Calling all "Big 5" Tennessee-class & Colorado-class fans

[garyrunnalls]

Does anyone know the 1/700 in scale thickness of the bootstraps around the PH BIG 5 battleships? Thanks.

[SeanF]

Yeah, you're right about the tops. Very odd that they're dark. I know that ships switched over to the Ms. 1 scheme at different times - I've seen photos (though I can't remember where) with Pacific fleet battleships in both standard gray and Ms. 1 in the same picture. In The Way It Was: Pearl Harborthere is a picture of Utah being painted into Ms. 1 that is from August '41, according to the caption. I expect they started with the front line combatants first (as painting needs and yard time allowed) and worked their way back to the less important vessels, and according to Wikipedia Colorado headed for the yard at the end of June... so maybe her 5-D is brand-new, and she hasn't had 5-L applied to the tops yet... and if so then perhaps she never actually did operate in Ms. 1 at all, entering the yard still in pre-war Standard Gray and repainting into 5-S before leaving the yard in '42? If, that is, Wiki is right about that late June date. And even if not, the yard photo is dated July 25, so... why the heck did it take over 6 months for Colorado's yard period? Does anyone know how long it took for Maryland's similar refit? (I didn't see any comment about that on wiki, and I'm not sure where else to look at the moment.)

Looking again at the fore deck, given that the anchor chain plates, and especially the triangular hawse pipe area, can be distinguished from the surrounding deck, I strongly suspect it's bare wood that's just dingy.

I also notice that something seems to be going on at turret 2. Turret 4 should be white, and the clean white patch is the size and shape matching that. Turret 3 seems to follow suit, with the catapult explaining the shape difference. But on turret 2, which should be black, there's something white there - but from the side view photos, there's something odd with its shape that doesn't quite match the orientation of the turret. I'm guessing a canvas awning of some type. The port-side view looks like it might be elevated above the turret. Turret 1, which should also have a black top, is picking up so much glare that I expect it's bleached out pretty bad. I wonder if the crew is being kept busy fully maintaining the aft part of the ship while the yard workers have total run of the front half?

- Sean F.

[Jeff Sharp]

These photos have had me scratching my head for years. Colorado is definitely in overall 5-D. But why?
This summary of camouflage experiments dated Aug. '41. Indicates that Colorado was to be in MS-1 with a false bow wave. The observer indicates that the false bow waves are ineffective.
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... eness.html

We know that Colorado entered the yard at the end of June '41. So by the time this summary was sent out, she was 2 months in the yard. There is no evidence of a false bow wave in any of these photos. We really need to nail down a date when all the battleships were initially painted into MS-1. I would love to know what Colorado looked like when she entered the yard.
Those white #1 and 2 tops are puzzling as well. I wish these photos were closer.

[ArizonaBB39]

So I was reading a lot of the memos and instructions etc from Tracy's site , Researcher at Large. The dates don't line up with when Colorado was in the yard (at least for the date on these photos), but is it possible she was painted in overall 5D because they were already determining the 5L tops weren't helping the camouflage? Or could she be in an experimental shade of 5S or 5N? Or was 5S actually darker than we think?

Looks like I opened another camouflage Pandora's Box...

[Jeff Sharp]

I do have a theory why the tops were dark. I think she entered the yard still having her gun tubs attached to her fore top and the birdbath on the main top. Both were removed during this refit maybe requiring a primer/paint job. Not to mention the range clocks were probably removed as well. Maybe the mainmast like Mary and Tenn was already in 5-D. I still would like to know why Mary and Tenn's mainmasts were not 5-L.

Here is another version of the Port side view.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... y_1941.jpg

Notice the fore mast does look lighter in this shot.

[SeanF]

I do have a theory why the tops were dark. I think she entered the yard still having her gun tubs attached to her fore top and the birdbath on the main top. Both were removed during this refit maybe requiring a primer/paint job. Not to mention the range clocks were probably removed as well. Maybe the mainmast like Mary and Tenn was already in 5-D. I still would like to know why Mary and Tenn's mainmasts were not 5-L.

