Calling all USS Cleveland class (CL) fans

[DrPR]

I took a look at the link below for the Midships model of the USS Miami CL-89.

The first thing I noticed was the rangefinder extension to turret #1. The later Clevelands didn't have the rangefinders in turret #1. But I have several photos labeled "USS Miami" that show these rangefinders on turret #1. These appear to be early photos right after commissioning, possibly on the shakedown cruise in early 1944. But 1945 photos clearly show the rangefinders to be gone from Turret #1 - a topside weight reduction measure. So this model must be the early 1944 configuration. I don't know when the rangefinders were removed, but it was done on many of the later ships.

NONE of the Clevelands had rangefinders on turret #4. I can't tell from the picture of the box artwork if the model has rangefinders on turret #4.

The model also has two 20mm guns outboard port and starboard of turrets #2 and #3 on the main deck. This was the shakedown cruise configuration, and many ships were initially fitted out with 20mm guns there. But July 1945 photos show twin 40mm guns at these positions. So this is definitely a shakedown cruise version of the ship.

The Miami had the trash burner smoke pipe on the front of the after smoke pipe - the model shows it outboard to port at the rear of the smoke pipe. The earliest Clevelands had it there. Miami did not.

The motor whaleboats are missing just aft midships port and starboard. They were carried on davits. These were on the ship immediately after commissioning in early 1944 and were still there in July 1945.

Mount 54 (port aft) appears to be on a platform with a walkway under it. The dual 5"/38 mounts rode on a handling room "box" that extended to the sides of the ship with no walkways around them.

These are pretty basic mistakes that makes wonder about the accuracy of the model. Maybe they are just box artwork mistakes.

However, the mounts 54 and 55 dual 5"/38 mounts do appear to be positioned correctly for the square bridge ships - about 12 feet farther aft than on the round bridge ships. This means it isn't a minor rework of a model of the early ships with just a square bridge substituted.

Phil

[Steve]

Quick note...
The old Midships 1/700 Miami is listed here for $14.95.

https://freetimehobbies.com/1-700-midsh ... t-cruiser/

This is same kit as the Pit Road/Skywave kit but also marketed by Midship back in the day when they did the 1500 ton DDs. You can find it on Freetime's site with this link so see if you can place an order. I did and it seems to work. If it bounces, I'll get a refund. At the price it is certainly worth it. Possibly Brandon found several in the "warehouse". BTW Midship also did a Cleveland kit also the same as the Pit Road/Skywave kit.

[tjstoneman]

The Pitroad kit of MIAMI is reviewed on this site at http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... miami.html.
Responding to Phil's post - noting that I am referring to the original PitRoad offering, which I believe has the same plastic as the Midships Model version:
Rangefinders are provided in the kit for all four turrets, but are separate pieces, so can be fitted as required - the instructions do, however, indicate they should be fitted to all four.
The emplacements for all four pairs of 20mm guns outboard of the inner 6" turrets are separate pieces, and, again, can be fitted as required.
The trash burner uptake is not provided in the kit.
The motor whaleboats and davits are provided in the kit, and the location indicated in the instructions.
The handling rooms under the twin 5" mounts are provided as part of the superstructure deck, and extend nearly to the ship's side. The Booklet of General Plans for MIAMI (http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/089/cl89.pdf) shows that they did not extend to the deck edge, leaving space for a walkway outboard of them, so this is correct - if the builders followed the plans.
There are many other differences between this kit and that of CLEVELAND, and most (but not all - eg trash burner uptake) of the changes in the real ships appear to have been made in the kits.

[DrPR]

tj,

Thanks. Sounds like the plastic is more accurate than the box art.

Phil

[whaynes]

Anybody have an idea as to what year the to-be- released Blue Ridge 1/350 USS Cleveland is supposed to represent?

[MartinJQuinn]

Anybody have an idea as to what year the to-be- released Blue Ridge 1/350 USS Cleveland is supposed to represent?

According to what VeryFire said here. late war.

[whaynes]

Thanks, hoping for that.

[DrPR]

I might even spring for a 1:350 or 1:200 type III modified Cleveland class like the USS Miami - something that can be made into a USS Oklahoma City CL-91. I have been planning to make a scratch build someday.

It will be interesting to see if they actually get the square bridge version right. I have never been able to find blueprints for it, and there were some subtle but significant differences in the superstructure from the early Clevelands. Each ship yard made slightly different versions. Added to that, wartime modifications were added as the opportunity appeared, usually after battle damage that sent the ships into the yards, so no two ships were alike. That adds up to lots of opportunities to screw up the kit. Lots of opportunities for kit bashing!

I did some CAD work for Yankee Modelworks for a 1:350 USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 kit but the last recession killed them before they could finish it.

Phil

[whaynes]

Anybody purchased the 1/350 USS Cleveland released by Very Fire?

[MartinJQuinn]

Anybody purchased the 1/350 USS Cleveland released by Very Fire?

Yes. Others have to, as see here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=255625&start=40#p883289

[dexter60]

Hello everyone. My father was on CL-103 Wilkes-Barre from launch until he ETSed at the end of the war.

