1/144 Jorge Juan (ex USS McGowan)

[Fliger747]

In an enclosed mount the view for the pointer and trainer are somewhat restricted. There was a similar device for the MK 37, at least the type with a cupola which allowed the director or mount captain to get pointed quickly in the right direction. Of course the mount would normally be under director control, though in battle things were seldom normal for long. The twin mounts on Alaska lacked the blast hoods, being well separated and on the 01 or 02 level, but had a similar "sight".. I have seen a closeup photo of two guys on top of the mount with a good view of the item in question. Let you know if I find it or anything else useful.

CheersL Tom

[Fliger747]

In the Mk 37 director it is called a slewing sight, so far my perusal of "Naval Ordinance and Gunnery Vol 2" isn't coming up with any details of the unit in the 5" mount.

T

[Fliger747]

As installed on twin mounts... USS Alaska

[Rick E Davis]

What we are looking at is a manual "open sight" for the Mount Gun Captain to use. The purpose was if all else failed the gun captain could point his weapon locally. Plus, because his head was "outside" of enclosed mounts, he had a better "situation awareness" of what was going on. It was also found to be very useful in fire support missions where the destroyer was being directed to hit a very specific target like an enemy bunker. The rangefinders and Mk 37 directors were not ideal for picking out a small specific target close-in to shore.

five020.jpg (53.77 KiB) Viewed 1818 times

I actually thought that all or most of these were removed post-WWII at some point. But apparently not. Apparently they were still useful in "plinking" a target by good Gun Captain shooter.

These sights are hard to spot at times, because they fold down when not in use and/or had a canvas cover put over it. I don't know of drawings with dimensions. But here are a couple of images that pretty well shows the devices. Trying to get a good view of these with the Gun Captain Hood isn't as easy.

[Willie]

Howdy Tom and Mr.Davis and all,

Thanks a lot for your prompt and superb answers. These pics leave nothing to imagination, and one of them, being taken on board of DD678, is McGowan / Jorge Juan herself !!!!!!

Oh, man, how I love this forum.

Thanks a million again, folks, and very best regards from this side of the Oceans,

Willie.

[Rick E Davis]

"... These pics leave nothing to imagination, and one of them, being taken on board of DD678, is McGowan / Jorge Juan herself !!!!!!"

I thought that you would like that. I hunted for a couple of images of the open sight from different angles and USS McGOWAN happened to have a very nice view. I couldn't find a good view from head-on, but I'll keep an eye out.

This is something that is in the back of my head, which makes it dangerous, that the round "iron" sight part of this device, was the same as was used on the iron sights of 20-mm guns before and without the Mk 14 gunsight.

[Fliger747]

Indeed the resemblance to the 20 MM iron sight is significant. I suppose that the salient issue here is how much of such a small item one can create accurately in 1:144.

Always things to learn!

[Willie]

Hi again, folks.

While I think on how to make the b****y blast bags, I thought I could star detailing the many elements that will suffer no damage while handling the mounts for the construction of the said blast bags.

I started with the hatches on mounts 2 and 3. What you are given in the kit is correct but pretty basic, but it can be easily improved. First I made the inner elements with a scrap of plastic strip, two drills and a file.

I completed the set with some stretched sprue, and after it dried, I refined it with fine sandpaper:

Then I made the two hatches for mounts 1 and 4 that you are not given, following the same process:

The mounts captain�s cupola is basically right, and big enough to be refined to give it the correct shape:

Once the elements are set in place, they are like this:

So after adding some other basic elements, the mounts are like this at the moment, waiting to dry completly and be further detailed:

The next thing will be to detail the cupola and to make some other other easy elements in the front armor, unless I can start directly with the blast bags.

In the meanwhile, the mounts are starting to get some Fletcher shape.

I hope you like them, and very best regards from Spain,

Willie.[/size]

[Fliger747]

Willie:

Some bare dimensions for the gun Captain's slewing sight taken from the HNSA Gun and turret catalogue. On my now ancient (begun 1965) 1:192 Missouri I did all the 5"38's in resin, cast from a homemade master, and they are satisfactory. I also cast the blast hoods, but will probably replace them with some printed units that I will make. Since you only have a couple of those you should be able to do a good traditional job with your chosen plastic card methods.

Let us know how the "bloom'n" blast bags come along!

