The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:46 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 18  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The "Booklet of General Plans: for the USS Miami CL-89 shows some rigging. You can find it here:

http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:42 pm
Posts: 165
Thanks. Not sure how well it'll help with rigging but it'll definitely help with placement of various items like floater net baskets and such.

_________________
Mike, MikeyBugs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:42 pm
Posts: 165
Does anyone know of any other deck plans for any Clevelands? I'm already using the HNSA general plans booklet for the USS Miami CL-89 extensively for my build. But more plans would be immensely helpful. Especially for some other ships as well.

_________________
Mike, MikeyBugs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Floating Drydock has multiples

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:06 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
Mikey,

Are you modeling a specific CLEVELAND??

Items like floater net baskets can vary by ship and over time, so looking at images of specific cruisers would be of help.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The Clevelands were built by four shipyards, and each had its own way of doing things. In addition there were two basic layouts (round bridge and square bridge). So there were eight basic build types.

The number and types of 20mm and 40mm varied because these weapons were in short supply at the beginning of the war. Some ships were fitted with more 20mm early on - especially during the shakedown cruises - and some were replaced with 40mm later.

As the war progressed retrofits were made to the older ships as the opportunity presented itself. Major upgrades were done only after a ship suffered enough battle damage to cause it to return to a ship repair facility.

As a consequence of these influences no two ships were alike, and each ship changed with time. So you need to pick a specific ship and a specific date and work from photos.

For some really great photos of a late war square bridge ship see this web site:

http://www.mighty90.com/

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2171
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
According to the plans on the website (hnsa) The Miami looks like she had two different types of 5"/38 turrets.

I noticed that the rear 5"/38 Turrets had a broader (taller) facing at the lower/front of the Turret than the foreward 5"/38 turrets.

I recall reading on another post that these sorts of turrets were used on BBs, as opposed to the 5"/38 turrets used on CLs.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:54 am 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
The 5-in gun mounts (not turrets) don't look different to me in photos I have scanned. BGP drawings can be inaccurate. They are "assembly" level drawings and really only intended for "General" info. When initially drawn, they are generally pretty accurate having been drawn by the builder. Plus, standard "templates" for common items like gun mounts that are "Government Furnished" and not made by the builders, are used and "traced" to save time. But as modifications are made to the ships over their lifetimes, alterations are many times not as accurate. But in looking at the BGP drawings, the 5-in mounts don't look much if any different in size fore to aft, within the limits of drawings and copying of them from the original "paper/mylar" to blueprint copies which are then scanned digitally.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The dual 5"/38 mounts were all very much alike, but there were quite a few mark/mods. I looked at the Miami drawings and you are right about the vertical front face, but the diagonal faces appear to the the same length (see below). I think this is just carelessness on the part of the draftsman. I agree with Rick that these "general" drawings are just sketches. They do not have accurate dimensions, but just approximations.

Go to HSNA and look through OP 805 5-INCH TWIN GUN MOUNT MARK 28, 32 and 38 ALL MODS:

http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/fiveinchtwin/index.htm

This 622 page document will tell you everything you wanted to know and a lot more! It includes dimensioned drawings of the mounts (see attached pages). The HSNA version is hard to use (HTML page with embedded page images). Look around and you can find the complete pub in PDF form - it is MUCH easier to use.

The overall dimensions of all models were almost the same, but the Mk 28s did have shorter angled faces than the other Marks. There were 16 mods in all. I think they were all pretty much interchangeable with the 5" handling rooms they sat on. Note that these Mark numbers refer to the gun mounts but the shields (the gun houses) had different Mark numbers. There were 11 Marks and 15 Mods for the shields.

It is really the shields we are talking about. OP 805 Chapter 19 (page 533) tells about the shields. Cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers had shields made of 1 inch to 2.5" thick STS steel. Destroyers had lighter weight shields of thinner metal (0.25 inch). OP 805 page 548 gives the specs.