[zgreen05]

Does anyone know, or have pictures that show the location of the black waterline stripe (separates the camouflage from the antifouling) in relation to the main armor belt?

[Michael Potter]

NavSource photos show the upper edge of the boot topping just below the upper edge of the armor belt:

USS Biloxi: https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/080/0408003.jpg
USS Atlanta https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/104/0410427.jpg
USS Atlanta https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/104/0410429.jpg

Does anyone know, or have pictures that show the location of the black waterline stripe (separates the camouflage from the antifouling) in relation to the main armor belt?

[DrPR]

I looked at the Cleveland class blueprint Mold Loft Offsets page 2 (CL 55 microfilm Reel 1 Frame 10, 81 pages in all). This is the only place I have seen the actual location of the boot topping given.

The black boot topping line was 6 feet high.
The top was 25' 2 3/8" above the Base Line.
The bottom was 19' 2 3/8" above the Base Line.

The top of the armor belt was 26' 2" above the Base Line.

So the top of the black boot topping was about a foot (11 5/8") below the top of the armor belt.

Note: the Base Line was a theoretical interior "molded" reference line 1 11/16" above the bottom of the keel plating. It would be too simple to just use the bottom of the plating. So to get the actual elevations above the bottom of the keel/hull add 1 11/16" to the elevations given above. At 1:350 or 1:700 just forget it.

Note: 1 11/16" was the thickness of some of the actual keel plating (68.85 pounds per square foot, or 68#).

Note: After the CLG conversions the ships rode lower in the water and the boot topping extended above the armor belt to the level of the knuckle at 27' 1 3/4" above the Base Line, or about a foot above the top of the armor belt.

Phil

[Fliger747]

Phil:

We�re the ships built with essentially zero armored freeboard? I�m being lazy, I could dig through Friedman, but this seems unusual in my limited understanding. I can understand that the ships references are to the framing and not the external plating dimensions.

Regards: Tom

[DrPR]

I do not know what you mean by "armored freeboard."

Phil

[Fliger747]

The location of external armor was usually designed to be most effective at a particular expected battle displacement. Typically hull side armor was located to offer a degree of protection of the above water hull to penetration of the citadel and retain watertightness for riddling by splinters. It generally was designed to extend a ways below the waterline so as to cover areas exposed by bow wave trough and maneuvering. Of course it eventually became apparent that underwater trajectories from "shorts" could defeat side protective systems by going under. This was a big factor in the quick disabling of Krishima by Washington. Iowa's and SODAK's tapered their inclined armor to act as a backup for the rest of the side protective system. Armored Freeboard is the height above the waterline of the protective armor to protect the citadel box.

Regards: Tom

[Fliger747]

The Kongos were actually similar in size and armament to the Alaska�s . Both had a main belt of about 9�. However Washington�s first salvo, though to be short actually penetrated the side protective system below the belt. There is an excellent report on line detailing the hits and damage to Krishima. As large and fast carrier escorts early in the war they certainly figured into Battle planning before our fast battleships became more numerous.

certainly she was overmatched by Washington, Captain Davis and Admiral Lee.

[DrPR]

Tom,

Friedman's "U.S. Cruisers" says Clevelands had "... an immune zone at a 90 degree target angle: 9,400 to 21,700 yards against the 6"/47 gun (105 lb. shell, 2,800 ft./sec.)"

The main side armor belt extended outboard of the engineering spaces. A smaller armor belt extended forward to provide protection for the magazines. The 3rd deck was 40# (1 inch thick) armor plate, at the level of the top of the main armor belt. The after steering compartment was lightly armored, and the director tubes that supported the gun directors were also armored. The original versions had an armored pilot house (5" thick). Later versions omitted the armored pilot house to reduce topside weight (to allow more anti-aircraft guns). There were several transverse bulkheads below the 3rd deck from 3.5" to 5" thick.

The main armor belts were 9 feet high, extending 4' 5" above the Design Water Line (D.W.L.). They were 5" S.T.S. armor plate above the D.W.L. and tapered below the D.W.L. to 3 1/4" at the bottom. The armor plating sloped inward about 5 degrees top to bottom.

The forward armor belt extended from the main belt below the water line to protect the forward magazines. It was 80# S.T.S plating (2" thick).

The turrets and barbettes were armored. Barbettes were 6" thick from the turrets to the 3rd deck. The face of the turrets were 6.5" thick class A armor. The tops were 3" thick and the sides and rear were 1.5" plate class B armor.

The ships had double hulls for underwater protection.

The Clevelands turned out to be very well protected. None were sunk even after taking multiple torpedo, bomb and kamikazi hits. They came out ahead in several gunfights with heavy cruisers in the Solomons campaigns, thanks to the relatively rapid fire 6"/47 guns and fire control radar.

Phil

[Fliger747]

Indeed they were fine ships, the rate of fire made the six inch weapon very effective and popular compared to the eight inch heavy cruisers which were deemed too slow firing against fast maneuvering targets such as were the norm in the Slot battles. A couple of six inch hits beat an eight inch miss any day.