The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 363 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Question for those better versed in the CL-51 class than I: what electronics fit was present on CL-51 when the ship was lost? I'm trying to make a drawing of the ship in 11/42 and having some difficulties. I know the ship had an SC on the foremast, but for the life of me I can't figure out what was on top of the little platform on the mainmast.

The SC mattress is clearly visible here - but what's on the mainmast? Is it an SG? For some reason I don't recall reading about CL-51 ever being fitted with SG (I believe it would have made a world of difference in the early night actions). Any help would be appreciated.



Also, does anyone know the specific camouflage scheme? It looks to me as if a mixture of the Measure 21 overall 5-N Navy Blue and Measure 12 modified splotch schemes is happening. Any ideas?

edit: anyway, here's a preview of the Shipbucket drawing I've been reworking. The original was horridly inaccurate.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
When the first two units completed of the ATLANTA class arrived in the Pacific, USS ATLANTA and USS SAN DIEGO didn't have SG radars installed. They had the SC radar installed on the foremast, which was replaced with the SC-1 at Pearl Harbor. USS SAN DIEGO had the SG radar installed in late January 1943 on a platform below the SC-1 antenna on the foremast. As far as is known, and photos dating to late October 1942 (see attached) seem to verify that USS ATLANTA never had a SG radar installed prior to her loss. No antenna was installed atop the mainmast of USS ATLANTA.

Meanwhile, USS JUNEAU and USS SAN JUAN had the SC-1 radar installed on the mainmast and the SG installed on the foremast prior to arriving in the Pacific.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Fullerton, CA
Does anyone know what the inside of the pilot house looks like?

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:19 am 
James M wrote:
Does anyone know what the inside of the pilot house looks like? James

On Atlanta? Yeah, a real mess after that 8" shell from USS San Francisco passed though it! (My apologies James, I just couldn't resist. :-)


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
James

I have been through all of the 19 LCM and 80 G photos at NARA for Atlanta class ships. I did not find interior pilot house photos, or any other interior shots that I can remember, in any of them nor did I find any via google search. A few larger ships like Wasp CV7 did have interior photos. I have 4 sheets of detailed exterior plans I am using for an in progress model of Juneau unfortunately no interior details. If you are close to NARA you might want to try to get a copy of plans there. There are DD pilot house photos on navsource and I suspect they are pretty similar to Atlanta class ships, only slightly smaller.

Sorry I could not help you.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Fullerton, CA
Somewhere I have seen a compartment and access drawing of the bridge, that would be good enough if anyone has it.

There were a lot of lockers along the bulkheads . In photos of the Atlanta wreck these lockers are scattered all over the wreck site.
There was a lot more damage to her bridge area than San Franciscos 8" round. She was hit from both sides by American ships And Japanese ships.

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Does anybody have any information on the "2-1/2M range finder" mounted above the pilot house on the early units? The TFW plans from Floating Drydock show it, along with a pretty decent set of views of it separate from the starboard outboard profile, but I can't find any other info about it (mark and mod numbers, ordnance pamphlets, etc).

In my experience the equipment and directors later in the war are much better documented on the internet (and in books) than the earlier stuff that seems to come about in the 1930s.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
I think the rangefinder atop the pilot house was for navigation, apparently a binocular periscope. If so, that could explain why BuOrd did not identify it. Surface search radar superseded such devices, as with the crow's nest.

Decades later, USN interest returned to passive sensors for ships to operate under EMCON restrictions.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:57 am
Posts: 234
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Folks: Is the new ISW Atlanta discussed here available for sale yet? I couldn't find it here: http://ironshipwrights.com/ships_350.html

_________________
Andrew P, PBFHS
Chesapeake, Virginia
www.PBFHS.org


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Andrew

To my knowledge it is not yet for sale although I suspect it will be sometime in the next 4-8 weeks although that is pure guess. I would suggest you send an email to Jon at their site to get a more accurate estimate of when it will be for sale.

I will say again in my opinion the kit is light years better than prior resin Atlanta models. In addition to the one piece hull ISW also sent me the superstructure pieces that do not match the BWN/YKM kits. The kit is much easier to construct than the other 2. So by the time the dust settles there will be very few BWN parts on the model, perhaps the masts and some other small details and their PE. All of the guns will be after market, same for the props, whaleboats, lights etc.

I just finished putting the superstructure camo on my Juneau model. The hull is already painted. If you want photos of it and/or the unpainted hull let me know.

Good luck.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2016 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Interesting note re: the 2.5m rangefinder above the pilot house.

Another question: The FDD plans very clearly show Mark 49 directors for the 1.1" quads mounted on CL-51 in November, 1942. I thought surely the 1.1" quads would be directed by the earlier Mark 44s. Any comments?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2016 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The four Early ATLANTA's had Mk 44 directors. The Mk 49 directors weren't available until the Fall of 1942.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
That was my understanding too - but wouldn't that make them available for CL-51 by November, 1942 (when the FDD plans show it)?