Regards: Tom

[BB62vet]

Willie,
Very nice work on the 5" mounts!!! One thing I've noticed about the kit gun barrels - they have a "joint" in them that was not there. Here is a photo of USS STODDARD's Mt. 53 & Mt. 54 in 1967 when we were in drydock in Sasebo, Jn. If you notice, the barrels are smooth from the muzzel back to where the barrel disappears into the gun mount housing:

DD-566 Mts 53 & 54 closeup.JPG (30.99 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

I don't know why the kit manufacturers can't get this detail correct. I would suggest gently sanding the barrels until they are one smooth surface; perhaps add some putty prior to sanding, etc.

Hope this helps,

Hank

[Fliger747]

It's funny, I always remember the barrels as being smooth, but didn't consult any photos, the drawings tend to show a jog there as You might find on the large caliber built up guns. It's even shown on the slewing sight drawing I posted here. But indeed they are smooth, all the one's I have built are smooth. The kit barrels look a bit fat at the base? Not something easy to fix if the barrels are fitted to the mounts already. Across the pond it's next year already, so not unexpected some issues may carry forth into the new year?

Could be worse, I have decided to completely redo the superstructure rails for Missouri. Lots of rails... The PE looks like crap? Today I went around replacing inclined ladders. On a proper kit all the ladders will be the same length. Scratchbuilt, no such luck, but I can sit down and cobble up the necessary item.

Despite our rivet counting (apologies) your's is a great project!

Happy New year! Tom

[marijn van gils]

Great work Willie!

One option for the blast bags would be to sculpt them from two-component epoxie putty.
Having sculpted 1/35 figures in the past, and therefore being comfortable with the techniques, this would certainly be the option I would pick myself. But the techniques are not as difficult as most modellers tend to think, nor time-consuming. In fact, most modellers actually trying figure-sculpting for the first time are surprised that it is much easier than they anticipated. And sculpting blast bags is muuuuch simpler than complete figures...

My preferred brand is Magic Sculp. It is smoother when 'wet' than Milliput, and less brittle when hard. It carves and sands like a hard resin after hardening.

I would apply a blob of mixed putty, push it into the general shape of the bag, press the folds in it, and then gently refine and smooth the folds while the putty starts to harden. If there are any imperfections to the surface, these can be carved or sanded after hardening.
Not happy with the result? Cut down the surface and give it another try...

[Fliger747]

That's probably a good technique, I used an air hardening putty to do the blast bags for Alaska. That material gave me a LOT of working time. I then sealed the surface with CA and painted. Really looking forward to see what Willie comes up with. I did do a 1:192 hooped cover for a 26' mtr whaleboat for Alaska using the frame and covering technique he commented on. Used tissue paper such as used by model airplane guys, shrunk it with a mist of water then applied a stabilizing paint coat. But that would be easy compared to a small bloomer on a 1:144 5"38 or MK 37 director.

I like the experimentation and sharing of different techniques! Thank you Martin!

[Rick E Davis]

The answer to "WHY" kit makers put a step on the 5-in barrels maybe due miss-identifying the ring used to fasten the "bloomers".

[Fliger747]

Has the culprit been ID by the fingerprints? That's pretty decent damage from a hang fire! A tremendous proportion of the casualties during to the war were due to operational incidents. 5% in my dad's Naval Aviator training were killed during that evolution. As many troops were killed in the training for D-Day as during the actual event.

I suppose the ledge is a good place to anchor your bloomer.

[Fliger747]

Some mount Captain's blast hoods I printed today in 1:192 and 1:144. The 192 ones are for Missouri, though currently she only sports four of the little devils. There seems to be a number of patterns in use with regards to the stiffeners and I did these from some drawings I had, but need to consult my BB63 photos to insure they are the correct pattern. Do you have any photos of the ones on JJ?

Regards: Tom

[Willie]

Hi all once again, folks.

Some bare dimensions for the gun Captain's slewing sight taken from the HNSA Gun and turret catalogue.

Tom, thanks a lot for the tip and the excellent sketch. No doubt it will be of great help.

One option for the blast bags would be to sculpt them from two-component epoxy putty. (...) My preferred brand is Magic Sculp. (...) I would apply a blob of mixed putty, push it into the general shape of the bag, press the folds in it, and then gently refine and smooth the folds while the putty starts to harden. If there are any imperfections to the surface, these can be carved or sanded after hardening.

