The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:25 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 464 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
Those were the only ones that I thought I saw in the incline experiment photos. Wondering if ready ammo was hidden below the pedestals or passed from below?

Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:25 pm
Posts: 8
This issue has bothered me for some reason, and after looking at all these plans from NARA and blowing them up side by side, I have to agree with TF48 on this. There were alterations per the "Alterations Sheet," number 6 specifically after shakedown. The confusion is the dashed line, and penciled in line on the stem sheet, referencing CB-1 and 2. The general plans are updated to 1946 and incorporate the ship as modified. The outboard profile still has a dashed line below the WL to the keel, but the inboard profile shows the stem reinforcement in solid architectural draft. Enlarging the drawings side by side confirms, to my eye, the alteration change in profile but all the way to the keel. I superimposed them after editing but the file is too large to post. I cropped the general plan and incorporated them into TF48's excellent post. Unfortunately, I cannot find the Alaska War Diary or the NYNS work orders online, but enough pictorial and draft evidence exists to prove alteration, just no step. From my limited naval architectural experience I know of no reason to not take the alteration all the way to the keel considering the stresses the stem is subject to, so a step would not make sense from that point of view alone. Sorry to reopen this can of confusion.


taskforce48 wrote:
Ok, now I am confused... :eyes_spinning:

. 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-

Image

Cropped-
Image

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-

Image

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-
Image

As well as the Hawaii-
Image

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


Attachments:
RG19_ALPHA_Alaska_CB1_02_stem 2.jpg
RG19_ALPHA_Alaska_CB1_02_stem 2.jpg [ 376.19 KiB | Viewed 1529 times ]
RG19_ALPHA_Alaska_CB1_stem 1.jpg
RG19_ALPHA_Alaska_CB1_stem 1.jpg [ 386.59 KiB | Viewed 1529 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Colorado
Here is the "Stem extension for CB-1" plan from New York Shipbuilding Corp, sized down as necessary for upload: https://i.imgur.com/Ykbpenx.png

This plan (which as far as I can tell is a "builder's plan", in that it specifies the types of welds needed for the alteration, etc) does not show the alteration extending to the keel of the ship. If the alteration were taken to the keel, I would expect this plan (as created/used by the shipyards) would reflect that, right?

I had also noticed the BOGP lists the plan had been updated twice in 1946 (once at NYSB and again at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard) but the outboard profile does not show the updated stem. The inboard profile (to me) also does not appear to show the stem extension. My suspicion here is that this type of modification was not deemed necessary to update on the BOGP -- my understanding is that this type of plan was meant to show the "general" locations of equipment, compartments, guns, etc and this alteration (not being very relevant for the ship's crew) might have been skipped when the plans were "corrected to suit ship". Obviously this is a guess.

A friend contacted Chris Wright at Warship International, who confirmed that they were able to find evidence of the alteration being ordered:

Quote:
ShipAlt CB6A under File Symbol CB/S11-1 was issued on 7 September 1944, modifying the stem contour of the Alaska Class to "reduce spray". The original construction contract was modified by Change E-1-(1) dated 22 August 1944 (by letter C-CB1-3/S11-1 (513)) to make the change in the stem contour.

You are welcome to pass along this information, but please include a statement that the information was provided courtesy Warship International's "Warship Information Service" in advance of publication.


This confirms the alteration was undertaken to reduce the highly visible wake thrown by the ship. If this is the case, there would no need to extend the stem much further below the waterline.

Where are all the drydock photos of these ships??


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11592
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Ian Roberts wrote:
Here is the "Stem extension for CB-1" plan from New York Shipbuilding Corp, sized down as necessary for upload: https://i.imgur.com/Ykbpenx.png


Reuploaded via the board's hosting service for long(er) term safekeeping:


Attachments:
cb-1 stem extension.png
cb-1 stem extension.png [ 1.13 MiB | Viewed 1497 times ]

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:25 pm
Posts: 8
Ian Roberts wrote:
Here is the "Stem extension for CB-1" plan from New York Shipbuilding Corp, sized down as necessary for upload: https://i.imgur.com/Ykbpenx.png

This plan (which as far as I can tell is a "builder's plan", in that it specifies the types of welds needed for the alteration, etc) does not show the alteration extending to the keel of the ship. If the alteration were taken to the keel, I would expect this plan (as created/used by the shipyards) would reflect that, right?

