The Ship Model Forum

Wild Az Guess? A heavier shell plating was added in this area, afterwards?

What is the deal about 1/350 Hobby Boss USS Alaska bow shape (that strange "step" below waterline), is that correct shape or that step needs to be removed?
Any pictures of the correct USS Alaska bow line available as a reference?

The HobbyBoss Alaska bow profile is correct as far as I was able to establish when I built it in 2019.
Cheers, Harley

Thanks for reply, what reference did you use back then to check it out?
Any idea what is the concept (purpose) behind that kind of strange stepped curve bow shape?
Have never seen anything like that before in any other ship class.

The Bow is incorrect for an at least launched Alaska. I have heard that it was in the original design, but have never seen any hard documentation to prove this. Here is a copy of the Navy's Blueprints for the Alaska-



A little tough to see but you can make out the shape of the stem and no step.

And then of course I present this image of the Alaska's launch, pretty straight.


I believe at this time that Trumpeter/Hobby Boss just got ahold of an old Classic Warships Alaska and copied it down to the stepped stem. I know I read something somewhere about reason why it was cast into the kit, not merely a building issue with mating hull halves, but can't find it to reference at the moment.



Hope this helps,

Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist

When I was building my model one of the references was a building guide by Mike Ashey of Ashey Publications. At one point he specifically cautions not to
distort the shape of the bow accompanied by a photo of the bow showing the offset(?) stem. I intended to do my build as a waterline model so I didn't dig much further.
A would have sworn I had seen another photo of the stem but it might have been on a model. I did some more looking this afternoon but couldn't find anything other than a
conventional stem configuration, I was in error in my post.

I did stumble across some info new to me. Check out World of Warships, Armada 2.0. Some great illustrations of Alaska components that would be of use to one working on
detailing their build.
There's a gentleman in Michigan building a 1/96 scratch built RC Alaska. What a monster.

So general conclusion would be that Hobby Boss Alaska/Guam kits need to have bow/stem corrected (step removed), is that right?
Remaining Q is where to find a correct drawings or photos of that stem portion in both side and front view to use them as a reference to conduct needed 3D corrections of bow/stem?
It's very strange that there is nothing to be found about that Alaska/Guam bow/stem shape controversy on the net, at least I could not find any review mentioning that issue.

Cause shapes are not debatable in B&W pictures

As for the shape of the hull, if I were a Full Hull builder I would just fix it with some Tamiya 2 Part epoxy. Mix up a good chunk and wad it onto the hull around the step. Once dry just sand to shape with some sanding sticks. If you wanna really get it accurate, the deck outlines may help.

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist

Zacharias, taskforce48 already gave you the info via drawing & photograph to correct the bow foot. I would build it up with plastic using the bread & butter method, wait for the glue to fully cure then carve & sand to shape like I did in this link. viewtopic.php?f=59&t=165105

Where did you find those "original" plans of Alaska? I've never seen those before despite years of researching these ships... if you have a copy, I'd love to get a higher resolution version of it if available.

Floating Drydock sells a copy of the original Navy builder's plans showing a "Stem extension for CB-1 & 2". This stem extension clearly changes the above-water profile of the stem of the ships, which is obvious in photos of GUAM but not so obvious in photos of ALASKA. The workup photos of ALASKA don't show the same profile as GUAM. Later (1945 onward) photos of ALASKA aren't clear on this subject unfortunately. It's not clear to me if this "stem extension for CB-1 & 2" was only applied to GUAM during construction or was also retrofitted to ALASKA in a later refit. So far, I have not seen a satisfactory answer anywhere on this. I think without finding correspondence we will never know for sure (unless someone comes forward with new info none of us have )

Ok, now I am confused...

. Now, some folks reference the Floating Drydock's Plans as including a bow extension for the CB-2 Guam. I unfortunatley do not own a set of these drawings to see what that looks like. I was however going through my archive and discovered this in there, I didn't even realize I had this till I was going back through my files. It looks like the Culprit for all of this confusion-



Cropped-


This clearly shows the unusual stem shape, and it lists it for both CB-1 and 2

Now, Alaska did not have this feature at her launch and the blueprints dated 1946 do not show this feature. It is possible it was not installed as even though it's purpose is not stated anywhere, it would seem like a lot of work to remove just a couple of years later. Then that brings us to this-



The same data sheet for the Hawaii, which clearly shows it not being there but the rake of the stem seem to now incorporate it.

I also have this image of the Alaska's launch, no sign of the step-


As well as the Hawaii-


But can not find any images of Guam out of the water.

At this point I can only feel as if the Stem Shape is incorrect for Alaska and Hawaii but possibly (until more evidence is located ) it is correct for the Guam.

Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist

Matt, what does it say about the dotted line down to just below the waterline as I ran into similar when doing full size drawing for a laddle hook for the optical torches out in the work floor back in the early 80's? the drawing had the same dotted outline on 1 side of the hook that everybody incorporated into the torch drawing including myself till I questioned it & found out it was a mistake on the customer's part. drawing was corrected after that.

Matt, I strongly believe that dotted line does not show stem outline of the Guam.
Main contours of any object are always presented with full, continuous drawing line in any technical drawings.

Why does the Hawaii have 3 anchors during the launch? There are only 2 capstans and hawse holes.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

to stop the vessel after it is launched.

Why exactly were the Des Moines class cruisers chosen over the Alaska class postwar for heavy bombardment? It doesn't really make sense to me. Was it because of their rapid fire main battery ?

_________________

It’s totally sensible. Des Moines were far cheaper to operate compared to the Iowas. The Alaskas were not. If you are willing to swallow the cost of continuing to operating an Alaska, you get far more for not that much more money by continuing to operate an Iowa. Yet in flexibility and survivability the Alaska’s were in most respects not significantly better than a CA.

The Alaska’s were total white elephants.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

It's so strange that it's obviously not possible to find out any trace of relieable information about Alaska class actual stem shape nor any explanation about possible, theoretical cause of implementation of such stem shape into ship hull design. Are/where there any other ships of 20th/21st century that had stem of similar design? If not then it is not very likely that Alaska class would have one of a kind stem shape, no hydrodinamic logic behind that kind of stem design I guess.

But very nice looking "white elephants"( ) which I realize means nothing in combat.

Since I'm stealing the 5"/38s for my Saint Paul, and I have these, I have a new project.