Marijn, again an excellent tip, and this while I am still in debt with you for the #15 scalpel that led me to the light after so many months of darkness looking for a solution for the oil canning on the hull. I will seriously consider this option too.

One thing I've noticed about the kit gun barrels - they have a "joint" in them that was not there. Here is a photo of USS STODDARD's Mt. 53 & Mt. 54 in 1967 when we were in drydock in Sasebo, Jn. If you notice, the barrels are smooth from the muzzle back to where the barrel disappears into the gun mount housing. Hope this helps,

It does. Actually it also helped to give me a shock when I read your message and realized of the new blunder in the kit. I was following straight away the detailed drawings in AOTS The Sullivans, which reproduce the same mistake as in the kit barrels, and had never realized about the true lines of these barrels.

I don't know why the kit manufacturers can't get this detail correct. I would suggest gently sanding the barrels until they are one smooth surface; perhaps add some putty prior to sanding, etc.

My shock had to do with bleak visions of the sanding and pasting that you mention, with the mounts already closed and very little room to work, but I later realized that the mistake in the barrels begins at the very same point where the ring to set the blast bags has to be fixed, so there is no need to make any kind of correction, as the blast bags will cover all inaccuracies. This is also the reason why I have not closed the gaps around the trunions in all four mounts: uncomfortable, and unnecessary. I have already set the rings around the guns, made with stretched sprue, and I feel much better.

And after I have no fixed idea as how to make the said blast bags, I went on with further detailing. I have seen that there are many variations in the small stuff on these mounts, so I have followed the pictures that are closer to the hatches on board Jorge Juan. I have already made the doors on the front shields, using pieces of Evergreen profiles and stretched again sprue. They are like this at the moment:

Best regards from the North Atlantic,

Willie.

[Willie]

Hi Tom and all,

Some mount Captain's blast hoods I printed today in 1:192 and 1:144. The 192 ones are for Missouri, though currently she only sports four of the little devils. There seems to be a number of patterns in use with regards to the stiffeners and I did these from some drawings I had, but need to consult my BB63 photos to insure they are the correct pattern. Do you have any photos of the ones on JJ?

Tom, you are absolutely right: there are not, apparently, two Fletchers that are the same in virtually anything. I have only one picture of Jorge Juan�s cupolas, so I attach a close up:

And at the same time: Would somebody have a picture of the element I am marking in red ? I suppose that it is the opening mechanism for the shells ejection hatch, but I have no clear pic of it. Your help would be again greatly appreciated.

TIA, and again best regards from this side,

Willie.[/size]

[Fliger747]

I have a sinking feeling that the opening for the barrel in the front of the mount is too wide, so as to accommodate the oversized kit barrel? Worth measuring if you can find an accurate dimension on this.

: (

[Willie]

Hi there David, Tom and all,

David,

I don't think that is the opening mechanism for the shell ejection hatch being the empty shell casing comes out of the bottom of the chute not the side.

As you very correctly say, the hatch opened downwards, but I am quite sure there was some mechanism to open it, hence my question:

This picture of USS The Sullivans shows that two hinges and that apparently the hatch itself is missing, but also shows some other missing elements.

This one, on the other hand, shows something else, but the gadget is apparently still in construction, and therefore not complete.

The previous picture of Jorge Juan shows something else, brick-shaped or alike, but again very blur due to the poor quality of the picture.

Tom, regarding your observation:
[/size]

I have a sinking feeling that the opening for the barrel in the front of the mount is too wide, so as to accommodate the oversized kit barrel? Worth measuring if you can find an accurate dimension on this.

Honestly, I am no longer sure of anything else regarding the 5in./38 mounts, let alone Fletchers in general. I have seen so many variations that I don�t feel confident to affirm anything with guarantees.

As for the opening for the gun, more of the same. This is what I mean:

Notice that the opening for the gun on the right picture (USS Brown) is even bigger than the one in my kit, and that the mount captain�s hatches are placed in the oposite corners in USS Brown (right) and in USS Strong(left), while the ladders are in the same position. We have to deduce that the variations were possible not only in the ship structures, but also in the equipment and armament.

On the other hand, USS Brown�s mounts are closer to those of Jorge Juan�s, so I will accept the ones in the kit as they are, as they can be considered basically correct.

Again best regards from across the pool,

Willie.[/size]