The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:39 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 436 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
Attachment:
alaska CB1 P1299368 copy.jpg
alaska CB1 P1299368 copy.jpg [ 313.45 KiB | Viewed 920 times ]


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7326
Location: New Jersey
Very nice work.

_________________
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: Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Colorado
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.

Attachment:
NH57214)crop.png
NH57214)crop.png [ 168.79 KiB | Viewed 773 times ]

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:

Attachment:
NH97126_crop_1.png
NH97126_crop_1.png [ 170.12 KiB | Viewed 773 times ]

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

---

Similar photos of GUAM show the same stem extension:

Attachment:
NH97132_crop_1.png
NH97132_crop_1.png [ 194.35 KiB | Viewed 773 times ]

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Colorado
Fliger747 wrote:
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):

Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:52 pm
Posts: 10
Location: South Florida
Her AA battery, if manned, would have been in interesting surprise for the Japanese
on Dec. 7.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 246
Location: Fullerton, CA
Here's a video of one of them protecting the carriers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfTDt7QyejI


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 695
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
James M wrote:
Here's a video of one of them protecting the carriers


Just watched this a few days ago - amazing to see her shoot down the Kamikaze! Can anyone say if it's Alaska or Guam?

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
According to the caption of a couple of still shots of that scene, it's Alaska.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Colorado
Here's a nice clip I found on the NARA site which was digitized: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2505736

This clip has a really excellent shot of one of the CBs silhouetted against the sunset at 2:30. Shots of ENTERPRISE at 3:25, then an awesome closeup of one of the CBs at 3:50 and again at 4:00. I wish this was available at higher resolution.

And another: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/79003 (this one is strangely in .wmv format so needs to be downloaded)

Skip to around 7:30 in this video for some great footage of ENTERPRISE launching radar-equipped Avengers and Hellcats (likely during 1945 while the ship was operating as a night carrier) -- the footage linked in Fliger's previous post showing ALASKA shooting down the kamikaze starts at 9:40 or so.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
Before the radar equipped TBF's aboard Enterprise, she also had operated as a night defense carrier. A small squadron of F4U-2 Corsairs was under Richard E "Chick" Harmer who I met when he was a rear Admiral in the mid 60's. The F4U-2 was a radar equipped "Birdcage" Corsair with a radar pod on the starboard wing and if memory serves me, armament reduced to 4 50 cal's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:22 am 
If she was completed in '41, she would not have the antiaircraft suit that she had in '44. All USN ships had inadequate AA suit before the fighting started.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:52 pm
Posts: 10
Location: South Florida
Doug, if you are referring to my comment above, I meant an Alaska as they were actually completed with the heavy AA battery.
Cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2801
Indeed about the AA! Hardly anybody had fully developed AA at the start of the war. Bismarck was unable to shoot down a single of the very slow and vulnerable Swordfish, or even that speedy demon, the PBY. But at the start of the Pacific War USN had the basics in the pipeline, newer ships had the 5"38 and the MK37 directors, radar was coming in, the Bofors and Orlikons were in stages of development.

Battleships, at least the USN ones, became floating Flak Turm's and something to avoid rather than attack. Alaska's biggest deficit was it's lack of an extensive side protection system against torpedos, as was typical of cruisers. The propertied lack of maneuverability was a result of the David Taylor Model Basin testing. In service she had the same tactical diameter as the Iowa's and Fletchers and much better than the British BB's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 436 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CalV and 21 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