Calling all Cleveland-class (CL-55) fans

[Dick J]

The "boat farm" survived at least through the commissioning of Denver.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/058/0405806.jpg

[Haijun watcher]

I finally received the 2 Skywave USS Cleveland kits and their USS Miami kit I ordered via Ebay from Japan.

Before, I just had a strange, but interesting idea...

Could one use the round bridge from Trumpeter's Baltimore 1943 kit on the Skywave USS Miami kit to make her an earlier Cleveland class?

Conversely, couldn't one use Miami's late-war Cleveland class square bridge to depict later Baltimores such as the USS Pittsburgh? No one answered my last post at the Baltimore thread so I'm asking it here as well.

Originally I was just going to build the Miami kit separate from my TF38 diorama/collection, but if this idea works, I might just have both a square-bridge Baltimore and another early-war Cleveland to add.

Here are pictures the 1943 Baltimore and the box art of the USS Cleveland Skywave kit. One has to admit the obviously similarity.

early-war, round-bridge USS Baltimore


USS Cleveland Skywave box art

[Dick J]

The two bridges are in no way interchangeable. The main change to the later Baltimores was to add the open bridge around the front. The basic pilothouse face was unchanged. The Baltimore pilothouse was narrower than the one on the Clevelands, and so would still require scratchbuilding to finish it, even if the Baltimore piece could be adapted to fit. It would be easier to scratchbuild the whole thing than to mix/match Baltimore and Cleveland kit parts.

[Haijun watcher]

Here's a interesting screengrab from the Zumwalt class "destroyer" thread that compares the Cleveland class to the DDG1000. It's interesting how the USN's definition of destroyer has evolved to something that now rivals (and exceeds when it comes to firepower) the WW2-era cruiser in size and firepower.

[Dick J]

What has yet to be determined on the Zumwalt is what happens when someone else puts a hole in it. Several Clevelands were badly damaged, and at least one came close to sinking (Princeton was a CV when sunk, and so probably doesn't count for this), but no Cleveland class CL was lost in combat. When someone damages a Zumwalt, will there be enough live bodies on board to steer the ship out of harms way while at the same time plugging enough holes to keep her floating? The Cole barely had enough survivors to do it, and Zumwalt's crew is supposed to be smaller still. (And many damage control functions can't be effectively automated.) Reducing the size of the crew is a double-edged sword.

[DrPR]

Some of the Clevelands had radar antennas mounted on the 40mm Bofors guns near the end of WWII. What was the Mk/Mod number of these radars? Anyone know anything about them or have drawings or close up photos?

Phil

[Timmy C]

I'm assuming they're the same as the ones on the Gearings, in which case the radar's the Mk34 and is coupled with the Mk63 director: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21795&start=220#p401614

[Garry71]

Cleveland-class ships have different cross sections of smoke pipes?:



And after modernization (guided missile cruisers)?

[Ian Roberts]

Does anyone know the specific type of catapult used on the Clevelands? My guess is the usual Type P Mark 6, but I'd like to be sure.

My doubts are fuelled by the following:

1. NavSource links this drawing of the Type P Mark 6 catapult: http://navsource.org/archives/01/060/016080b.jpg

2. The catapult's pedestal is noticeably set towards the "rear" of the catapult in the above photo. This is consistent with what I have seen during my research on the Alaska class cruisers, as well as some of the battleships.

3. However, photos of the Clevelands don't appear to show that same catapult (with the pedestal set towards the rear of the catapult), but rather show it mounted in the center: http://i.imgur.com/RXw5q5B.jpg

Where does this discrepancy come from? Are there various Mods of the Type P Mark 6 catapult that I'm unaware of? This page (http://home.comcast.net/~ok3wirebob/Catapults.html) also shows a drawing of a "Type P Mark 6" catapult that would look like the cruiser model (vs. the drawing linked on NavSource, referred to as a Mk.6 Mod.1 catapult).

Is there perhaps a "Mod. 0" or "Mod.2" that I am missing?

[DrPR]

Garry71,

The Cleveland class forward and aft smoke pipes have the same cross section. They were not changed for the CLG modifications.

I have attached a part of the blueprint for the forward smoke pipe that shows the dimensions. I can't attach the full blueprint - it is 97 Mbytes, a bit more than the forum maximum of 150 Kbytes.

CAUTION: There were several variations for the forward and aft smoke pipes on the Clevelands. Different yards built them different ways. The basic configuration was the same but there were two variations of the hand rails at the top, and three different schemes for the trash burner pipe on the aft smoke pipe (it was routed to the forward pipe on some ships). Originally the ships had a whistle/horn and a siren. On some (all?) CLGs the siren was eliminated.

I have posted some images of the smoke pipes created from the blueprints here:

http://www.okieboat.com/CAD%20smoke%20pipes.html

Note: After I made these drawings I discovered a photo taken on the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 showing that the catwalk at the top of the aft smoke pipe did not have the projection on the starboard aft side for the ladder as shown in the image and in the Cleveland class blueprints. The catwalk was rounded just like the catwalk on the forward smoke pipe, but it had an add-on more-or-less triangular plate platform with supports. I suspect this is how the original CL-91 ladder support was constructed (and probably the same for all of the ships constructed in the Cramp shipyards). For the CLG conversion the aft superstructure was changed so the original ladder was removed and the ladder was placed on the front starboard side as shown in the images. But the old ladder support remained. One of these days I will correct my CAD model.

Phil

[DrPR]

Colloseum,

I looked through my photos of the Clevelands and they all have the central support. In the attached photo of the catapults on the USS Biloxi you can count the triangular openings on either side of the central support and see that they are about the same. However, the two parts may not have been exactly the same length. The end that supported the plane for stowage appears to be a bit shorter in some photos, but this may be an illusion.

