The Ship Model Forum

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

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.

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:



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??

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

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

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.

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.



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:


ALASKA and GUAM at Bayonne in storage:


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?

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.

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

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

barbetts most likely wrong diameter for 16" turrets. install twin arm missile launchers like on the Long Beach.

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.

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.

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

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

Puerto Rico (CB-5) & Samoa (CB-6) attacked? by who & when?

They weren’t built.

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.

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!!!"



(The Devil made me do it!! - )

_________________
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

The historical records do show that Terry went back to England because he was a Tory…