When the Clevelands were being built the shipyards used whatever they had sitting around at the time. Some mounts had external training stop buffers on the front, some had external buffers on the rear and some had internal buffers. It is quite possible that some ships had a mix of short faced Mk 28s and the longer faced Mk 32s and Mk 38s.

Phil

PS: These drawings show the gun barrels to have a tapered step just forward of the front of the shield. In reality the barrels were a smooth taper without that step. No idea why the draftsman put that step on the barrel but it has fooled a lot of modelers into making inaccurate gun barrels (including me)! What is shown as the step is where the bloomers attached around the barrels (if bloomers were installed) just forward of the maximum extent of recoil - the guns recoiled 15" when they fired.


Attachments:
Mk 28.jpg
Mk 28.jpg [ 110.19 KiB | Viewed 1857 times ]
Mk 32.jpg
Mk 32.jpg [ 106.2 KiB | Viewed 1857 times ]
Mk 38.jpg
Mk 38.jpg [ 106.44 KiB | Viewed 1857 times ]

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2171
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Thanks for the plans from HNSA for the 5"/38 turrets.

As part of the conversion kit for the USS South Dakota (which I have actually been able to start working on again, due to my right arm being more functional than it has been in a while), I plan to do some 3D printed Mk 28 5"/38 Turrets (with the taller face on the front) that were mentioned to be used mostly on the BBs in another thread, since I have seen everyone and their dog do the Mk 32 Turrets.

Still... I am jealous of the Cleveland Model. I need to find a way of getting about 6 of them for the Pacific 1943 in the Solomons...

They are a really gorgeous ship, and it is amazing that no one has done a new model of them.

I look forward to seeing this one finished.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:42 pm
Posts: 165
MatthewB wrote:
Thanks for the plans from HNSA for the 5"/38 turrets.

As part of the conversion kit for the USS South Dakota (which I have actually been able to start working on again, due to my right arm being more functional than it has been in a while), I plan to do some 3D printed Mk 28 5"/38 Turrets (with the taller face on the front) that were mentioned to be used mostly on the BBs in another thread, since I have seen everyone and their dog do the Mk 32 Turrets.

Still... I am jealous of the Cleveland Model. I need to find a way of getting about 6 of them for the Pacific 1943 in the Solomons...

They are a really gorgeous ship, and it is amazing that no one has done a new model of them.

I look forward to seeing this one finished.

MB


It I recall there's a company that's supposed to be doing a new tool Cleveland now.

Rick E Davis wrote:
Mikey,

Are you modeling a specific CLEVELAND??

Items like floater net baskets can vary by ship and over time, so looking at images of specific cruisers would be of help.


Yes, I'm attempting to do the Miami CL-89 as she was in 1945. But as it is right now I'm still working on generics. Just by chance I put a floater net baskets in a spot where an ejected shell net is, so that's what I'm calling it now. But I still could use more plans as I want to build more Clevelands eventually.

_________________
Mike, MikeyBugs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:59 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
When in 1945 for USS MIAMI ... she had an overhaul May-July 1945? I have some images of MIAMI before and after her overhaul during May-July 1945, and can post close-crops if you need them for specific areas. The big differences post-overhaul was relocation of two twin 40-mm mounts to the fantail, new radars/fire control systems, and fewer 20-mm mounts (maybe twin 20-mm mounts in place of singles, I can't tell from the photos).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:02 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
Phil,

I have to comment on something you said. The "builders" wouldn't use "whatever" was laying around particularly for armament when building the CLEVELANDS. Armament was "GFE" ... Government Furnished Equipment, and the USN determined what was delivered and installed. There was such a demand for 5-in/38-cal guns, for that matter there was a demand for ALL GFE, that their distribution and which units got what was controlled and not much was allowed to just lay around. :smallsmile: Differences in Marks and Mods are more "timeline" based on when the design for a given ship was finalized, when the ship was building, and what updates were being incorporated in the 5-in mount production based on lessons-learned.