The Cleveland blueprints have no drawings of the catapults.

Near the end of the war some ships had one catapult removed to reduce topside weight.

Phil

[Ian Roberts]

Phil -

Agree 100%. Spent some time today searching around, and from what I can tell there must have been different Mods of the Mk.6 catapult - I assume the battleships and CBs used a different Modification of the Mk.6 catapult (the Mod.1, from what I can tell).

Wish it was easier to find this information!

Thanks.

[EJFoeth]

Are they performing inclining experiments with that weight just forward of the hangar door?

[Cliffy B]

Some of the Clevelands had radar antennas mounted on the 40mm Bofors guns near the end of WWII. What was the Mk/Mod number of these radars? Anyone know anything about them or have drawings or close up photos?

Phil

Phil,

If you didn't see this post here's some shots of the 40mm radar installations.
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21795&start=220#p401614

I have some line drawings of the various 40mm mounts and some show the radar installed. I'll post them later because I can't remember where I found them online and I'm not on my computer.

-Mike

Edit: Phil, check your PMs

EJ - Looks like inclining to me

[DrPR]

EJ,

There is a track running transverse across the deck that looks like an inclining experiment to me. The weight they are using is interesting - not like any other I have seen.

Phil

[Garry71]

DrPR, thank You for pipes!
Questen about boats: CLG-5 has 26 foot motor boat and gravity davit on starboard only?
And how use boat on aft superstr. (where is boat davit?)?

[Cliffy B]

Notice the boat is sitting on a wheeled dolly. Look around the superstructure for a large boom and a deck winch. That's how the BBs dealt with their boats in the 1980's-90's. What was in the davits tended to stay in the davits while the rest were wheeled around the deck as needed.

[DrPR]

Garry,

After the '62-'64 topside weight reduction the OK City had one to three 28' personnel boats; a Captain's gig, the 7th Fleet boat (Chief of Staff) and the Admiral's barge.

The Captain's gig was nested above the 40' utility boat on the port boat deck. The other two boats were on wheeled dollies that were stowed on the aft end of the top of the missile house. These were pulled forward to the front end of the missile house top - the normal UNREPS area - using snaking winches. All of the boats were moved between their stowage cradles and the water using the boat booms on the king posts just forward of the missile house. Boat winches on the main deck below the boat decks did the lifting.

Here is a link to CAD models of the boats:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=70810

I have attached a photo taken by LTJG Hank Walters showing the method of recovering the Admiral's barge. You can see the portable dolly/cradle on deck (with all the guys standing around it) and the boat boom lifting the boat. Farther aft on top of the missile house is the dolly for the 7th Fleet boat. The Captain's gig is at the upper left of the photo nested above the 40' utility boat.

I should add that this isn't the original boat handling arrangement for the CLG configuration. Originally (1960) there were two very different boat booms on the kingposts. These were replaced in the early 1960s by the booms you see in the photo.

Phil

[Garry71]

DrPR, my shipmodel will have 6 boats:
starboard - 26 foot motor whaleboat, 40 foot pers. boat, 28 foot pers. boat;
port - 40 foot utility boat ahd two 28 foot pers. boat.
Is it wright?
What about painting? How many boat hase black colored hull? And why? Admiral's whim? ))

[DrPR]

Garry,

Are you modeling the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 or another of the CLGs?

The OK City originally was configured almost exactly like the USS Little Rock CLG-4. The Little Rock was never modified much, so the ship at the Buffalo and Eire Naval and Military Park in Buffalo, NY, is almost the same as it was when commissioned in 1960.

On the other hand, the Oklahoma City was modified continuously during it's 19 years as a missile cruiser. I have many pages of notes listing dozens and dozens of changes over the years - and I am still discovering more. You must pick a date during that time span if you want to make an accurate model.

The ship had this eight boat configuration when commissioned in 1960:
Port and starboard two-tier boat davits with two 26' motor whale boats (upper) and two 28' personnel boats (lower).
Port boat deck with two nested 40' utility boats.
Starboard boat deck with one 40' utility boat (lower) and one 40' personnel boat (upper).

In 1962 the ship went into the yards for extensive topside weight reduction. The port and starboard two-tier boat davits were removed. A single dual arm gravity davit was installed on the starboard side. The boat decks were reconstructed.

From 1964 through 1979 the ship had this four boat configuration:
One boat davit on the starboard side with a single 26' motor whaleboat.
Port boat decks carried a nest with a 40' utility boat (lower) and a 28' personnel boat (Captain's gig, upper).
Starboard boat deck with one 40' personnel boat.

Off and on between 1964 and 1979 the ship also carried one or two 28' personnel boats in dollies on top of the missile house. These were the Admiral's barge and the 7th Fleet Staff boat. Again, you should pick a date to model and find photos that show the boat configuration at that time. I have chosen mid 1971 because the ship had six boats and the FAST crane was still aboard. Also, I was aboard at that time and it is the ship I remember.

NOTE: As I said, almost EVERYTHING was modified at one time or another during the ship's 19 years as a missile cruiser. The antennas were rearranged almost every time we went into Yokosuka, new compartments were added topside, the radar towers were reconfigured several times, radars were replaced with newer radars, three or four different types of helicopters, etc. Every model of the ship I have seen was grossly inaccurate because the modeler did not do his homework and mixed configurations from several dates.

In particular, yard periods in 1962 and 1967 made very significant modifications to towers and superstructure.

None of the other CLGs had as many modifications during their shorter periods of service.

Phil