Calling all Brooklyn-class (CL-40) fans

[Stephen Allen]

Thanks Jim and Devin

I will check out the available Tom's etch,and the suggestion about the Arizona boats is a good one.

You are both right about the potential of these kits. The moulding is very clean and the provision of most wartime additions as separate parts makes a backdating exercise much easier to contemplate.

Hope the Wichita build goes well!

regards

Steve

[Devin]

Steve,

Thank you. I'm starting her at the same time I return to the Trumpeter Essex build. I need something cleanly molded and easily assembled as a distraction from the Trumpy kit's fit problems. I also have the YMW Helena kit, which is just as well molded and clean as the Wichita, but she'll be wartime fit for sure.

One thing I am waiting on is to see when L'Arsenal's .50 caliber naval mounts will hit the retail market. I don't want to have to steal them from a Trumpeter Lexington kit if I can avoid it.

Good luck to you as well.

-Devin

[Don Andrews]

In the series of photos of the New Mexico class BBs at Norfolk taken from 31 Dec 1941 to 3 Jan 1942, there is one in particular that puzzles me... ( http: //www.navsource.org/archives/01/014251.jpg ) In the background of this superstructure shot of Idaho is the stern of a Brooklyn class CL, but I don't know which one. I think it must be Savannah, because the Measure 12 modified camouflage pattern doesn't match Brooklyn, Philadelphia or Nashville, but I can't confirm this with photo evidence of Savannah wearing Ms 12 mod. (All of the other Brooklyns were in the Pacific) Can anyone help confirm this?

Thanks!

Don Andrews

[MartinJQuinn]

Since we are trying to minimize the size of these threads, we ask everyone to post pictures of their complete and in-progress builds in separate threads. Therefore, Christoph's completed models have been moved here and Tony's in-progress build of Honolulu has been moved here.

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
Question:
Was the Early Mk34 main battery director used in WWII orignally in place on Homolulu in the late 30's?
The pics I have gathered and studied do not support this. The YMW 1/350 kit I'm building of 1938-39 Honolulu from the 1942 Brooklyn has the Mk34, (referred to as early in the instructions), style directors. The pre-war Honolulu's directors look a bit different.
Out of time, off to work, but I'll post images later.
TIA, Tony

[Cadman]

I think there were at least two different styles of director used on the Brooklyn's. Could these be the same directors as early war, but without the rangefinders installed?

[CL40]

In the series of photos of the New Mexico class BBs at Norfolk taken from 31 Dec 1941 to 3 Jan 1942, there is one in particular that puzzles me... ( http: //www.navsource.org/archives/01/014251.jpg ) In the background of this superstructure shot of Idaho is the stern of a Brooklyn class CL, but I don't know which one. I think it must be Savannah, because the Measure 12 modified camouflage pattern doesn't match Brooklyn, Philadelphia or Nashville, but I can't confirm this with photo evidence of Savannah wearing Ms 12 mod. (All of the other Brooklyns were in the Pacific) Can anyone help confirm this?

Thanks!

Don Andrews

I thought the Brooklyn was in the Atlantic in 43 - perhaps I am mistaken, but it could be the Brooklyn herself. (Edit: - I checked navsource - )

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/040/04040.htm


This picture shows the Brooklyn off North Carolina in June 1943 - so it could be the Brooklyn in the other photo. The Brooklyn also was a support ship at Anzio. She spent the bulk of her career in the Atlantic.

M

[Don Andrews]

In the series of photos of the New Mexico class BBs at Norfolk taken from 31 Dec 1941 to 3 Jan 1942, there is one in particular that puzzles me... ( http: //www.navsource.org/archives/01/014251.jpg ) In the background of this superstructure shot of Idaho is the stern of a Brooklyn class CL, but I don't know which one. I think it must be Savannah, because the Measure 12 modified camouflage pattern doesn't match Brooklyn, Philadelphia or Nashville, but I can't confirm this with photo evidence of Savannah wearing Ms 12 mod. (All of the other Brooklyns were in the Pacific)

Here's what I mean:
Idaho: (the photo in question - look in the background)
http: //www.navsource.org/archives/01/014251.jpg
Brooklyn:
http: //www.navsource.org/archives/04/040/0404002.jpg
Nashville:
http: //www.navsource.org/archives/04/043/0404316.jpg
Philadelphia:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h90213.jpg

The accompanying text to the Navsource photo agrees with my supposition (it was added 2/11/09): The ship in the left background is definitely a Brooklyn class (CL-40 / 49). (which one I can't say, and I looked at our photos and those on NavSource cruiser pages without any luck, but the ship has to be Brooklyn (CL-40), Philadelphia (CL-41), Savannah (CL-42) or Nashville (CL-43), since the other ships of the type were in the Pacific at the time.
My money would be on it being Savannah based on the camouflage. Photos of the other Atlantic Brooklyns taken in the spring of 1942 show them wearing a modified Measure 12 camo but the scallops of the lighter gray along top of the hull are all much deeper than depicted in this photo. I have not found any photo of Savannah wearing this camo dated around the time of the Norfolk photo be it does not stretch credulity too much to believe if the other 3 Atlantic Fleet Brooklyns are all wearing Measure 12 during this time then the Savannah would be also and as the pattern in this photo does not match any of the other 3 ships ergo... The problem with this line of reasoning - DNFS put the Savannah in Recife, Brazil 10 days after the date cited on the photo although a similar problem exists for all the Atlantic Brooklyns. (Text i.d. courtesy of Charles Haberlein Jr. (USNHC) & Chris Hoehn.)

Can anyone confirm for sure that this is actually Savannah?

Thanks!!

