Calling all rebuilt "Big 5" (TN/MD class) fans

[Daytona675R]

For those who consider building the Trumpeter's 1/700 USS Maryland 1945 kit (#5770)...watch out, there is one part missing. The build requires a main battery rangefinder to be placed on a top of the nav bridge (the "H-24" part), but there is actually no "H" sprue included in the kit. No other "H" parts are necessary.

One way how to tackle the problem is...buying the USS California 1941 kit (#5783) It includes the needed "H-24" rangefinder...which is fortunately redundant to the California because there is a CXAM radar to be installed instead of it.

The rangefinder arms should be then shortened for the 1945 Maryland...but that's another story.

I was still wondering why there is no official photo of the completed build. Now I know why

[GaryJinNC]

It is evident that the Big 5 BBs carried a mix of single and twin 20mm mounts in 1944-45. I have not been able to confirm the number of each and there positions on the Big 5 ships. The photos are not sufficiently clear and the armament data only report the total number of guns (barrels). I am not inclined to trust Trumpeter regarding the locations even though the kits do contain sprues with single and twin mounts.

I will appreciate any help on this question.

[Atma]

I dont think USS Colorado ever carried double 20mm AA guns.

[Cliffy B]

I can help with numbers but not placements. According to page 381 of Friedman's BB Book the 20mm batteries were as follows:

August 1945:
BB-43: 43 singles
BB-44: 40 twins
BB-45: 39 singles and 1 quad
BB-46: 20 twins and 1 quad
BB-48: 58 singles, 1 twin, and 1 quad

November 1945:
BB-46: 17 twins

Hope that helps some.

[Tracy White]

Quad 20mms were the thunderbolt - see here and here. The Quad .50s were US Army M45s and as far as I know were only used on Lexington and Hornet or Wasp, and none of them ever had a Japanese plane get close enough for actual combat testing.

[GaryJinNC]

Gentlemen, many thanks, but more cans of worms appear to be opening. The Thunderbolt mount is a revelation. Does anyone have information as to when the Thunderbolt mounts were added to COLORADO, MARYLAND, and WEST VIRGINIA? If these were 1945 additions, it seems logical that MARYLAND would have gotten hers during her June-August refit, but the photos are inconclusive. Where was the Thunderbolt mount positioned? Were all of the single 20mm mounts replaced by twin mounts? In either case, where were the twins and singles located?

In the case of COLORADO, most of the photos were in late 1944 and none of them indicate that twin 20mm mounts were present. In an earlier post, Atma noted that COLORADO did not carry twin mounts. So, for October 1944, what is her AA suite configuration?

WEST VIRGINIA presents a similar dilemma. While there is evidence that WEST VIRGINIA received a Thunderbolt mount after her rebuild at PSNY. There is a photo of the Thunderbolt mount, dated July 4, 1944, but the location of this mount is undetermined. A total of 58 single mounts seems reasonable, but where was the lone twin mount positioned?

Cliffy B reported that TENNESSEE has 43 single 20mm mounts and no twin mounts which is consistent with other records that I have found. My period of interest is October 1944.

Cliff B also reported that CALIFORNIA carried 40 twin 20mm mounts in 1945. Other sources suggest that the "Prune Barge" carried a mix of singles and twins. This is further suggested by the Trumpeter kit (but I am not ready to put blind faith in Trumpy). Can anyone identify when, where, and how many twin mounts were positioned? My period of interest is January 1945.

I will be grateful for any help. Thanks.

[garyrunnalls]

The "Friedman" book is a great source and I have a copy of 1945 BB-44 overhead and side view drawn with both twins and single's. I will find that copy but I can't post here without permission from publisher. I can suggest the Pierre Marcel BB-44 1945 model in the gallery is an excellent guide for details and worth a look, it's amazing.I can make you a copy of the drawing by Friedman and send it through the mail if you want. I'm in California and unless you are overseas or Wackanistan Island, it's a freebie on me.

[Tracy White]

I can't post here without permission from publisher.

Not entirely true - US Copyright law fair use allows partial re-posting for review or discussion if properly attributed (essentially, "US Battleships," Robert Friedman, page whatever). So you could crop in on the thunderbolts and post here here and it would be allowed under fair use as a partial reproduction as part of a discussion.

