Calling all Brooklyn-class (CL-40) fans

[Rick E Davis]

DavidP,

Yes two quad 40-mm mounts could fit in that location.

This image is of USS ST LOUIS after being transferred to Brazil, but you can clearly see her end of WWII configuration included two quad 40-mm mounts in that location.

[Ian Roberts]

Ian, are you certain there was 2 quad 40mm aa guns sitting side by side at that location forward of the #4 6" gun turret as awfully tight space there for those 2 mounts?

Hey David - yes, those guns are visible in the July 1942 Mare Island photos of CL-50 after refit. They're hard to make out, but please see below:

(image from Navsource, unfortunately no higher-res version of this shot is available via the NHHC)

Ian,

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the configuration for USS ST LOUIS in July 1943. More like July 1944 (when she was painted in dazzle) with additional changes like searchlight tower removed.

Hey Rick - my drawing depicts HELENA (CL-50) in July 1943 and not ST LOUIS. I have done another version of ST LOUIS in 1944 with dazzle camouflage, but have not yet updated it with a plan view. Eventually I would like to draw ST LOUIS in the 5 July 1943 configuration.

---

I have a "general" question for you guys regarding the 26' motor whaleboats. On several plans (especially of DDs), I've seen plan views of the whaleboats hanging outboard of the ship from the davits labeled as "at sea position", and hanging inboard as "harbor position". Based on photos I can't really discern a pattern for how the whaleboats would be carried and have seen no documentation on standard practice. Would the 26' MWB be swung inboard while in harbor or at anchor and then swung outboard while steaming at sea? Photos of various ships underway show both methods.

[Ian Roberts]

Ian,

I suspect the prop positions in your drawing are for the early Brooklyns, and St. Louis and Helena had them a bit farther aft - but that is a poorly educated guess!

You could just order the microfilm on DVD from the National Archives and save the cost of a trip (depending upon where you live). I am in Oregon so a trip is just not practical. It was cheaper for me to order all of the Cleveland class microfilms.

Unfortunately, I suspect there will not be a single index reel for the Brooklyn/St. Louis class. The USS Cleveland CL-55 microfilm has an index at the beginning of each reel listing only the blueprints on that reel, so I had to order all 19 reels. Most were door and furniture lists, lists of label plates over doors, wiring, plumbing and ventilation diagrams, etc. of no use for modelling. However, by the time of the modified Cleveland in the early 1940s each collection had a separate index reel that listed all blueprints on all physical reels. This was very useful for determining if a desired blueprint was actually in the collection. Many of the Cleveland blueprints were lost and are not in the microfilm collection.

****

The drawings are in the same order on the microfilm as the Ship Material Group Codes (attached). If you know the number of reels in the drawing collection (the Archivists can tell you that) you can guess which reel might contain a drawing you need. However some material groups are larger than others, and some may fall across multiple reels.

Fortunately, information about the position of the propellers will likely be on reel 1 in the S1 Design of vessel and S7 Docking (drydock) sections. S1-3 has general plans (but not necessarily accurate) and S5 Molds has hull line plans. Section S11 Hull structural and S12 hull fittings will contain the actual construction blueprints showing individual hull plates, etc. All of these sections should be on reel 1. But if there is a separate index reel (the Archivists can tell you this) the plans will start on reel 2.

S43 Shafting and bearings (S43-2 Bearings) has drawings of the propeller shaft struts and S44 Propellers has the prop drawings. In the Cleveland plans the prop struts were on reel 2 and the propellers on reel 10 along with some shaft details and fairings.

****

A word of caution: There are reels and there are reels! For some reason the entire collection of drawings for a ship is called a "reel." So the Cleveland drawings are microfilm Reel # 5537. But in this collection there are 19 physical reels of microfilm containing 4630 individual blueprints. But each individual blueprint may have been photographed in as many as six overlapping "frames" or photographs.