I had also noticed the BOGP lists the plan had been updated twice in 1946 (once at NYSB and again at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard) but the outboard profile does not show the updated stem. The inboard profile (to me) also does not appear to show the stem extension. My suspicion here is that this type of modification was not deemed necessary to update on the BOGP -- my understanding is that this type of plan was meant to show the "general" locations of equipment, compartments, guns, etc and this alteration (not being very relevant for the ship's crew) might have been skipped when the plans were "corrected to suit ship". Obviously this is a guess.

A friend contacted Chris Wright at Warship International, who confirmed that they were able to find evidence of the alteration being ordered:

Quote:
ShipAlt CB6A under File Symbol CB/S11-1 was issued on 7 September 1944, modifying the stem contour of the Alaska Class to "reduce spray". The original construction contract was modified by Change E-1-(1) dated 22 August 1944 (by letter C-CB1-3/S11-1 (513)) to make the change in the stem contour.

You are welcome to pass along this information, but please include a statement that the information was provided courtesy Warship International's "Warship Information Service" in advance of publication.


This confirms the alteration was undertaken to reduce the highly visible wake thrown by the ship. If this is the case, there would no need to extend the stem much further below the waterline.

Where are all the drydock photos of these ships??


Seems pretty definitive, but since it's a significant structural alteration, I would assume it would be in the 1946 general plan. Concur that having drydock pictures of the ship post alteration would go a long way to clearing it up. Per the 1946 corrected BOGP, overall length is 809'-2 5/8," and length BPP is 790'-0." Note that the extension is not included in the BPP length (it adds 1'-6" at the WL) and WL length isn't listed; so it seems, per the drawing, to be more of a temporary shell. Curious if further adjustments were made in Pacflt. Considering the pounding the stem takes, I question if the structure as anything more than temporary until a more permanent refit of the ship could be made. The modification doesn't seem to be present in photos of the bows with the ships in mothballs. Thanks for the docs, very illuminating. All credit due.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Colorado
Timmy C wrote:
Reuploaded via the board's hosting service for long(er) term safekeeping:


Thank you! Obviously this file was too large to upload as an attachment on the board so appreciate you pulling it in here where it belongs.

Note that this plan was bought from Floating Drydock and delivered in paper format (I had it scanned by a local reprographics service) -- I posted it here under "fair use" provisions as it answers some questions and several have asked about it. That said, it's my understanding that these types of plans (being "works of the US Government") are automatically public domain, so there should be no issue posting it here - but obviously look to the moderators to confirm.

Lethal215 wrote:
Seems pretty definitive, but since it's a significant structural alteration, I would assume it would be in the 1946 general plan. Concur that having drydock pictures of the ship post alteration would go a long way to clearing it up. Per the 1946 corrected BOGP, overall length is 809'-2 5/8," and length BPP is 790'-0." Note that the extension is not included in the BPP length (it adds 1'-6" at the WL) and WL length isn't listed; so it seems, per the drawing, to be more of a temporary shell. Curious if further adjustments were made in Pacflt. Considering the pounding the stem takes, I question if the structure as anything more than temporary until a more permanent refit of the ship could be made. The modification doesn't seem to be present in photos of the bows with the ships in mothballs. Thanks for the docs, very illuminating. All credit due.


It's certainly an interesting subject. With NARA closed, unfortunately it seems impossible to find the other supporting documents associated with ShipAlt CB6A which might shed more light.