The different Marks and Mods for 5-in mounts is a whole area for research in and of their own. Mostly the different Marks match up to the total WEIGHT of the mount due to the armor applied (or not applied) and intended receiver of the mounts; aka for battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers, etc. So many things determine Mod number that I gave up trying to figure them out. Heck even changing the housing to a different Mod didn't change the the Mark/Mod number of the mount!!! FLETCHERS have only a few single 5-in/38-cal mounts Marks, but at least a couple dozen Mods. From what I remember from looking at the twin 5-in mounts on Museum Battleships, I though that the armor was thicker ... not by a great deal ... than 2.5-in. One can really see a difference between a twin 5-in mount on a SUMNER-GEARING and a MASSACHUSETTS. :big_grin:

I didn't scan the late-WWII/Post-WWII Armament Summary pages for ALL cruisers when I was going through them, that would have provided a listing the Marks and Mods for all the cruisers.

What I did scan from a 1960 Armament Summary shows that;

Battleships
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, ALABAMA, IOWA, and NEW JERSEY had/have Mk 28 Mod 0 Mounts
MISSOURI and WISCONSIN have Mk 28 Mod 2 Mounts

Heavy Cruisers
BALTIMORE had Mk 32 Mod 0 Mounts
QUINCY had four Mk 32 Mod 0 and two Mk 32 Mod 2 Mounts
PITTSBURGH had Mk 32 Mod 2 Mounts
St PAUL had one Mk 32 Mod 0 and five Mk 32 Mod 2 Mounts
HELENA had Mk 32 Mod 12 Mounts
OREGON CITY had Mk 32 Mod 13 Mounts
ROCHESTER had Mk 32 Mod 11 Mounts
BREMERTON had Mk 32 Mod 4 Mounts
FALL RIVER had Mk 32 Mod 0 Mounts
MACON had Mk 32 Mod 12 Mounts
TOLEDO had Mk 32 Mod 11 Mounts
DES MOINES had two Mk 32 Mod 4 and four Mk 32 Mod 11 Mounts
LOS ANGELES had Mk 32 Mod 4 Mounts
SALEM has Mk 32 Mod 3 Mounts
NEWPORT NEWS had Mk 32 Mod 3 Mounts
BOSTON (CAG) had Mk 32 Mod 2 Mounts
CANBERRA (CAG) had Mk 32 Mod 0 Mounts
ALASKA had Mk 32 Mod 4 Mounts
GUAM had Mk 32 Mod 4 Mounts
ALBANY (prior to conversion) had one Mk 32 Mod 4 and five Mk 32 Mod 13 Mounts
CHICAGO (prior to conversion) had Mk 32 Mod 12 Mounts
COLUMBUS (prior to conversion) had Mk 32 Mod 0 Mounts

The few Aircraft Carriers still with Twin 5-in Mounts that I captured in my scanning
ANTIETAM had Mk 32 Mod 2 Mounts
TARAWA had Mk 32 Mod 13 Mounts
VALLEY FORGE had one Mk 32 Mod 3 and three Mk 32 Mod 4 Mounts

It would appear to be a good guess that the CLEVELANDS had various Mod's of Mk 32 Mounts.

Also, the USN continuously was upgrading mounts with OrdAlts to fix issues or to improve performance/safety.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:42 pm
Posts: 165
Rick E Davis wrote:
When in 1945 for USS MIAMI ... she had an overhaul May-July 1945? I have some images of MIAMI before and after her overhaul during May-July 1945, and can post close-crops if you need them for specific areas. The big differences post-overhaul was relocation of two twin 40-mm mounts to the fantail, new radars/fire control systems, and fewer 20-mm mounts (maybe twin 20-mm mounts in place of singles, I can't tell from the photos).


Yes, post-July 1945. She was in Ms 22 since around March from what I found on NavSource and the General Plan from HNSA is for 1946. One thing I am looking for is what type of gun tub for the single 20mm Oerlikons was used. From the plans it seems to be the flat bottomed tub as opposed to the stepped bottom, but as has been mentioned these plans are "General" so I'm not sure if this detail would've been simply glossed over. I also need clarification on the location on the midships 20mm tub. Moreso on if it was a raised platform or just sat on the deck. I have some confusion over that. I also need help with the location of the floater net baskets. The plans say that some were mounted on the tops of the #1 and #4 turrets but pictures contradict this as they show just nets and no baskets.

