The Ship Model Forum

Good evening all

Martin Quinn is going to help me with my below post in resizing my pictures and then add them to my post because if I do it, the "file is too big". So please hold off on any comments or counterpoints until Martin add the pictures....Thanks again Martin for the help!!

Forgive the rambling nature of this email as I've previously written it in several individual configurations to multiple modelers.

For a few weeks now, after exhaustively looking through pictures, consulting with fellow modelers offline, and making some of my own "educated" assumptions. I think there is a new aspect of a very specific area of the Lex configuration in which to consider when building a Lex model at the time of the Coral Sea battle that I'd like to open to the court of public opinion and see what the consensus is. To be clear, the area of the ship I'm specifically speaking of is the aft section, starboard side of the O-1 level right behind the funnel where the aft section of the 20mm gallery meets the clipping room just behind the upper aft 1.1AA cannon . In other terms, where the upper aft 8" turret behind the funnel was removed.

Thanks to Modelmokey for making the more accurate tapered splinter shield as a result of conclusive evidence provided during the RV Petrel Lexington wreak survey in March of 2018. However due to the tapered shield, a "grey" area has arisen in how a modeler wishes to accurately portray their model. I welcome all thoughts and theories to help me out with this. I've asked some individuals their educated opinions already as you will see below.

My theory is this. That the area at the back of the single 1.1 AA cannon, just to the starboard of the clipping room, where the above listed 8" turret used to sit was connected to the starboard 20mm cannon gallery. Furthermore that there was a splinter shield that ran from the rear of that 20mm cannon gallery which connected to the rear starboard side of the 1.1 AA gun's rounded and tapered splinter shield. The below picture labeled 'Lex #1' at the end of the pencil point is a visual of where I'm speaking about.


Let me say this I don't consider myself a rivet counter by any means. I just wanna "get it right". As such, I've read through the CASF-Lex thread (all 50 pages!!!) multiple times to understand the many concepts, points of views and counterpoints from people who are more educated on Lex than I'll ever be. I've reviewed (Warship Pictorial - Lexington (WP-33). I'm no Tracy White but I like to think I can research with the best of them. Additionally, I've reached out individually to some fellow modelers who clearly have considerably posted in this thread to include 'John W', "Marijns Van Gils', 'Martin Quinn', and 'ModelMonkey' (Steve Larsen) about a specific area of Lex I think was configured in a certain fashion. Their views, perspectives, and advice have been invaluable!!! Bottom line is I just want to get the look of Lex right. When dealing with historical subjects that were sunk, it should be never far from our minds that men were lost in action doing their jobs, no matter what the nationality of the subject being modeled. This is their tomb. And I try to give them that respect by getting the details right based on what small amount of talent I have in 1/700. There are clearly far better modelers than me, so don't beat me up too much on my model pictures as the Lex is a work in progress.

Based on the RV Petrel's March 2018 wreck pictures it is conclusive that the 1.1 AA gun splinter shield on the O-1 level was rounded AND tapered inward. Its beyond reproach anymore (no more talk of builder plans or what was going to be done or done on her return to PHSY after Coral Sea). Because this shield tapers inward, that leaves ALOT of open area as shown above. As such, I purchased Modelmokeys funnel and island with the rounded splinter shields. The below picture on pg 51 of WP-33 is a bit fuzzy. However, its the best picture of how Lex looked on 5/8/42 prior to taking damage that afternoon. The pg 51 picture appears to show the area that I'm speaking of (marked with a yellow arrow) to have either a splinter shield or, as John W, inferred, could possibly be canvas spray guard on the likely chain railing that must of ran along the starboard side deck edge of the rear funnel O-1 level. Now, I'm aware that page 30 and 31 of WP-33 doesn't show any railing. However, keep in mind those pics were taken on or about 3/30/42 while the turrets were being removed; work was still in progress. Not even the 20mm gallery existed yet as the pictures show them under construction.