At any rate, finding any photos of those areas of the ship is (of course) seemingly impossible...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The four early ATLANTA's were kept pretty busy in the period of May to November 1942. Although I have not double checked, I don't think that ATLANTA got updated with Mk 51 directors before her loss. JUNEAU certainly didn't have Mk 51 directors from the records I have looked at (After Action Report for Santa Cruz specifically says she had Mk 44 directors). It would be possible for a forward tender to upgrade directors, but Mk 51 directors couldn't have reached the forward areas until late in 1942.

You have to understand that the first installs of Mk 51 directors was in July 1942 with the first 40-mm mount installs. For the remainder of 1942, new-builds got priority for both 40-mm mount and Mk 51 director installations. Pearl Harbor Navy yard didn't get her first shipment of 40-mm mounts (and certainly Mk 51 directors for them) to use for upgrade installations on existing ships until the Fall of 1942. (I have a copy of a series of reports PHNY submitted listing which ships got the twin 40-mm mounts, but I can't find it right now) There simply wasn't any time for these cruisers to return to PHNY or the West Coast to have this work done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
I have a scan of a paper copy of 80 G 34733 which clearly shows the number 3 1.1 gun on San Juan with a MK 51 director at Santa Cruz. How/when/where it was installed I have no info and I have no idea if the other 3 guns got them. By the way the 1.1 has dark color flash hiders on the barrels while the fantail 1.1 in the Russell-Juneau photo appears to have bare metal ones. FYI in case you are a magician that can duplicate flash hiders in 1/700 or 1/350. Anyone who needs the photo let me know still no luck trying to upload a photo to this site. 80 G 34751 shows a whaleboat on the port side which is also rather interesting since a San Diego crewman told me all boats were gone by Santa Cruz. Said whaleboat has a weather cover on it for lack of the correct nomenclature seems to be a very rare practice based on other fall 42 USN ship photos. Juneau appears to have had whaleboats on both sides based on the Avenger photo and crew reports of the port whaleboat being blown off by the first torpedo hit.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
USS SAN JUAN is unusual for the first four ATLANTA class cruisers. ATLANTA and SAN DIEGO spent a fair amount of time at Pearl Harbor before going to the South Pacific, but the left Pearl before any Mk 51 directors COULD possibly have been installed. SAN JUAN however went to PHNY in late September 1942 and was there into October getting her 51 mount repaired/replaced because of damage off Guadalcanal. She had additional 20-mm guns installed then. It is possible that she also had a couple of Mk 51 directors installed then and hence during the Battle of Santa Cruz.

As a reminder; The original intent was that the "new generation" of medium gun AA directors were "suppose" to be Mk 45 and Mk 49 directors. But, the development took longer than anticipated. So Mk 44 directors were a "stopgap" interim replacement for them. But, the Mk 44 director didn't have any lead-angle bias calculator. As the Mk 45 and 49 directors delayed even more, the Mk 51 director was developed quickly utilizing the Mk 14 lead angle calculator developed for use on 20-mm guns. The Mk 51 was just another "interim" director that ended up being the standard bearer for the USN AA director installs.

JUNEAU was listed with only two Mk 44 directors installed at the Battle of Santa Cruz. See excerpt from JUNEAU's After Action Report.

Machine Gun Battery

(a) Two of the ship's 1:1 machine gun mounts have Mark
44 directors. The other two use local control. It is thought
that the mounts without Mark 44 directors did better than those
with Mark 44 directors. In many cases it is impossible to see
the tracer stream in the director spotting glass due to opening
fire too far ahead or behind the target. In addition the after
director (mount "D") vibrates at battle speeds too much to per-
mit satisfactory operation.



Also, because the Mk 44 was a small size director, telling the difference of the two in photos taken at any distance is difficult. Finding good photos of the Mk 44 director (only about seven dozen were built and installed largely on early cruisers and carriers) is hard.

... http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57mk.htm ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
For the benefit of Juneau model builders the fantail and starboard forward/bridge 1.1s had directors. The other 2 did not. However from the records I know of it appears that all 4 had director tubs.

If anyone has the skill to make 1/700 or 1/350 MK 44 directors I have 4 photos of them. One of them shows the entire rear of the unit top to bottom from a range of about 20 yds. The others show mostly the top front or top rear from varying ranges. Armed with these plus the navsource MK 44 photos it would probably be possible to do a decent duplicate in either scale.