[GaryJinNC]

Gentlemen:

Again, I appreciate the assistance. I also understand the value of Norman Friedman's book and purchased a copy last week from Naval Institute press, which offers a paperback copy in their spring catalog at a price far below the "unmentionable" site. It sould be shipped shortly.

In the meantime, I will welcome any information on the types, numbers, and locations of the AA weapons for WEST VIRGINIA (10/44), COLORADO (12/44), and MARYLAND (7/45).

[MartinJQuinn]

The discussion on the quad 20mm was too good to lose. Merged with Rebuilt Big 5 thread.

[Guest]

Gentlemen:

Again, I appreciate the assistance. I also understand the value of Norman Friedman's book and purchased a copy last week from Naval Institute press, which offers a paperback copy in their spring catalog at a price far below the "unmentionable" site. It sould be shipped shortly.

In the meantime, I will welcome any information on the types, numbers, and locations of the AA weapons for WEST VIRGINIA (10/44), COLORADO (12/44), and MARYLAND (7/45).

Is this the new edition?

[Daytona675R]

...If these were 1945 additions, it seems logical that MARYLAND would have gotten hers during her June-August refit, but the photos are inconclusive. Where was the Thunderbolt mount positioned?...

Gary,

although I have no proof for the statement, I am expecting the Maryland's 20mm quad mount was installed in the middle of the foremost gallery of her bridge. Just above the rear of the 16'' turret No. 2.

The sources I am using are:

1) The drawing present in the Friedman's BB book http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014642.jpg
2) The drawing present in the Jaroslaw Palasek's "Famous Warship Monograph 2: Colorado Class Battleships" http://steelnavy.com/images/OWColorado/ColC1257.JPG

Does it actually reflect the reality? I don't know.

[GaryJinNC]

David: The diagram is persuasive regarding the location of the "Thunderbolt" mount. The WEST VIRGINIA photograph indicates that the quad 20mm mount did not have the .50cal on the mount. Thanks very much for your help.

[GaryJinNC]

In response to Guest regarding the edition of Friedman's book, I believe it is a reprint. It is listed as a paperback version. The ISBN is 978-1-59114-247-8 and was listed in the March 2016 Naval Institute Press catalog.

[Haijun watcher]

Sean F, and other Big 5 experts,

Would the recently released 1/700 Trumpeter Tennessee 1941 kit be a good starting point to depict her in her February 1942- June 1942 fit?

This was when Tennessee had finished repairs from the Pearl Harbor damage and when she served as part of Admiral Pye's Task Force One protecting the US West Coast.

From what I can find on wiki and other sources, she didn't have her bulges fitted until her later 1942-43 reconstruction. Would you agree with this assessment?

Feb. 1942 fit after Pearl Harbor damage repaired:

After preliminary repairs at Pearl Harbor, Tennessee headed for Puget Sound Navy Yard for permanent repairs. In addition to repairing her, crews upgraded her antiaircraft gun abilities and installed search and fire control radars. Other modifications improved the battleship's habitability. On 26 February 1942, Tennessee departed from Puget Sound with the work complete. Upon arriving at San Francisco, she began a period of intensive training operations with Rear Admiral William S. Pye's Task Force 1 (TF 1), made up of the Pacific Fleet's available battleships and a screen of destroyers.

Late 1942-43 reconstruction:

By the time Tennessee emerged from Puget Sound Navy Yard on 7 May 1943, she bore virtually no resemblance to her former self. Her appearance was nearly identical to that of West Virginia and California (which were rebuilt after the Pearl Harbor attack to resemble the South Dakota-class battleships). The upgrade work increased protection against torpedoes, internal compartmentation was rearranged and improved, a new compact superstructure designed to provide control facilities while offering less interference to antiaircraft guns was installed, and upgraded antiaircraft guns and fire-control radars were installed. Her original twin funnels were combined into a single funnel faired into the superstructure tower as with the South Dakota class. The original secondary battery of antiship 5-inch (127 mm)/51 cal guns and the antiaircraft battery of 5-inch (127 mm)/25 cal guns was replaced by 16 dual-purpose 5-inch / 38-calibre guns in eight twin mounts controlled by four Mk 37 directors.[6]

As part of the new policy of the Two-Ocean-Navy, American battleships had been designed within a beam constraint of 108 feet (33 m) in order to pass through the locks of the Panama Canal. After being similarly rebuilt, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia were broadened to 114 feet (35 m) wide, limiting their use in wartime to the Pacific Theater of Operations.