Additionally, at the "point of the arrow", the color distinctly changes, no fading or such. Could that possibly be a result of an angle change? The professional photo analysts among us, please chime in on that thought. Cuz honestly, I can think of no other reason for a "straight line" image to change color like that. As you will see below, this is in part some of the reason why I chose to model Lex in the below configuration.

Now back to the RV Petrel wreck images. The below picture, TO ME anyways, shows proof that the aft end of the starboard funnel 20mm gallery was indeed connected to the after section of the funnel. Specifically, look at the lower left area of the picture which shows the splinter shield end and its two apparent 90 degree bends which would lead further aft to the are in question.


With the knowledge and insight that the pictures bring, I've modeled the connecting splinter shield or possibly attached cavass (which honestly, I doubt was canvass for obvious war-time hazards - canvass does stop much shrapnel) in a fashion that I think likely was how this area looked, See below picture labeled 'Lex #10'. Please, I welcome any/all opinions or counter arguments anyone may have. As I've stated, its conjecture on my part but one in which I think is well founded based on the interpretation of the listed pictures. Maybe I'm way off , which is the main point of me writing this email and to ultimately help me "get it right". Let the conversation begin!!!!

_________________
Don G.

Hey Don - a couple of things.



I don't have an elevated opinion of myself. I've tried to get other people to come to archives because it's not brain surgery - one simply needs to be there with patience, intent, and willingness to act methodically. We have some amazing people here like Dan Kaplan, Dick Jenson, Devin Poore, and more who have never been to NARA or other archives and have still set an incredibly high bar. CV-5 Yorktown is one of my favorite ships but I never seriously researched her because Devin, Dick, and Michael Vorrasi already seemed to know everything that we as modelers needed. So don't let anyone sell you or your potential short.

One of the downsides to a lot of archival researching, however, is that we start thinking more in terms of what we know and what we have seen. I got your PM a few weeks ago and looked over the photo you included here.... looked to see and I hadn't really come across any photos of Lexington that were in the Coral Sea time frame or useful in any way. So... I though about it and looked again but there really isn't enough for me to form an opinion so I kept looking and thinking.

The thing I get back to is that the Navy was not averse to simple chain railings when expedient. The splinter shields around the 5"/25 mounts on the big five and earlier battleships were connected with a couple of in-eligant but simple chains. The layout of the splinter shields "feels" very expedient and rushed to me. I don't think they were meant to last that long or be super refined as installed. On the other hand, the "structure" forward of the 1.1" bulwarks looks to be too straight at the top to allow any sag from a chain. It's also about half the height, which makes me question if they would have put that much effort in to a solid structure only half height.

No answers. Just questions.


Picture 27 on this page's image gallery looks like it might be the aft-most 20mm gun based om the splinter shield

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Anyone reading for future purposes, Tracy and I are on good terms, it wasn't a back-handed statement or anything. I hold Tracy in high esteem and love his insight and attention to detail. I was trying to put a compliment towards him in my analysis. With that said, I originally was going to go with chain rail or link - for scale effect in 1/700, I consider them to be near one in the same. Me and John W, to give credit where due, came up with the idea that the area in question could be chain (or even possibly cable lines attached to stanchions). Like you said and we have understood, Lex was under a time crunch to get in and out of PHSY ASAP.

However I maintain that the area behind the 1.1 guns is too much area to be left "just open". Me and John W went over this very issue at length. Keep in mind that is a what? - 8 to 10 foot drop off the O-1 level to the flight deck. The port side of the same O-1 area definitely has a guard rail. Pics of Sara when she was getting her own 8" guns removed show she had railing. You wouldn't want to fall over on to the flight ops side with propellers moving all about. Clearly the age before OSHA, lol, but being swept off the O-1 level isn't something I think they would leave to chance. Again, the extrapolation I get is that it was likely some inarticulate cladding of splinter shielding quick welded to the stanchions.

And I went to the source on "image 27" you are indeed correct, its the aft most 20mm gun on the starboard funnel gallery. My source was RV Petrels Facebook page of the same image where they described in the comments box where and what they were looking at.