Most likely due to exhaust from the aft stack. Just paint it 5-D and it won't show as bad as it would if painted in 5-L. Same reason they were often painted black in the standard gray days. You didn't see it so much on the US Navy's heavy tripods, as I expect three large, distinct tubes were less of a pain to wash than the dozens and dozens of small pipes woven into those cages.

- Sean F.

[Brian K.]

Sean nice blow up of that pic. It looks like Colorado hasn't received her bulges yet and you can make out a range finder on turret B just like the Maryland and California. In Colorado class battleships by Jarostaw Palasek they mention Maryland's refit going on from Feb 17 to Aug 1 so the work bulging the hulls was a real time consumer.

[Cliffy B]

Hey guys!!!! If you want to see high-res versions of those shots of Puget Sound that Arizona posted, check here

http://www.history.navy.mil/search.html ... +&start=30

[ArizonaBB39]

Hey guys!!!! If you want to see high-res versions of those shots of Puget Sound that Arizona posted, check here

http://www.history.navy.mil/search.html ... +&start=30

The higher res photos still lead me to believe Colorado was painted overall 5D. Especially the one Jeff posted, if you compare Colorado's color to that of the ship I'm 99% positive is in Ms1 below her it definitely looks 5D.

It also looks like turret 2 has a white painted roof to me. If you compare it to turret 3 and 4 it looks the same.

Well, this should make for an interesting build, when I get to it. Still plenty of time to learn more before then though.

[SeanF]

For some reason I can't seem to access that high-res picture; hopefully whatever is mucking it up will clear, 'cause I want a closer look at that #2 turret!

In other news, something interesting I found on Navsource in the Maryland photos:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/046/014602f.jpg

Here we have a very nice close-up of one of her aft gun tubs, great for seeing the shape of the pedestal and support braces (Which is quite different than what I saw in a photo of the Tennessee's equivalent tub over on the Photo forum). Now, of very interesting note: this Life photo was taken in 1941, and the 1.1 quad is obviously installed. No 3" gun, like the Trumpeter kit tells you to put there. (They have you put the quads only in the forward tubs up in the superstructure) So either they moved them between the time of this photo and Dec. 7, or MD may have had all four quad mounts during the attack.

Side note for a moment to Tennessee: the Pit Road kit, as others have noted, comes with an instruction sheet addendum telling you to install the aft tubs mentioned above. First, regarding these kit pieces: you'll want to shave/sand off the ribs, since TN's tubs were completely smooth on the outside, and you'll also want to change the square pedestal to a much smaller round one with some diagonal braces. (Again, referencing that picture in the Photo forum) Second, the kit does not have any forward tubs up in the superstructure. There is no addendum this time, nor are there any extra parts provided that are appropriate for them. I know they typically installed those tubs in sets of 4, and I know TN had them in '42 (See: http://navsource.org/archives/01/043/014312.jpg ) but I just can't make them out in any of the Dec. 7 & aftermath photos on Navsource. Does anyone know anything more definitive about when TN had these tubs installed and what was in them in '41?
(My guess: since the '42 shot shows them smooth, they were indeed installed originally at the same time as the others and thus should be added to the kit)

- Sean F.

[Brian K.]

Sean, yes Tennessee had the forward AA tubs just like Maryland and West Virginia they are smooth and had the 3 inch guns installed. In the book Pearl Harbor the way it was on page 79 is a picture of Tennessee during the attack on PH and it's a nice close up and clearly shows the forward AA guns.

[ArizonaBB39]

I just realized I've got that book. It's been a while since I looked through it. The pictures are great.

[SeanF]

Brian:
Thanks, I see it now. So many great photos in this book, and so easy to flip past the answer. Excellent! And it looks like there may even be a long diagonal brace rod coming down from the outer edge of the tub. Yay, more detail to add!

