Calling all "Big 5" Tennessee-class & Colorado-class fans

[davidwaples]

Outstanding! Thanks for the education! That helps me a lot and puts a smile on my face. That model was both beautifully done AND accurate!

[SeanF]

Go to this link for the documents and images showing what Richard says is correct, that USS NEVADA and USS TENNESSEE had painted decks at the time of the attack. Plus, the documents list other ships directed to paint their decks for evaluation. Also, the battleships still had the turret top color codes for ID at the time of the attack.

... viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6515&start=220#p714042 ...

From Rick's documents, it seems NV and TN might have had blue decks from as little as 2 weeks to as much as 5 weeks before they attack - but either way post-attack photos pretty clearly (especially for NV) show they were not bare wood on December 7.
(Just another reason why I only say my Pacific Battle Force collection is presented in "Late 1941" rather than a more specific date!)

- Sean F.

[Dan K]

A question, and 2 comments regarding Maryland as seen in the August, 1941 photo below:

Is the raised tub sitting behind the 1.1" mount supposed to hold a .50cal MG? If not, what is it for?

The addition of that tub apparently required moving the projection booth inboard a bit.

Note that the halyards to the mainmast yardarms are no longer running down to the railings of the main deck break, but are anchored further inboard.

[Dan K]

Excellent, David. Can you post a pic of that director?

[MartinJQuinn]

Excellent, David. Can you post a pic of that director?

IIRC, it was usually the Mk44 director, but I don't know if any of the battleships carried those at this time

[Dan K]

The director is certainly not installed in August, and it's not clear it's there in December as seen below. Though something seems to be sticking up.

The Type 44 has a superficial resemblance to the IJN's Type 95 MG controller for their 25mm mounts. I would think more of the top of the Type 44 would be visible, as with the Type 95.

[Jeff Sharp]

Hi Dan,
This view suggests nothing was in the tub.


Here's a look at the starboard side tub which was also on top of a vent.

[SeanF]

Those are some very interesting photos there, Jeff!

In the first (overhead view): It's quite interesting how light the top of turret 3 is. I'm guessing this was from that window of time when 3 and 4 were both painted blue. But even so, you don't usually see the true blue have so much contrast (or was it reflectiveness?) that it looks like it practically matches the wood decking in a black and white photo! (It's definitely not white - the blast bags are clearly brighter)

In the second photo: I see a liferaft - maybe two - stowed on top of turret 4! Given the example we already know of Nevada, I expect they were painted blue.

In the third photo (in drydock) two things strike me: First, do we suspect she's still in prewar Standard Gray on July 2? Because if she was in 5D, there's an awfully clear distinction between the 5D hull and black boot. Even the upper two draught numbers are in black. Secondly, I see the inboard prop blades are truncated compared with the outboard. Typical of all the Big Five? All the Standard Battleships? Anyone know why?

- Sean F.

[Jeff Sharp]

Hi Sean!
Turret tops #3 and #4 were definitely not the same color on 12/7/41.

As far as the color of her rafts on #4 turret top? I can tell you that the rafts on top of her #1 turret top were not painted black.


In the July 2, '41 pic, there was a lot going on. She had just completed her installation of her torpedo blisters and was in the process of a complete repaint from top to bottom. She was in standard navy grey when she entered that drydock but was something else when she left (MS-1 in my opinion). I suspect we are seeing many different colors in that pic.
Here is another view of the painting in process.

[SeanF]

Thanks for the additional pictures, Jeff!

I didn't realize the overhead shot was from 12/7/41; and you're obviously quite right about turrets 3 and 4 not being the same color on that date, but... what the heck is up with turret 3's top? Just reflection off the 5D (or 5S) paint? Maybe, since the turret facet below looks quite similar... yet Turret 4's roof should be catching the same angle of sun and it's not lit up. Odd.

And hey, look at that! More rafts on turret 1! Lots more rafts on these ships on Dec. 7 that I'd ever thought. And clearly there's a ship-to-ship difference in how important it was to keep that turret top color visible. Maybe Nevada is the oddball here in painting her rafts to match?

Gotta say, there seems to be an inverse scale effect with 5D paint. In the Life photo here, and that shot of the Kingfisher recovery on Arizona in September 1941, it looks a whole lot lighter than it does in distance shots.

Thanks for sharing!

- Sean F.

[Dan K]

Thx, Jeff, for the pics. I agree that no director seems to be mounted in those particular tubs.

But, in the pic below from that August, does it not seem like there is a director in place for the forward 1.1s ?

To Sean's question

Secondly, I see the inboard prop blades are truncated compared with the outboard. Typical of all the Big Five? All the Standard Battleships? Anyone know why?

I don't know if this was typical, but I'm guessing it had to do with excessive vibration from the tips relative to their placement at the stern.

[Jeff Sharp]

Dan, Rick E. Davis posted these documents over on Arizona's page. If I'm reading them right then Maryland never received any directors before the attack.





This footage from August 18-24 1941 shows Mary's crew hand operating the portside aft 1.1 gun (09:09 mark in the film). Notice also that the back side of the gun tub does not have splinter shielding, just railing.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/149271333

[Rick E Davis]

The Mk 44 director was an "interim" install. The plans were for Mk 45 and Mk 49 directors to be available in first late 1941 and then in early 1942. So not many Mk 44 directors were made. (According to Friedman, a total of 85 were built) Since, USS MARYLAND didn't have the Power Drive for the quad 1.1-in mounts, installing a Mk 44 (or any director) was useless since the whole idea of the director was to point the mount automatically.

[Dan K]

Thank you both. Those documents and Rick's points about availability and usability make their absence quite clear.

Love those little tidbits of information.

[Dan K]

Anybody know of a shipboard cradle like this one in 1/700 PE, to hold a Kingfisher?

[MartinJQuinn]

I seem to recall there were 1/350 turned brass 14" barrels for CA and TN, but an internet search doesn't reveal anything. Anyone know of any manufacturers making these?

[Jon C Ryckert]

B&D Barrels has them listed but I seem to recall that others were having trouble getting in touch with the owner. Would Arizona be close enough or is there that much difference between the barrels besides caliber/length?

[Timmy C]

Can you email Master to see if they can upscale their 1/700 barrels?

[MartinJQuinn]

Would Arizona be close enough or is there that much difference between the barrels besides caliber/length?

Arizona's were 14"/45cal, while the New Mexico's and Tennessee class carried the 14"/50cal. So the later version was longer, and looks a little different, it seems.

Can you email Master to see if they can upscale their 1/700 barrels?

Not a bad idea.

[bioshock73]

What about Model Monkey's 14"/50 gun barrels in 1/350?
You'd have to get the turrets as well