Like you said, questions more than answers. But possibly some 'NEW' good discussion because if one wants to model Lex with the tapered splinter shield, they will also come across the same dilemma.....How do I correctly show how this area adjoining the rear of the 1.1 gun and the 20mm gun gallery appeared on 5/8/42?

_________________
Don G.

I didn't take it as such, I just don't want to be held up as "the" epitome of researcher. There are people who have done more with less; my advantage comes from having made a choice to spend money once or twice a year to fly from the west coast to archives to go through things we couldn't see otherwise.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I have been looking over the photos, and here is my interpretation of the config in question. We can then kick this around to see if we can build some form of consensus. First, the boat deck outboard of the stack, on which the 20MM gallery was built, was some distance lower than the 8" gun deck, at least 18". Note that the 20MM gallery splinter screen visible in the "last intact" photo rises barely above the 8" gun deck level. That makes a continuous splinter screen from the 20MM gallery to the 1.1" mount unlikely. Also note that, as has been mentioned, that 20MM gallery splinter screen is bent back at the after end in the Paul Allen photo. Here is what I think we are looking at. The bend back in the splinter screen is short of reaching the 8" gun deck, but is far enough away to leave space for a ladder from the gallery down to the flightdeck level. (Hinted at, but not well defined, in the "last intact" photo.) The 8" gun deck "screen" in the gap between the 1.1 tapered splinter screen and the stack does not appear to have a straight upper edge, suggesting splinter mats on a railing. Any thoughts?

It is just my 2-cents and I'm not a USS LEXINGTON expert by any means, but looking at the M/V PETREL image with the bulwark shield formed with a short section turned aft, there likely wasn't any further bulwark going to meet with the quad 1.1-in mount bulwark surround. There was no reason to "protect" that area and a chain link or railing would have been used. Keep in mind that the installation of quad 1.1-in mounts in place of the 8-in turrets was only an "interim" install, pending installation of twin 5-in mounts like her sister USS SARATOGA. I have studied a lot of "bulwark" installations on destroyers, plus other ships, and found the ones installed during the King Board "Air Defense Improvement" Program had a similar appearance of construction. The bend or 90-degree welded extension at the end of the 20-mm bulwark was there more for structural strength than for additional protection. In 1941 and early 1942, a heavier gage steel was used for AA-gun bulwark surrounds and extensive bracing wasn't heavily required. Most bracing was used at the "ends" of bulwark runs to support the end. In the PETREL image, there was use of bracing along the exterior of the "long" straight bulwark. For reasons of weight savings and saving of steel materials, a thinner gage of steel was used later in 1942 and additional bracing was required to support the bulwarks.

Here is an image onboard USS NORTHAMPTON in March 1942 as 20-mm guns were being installed. Note the bulwark construction uses a similar "90-degree turn" and then uses railing after that. Plus as Dick says, a ladder could have been there or was intended to be there to go down to the deck below.

There was such a ladder - however I do not know if it survived the refit work. Check out page 31 of the Classic Warships CV-2 book or page 95 of David Doyle's "Squadron at Sea" CV-2 book.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Gentlemen - All good thoughts and perspectives to mentally kick around. This is why I reached out to you all for some new and inciteful thoughts. Again, my version is total conjecture on my part. I really like that others have tried to re-evaluate a picture we have all been looking at for such a long time and are able to possibly come away with a new perspective. Regardless of which way I finish out this section of the ship, it will be interesting to see how future modelers address this same area based on the knowledge that the 1.1 splinter shield tapered inward.

A few points:

Tracy is correct as pg. 31 of WP-33 clearly shows the ladder, however, Tracy makes a good point - in may not have survived the yard work. I chose to model Lex with the ladder still there.