Regarding the mothballs photos -- to me, it doesn't look like the ships are lightened enough to show the step (which would still be a few feet below the waterline). I only have a few photos but posting here for reference:

GUAM while deactivating at Bayonne:
Attachment:
04020225.jpg
04020225.jpg [ 84.38 KiB | Viewed 1422 times ]


ALASKA and GUAM at Bayonne in storage:
Attachment:
04020148.jpg
04020148.jpg [ 161.59 KiB | Viewed 1422 times ]


Neither of these photos are conclusive -- we can't see enough of the stem to know if there was a step or not. Are there any other photos of the ships at this time showing the stem below the waterline?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
The 1984 TFD drawings for Alaska (Walkowiak) show the stem extension, which extends about 12 ft below the design WL. Obviously not a primary source.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
In the above photo the stem looks to be sharp, the original stem shape was rounded which led to the bow wave disturbance, so WAG that the extension has been fitted. For my model, a WL effort, a moot point.

T


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:59 pm
Posts: 93
Good day all I just recently got my USS Alaska and USS Hawaii, very interesting ships. I haven’t done much research on them yet but have started with the assembly of the Alaska, could upload pics if anyone is interested.

Also I did find out so far that the Hawaii was never completed so I was toying with the idea of making some changes, upgrades, was thinking of replacing the 12 inch turret A with a 16 inch turret.
Let me know what you all think?

Thanks,
Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3101
barbetts most likely wrong diameter for 16" turrets. install twin arm missile launchers like on the Long Beach.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:59 pm
Posts: 93
I thought about that too, and did a search online for ideas, but to go that rout would be a major rebuild to update the whole ship, I still kind of wanted to keep her in a more WW2 setup.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3101
her 12" gun turrets were installed as this link shows the forward 2 turrets. https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1203/04020305.jpg
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1203/040203.htm
could replace the quad 40mm mounts with dual 3" gun mounts like on the Des Moines class heavy cruisers.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/134/04134.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:54 pm
Posts: 206
Location: Milwaukie, OR
DavidP wrote:
her 12" gun turrets were installed as this link shows the forward 2 turrets. https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1203/04020305.jpg
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1203/040203.htm
could replace the quad 40mm mounts with dual 3" gun mounts like on the Des Moines class heavy cruisers.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/134/04134.htm

That's what I'm doing, and thinking about replacing the 5" /38s with 4 Mark 42 5"/54s.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
Hawaii would be an interesting project as she incorporated many small structural and arrangement differences. Research would be a major effort, though some of the very clear under construction photos are a good start. Postwar these would have remained excellent carrier escorts and capable of any mission an Iowa would have been used for. Though this was the twilight of the Gun Ship, no adversarial such ship of equal power remained in the world.

Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
Interesting that the Alaska’s were all named after the only US territories to be directly attacked during WWII?

I just finished replacing all 14 40 mm quads with my own constructions (3 D printed at home) and also added the ammunition racks to the tubs (also printed). However I have no good info on the racks on the two stern tubs. These tubs were unusual in they incorporated Extended hull plating for about half their distance. They also incorporated an unusual cupola with a large hatch into the tub with a clipping/handling room below.

Cheers. Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3101
Puerto Rico (CB-5) & Samoa (CB-6) attacked? by who & when?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
They weren’t built.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3101
I don't think that was the reason the class ships were named after territories that had been attacked. battleships were named after States, aircraft carriers after Battles & cruisers both Heavy & Light after Cities so what do you call a class of ships that are capital ships that are bigger then a heavy cruiser but smaller then a battleship but a Territory.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2074
Location: Mocksville, NC
Bud - "but a territory"

Lou - "What?"

Tom - No, Guam!

Bud - "What a but Guam?"

Lou - "the Cruiser?"

Tom - No, the territory

Bud - "Guam?"

Lou - "I don't know!!"

Hank - "I don't know's on 3rd!!!"

:eyes_spinning: :rolf_3: :doh_1:

(The Devil made me do it!! - :dead:)

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, USS-LSM/R-194 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3421
The historical records do show that Terry went back to England because he was a Tory…


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 464 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 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