_________________
Mike, MikeyBugs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Rick,

I suppose you are right about armaments being allocated for specific builds. Early in the war there was a shortage of just about everything. But I'll bet this applied only to the initial construction. After the ships were commissioned the Navy didn't keep them at the pier waiting for back ordered parts. I know some of the Clevelands went to sea for the shakedown cruises without some directors, and some had two or three 20mm guns installed where 40mm guns were installed later. All of this adds to the confusion when pictures of the same ship show different armaments, etc.

I have seen shipyard photos where Clevelands were being built, with a dozen or more twin 5"/38 mounts lined up in rows in the yards waiting to be installed. This would have been later in the war when production was at its peak.

At the forward bases in the Pacific and at yards in the States ships seemed to get whatever was available at the time they came in for repairs. The twin 40mm guns on the stern are a good example.

****

The blueprints for the Clevelands show the changes initiated by different ship yards. When a yard started production it would get a copy of the initial blueprints. These were hand copied by tracing, and often yards made changes in their initial drawings to reflect their own building techniques. If you go through all of the Cleveland blueprints you will find quite a few of these almost the same drawings. The changes were submitted for review by the Navy, but it looks like the reviewers who gave approval were in the specific yards and not in Washington. I'll bet some ships were in the water before any official approval came through. They were throwing the ships together in a hurry.

Each drawing lists the ships it applied to. Sometimes there are a half a dozen different drawings for the same structures. In some cases these are modifications that were approved sequentially over a period of time to make improvements based upon experience. But in some cases several modifications for the same thing were approved at the same time for different ships in different yards.

For me it has made it very difficult to determine just what was on the USS Oklahoma City CL-91 and CLG-5 at any particular time.

****

When some of the Clevelands were converted to CLGs each ship was a hodge-podge of parts that were available in the shipyards. Different ships had different Mark/Mod 5"/38 mounts - possibly what was removed when conversion started. But other things like doors and hatches appear to be whatever serviceable equipment was laying around in the yards. One of the deck houses on the OK City had three different types of eight dog water tight doors, and two were of a type found on the entire ship only on one side of that deck house. I have never found drawings of that particular type of door. It may have been something the shipyard built.

****

One thing I have observed on several occasions is that the structures shown in the blueprints could not be constructed as shown. But you really need to try to build them (real build or CAD model) to discover this. When I found errors like this in the blueprints I studied photos to see how the shipyards worked around the problem. Of course, different yards found different solutions. There are some very yard specific differences in the Clevelands.

When I was in the Navy I knew several fellows who had been on commissioning crews and they had a lot of tales of things that just didn't work as built. My favorite one was from a chief who commissioned the USS George Washington SSBN-598, the first fleet ballistic missile submarine. The yards had followed the blueprints exactly and a pipe ran between the spokes on a wheel that controlled a valve. In another case two different pipes were welded to a bulkhead on opposite sides - without a hole through the bulkhead. The pipes were supposed to pass liquid through the bulkhead. When this sort of thing happened, on the spot changes were made to get it to work, and the modifications were reported later.

****

Ships weren't always built to plan, especially in the rush of wartime construction. Someone in Washington may have allocated a particular part to a specific ship, but I'll bet the first ship in the yard to need the part got the first one to arrive, regardless of what the paperwork said.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:16 am 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
Mickey,

Here are a couple of images that may help you. I note that the post-yard photos of USS MIAMI aren't on Navsource. I love dead overhead shots of any ship, they explain a lot when used with more common profile views. A dead overhead view of MIAMI and a close-crop view of her midships area.

Image

Image

Image

Image

The single 20-mm bulwarks are what I think you are calling "flat-bottom" and not like the RN "stepped-bottom" bulwarks. As you can see from these views the midships 20-mm guns are on the deck and not on a raised platform.

Edit: I forgot to say whether the 20-mm guns are twins or singles, they will have the Mk 10 tripod base, not the earlier Mk 4 solid base.