It was pointed out to me offline that the 20mm gallery is very likely 18"-24" below the 1.1 gun deck. I'll submit to that, which makes sense of the 90 degree bend as Rick Davis points out for structural support. We have remember I'm modeling Lex in 1/700 and there is a slight drop on my 20 mm gallery deck, 2' is what like a millimeter in 1/700 scale? I very likely didn't align that section as best I could to show the proper drop. I thought of the drop as more of a couple steps down, nothing too significant to prevent access from the 20mm gallery to the clipping room. Thinking outside the box, I surmised that there was likely a yard expedient set of stairs thrown in place.

Were all aware and agree that the yard work was rushed and temporary. With that being said, at the very least I would suspect some form of chain/railing at the very least, as Dick J points out with possible splinter mats. In fact, ironically, I did originally model this area with a railing as I also came to the same conclusion that it wasn't a vital area and why "waste" the metal. You cant see from my above listed model pics, but couldn't get past the image on pg. 51 of WP-33 which shows the area as a solid otherwise you would see the base of the clipping room, so I went and put some sheeting over the railings.

All in all it just boggles my mind on which way to go to get it right. I will be taking the above mentioned considerations to heart and try to figure out which way to go with this section. Again, all good comments and is some real food for thought.

_________________
Don G.

I just saw something about a Pit-Road 1/700 1942 Lexington (CV-2). Is that a rebox of the Trumpeter, or a different kit?

It's the same as the Trumpeter kit, yes. Pit-Road does the boxing for many of Trumpy kits for resale in Japan.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Apologies if this has already been mentioned previously and I missed it when i just ran through the thread. I'm using Trumpeter's 1/350 Saratoga to model the Lexington as she appeared at Fleet Problem XV. My question is about the markings for her aircraft in 1934.

I have the following:
VT-1B (Martin BM-1/2)
VS-3B (Vought SU-2/3)
VF-5B (Grumman FF-1)
VF-2B (Boeing F4B-2)
VS-14M (Vought SU-2/3)

and the following pieced together information which may or may not be wrong!
VF-2B, VS-3B, VT-1B lemon yellow tails. VF-5B blue tails (1933). in 1935 ordered to all be yellow
For units, 1st section had red fuselage stripe, wing chevron, 2nd is white, 3rd is insignia blue, 4th is black, 5th is green

Off the internet I have some color profiles that show VT-1B with a yellow tail and green fuselage band in 1935 (and a lower wing also with a yellow upper surface!). I have a black and white photo of VT-1B in 1934 with a light colored chevron (white?) on the upper wing and a lower wing and tailplanes that appear to be the doped aluminum or are at least much lighter than the yellow upper wing and rest of the tail.

So basically I'm confused or at least missing things! Can anyone give me some guidance on how the hell to properly and accurately paint the various marking and identification areas? Mr Bennet made me these beautiful resin version of all these aircraft and I'd like to do the bloody things justice.

The Lexington's (CV-2) planes could be salvaged.



The photos of the planes still on the deck of the USS Lexington in some 3,000m of water, brought back by the R/V Petrel in 2018 have somewhat shaken up collectors and museums. So, planes in perfect condition and of major historical interest are waiting at the bottom of the Coral Sea to be recovered? A recovery project has been officially launched

The Lexington (CV2) was sunk by Japanese torpedoes on May 8, 1942 during the Battle of the Coral Sea. The carrier took some time to sink, allowing a large portion of the crew to evacuate as there were only a little over 200 casualties out of over 2,500 men on board. When the wreckage was discovered, a number of planes were photographed and the images showed that some were in an amazing state of preservation.

The interest was therefore focused on several TBD-1 Devastator (whose name is probably the least well known of all the US Navy aircraft, as its combat results were so poor), of which there are no more examples, and especially on the F4F Wildcat BuNo 3986, which surprised by its excellent general condition, and which had been successively flown by "Butch" O'Hare (First Ace of the US Navy in the Pacific and who gave his name to the Chicago airport) or "Jimmy" Thach (who gave his name to a famous tactic that allowed the Wildcat to keep their chances against the Zero maneuverers and who obtained his first aerial victory on board) and other pilots who entered the history of the US naval aviation industry Such an aircraft, full of history, would not fail to make it a major attraction for the museum that will manage to host it. Surprisingly, the Dauntless SBDs that were also identified at the wreck site do not seem to be part of the recovery project.