I got all of my copies on actual microfilm (before the Archives started offering scanned images on DVDs). I do not know how they organize the images or frames on the DVDs. Each physical reel may be scanned to a separate DVD, or multiple physical reels may be placed on one DVD. You need to ask an Archivist about this.

Hope this helps.

Phil

Phil, as always really appreciate your detailed reply and the advice you give on NARA trips and best practice for researching microfilm, etc. I am located in the Denver area so a trip to NARA is out of the question at this time (and anyway we have our first baby on the way in April...)

I will contact the archivists and see if getting microfilm on DVD is an option right now -- I contacted them a few weeks back with an inquiry on some booklets of general plans but got the response that NARA is currently closed because of covid and they had no ETA on reopening. I'm not sure if this affects the archivists who work there or if it only pertained to visitors...

[Rick E Davis]

Ian,

Sorry, obviously I didn't read the caption correctly. AKA, stopped at the first line. What I get for going online after midnight.

I had seen the images of USS HELENA before, but didn't think about the significance of her quad 40-mm mounts. The first twin 40-mm mount installed on a destroyer was 'credited" on 1 July 1942, aboard USS COGHLAN (DD-606). But, I didn't put two and two together and realize that maybe USS HELENA was one of the first (if not the first?) USN combat unit to have quad 40-mm mounts installed along with Mk 51 directors? HELENA arrived at MINY on 13 January 1942, departed initially on 11 July 1942, but had to return to fix some problems encountered with post-availability shakedown.

[DrPR]

Rick,

It is a good question what ship was the first to receive the quad 40mm Bofors guns - or any Bofors 40mm - and when.

I have the official US Navy history "U.S. Navy bureau of Ordnance in World War II," Buford Rowland and William Boyd, Bureau of Ordnance, undated. On page 221 it states the first installations of the Bofors 40mm guns afloat were in early summer 1942 (it doesn't say which ship). The U.S. obtained manufacturing rights for the twin Bofors 40mm gun in June 1941. These were manually operated. The U.S. developed the power operated twin and quad mounts and made a number of improvements to the gun design. Early plans called for first delivery of the guns by October 1941.

Norman Friedman's "U.S. Naval Weapons," Naval Institute Press, 1988 (page 81)says the first American made twin mount was completed in January 1942 and the quad in April 1942. The first installations were a quad mount on the gunnery training ship USS Wyoming BB-32 on 23 June 1942, and the first twin was mounted on the USS Coghlan DD-606 on 1 July 1942. It says the USS Helena CL-50 received four quad 40mm mounts, but it doesn't say when.

I knew that the Clevelands were designed from the beginning to carry 40mm guns, and a lot of 20mm Oerlikons. The 30 December 1940 blueprints for the Cleveland show four dual 40mm mounts. Later many of the 20mm guns were replaced with 40mm. In May 1941 the USS Cleveland CL-55 had positions (gun tubs) for the 40mm guns but none were installed. The Mk 51 directors were in place then. Four twin 40mm guns were installed in photos made 19 July 1942 shortly after the ship was commissioned. Later quad 40mm mounts were added.

Phil

[Rick E Davis]

Phil,

I have a copy of the "unpublished" OFFICIAL HISTORY "U.S. Navy bureau of Ordnance in World War II" as well, it has been helpful to me to understanding the development, production, and installation of the USN weapons in WWII, particularly the 20-mm and 40-mm guns. The USA got manufacturing rights both guns, but had already been "back-engineering" them because the European versions required a lot of old-fashion "filing to fit" which resulted in no interchangeable parts. Legal use aside, the USA would have gone ahead and built the weapons anyway. Also, I have been going through the King Board Air Defense Improvement Program files at NARA. The development of the weapons was one thing, but the actual installation onboard ships took a lot of effort as well. It was interesting how much effort went into figuring out the "tub" bulwarks, etc with early production (prototype) twin and quad 40-mm mounts. The one area that the Official History didn't cover was the development of the Fire Control necessary to use the 40-mm guns. The guns were ready and in production as you say in the Spring of 1942 (behind the original predictions and plans for installation in new construction and refit to older ships), but held-up for lack of an adequate FC system. The Mk 51 using the "electronic" Mk 14 gunsight developed for use on 20-mm guns, was a crash interim program when the Mk 45 and Mk 49 directors fell way behind in development. Ironically the "interim" Mk 51 director outlived the planned "ultimate" GFCS.