Don Andrews

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
My Pre-War Hoholulu build is progressing nicely; on thepicture post>in progress forum.
I'm in search of facts; elusive ones it seems.
Can someone tell me what Mk # the main battery director is for the pre-war Brooklyn's ???????
The YMW 1/350 Brooklyn kit has Mk34 for the Main battery and Mk28 for the secondary directors.
Here is pre-war Boise; same directors as Honolulu, but not like wartime Mk34's.

Here is wartime Honolulu's main battery director.....

The Mk34 directors are different in most respects.....
TIA, Tony

[Dick J]

I have had this discussion before. Someone shipped me an excerpt from Freidman's Naval Weapons book which indicated that the early model MK-34 directors only had spotting glasses (which barely protruded from the sides) rather than the later rangefinder. The main battery director of CA-44 (Vincennes) looked the same as the early MK-34's in your Boise photo.

As for the secondary directors, the Brooklyn's all carried MK-33's. There were three main styles of MK-33's. The earliest were on the Farragut and Mahan classes of DD's. These had the forward bulkhead of the open-topped directors forward of the rangefinder. The other open-topped style was carried by the first 4 Brooklyn's, the two Portland's, the Ranger, and the Yorktown's. Visually, it looked the same as the MK-28's carried by the New Orleans class and the New Mexico's, with both director types having the rangefinder on the forward face of the director. However, the MK-33 differed in having power-drives and probably an updated range-table for faster aircraft. The last style of MK-33 was the closed-top type originally carried by the last 3 Brooklyn's, the St Louis's, Wichita and the Wasp as well as the Dunlap, Bagley, Gridley, and Benham classes of DD's. These were retrofitted to the early Brooklyn's (except Savannah upgraded with MK-37's), the Pensacola's, the surviving Northampton's, the Portland's, and the New Mexico's.

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
DickJ,
Thanks for the reply. Your statements lead to more questions.
Mk28 is a misnomer? Mk33 is the actual designation for the secondary battery directors?
I've read this before, but conflicting info leads to conflict between the ears.
Then we have the main battery directors; all referred to as Mk34?
Mk34 the Apple and Mk34 the Orange??
The two main battery directors shown are different in three areas unless Im losing my marbles..........:
Overall Height
Outside diamter
Optics differences
Am I correct in the assertion that the replacement later Mk34's did require the towers to be lowered?
Thanks, Tony

[Dick J]

The problem is that what you see is only a small part of the director system. The core of the director was below decks. The "computer" is what really defined the MK-34 as such. The original rotating fitting on the Brooklyn's did not include a rangefinder, but was otherwise similar in appearance to the later MK-34's on the Clevelands and other ships. When the rangefinder was added to the revolving structure of the director, apparently the mod required more supporting structure than was installed on later ships which had the rangefinder from the beginning.

As for the AA director, one of the MK-33 open types looked almost exactly like the MK-28. The difference was primarily the power-drives. Unlike the MK-34 low-angle director and the later MK-37 dual-purpose director, which had the "computer" below decks, the MK-33 was self-contained. The AA director originally installed on the first 4 Brooklyn's was the MK-33. But due to the similarity in appearance, the confusion with the MK-28 is understandable.

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
Hi Dick J,
The main battery director towers shown in this yard pic of Brooklyn kind of make clear a few things:

the height of the tower
the accessibilty for entry
the location of external platforms
There was no part of this that rotated was there?
The director itself just sat atop correct?
How much of the director could have gone down inside the tower?
Are there any published images of the different Mk34 and Mk33 directors by themselves?
Thanks very much, BTW
Tony

[Dick J]

All of the structure in your construction photo is fixed. The rotating part sat on top and extended down into the "tube". The rotating part included all of the spotting and data input functions, which were manual observations by crewmen. A quick visual check shows that there was insufficient room within the visible portion to fit the crew, so there had to be more director structure within the "tube". All of the actual computing was below decks. Freidman's Naval Weapons book probably has more on the different director models, but I don't have my own copy yet.

[fred_sirois]

Greetings, gents. I'm trying to get an idea of which 1/700 USS Helena kit is the best value. I know that both the NIKO kit and the Midship Models kit are resin. Also, according to some "experts", there are shape and size problems with both. Before I part with $60 plus, I want to make sure I get the "lesser of two weevils".

Thanks for your input.

(By the way, this should be "Calling all USS Brooklyn/St Louis class (CL) fans". The Helena was the 2nd and last St. Louis class cruiser. But you guys already knew that.)

[Dick J]

I have the NIKO kit, which has some serious problems. But, I haven't actually had my hands on the Midships kit to give a comparison.

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
DickJ,
Thanks.
Fred,
I have the Niko Brooklyn's a three.
USS Helena CL-50 1942
USS Philadelphia CA-41
USS Nashville CL-43 1944
Want some pics?
Tony

[fred_sirois]

Thanks Tony. That would be great. How was your experience with the Helena?

[commodore4]

This will be short and sweet. I need any or all sources for the location and type of 5'38 guns the SAVANNAH had in her 1944-45 fits .I can,t seem to get any clear info on this part of her armament. any help would be greatly appreciated.I have a 1/96 scale urge and I want to get it right.Thanks in advance. Oh! I also would like info on her paint schemes in this time frame also.I have MUCH generic info on the class,but ,she is kind of glossed over.Thank you again. commodore4

[Timmy C]

This would be after her refit, is that right?

In case you haven't seen it, here is Navsource's page on her:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/04042.htm

The dual 5"/38 gun houses are quite visible in the last few pictures on that page. There are two mounts on each side of the ship.

As for paint scheme, she was wearing MS 22, which is 5-H Haze Grey for the lighter colour that you see and 5-N Navy Blue for that darker colour on the hull below the lowest point of the main deck. Decks should be 20-B Deck Blue.