Cliffy:
Thanks for the link to that high-res picture; tonight it worked for me.

Abram:
Agreed, looks like turret 2 is painted white. I see what tripped me up: First, what I thought was shadow under a raised tarp looks to be a supplementary turret roof-mounted rangefinder painted in a dark color. Second, the back corner of the white patch looked like it overhung the turret roof - seems that it does, because it appears they carried the white over to the rangefinder ears! I see this also occurring on turret 3 in the high-res picture. (I think I see what could be old, patchy black paint on turret 1) Highly unusual in so many ways!
Based on the report from Tracy's site, it makes you wonder why Nevada and Oklahoma kept their bow waves into December! But back to Colorado: perhaps they painted over her 5-L tops and bow wave with 5-D as a test, which is reflected in that report (conveniently not mentioning that the recommendation comes from repainting a ship contrary to regulation)?
Wonder if we can find a picture somewhere of CO with her bow wave? If it was done for experimental purposes, I can't imagine they wouldn't have photographed it. (Page 14 of The Way It Was: Pearl Harbor is the best source I know for OK's wave, where we can see it was a bit different in shape from NV's. CO's would probably be different still)

Fun stuff!

- Sean F.

[Dick J]

Guys, I am having a problem with something in these photos. The object on turret 2 appears to be the turret rangefinder, as noted by Brian. But didn't Colorado lose hers in the mid to late '30's? Did they remount it only to again remove it? Or could this be Maryland rather than Colorado?

[ArizonaBB39]

I can't answer the question about the turret mounted range finder, but I would venture to say the Navy wouldn't have made such a large glaring error (I hope!) on documenting the locations and activities of their ships. Sadly pictures of this time period are scarce so making comparisons based on photographic evidence is hard.

[SeanF]

I see something on top of turret 2 in this Feb. '42 shot, which may be a rangefinder seen on its narrow edge:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014502.jpg

- Sean F.

[Jeff Sharp]

That is a very interesting observation Dick. Telling the three Colorado's apart has always been a challenge.
The closest to a '41 pic of Colorado I can find is this late '40 pic.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/batt ... lorado.jpg
She is sporting the large range finders on her bridge wings but still has SOC's floatplanes. The one plane on turret 3 has a white band on the fuselage. This info dates this pic late 1940. No rangefinder turret 2.

The post refit film of her over at the critical past site shows her with no range finder on turret 2.
Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants if this Puget Sound BB was Mary.

[ArizonaBB39]

It looks like the ship in the pictures doesn't have torpedo bulges on the sides, when did Maryland get hers? This is quite the interesting discussion and all because I was curious about the color of the ship


**EDIT**

I may have to change my mind about the bulges. In the large resolution image showing the starboard side the light is reflecting off of what looks to be the top of a torpedo bulge, I don't think the armor belt alone would be big enough to reflect the light like this, or would it? Or perhaps that is something different all together?

[Daytona675R]

It looks like the ship in the pictures doesn't have torpedo bulges on the sides, when did Maryland get hers?

The Maryland's limited pre-war modernization (which included generally just the blistering and replacing several 5''/25s for 5''/38) was completed by August 1st, 1941. The Colorado's by February 26th, 1942.

Interestingly, the purpose of this emergency blistering was not a direct improvement of the underwater protection, rather an improvement of the buyoancy and lifting the ships from the water. It was estimated by the BuShips that under existing overload a single torpedo hit would cause submerging of the side armored belt.*

* Norman Friedman, US Battleships - An Illustrated Design History, p. 207

Edit:
It is a rangefinger on the top of the turret 2, no doubt about it (IMG1). And as such the ship is blistered (IMG2) and the photo is dated by July 25th, 1941...I bet it is USS Maryland.

Edit2: Nothing like this happened in the summer of 1941. My bad, my bad.

[Jeff Sharp]

Awesome! I completely agree. That has to be Mary! If so, I wonder where Colorado is at this time. Great discussion and detective work guys!