As with any new weapon, the first units to get the weapons were those necessary to TRAIN the Fleet Gunners. Shore-base and sea-based. USS WYOMING wasn't a Combat Unit during WWII, but she evaluated new weapons and trained 1,000's of crewmen in their use. From the photo dated on 26 June 1942 ... https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/050/0405006.jpg (and at NHC) ... USS HELENA already had her quad 40-mm mount(s) installed by then. I came across a pair of images of USS HELENA in the background of USS SHAW (DD-373) as both were completing their "post-Pearl Harbor Attack" repairs. I had ignored this 2 July 1942 image because of the steam masking much of USS HELENA, but in going back and looking, the midships starboard quad 40-mm mount is plain to see.



OH ... One more thing. Getting ANYTHING from the National Archives is limited to what is available on-line for now. I and others have been in contact with Holly on the 5th floor (photographic collection) and she says she has not been in the College Park building nor seen her co-workers since the "lockdown" started. She works from home and "tries" to answer what she can to requests with what she can download from NARA's website. NARA stopped making Microfilm to Microfilm copies sometime ago. The making of digital copies to DVD (or a SSD or flash-drive) is something one has to contract for from a "for hire research" vendor. Suppose if YOU had the proper equipment, you could be allowed to do it yourself. Either way it will not be cheap. If you only need certain views, you can go in person (when NARA opens) and use either an "OLD and prone to breaking down" microfilm reader to make paper copies or use one of their new machines that makes digital copies to a flash-drive. I have used the new machine and it is a bit time consuming, but the quality over the paper copies is much better. However, they charge if I remember right $0.50 a copy. But, in my case I could go through multiple reels and just copy what I wanted (cropping excess margins as well), saving getting copies of 1,000's of gears and brackets.

[DrPR]

Rick,

Obviously I haven't been trying to get anything from the National Archives for a while now. I want to get copies of some ship's deck logs for a couple of projects I have been working on when time permits (the first surface-to-surface combat missile shot by the US Navy (https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20antira ... 0shot.html) and the Battle of Dong Hoi (and maybe the Haiphong operation as well).

Before the pandemic you could order digital copies of microfilm from the NARA friends group - the same people who made microfilm copies. You submitted a request to an Archivist who set back an order form. Then you sent this plus payment to the friends group and they produced and sent the microfilm/DVD/paper copies.

I hope they start doing this again after the pandemic has passed.

It just isn't feasible for someone on the west coast to hop on an airplane, cross the country and rent a hotel room and car for several days every time you need something. That runs the costs up to over $1000 before you ever start looking at anything!

Phil

[Rick E Davis]

Phil,

I live about 475 miles from NARA II, College Park. I figure I spend about $1,000 driving there and back, staying a week (by myself), and of course eating. Unless I share a motel room. Anything I pay for at NARA is extra. I haven't calculated how much I have prorated per trip for my computer and scanner (two of each in case one breaks-down during the trip). Knowing guys that fly from Seattle to NARA, that I pick up at the airport (normally BWI) and with sharing a motel room (for two), their cost comes to about $1,000 for each of them. I suspect that your motel room costs since you have last been there has gone up a LOT in the College Park area. The City of College Park has been making an effort to "upgrade" the college town feel to something more upscale. They are slowly getting the older and cheaper motels torn down and either reuse the lot for something else or build a new "upscale" motel/hotel. Although it is nice to have a better motel (no cockroaches or student parties) to stay at, it reduces the options for those on a budget. Bottomline, the cost of staying in a motel for a trip has gone up a lot since my first trip to College Park in 2007. So far I have made 77 trips by the end of 2019.

