MartinJQuinn wrote:Doesn't the cage mast actually continue up INTO the spotting tops?
Interesting point, we know that the Tripods did, but I have never seen an image showing if the cagemast continued up into the spotting tops on the TN/CO class.
FWIW Dan, I scaled the BOGP's to 1/700 and used my design software to tell me the height of visible cagemast
Yes, the cage mast did extend upwards into the spotting tops (1st photo below), but I'm not sure that's the cause of the discrepancies.
I probably do have it upside down, but the Blue Ridge version is far more symmetrical than the 3D MP version. It's hard to tell which side should be on top. (2nd pic). In fact, measurements of the diameter of the cage mast just within the outer rings are almost identical. It's only those outer ring that are different.
Thank you, Matt. Would you happen to have the 1/700 measurement in mm? Be good to compare to my numbers.
Ah, I see the measurement. OK, so converted to mm, that = 14.097mm. In comparison:
Kit PE = 13.79mm
Five Star PE = 13.35mm
3D Model Parts = 13.1mm
Blue Ridge = 12.32mm
But, there still may be a discrepancy between the source that David's posting is based on vs. the GoBP plans. The main mast heights are different to my reading.
taskforce48 wrote: I have never seen an image showing if the cagemast continued up into the spotting tops on the TN/CO class
I would like to rescind this statement and change it to " I have seen images showing if the cagemast continued up into the spotting tops on the TN/CO class, but never bothered to pay attention"
taskforce48 wrote: I have never seen an image showing if the cagemast continued up into the spotting tops on the TN/CO class
I would like to rescind this statement and change it to " I have seen images showing if the cagemast continued up into the spotting tops on the TN/CO class, but never bothered to pay attention"
Thanks for the clarification guys.
Matt
LOL! There are good photos in David Doyle's "California" book of The Prune Barge under construction. In those photos, you can see the spotting top being constructed around the cage mast (I had to go back and look myself, to be sure).
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
I received new versions of the Blue Ridge cage masts and they are approximately 0.75mm taller than the older one, and the same height as the 3d Model Parts version. Apparently, the resin must have shrunk over time. I hope that doesn't happen with the new ones.
I was looking at photos of the Big 5 class (it's all Dan Kaplan's fault), and was was looking at Tennessee, post Pearl Harbor attack, but pre-rebuild (hence posting this here).
Colorado and Mary had their aft cage masts cut down, replacing the spotting top with a platform (at least for a short time). Interesting how Tennessee seems to have a hybrid of the later tower that both CO and Mary got, but with her aft spotting top grafted to the top of it. I wonder what the reasoning was? This would be a really interesting version to build.
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
That version has been on my to do list, some much better quality images you have there! I have always wondered why the Tennessee was rebuilt the way she was. One of the least damaged ships at PH, she in theory should have run concurrently with Mary and the Colorado. Yet she was lumped in with California and West Virginia's rebuilds who made sense for them but Tennessee?
After Pearl Harbor, Colorado was undamaged (not there) and Maryland only had minor damage to the bow. Tennessee required more work because turrets 2 & 3 had suffered significant damage, so the time was taken to replace the after mast, and they moved the existing MK-X director down from the cagemast to the top of the new structure. All of the after cage masts had suffered corrosion damage due to stack gasses, but Colorado and Maryland couldn't be spared long enough to do the full Tennessee replacement immediately, so for safety, their after masts were later simply cut short until more time was available. Another, more significant difference between Tennessee and the two Colorado's was that Tennessee had not been blistered pre-war. Because of the major nature of that part of the rebuild, doing the full reconstruction as needed for California and West Virginia took only a little longer, and so Tennessee became the test bed for the rebuild. Directors were long-lead items, and so the three full rebuilds could only get MK-34 and MK-37 directors when some of those became surplus from the Independence class CV conversions. (More so for the MK-34's than the MK-37's) America's industrial might was impressive, but it had not fully ramped up by mid 1942.
That makes sense Dick, thanks. As always, you have the answer!
Matt- yes, you should do that conversion.
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
I'd puzzled on that one as well. I expect another reason for it was the battleship refit sequence that was already in-progress before Dec. 7. The Big 5 had recently begun their refits, with Maryland's complete around mid '41 and Colorado in the shop for hers when the attack happened. I'm sure there's a record somewhere of when WV, TN, and CA were supposed to go in for the same package. Since 1. all three of them were due for a refit anyway, 2. a new refit with much more capabilities was created to incorporate weaponry and electronics that weren't even available when the earlier refit had been designed, and 3. for a good chunk of '42 Tennessee was kept patrolling the west coast with minimal downtime allowed for quick upgrades now and then and she thus still hadn't gotten the MD- and CO-style refit, then why not just skip it and go for the big one?
Dick- About 5 minutes after posting the question the bulges popped in my my mind as a possibility. So that makes more sense now to me why she was lumped in with California West Virginia
Martin- This fit was on my list for a personal build, it hadn�t occurred to me to be a 3D project. Guess I will alter course as they say
Yes there was a schedule of "planned" overhaul/refits of the battleships. The USN command had altered the early 1941 schedule and shortened the amount of time allowed for each yard period to four months. Which in the case of PSNY, doing the Pacific Fleet battleship overhauls, protested as not enough time working to "peacetime" rules (one shift per day) for all the planned work. The planned overhauls didn't include proposed modernizations for the Big Five that were being studied (and whose files apparently were destroyed because no one has found them). Speculation is that the basic framework of modifications actually done on USS CALIFORNIA, TENNESSEE, and WEST VIRGINIA, likely came out of those studies.
From the attached KING BOARD ADIP report for 1 December 1941;
After USS COLORADO, USS WEST VIRGINIA was next scheduled (February-May 1942), then USS TENNESSEE (May-August 1942), and finally USS CALIFORNIA (October 1942-January 1943).
Fascinating observation and explanation about Tennessee.
While I'm here - does anybody have clear pics or diagrams regarding the lower anchoring/attachment points for the mainmast halyards for the Big Five?
Most builds just show tie-offs to some of the railings at the main deck break. I don't know it this is speculative or not. I know the 1/48 model of California at Mare Island shows the same, but that's an as-built configuration.
Most photos of this area seem blocked. I have this one pic of California which seems to show some turnbuckles anchoring some of the lines. These are in front of, or attached to, the front of the large deck air intake at the base of the mainmast.