[SeanF]

The Tennessee 1941 kit is the best starting point, as it has the correct smooth (that is, not ribbed as on other Big 5 ships) splinter shields for the 5" AA guns and an un-bulged hull. The Pit Road version of the kit lacks the forward superstructure AA tubs; I thought I heard someone mention that the Trumpeter issue might have included an errata for them - can anyone confirm this?

One very notable issue is the aft structure - Tennessee got her mainmast removed completely and replaced with a box structure right away, unlike the stump that was left on Maryland for some time. You'll need to scratchbuild it, grab one from a late-war Colorado kit and modify it as-needed, or talk Model Monkey into 3-D printing one.

Note that they did remove the center anchor, with its scrape plate and capstan. Shaving it off and adding deck planking detail in its place will likely be difficult. (On my already-build Dec. '41 Maryland, I hadn't known about that piece of information or I would have made the alteration to the kit part. Though I now know it's inaccurate, I really don't want to try this surgery on a finished, and otherwise rather good-looking model.)

A couple good photos for your target time period:

http://navsource.org/archives/01/043/014312.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014308.jpg

- Sean F.

[MartinJQuinn]

One very notable issue is the aft structure - Tennessee got her mainmast removed completely and replaced with a box structure right away, unlike the stump that was left on Maryland for some time. You'll need to scratchbuild it, grab one from a late-war Colorado kit and modify it as-needed, or talk Model Monkey into 3-D printing one.

[Haijun watcher]

One very notable issue is the aft structure - Tennessee got her mainmast removed completely and replaced with a box structure right away, unlike the stump that was left on Maryland for some time. You'll need to scratchbuild it, grab one from a late-war Colorado kit and modify it as-needed, or talk Model Monkey into 3-D printing one.

What about the aft superstructure on the Dragon 1944 Pennsylvania kit? Would that superstructure be closer/similar?

The last time I mentioned the 1942 Tennessee build possibility, I remember someone earlier in this thread offered to give me the aft tower from a failed Pennsylvania build.

[Atma]

What about the aft superstructure on the Dragon 1944 Pennsylvania kit? Would that superstructure be closer/similar?

Im sure it will be similar like Trumpeter Colorado late war Maryland. but you cant avoid to not modified it cause Im sure they where not the same. TN aft superstructure would be unique.

Is there any pictures of the TN/California/West Virginia during the shipyards months where the where getting total reconstructed ?
Thanks in advance.

[SeanF]

No on the Pennsylvania (and '44 Colorado) aft structure.

Tennessee's is much simpler in shape. This photo has bad glare, but is probably the best illustration of it:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/043/014311.jpg

See also this side view:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014376.jpg

Now, Pennsylvania's is more involved. It still looks like they recycled part of the original top, but it's much more complex and the parts fromt he original top have a decided overhang toward the front of the ship. See:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/038/013805d.jpg

The 1:700 Dragon kit parts are simplified from this, but are still far from the correct shape. See the ModelWarships review at:
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html
Note the parts on sprue A and step 5 in the instructions.

The Colorado kit's aft tower is better detailed and not as clunky as the Dragon Penn., but is essentially similar in its overall concept and not even close to Tenn.

Honestly, I think that making it yourself is actually quite simple - much simpler than trying to re-shape the other kits' parts. Take the top two levels (including the MG platform) from the mainmast top and scratchbuild an octagonal, slab-sided tower symmetrically under it, and add a rounded-corner, rectangular searchlight platform fore and aft. You might even be able to do it by buying a thick rectangular piece of Evergreen plastic with the right length and width, sand the corners to the correct facets, cut to height, and make yourself a solid plastic tower.
In fact, this thing has such a simple shape you just might be able to talk ModelMonkey into wedging this into his design schedule. 3D print just the tower and searchlight platforms, and use the kit's top for the rest.

- Sean F.