NARA has started to scan USN Deck Logs and put them online. That is going to be a MASSIVE effort. You can check here to see what has been scanned so far. Once NARA comes back to life, keep checking. ... https://www.archives.gov/research/milit ... avy-online ...

[Roger Torgeson]

Rick, don't forget the cost of 1 pumpkin pie.

[Rick E Davis]

... OR TWO pumpkin pies. And don't forget the Whip Cream.

From Cruisers to Researching at NARA to Pumpkin Pie ... ?

[Fliger747]

The gun houses for the twin 5"38 mounts are a bit unusual with a rounded over top. I recall that the Porter's had a similar looking gun house, though those were not DP mounts. Amazing that the Savanna survived a hit that destroyed Roma. Apparently a lot of the force of the explosion was vented outboard via a relatively light structure.

[Egilman]

Amazing that the Savanna survived a hit that destroyed Roma. Apparently a lot of the force of the explosion was vented outboard via a relatively light structure.

Not if you understand how she was built.... The Roma was built in typical standard shipbuilding style, a keel which forms the backbone and frames which form the hull shape.... The USS Savannah was built to an entirely different style, her keel was only the bottom of a longitudinal framing system which formed a box beam for the length of the hull...... Much much lighter and just as strong if not stronger that a keel laid ship....

The Fritz X is was a giant heat charge warhead designed to burn it's way through almost anything.... It hit the Savannah from above burning and blasting it's way through every deck and out the bottom of the hull but leaving the longitudinal framing relatively intact.... all they had to do to save her was stop the rest of the ship from flooding....

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Helena, (same hull design) sank in less than three minutes after being hit by three long lance torpedoes.... one just under the #2 turret which caused her bow to jackknife I believe to port, then two more just abaft of midships which cause her stern to jackknife to starboard.... What those torpedoes did was destroy the longitudinal framing hence splitting the central box beam into separate pieces.... The hull plating served as the hinge point of the jackknife effect.... Several of the Brooklyn's were hit by long lance torpedoes and easily survived, (several having their bows blown off in the process)

They were very tough ships to sink..... Getting hit with three long lances in the space of a couple of minutes was the exception that it took to put one down....

[Egilman]

... OR TWO pumpkin pies. And don't forget the Whip Cream.

From Cruisers to Researching at NARA to Pumpkin Pie ... ?

Hey I'm always cracking the whip can while cruiserin around for pumpkin pie..... (especially around virginny)

[Fliger747]

The damage report drawings supplied by RED seem to indicate a warhead explosion around the third deck, not below the ship. It is possible, but HEAT warheads tend to not be effective against ships because of the distance between decks and bulkheads which disperse the "jet". For instance when used against tanks, the effects might be bad for the occupants, but if nothing was ignited a weld over of the hole and a general "cleaning" of the interior and the tank might be back in service. Advancing across Normandy a great number of M4's were returned to service.

In the case of Roma the containment of the explosion and subsequent sympathetic magazine ignition by the strong armor box magnified it's effect, much in the manner of HMS Hood. If I take some of my smokeless powder and pour it out on the patio and touch it off, it burns with some enthusiasm, but does not explode. Confine it and it makes the satisfying boom that propels the shell out of the barrel.

The info I can find indicates an armor piercing bomb with a heavy case. HMS Uganda (Escort carrier) did have the bomb pass completely through the ship with the explosion occurring underneath the ship.

Still a surprising event in the "less is more" vein.

Those 15 gun light Cruisers were amazing by the sheer volume of fire they could maintain!

[Egilman]

I have just acquired an ISW USS Nashville 1944 fit, it's the only Brooklyn class ship kit available at this time....

Anyone have any suggestions or information on how to go about back dating her to her April 1942 Doolittle Raid fit?

[Fliger747]

Friedman's "Cruiser's has a number of photos of Honolulu and Brooklyn pp 192-199 where there is a drawing during this era. Not enough info to build a drawing but perhaps a start.

