CBs.

Fantastic model either way!

[Fliger747]

Browsing through the HNSA turrets catalog I find the Mk 32 mod 2 as the ones used on the CB's. There are closeup photos of a mount captain, on Alaska without the blast hood. My guess is that the captain/gunnery dept decided to not install them, or remove them, a minor matter of four bolts. Though sometimes criticized for having a smallish secondary battery, Alaska had really fine open AA arcs and the spacing of the mounts such that blast interference between the mounts would be much reduced compared to say the fast BB's. The presence of the two centerline mounts would actually mean for an either port or starboard target four of the six mounts could be directed, as much firepower as the vaunted South Dakota could pump out and possibly more effective. Fore and aft the positioning of the mounts was particularly good for this vulnerable aspect of fore and aft approach which was often favored by the Devine Wind folks.

As to not being used in the Pacific heat, the Iowa's which spent most of their WWII careers in the Pacific did use them, given the close packing and super firing aspect of the upper mounts on the lower it is apparent that with the exception of the mounts under the bridge wings, they would be quite helpful. I suppose that the hoods also provided some minor splinter protection, otherwise the 52 and 53-54 mounts on a Fletcher would not need them? Some sun and rain protection as well?

I will look at the mount and turret catalog and see what it says about the mod 4 mount.

Thanks: Tom

[Fliger747]

The Turret-mount catalog lists both for the CB? The Mod four has some involved counterbalance opening mechanism rather than the hood? The four has the training stop buffer affixed to the front of the mount and both have the lighter non straight barbette Missouri Style turret base ring. the FDD drawings are not detailed enough on this and could be wrong, showing a simplified straight base ring. Will have to see what I can glean from any photos of the ships on this.

Cheers: Tom

[Ian Roberts]

Interesting, I had never seen the "CB" designation on the Mk.32 Mod.2 mount pamphlet. It's entirely possible different mounts were used in different locations (or maybe different mounts on CB-1 vs. CB-2... what a headache). What makes the call even more difficult is how easy the blast hoods were to remove - maybe they did just choose to remove them on a few. I think at this point it becomes a matter of personal preference. On my drawings I depicted the Mod.4 mounts (with no blast hoods) because photo evidence at least tends to gravitate towards that. But I don't think anyone can call your model "wrong" for showing the mounts with them, especially since we now have actual evidence of the hoods at least being a possibility on each ship!

As to not being used in the Pacific heat, the Iowa's which spent most of their WWII careers in the Pacific did use them, given the close packing and super firing aspect of the upper mounts on the lower it is apparent that with the exception of the mounts under the bridge wings, they would be quite helpful. I suppose that the hoods also provided some minor splinter protection, otherwise the 52 and 53-54 mounts on a Fletcher would not need them? Some sun and rain protection as well?

Oh, my comment about the heat was just directed at how the photos show the batteries with the hatches open all the time. I imagine the gun crews would probably crack them open whenever possible to vent the hot air out the top of the mount.

None of this detracts from what is an incredible model so far - looking forward to the finished product!

edit: Also, unrelated, but I made this reference sheet to help with getting everything right during the drawing process. It may or may not help modellers but here it is anyway.

[Fliger747]

No worries!

I am slowly correcting and adding as information becomes available. I will try to go with whatever looks to be "most correct".

Today I made the midships winches, worked more on the boat cranes, turned life rings from styrene (really small!) and some really tiny pullys from brass rod. The major disaster was spilling a full bottle of liquid plastic solvent all over the place. Also worked on adding supports under the decking of the aft midships pedestals for the 54-55 mounts, bulkhead details and ladders. Portside pedestal a ladder is affixed to the bulkhead, requiring a manhole at the top (not shown on the plans).

Awaiting Steve's book coming out!

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

Current progress. All sub assemblies just sitting in place. All additions and current corrections in the raw. Some thicker structures a sandwich of plexiglass and styrene. I keep finding small errors in the drawings such as with the vents between the hangar doors, which need correction, and the MK 38 directors are the earlier type where mine are the correct later square back version.

Cheers: Tom

[Ian Roberts]

One more thing: you are using the Mod.17 "cockpit" style Mk.37 director houses - only CB-2 was fitted with these. CB-1's directors did not have the cockpit (put in place to provide splinter protection for the Mk.3 slewing sight within).

Again, an extremely minor quibble. The build is coming together extremely well!

[Fliger747]

An interesting difference in the ships, and various drawings! I do see from a foredeck view that this is indeed the case for CB1.

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

I shaved off the "cockpits" and added appropriate hatches, not the easiest thing to do with the directors mounted on the ship, but easier than when detail is added later!

Cheers: Tom