For San Juan/San Diego model builders the color San Juan/Noume photo shows at least 2 and possibly 3 20MM guns directly below and to the rear of the aft director. I do not have a high res copy of that photo if anyone has such a copy a precise answer on that issue might be possible. I have photos of San Diego which appear to show only 1 20MM cannon on the same deck forward of the director tower. These are all fall 42 photos. I missed the single 20 when I built the San Diego model.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
Juneau camo discussion now has it's own thread: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112

ALL discussion of Juneau's camo to take place there only.

Thank you

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
I came across an interesting photo of USS OAKLAND "dated 4 December 1943" which provides some lessons about the dates found on the mounting card captions of 80-G photos at NARA and the wear and tear on the paint of the ATLANTA class cruisers in general. See first attached image.

This photo really got my attention because I had scanned sometime ago an aerial photo of Pearl Harbor anchorage dated 13 December 1943. In that photo was USS OAKLAND (CL-95) based on the fact that none of her ATLANTA "2nd group" sisters had yet to arrive at Pearl Harbor. And when they did arrive, they had been painted in the newer dazzle camo.

First lesson is about dates on 80-G card captions. I always treat the dates as suspect and generally at most the real date "maybe" somewhere earlier than the one shown on the caption. USS OAKLAND's DANFS entries state that she first arrived at Pearl Harbor on 4 November 1943. Shortly afterwards she departed Pearl and was assigned to TG 50.3 as part of Operation Galvanic - Gilbert Island Landings in November 1943. The first actions took place on 19 November with USN airstrikes. On 20 November the Japanese attacked and OAKLAND was credited with downing four aircraft in her first combat action. On 26 November OAKLAND was reassigned to TG 50.1 and again was involved in a Japanese airstrike on 4 December 1943. So I don't know if this photo was taken on 20 November or 4 December 1943? Plus it is strange that the photo was credited to a photographer onboard USS MINNEAPOLIS (CA-36), when as far as I can tell she wasn't part of the same Task Groups. However, CruDiv mates NEW ORLEANS and SAN FRANCISCO assigned to TF 52 were attached to TG 50.1 on 26 November. So maybe MINNEAPOLIS was as well and the references just missed it or since MINNEAPOLIS was the unit Flag, she collected the photos. At any rate OAKLAND's DANFS entry goes on to state that TG 50.1 returned to Pearl Harbor and arrived on 9 December 1943. But MINNEAPOLIS (along with NEW ORLEANS and SAN FRANCISCO) also returned to Pearl harbor on 9 December 1943.

This brings me to the Pearl Harbor image dated 13 December 1943. See second and third attached images showing the general anchorage area and a cropped view of OAKLAND. I have ID a few of the easier cruisers in the view. USS OAKLAND being the only ATLANTA 2nd group unit in view, USS MINNEAPOLIS (CA-36) because of her unique camo, and USS BOSTON (CA-69) because her sister USS BALTIMORE was elsewhere and didn't return to Pearl until 30 December and BOSTON had just arrived at Pearl Harbor on 6 December 1943. I strongly suspect that the two cruisers tied up with MINNEAPOLIS are SAN FRANCISCO and NEW ORLEANS. It appears from ships present and the dates that ere there, that the 13 December date is probably correct within a couple of days anyway.

Second lesson is about the wear and tear of the paint on the hull of ATLANTA class cruisers. Note in the 4 December (or 20 November) 1943 photo that OAKLAND is showing a lot of "light color" along the waterline that likely isn't all due to bow wave and wake. Go to the 13 December 1943 at Pearl Harbor where OAKLAND can be seen with the same sort of pattern. Close exam of the image shows small boats/rafts along the side of the ship and it appears that primer has been applied to much of the worn area to be repainted.

Contrast this wear to what OAKLAND looked like on 29 October 1943 when she departed MINY. See the 4th image. In this photo it appears that a fresh coat of paint has been applied to the hull in the area of the knuckle from the waterline to the deck. So after only a little over one month of hard sailing, OAKLAND has seen her hull worn enough by the ocean due to the hull design to wear off the camo paint ABOVE the black boot strip. Similar wear to applied paint has been seen in other ATLANTA class cruiser photos and the high bow wave being deflected up to the knuckle can be seen on them when moving at high speed.


Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
USS Atlanta with Hornet, date unknown. The card says "Battle of Midway", but I thought Atlanta was with Yorktown (this could have been after Yorky was sunk). Photo from the National Archives, via Roger Torgeson.
Attachment:
File comment: Atlanta and Hornet 80G-74486
CL-51withCV8_80-G-74486.jpg
CL-51withCV8_80-G-74486.jpg [ 749.41 KiB | Viewed 10924 times ]

Atlanta with Saratoga during the Guadalcanal landings. Photo from the National Archives, again via Roger Torgeson.
Attachment:
File comment: Atlanta and Saratoga 80G-74487
CL-51withCV3_80-G-74487.jpg
CL-51withCV3_80-G-74487.jpg [ 450.79 KiB | Viewed 10924 times ]

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 363 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 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