The location of floater net baskets on cruiser size ships from an overall aerial view isn't easy, not like on destroyers where they show-up fairly easily. :big_grin: I can only spot one under the bridge at the 02 deck level tied to the railing behind the forward starboard 5-in mount.


Last edited by Rick E Davis on Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:27 am 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
Phil,

Some of what you say is very true. But, only for those items that the builders ACTUALLY made and installed in the ships. Many things like armament and sensors were strictly GFE items contracted with other manufacturers who built items for multiple ships. Why I went through the labor of listing the twin 5-in mounts for all those heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers, was that in a few cases the same Mk and Mod of mounts were used on both carriers and cruisers. There were four builders of CLEVELAND class cruisers over several years and there would naturally be many changes over time as well. Going by drawings alone won't explain all the variations, a deep dive into BuShip files likely will show the "whys". Yes specific gun mounts, whether 5-in or 40-mm or 20-mm, "planned" to be installed on a given ship could be and were diverted to another ship in for "urgent" repairs from battle damage or some other cause (hang-fires, etc.).

Several years back I laid out a timeline of the armament changes on CLEVELAND class cruisers. I laid some of that out in this posting ... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=34416&start=20#p330348 ... back in 2010 and again in 2012 ... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=34416&start=120#p533251 ... All the differences in armament for these cruisers reflected the changes made in Authorized Armament, not because of shortages. There was a steady increase in the number of authorized 40-mm guns on this class and normally there was a reduction in the numbers of 20-mm guns. Many times a ship was completed to one standard and after shakedown, they were upgraded to the newest Authorized Armament during Post-Shakedown Availability. Cruisers sent to the War Zones of the Pacific (and in the case of CLEVELAND, to North Africa) would be upgraded again at one of the West Coast yards or at Pearl Harbor Navy Yard. The early "Round-Bridge" units were a real mixed bag on their "upgrades" due to what was considered a "good idea" at the time. The CLEVELAND class was so overweight that no additional 40-mm guns were authorized as part of the fleet-wide Anti-Kamikaze program. About the only thing that could be done was the fantail twin 40-mm installations. Which were simply a late-war improvement of moving the amidships twin 40-mm mounts from a poor location to one that increased the stern AA fire power to fill a gap observed during Kamikaze attacks. As it was very few units of the class got this mod done before the war ended. However, as it turns out, ALL but ONE unit had it done prior to going into mothballs based on mothball photos.

One of the things to realize about the 5-in gun mounts or rather the shields for them you see stored in yard photos, is that because the USN converted a number of CLEVELAND class cruisers to CVL's, there was a surplus of 5-in mount shields that had been ordered for those cruisers available. Plus, given that most yards were working on more than one ship at a time, who knows what those "extra" shields laying around a yard were intended for. These "stored" shields seen in this photo of USS CLEVELAND fitting-out at Philadelphia Navy Yard ... not even one of the builders ... they could be there for a Philadelphia Navy Yard project (like USS NEW JERSEY or USS WISCONSIN) or awaiting shipment up river to New York Shipbuilding.

Image

I can't comment on the CLG conversions, except that they all seem to be nearly "One Offs" with different configurations in guns, missiles, fire control, and sensors installed. :big_grin:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Rick,

Thanks. I have seen your earlier posts about the armament changes on the Clevelands and I appreciate the time you have spent on this. I'm sure you are right about the "government supplied" equipment like guns, radars, etc. being carefully controlled because of the shortages of these items.

And thanks for posting the photo of the Philadelphia Navy Yard - I'm sure this is the picture that I recalled, and these are mostly shields - only one is fitted out with guns.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2171
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
I think that the Gun assemblies are on the right and a double-row of shields to the left.

That looks like the guns on cradles (the lower part of the gun-house), covered with tarps in a row (You can see another one behind the first further up the photo).

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:57 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3307
I actually think that the shields and a handful of the actual guns are for USS NEW JERSEY and/or USS WISCONSIN being built at PhilNY.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alex791 and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group