The Ship Model Forum

BB-30 USS Florida Booklet of General Plans (1929) https://archive.org/details/bb30bogp1929

Late 20's.

what time period are you doing the model?

Been working on BB-30 Florida in 700th scale using the Niko kit. A good amount of the ship is inaccurate, but the torp bulges are downright ugly. I have two copies of the kit, so one will undergo exploratory surgery to mill off the bulges. Brass barrels came in today so we'll see how they fit.

I had to track down Samek 700th North Dakota to use the hull to estimate how much material I need to remove.

The 3d printed superstructure printed by Jon Warneke is for a 1941 Utah, BUT the 3d cagemast is way more finer than the anything else I've seen. The platforms around the stack are amazing too.

I would think that if there was concrete further aft of where you currently show it, we would see "some" remnants of it somewhere. Would the salvage crew take the time to completely remove all evidence of concrete in that area? Look around the chock and bit or any of the other structures in that area. Not a single hint of concrete anywhere from what I can see.

I was hoping the King could help shed some light on the topic, but it appears that all he saw was what we are seeing as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP5p6Xex1V0

Work on my 3D model of the Utah got sidetracked for sometime, been almost year since working on it :eyes_spinning:

But took a few minutes to knock the digital dust off and add a few details. I would say she is about 70% done, still a lot of minute details and most of the Port side details yet to add.
[attachment=3]6-22-2025.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=2]6-22-2025 2.PNG[/attachment]


The mystery of her Concrete deck still haunts me, I feel I have it as photos support, but so much is still in question. Looking at the wreck images, I am beginning to believe that the concrete was carried aft further around the 5/25's. Nothing concrete(see what I did there?) but a feel that I get from images taken of the wreck that it may have been removed during the righting process.

[attachment=1]Wreck Crop.PNG[/attachment]
This image captures what makes me think it was there. Around the square base of the 5/25, there is a wood frame or margin plank. While these are not unusual around fittings, this one is clearly raised which is odd as they were usually flush with the deck. One then also needs to ask why there would be the need for a raised plank frame around something that would be covered by the base of the gun mount? I believe this was there and at one point surrounded by cement which would have made this flush and made it easier if the mount were to be removed later as this foundation would not be cemented in. We see the righting cables draped across the hull which this operation could have necessitated the removal of the concrete or knocked it loose.

[attachment=0]Aircastle crop.PNG[/attachment]
The tone difference has made me wonder in this image as well, Just forward of the 5/25 on the right we see the dividing line that is visible in the wreck images where cement becomes wood. But there is clearly two very different tones here, shadows are evident, so don't believe it to be that. There is a hose just behind the 5/25 on the left, so it's possible it is a wet deck which would help explain the uneven shape of the darker area but then we look just behind the breech of the right 5/25 and see an almost perfect square that stands out if it were just random wet deck. So not sure if I want to extend the cement deck further aft or as this image may suggest, just around the 5/25's themselves. Any one else care to take a stab at what we are seeing?

Matt

Came across this tonight by accident. While no new details of her fit can be found, it is still a a visually interesting interactive video.

[url]https://tapestry.cyark.org/content/uss-utah[/url]

Matt

I've been curious about those "white blocks" as well... I'll look through some of my references and try to find an answer. Until now, I have assumed they were some sort of "pad" between the docking keels and the blocks in the dock, as I have seen a reference to that somewhere...now, I just need to re-find that reference!

[quote="taskforce48"]We know Utah was in Drydock at PSNY during the summer of 41, are these marking from her drydock blocks that never got painted?
Thoughts?
[attachment=0]013122a.jpg[/attachment][/quote]

You are probably correct. Once the keel blocks are set in place, the drydock is filled and the ship is moved into the drydock. Lines on both sides & ends are adjusted accordingly to the dockmaster's plan for the exact location of the ship. The water is slowly pumped out and lines are adjusted as the ship lowers to settle on the blocks. The blocks are stationary, the ship is moved as needed. There are no divers involved that I've ever heard of. The ship's position is moved by the personnel on the drydock, not in it. I don't think drydocking methods had changed between the 1940s & 1960s and more than likely is the same today.

Hope this helps!

