Calling Alaska-class (CB-1) fans

[taskforce48]

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

[tigerdvr]

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.

[Zacharias]

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.

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.

[taskforce48]

It's very strange that there is nothing to be found about that Alaska/Guam bow/stem shape controversy on the net

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.

[Ian Roberts]

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 )

[taskforce48]

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

[Zacharias]

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.

[chuck]

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

[drdoom1337]

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 ?

[chuck]

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.

[Zacharias]

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.

[tigerdvr]

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

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.

[maccrage]

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

[Fliger747]

Since I have gotten into CAD and 3D printing I have been going back through my 192 Alaska and Missouri (modern) and re doing some stuff. I had a bunch of 20 mm ready boxes that I resized to 1:192 that I though I would add to Alaska (cute little buggers) .

So consulting my 5 sheet set of Alaska plans from FDD, I find nary a ready box. Looking through photos I only definitely located two on the main deck at the base of the stack, on the Port side. So what was the 20 mm ready storage? Hidden in the base of the pedestals for mounts on the main deck?

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

Current progress on Alaska. Mainly replacement with improved bits and pieces since I have gotten into 3D printing. Replaced commercial parts with my own: Mk37 directors and Radar, twin 5" mounts, MK 51& 52 directors, all superstructure rails, 36" searchlights and platforms, various ready boxes, vertical ladders and details other items I have forgotten.

Cheers: Tom

[MartinJQuinn]

Very nice work.

[Ian Roberts]

Going back to the "stem extension" topic:

Photos of ALASKA as commissioned (and during the first shakedown cruise) show the original stem (without extension) -- the profile of this stem is what I would argue is the "classic" profile we all
associate with these ships.

Original: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 57214.html

However, the photos taken after the October/November refit at the Philadelphia Navy Yard clearly show alterations to the ship's stem that line up with the plans previously found. Photo NH 97126 (a fantastic and sharp overhead view) shows the stem extension very clearly with the seams between the shell plating visible because of the unique lighting angle of the shot:

Original: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 97126.html

---

Similar photos of GUAM show the same stem extension:

Original here: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 97132.html

---

It seems to me like GUAM launched with the stem extension and ALASKA received the stem extension at the Philadelphia Navy Yard during the fall 1944 refit. Unfortunately I have not been able to locate any drydock photos of either of these ships to confirm firsthand.

Obviously, none of this answers the rather perplexing question of "why" a stem extension was required, but hopefully this sheds some light on the questions earlier in the thread.

Cheers

[Fliger747]

A look at Alaska steaming at very moderate speed in even calm seas reveals a unusual and large bow wave disturbance. This is (my WAG) due to the rather blunt entry and the extension allowed a fairing to a sharper entry at the waterline.

[Ian Roberts]

A look at Alaska steaming at very moderate speed in even calm seas reveals a unusual and large bow wave disturbance. This is (my WAG) due to the rather blunt entry and the extension allowed a fairing to a sharper entry at the waterline.

This is the first explanation I've seen that makes sense

---

Attaching a photo I discovered during some Google searching which does not seem to be available on any of the usual outlets -- CB-1 at Pearl Harbor on 25 Nov 1945, taken by PhoM1/c Ken Kracht (posted here under "fair use" provisions):



Very nice view of the famous stem extension here. These really were beautiful ships!

[Fliger747]

Yes, one of the most elegant warships! Appears to be moored at the North end of Ford Island, close to where the bridge is now.

Thanks for sharing this photo which I hadn't seen before. Wish the site allowed higher resolution!

T