The feasibility report published a few days ago announces that the salvage operations could take place between May and October 2023 but that it will take two years for the conservation procedures of the devices, complex but essential operations, then four to five years for an essential restoration before presentation to the public. Among the partners planned for the operation is the Kalamazoo Air Museum, which restored an FM-2 Wildcat (an improved version of the Grumman Wildcat produced by General Motors) recovered after 68 years in the icy waters of Lake Michigan.

The overall budget for the operation is estimated at between $8 and $15 million to reassemble at least four aircraft. Several patrons and museums are mentioned in the document as "shareholders" of the operation.

https://www.aerobuzz.fr/culture-aero/le ... renfloues/

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

1) Wouldn't the Lexington be considered a war grave?
2) Don't military shipwrecks remain the property of the nation they served, and therefore are not salvageable unless the express consent said nation is given?

It would have to be done with the express consent of the Navy, who would still retain ownership.

They'd better double their budget at a minimum.

I'd say there would be a lot of value to leaving the aircraft in their present state as recovered as it's part of their history.

I'm more in support of leaving them where they are at.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Does anybody have a diagram or drawing of Saratoga's 1942/late 1942 state? I wish to know where were the 40mm Boforses and 20mm Oerlikons located at. The 9 Bofors mountings are of less importance than of the Oerlikons.

the 40mm's were probably installed during repairs in fall of 42 due to 2nd torpedo in August. https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/03a.htm

Hello All,
I have a few questions about Lex. I have the Trumpeter 1/350 kit as my base, I will use Model Monkeys Island, funnel, boat pockets and rudder to help the trumpeter kit. for references I have Warship Pictorial 33, Navsourse, and here.
I am an above average builder but far from a master.
As I start my prep for the kit these questions have come up.

1. Did Lex have three bladed propellers at Coral Sea? If so, is there a place to buy them?

2.Is there any pe degaussing cable and diagram of the installation on Lex?

3. Did Lex have a "Tilly" on board?

4. Did Lex have any aircraft handling vehicles on board?

5. Any pictures that would show deck equipment on the island levels? pelorus, voice tubes, search/signal lamps, chairs, etc.

Now to start reading thru the 50 pages of data here!

Thank you for any insight,
Dan

_________________
Dan
Field Artillery, King of Battle
Please check out the Secret Society of Model Builders on facebook.

CV-2 USS Lexington Booklet of General Plans (1941) (version 1) https://archive.org/details/cv2bogp1941
CV-2 USS Lexington Booklet of General Plans (1941) (version 2) https://archive.org/details/cv2bogp1941v2
CV-2 USS Lexington Booklet of General Plans (1941) (version 3) https://archive.org/details/cv2bogp1941v3

Hey Dan - you didn't say if there is a certain time period you are aiming for. Do you have your ModelMonnkey island yet?

I also posted a June of 1941 set of Booklet of general plans that has the white balance set and has been leveled for better printability. You want Sheet six of either set, which has the island platforms and will show the locations of alidades, pelorous, and, uh... a urinal.

No Tilly's - they didn't start until 1943. Any tractors would have been more conventional farm equipment and I can't recall ever seeing a photo of one as early as the Battle of the Coral Sea, but I'm not going to say they weren't used.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Tracy, Oops. I'm doing the Coral Sea configuration. Fingers crossed she will go in a case with the 3d wild Shoho and 1/72 builds of the 6 carrier aircraft used by them.

I did answer the prop blade count, the photo is on the back of warship pictorial #33.
I have model monkeys island and will order the funnel and rudder when I get back from vacation.

_________________
Dan
Field Artillery, King of Battle
Please check out the Secret Society of Model Builders on facebook.