Calling all Brooklyn-class (CL-40) fans

[David Sandifer]

Trying to contact maccrage of Milwaukee, OR regarding your Shapeways Brooklyn superstructure. Haven't seen you post since 13NOV2021.

[taskforce48]

Random one for you all, decking on the stern of the USS Helena in 1942.

All drawing I can find of the Helena all show her deck planking ending just fore of the Hangar cover.(Blue arrow) which is supported by an image of her fitting out on page 4 of Leeward's Damage Report No.1.

However, this image of St. Louis in March of 1942 shows the planks ending further forward (Red arrow)

Question, did the Helena get the same treatment post 12/7/41 repairs or was St Louis built this way? On page 26 of the Leeward publication, there are two images I have not seen elsewhere of the Helena finishing her refit, one shows a potential answer shot but in the book it's not high resolution enough to pick out the decking. I have found two of the images in high resolution that are on that page, but the one in the bottom left corner I have been unsuccessful in tracking down.

TIA
Matt

[DrPR]

I'm pretty sure the wooden decking did not go past the red arrow in your drawing. In the photo you can see the line of the transverse margin board (there the wood decking stops) crossing the deck just aft of the vents and other equipment.

The hanger cover front end is where your blue arrow shows when the hanger is closed. But when it opens if rolls forward on the two tracks visible in the photo and drawing to where your red arrow points. There is no wood decking between these rails.

The Clevelands were like this too.

I would guess that the catapults, hanger cover rollers, airplanes and such would leak oils and grease that would stain wood decking. Also, for the lower 6"/47 triple turrets the blast from the guns might also burn the decking. At least the wood decking stops aft of the gun barrel muzzles up forward, and ahead of the muzzles aft. I don't think this was a real problem though. The USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 had wooden decking extending far forward of the 6"/47 turret and it pumped about 18,000 6 inch rounds out of the forward turret in Vietnam. If there was any charring of the teak it was easily removed by holystoning.

Phil

[Mike C]

Greetings all,

This is a bit of a long shot, but I have in mind a project to build the aft section of a Brooklyn/St. Louis CL where the hangar cover would open by motor.

I have found a picture taken at the aft end of the hangar deck looking forward, but I'm wondering if anyone else has found any kind of pictures of the insides, or a general plan illustrating the general layout that I could use to fill in some of the blanks.

Thanks in advance,

Too late?

[Quincy]

With Vee Hobby future release of a 1944 Honolulu, how difficult would it be to backdate it to a 1942 version?



Bob

[maxim]

There would be many differences, the most extensive changes were made to the bridge:

1939

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 53562).jpg

1942
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/048/0404822.jpg
https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/048/04048.htm

1944

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _1944.jpeg

[DougC]

If it helps, here is a youtube about Cleveland class hangar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT6pRbK4bfg

[Quincy]

Thank you Maxim



Bob

[FFG-7]

CL-46 USS Phoenix Booklet of General Plans (19XX) (version 1) https://archive.org/details/cl46bogp19xx
CL-46 USS Phoenix Booklet of General Plans (19XX) (version 2) https://archive.org/details/cl46bogp19xxv2
CL-46 USS Phoenix Booklet of General Plans (19XX) (version 3) https://archive.org/details/cl46bogp19xxv3

[sdk10159]

With Vee Hobby future release of a 1944 Honolulu, how difficult would it be to backdate it to a 1942 version?



Bob

Does anyone have any info on when this kit will be released?

Steve

[TZoli]

Does anybody have drawings of Brooklyn and St Louis classes as finished? before the additions of Oerlikon and Bofors guns, eg with the Browning MG mounts?

[TZoli]

Do somebody know the mark number designation or drawings of the Brookyln class 6" main battery directors?
It does not appear to be the Mark 34 type:
https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 92370.html

it looks much different:

[Timmy C]

Mark 33 director, open-top variant (covered with canvas and facing backwards in those two photos), and before radar was installed.

[maxim]

Mk 33 was the director for the 5".

According to Terzibaschitsch, Brooklyn originally had Mk 31 directors for the 6".

[TZoli]

Mk 33 was the director for the 5".

According to Terzibaschitsch, Brooklyn originally had Mk 31 directors for the 6".

Thanks!
So two Mark 31, two Mark 33 and apparently a 12ft mark 35 in front of the forward Mark 33, above the erm... Pilot house?

[Dick J]

I would be careful about some of Terzibaschitsch's information. Friedman is a much better source. The directors on the Brooklyn's were, in fact, an early version of the MK-34. They had spotting glasses protruding from the sides rather than the rangefinder found on the later versions of the director. Vincennes (CA-44) also had the same early version of the MK-34. Compare her directors to the MK-31's on the earlier New Orleans class ships. The Vincennes directors are visibly larger. During the war, the Brooklyn class MK-34's were modified with a rangefinder, but remained visibly distinct from the later MK-34's. Vincennes was lost before her directors could be modified.

[TZoli]

I think Wichita carried the same Director for the main guns as the Brooklyns. I don't know if such large difference in shape and size would allow the same designation.
Friedman barely mentions such data.

[Dick J]

Wichita and the two St Louis class ships had the rangefinder in the MK-34's from the beginning. A director system has multiple elements that define it. There are the "input" elements, which are the manned positions within the rotating structure, and a stable element and computational element below decks. The outer shell of the rotating element can change over time without leading to a change in designation. Consider the MK-19 AA directors. As originally mounted on the battleships, Lexington's, Pensacola's and Northampton's, there were two visible parts: the main director element and a separate "altimeter"/rangefinder element. On the battleships and cruisers, these were later mounted together on a rotating platform with a covering shell. The appearance totally changed, but they were still designated MK-19's. Lexington retained the separate pieces of the system to the end, while Saratoga upgraded to MK-37's. On the MK-34's, the other elements remained the same. They just had to modify the shell of the rotating part to include the rangefinder - first on the Wichita and St Louis, and then later on the updated structures on the Brooklyn's.

[sdk10159]

One of my favorite ship classes is the Brooklyn. I've been waiting for a long time for a Brooklyn in plastic and I was really excited to hear that Vee Hobby was going to release one this year. No release yet and Vee Hobby does not answer on FB. Yes, I'm inpatient.

But, I just discovered Niko Models and a USS Helena is available on Squadron. I googled Niko, but I don't see any reviews on them. I'm not a big fan of of resin, but the images on squadron look good. Does anyone have any critique on Niko?

Steve Kubik

[maxim]

I have built Helena using the Niko Model kit.

There are two small issues:
a) the rear Mk 33 has to be positioned more forward
b) the anchors are too much forward

Usually Niko Models are easy to built.