Good luck! Tom

[Egilman]

The damage report drawings supplied by RED seem to indicate a warhead explosion around the third deck, not below the ship. It is possible, but HEAT warheads tend to not be effective against ships because of the distance between decks and bulkheads which disperse the "jet". For instance when used against tanks, the effects might be bad for the occupants, but if nothing was ignited a weld over of the hole and a general "cleaning" of the interior and the tank might be back in service. Advancing across Normandy a great number of M4's were returned to service.

In the case of Roma the containment of the explosion and subsequent sympathetic magazine ignition by the strong armor box magnified it's effect, much in the manner of HMS Hood. If I take some of my smokeless powder and pour it out on the patio and touch it off, it burns with some enthusiasm, but does not explode. Confine it and it makes the satisfying boom that propels the shell out of the barrel.

The info I can find indicates an armor piercing bomb with a heavy case. HMS Uganda (Escort carrier) did have the bomb pass completely through the ship with the explosion occurring underneath the ship.

Still a surprising event in the "less is more" vein.

Learn something new everyday, I thought the Fritz X was one of those glide bombs they were using during the period, but it was actually a radio controlled AP bomb..... Thank you for that pointer.....

Yep, I do understand the how and why of magazine explosions, the powder in a gun barrel can throw a ton over 25 miles, the same powder in a closed magazine will blow a ship to pieces.... (the USS Arizona is a perfect example)

Those 15 gun light Cruisers were amazing by the sheer volume of fire they could maintain!

About two thirds of the way through the naval battles around Guadalcanal, the Japanese naval forces in the area came up with a nickname for the Brooklyn class cruisers... "Machine Gun Cruisers" is what they disgustingly referred to them as in reference to their ability to throw shells very quickly..... (an improved ap shell design as well, introduced in 1940, capable of penetrating the same amount of armor as a standard 8" 55 ap shell)

According to Friedman, the Navy unofficially considered them rapid fire heavy cruisers only called light cruisers based upon treaty obligations.... That explains the Navy's usage of them during the early war a lot.... They definitely were not your typical light cruiser...

[Fliger747]

In most navies the light cruiser was quite a bit smaller than the heavy. USN just pre war the difference was mainly 6" vrs 8" main battery. For instance the British and Japanese light cruisers were much smaller than their "heavy" counterparts. The only Wartime USN exception to this (I can think of) was the Atlanta's which were considered at one time for the Destroyer Leader role. Just reading about (new book) about the adventures in the Solomon's. The cruiser battles proved that the 6" rapid fire weapon was much more effective, hits count, misses not so much and handiness and rate of fire were telling. Sadly the MK 15 US Destroyer Torpedo was not nearly as effective as the "Long Lance" Oxygen Torpedo.

Good luck with your Hornet escort group!

Tom

[maxim]

The Brooklyn class were not the only large light cruisers. The Cleveland class and the British Town and County classes were similar - as for sure the Mogami class when still armed with 15.5 cm guns.

The difference between light and heavy cruiser in the 1930s was only the guns, because these criteria were based on the restrictions of the London Naval Treaties, which include only the gun caliber as a difference.

There were navies, which built both small and large light cruisers, e.g. the Royal Navy (compare Town and Dido class).

@ Egilman:
that is not trivial, because the bridge was very different. I had built Nashville in 1942 some time ago using the 1/700 Corsair Armada kit of USS Phoenix:

[Egilman]

I know it isn't an easy conversion, but after several years waiting for a Blue Water Navy Brooklyn to surface at a reasonable price, I decided that if I was ever going to get her done I had better start planning the conversion.... Mostly around the forward superstructure/bridge areas I can already see... I don't have enough pics of her pre modernization to know of anything else right now, but I'm sure there's more.....

And her armament, She was king board modified, 4 Chicago piano's and either 4 or 6 20mm's with a number of .50 cals.... I know where the 1.1's go and 4 of the 20mm's (either side of the bridge)

But the rest I haven't a clue yet...

I'm still collecting Brooklyn class pics, not much out there on the king board modified ships though....