Edit - To be a bit more specific, the lines from the drydock to the ship are on wheeled reel cars which move up/down the drydock walkway as directed my the dockmaster. Surveyor transits are used to pinpoint the exact location of the ship per the docking plan (and location of the blocks below) and readings are taken throughout the process to guide the ship to its proper location on the blocks.

I think those painted areas enable the hardhat divers to see them so that they can give the surface course adjustments so that the ship settles onto the blocks at those locations.

Recently a picture was posted on eBay for sale and it was of the Utah after she overturned and teams are working to cut through he hull to rescue survivors. Seems like I have seen this image a thousand times, but this time something jumped out at me- Rows of dash marks along the length of the hull. I did some investigating thinking that the picture was taken at latter date during salvage and these were markings for frames and found the picture to not taken later. It is actually 80-G-19950 and it appears to have been taken the day of the attack as rising smoke can still be seen in the background and after closer inspection of other photos taken right after the attack we see them there. What are they? We know Utah was in Drydock at PSNY during the summer of 41, are these marking from her drydock blocks that never got painted?
Thoughts?
[attachment=0]013122a.jpg[/attachment]

Great photos, Jeff! Thanks for sharing.

Jeff,

Thanks for sharing! The 1955 shot definitely supports the covered forecastle.

Matt

Hey Matt,
Here is a decent look at the concrete decking in 1965.
[url=https://postimages.org/][img]https://i.postimg.cc/gkGQtdxD/Screen-Shot-2025-02-14-at-8-58-27-PM.png[/img][/url]

...and in 1972
[url=https://postimages.org/][img]https://i.postimg.cc/wvWDQhZL/Screen-Shot-2025-02-14-at-11-02-22-PM.png[/img][/url]

...and one dated 1955.
[url=https://postimages.org/][img]https://i.postimg.cc/Kj2Ct3kP/1955.png[/img][/url]

Dick,

I thought of it, absolutely a very real possibility. Just with her focus being on the AA training, felt a lone antiquated(but yes in 1941 still very in use) surface Rangefinder seemed out of place.

However-

It appears I need to take back my previous comment about the Rangefinder not being there earlier than this refit. I located an image that shows the Utah being prepared for her final refit in June of 1941, and much to my surprise she sports not one but two Rangefinders. It does not show the Rangefinder in question as the former #3 turret can't be seen, but on former Turret #4 and #5 there are clearly two types mounted. So very real possibility that she was being employed in training or equipment evaluation and one of these could have been relocated amidships or another one was already there and just can't be seen.

[attachment=0]Small RFs 6-41.PNG[/attachment]

So the quest continues.....

You are overlooking the possibility that she was also training men to use the rangefinder, not just the guns.

She had 4-5/38's, 2 in enclosed mounts on old Turrets 4&5 and 2 open on the Port side amidships opposite of the 5/25's. While I do suppose the 12ft rangefinder could be used, seems an odd pairing as it would not be one found on other ships I am aware of. The MK33 on the Port Bridge wing would have served the purpose of both Surface and Aerial ranging and direction for those mounts.

Matt

it is a 12' range finder & she has 2x 5"/30 cal gun mounts on the stern so range finder maybe used for them.

So the quest to understand the Utah in her final fit continues. Clearly visible in her August 1941 refit image, we see a canvas covered object on the roof of former Turret #3. I have seen several references to her carrying a "gun director" amidships. The image looks to be about the shape and size of a 12ft Rangefinder that Utah and many other USN BB's of her vintage carried, but my question is why? These directors were used to help guide the main battery and if used for secondary batteries, it would have been the 5/51 guns for surface action. Utah at this stage in life was a AA training ship, she mounted a MK19 AA director (Older 2 part type) and a MK33 director. Why would she carry a director for which none of the AA guns she carried utilized? I began to wonder if perhaps it was a MK44 since the Utah carried 1.1's, but I don't feel it quite fits the profile we are seeing. Anyone have any thoughts? It has been recently installed as she did not have it there in 1940, so it wasn't just a hold over?

[attachment=0]Small Director.PNG[/attachment]

Matt

Matt,

I concur with your conclusions.

Jeff,

In the books "Resurrection: Salvaging the Battle Fleet at Pearl Harbor" and "Descent into Darkness" they both indicate needing to clear away timbers that had floated free from Utah's deck after she rolled over. They indicated the deck was covered in these timbers usually when she was used for bombing practice