The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jul 11, 2025 9:00 pm

Board index » ModelWarships.com general forum » Calling all Ship Fans » CASF » Aircraft Carriers

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 14
  [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Tracy White
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
youngb wrote:
Did Casablanca class carriers ever UNREP, and if so which side of the ship, port or starboard?


Everything UnRep'd.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
gtbred
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:10 am
Posts: 2712
Location: san francisco
look in my closet and forgot i had this. stop working on it 4yrs ago. working on my supercarriers. but lost the instructions and some parts. gonna have to talk to the main man from Yankee Model Works. Image Image Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Sr. Gopher
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
What vessel would that be?

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Cliffy B
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Looks like a Casablanca-Class CVE. Which ship/era will she be Red?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
gtbred
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:10 am
Posts: 2712
Location: san francisco
Cliffy B wrote:
Looks like a Casablanca-Class CVE. Which ship/era will she be Red?

1944 maybe Midway before she had to change her name.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
maxs75
 Post subject: USN CVE radars
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Very interesting informations there.
Do you have data for other US Navy ships, in particular for the Casablanca class. Some of them were already completed in october 1943.
Thank you very much
Max


Tracy White wrote:
Found some info at the San Francisco Archives that might be of use to the Royal Navy CVE Fans. This is a US Navy list of "allowed" and "installed" radars; if it is underlined it is installed, otherwise it was merely allowed. So, for example, Battler was ALLOWED a SP, but since it's not underlined, she wasn't actually carrying one. This was from an October 1943 report and doesn't cover the entire war:

http://www.specwarnet.net/MW/1943OctUSN ... nsCVEs.jpg
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
 Post subject: Re: USN CVE radars
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
maxs75 wrote:
Do you have data for other US Navy ships, in particular for the Casablanca class. Some of them were already completed in october 1943.


Here's the other sheet:

http://www.specwarnet.net/MW/1943OctUSN ... CVEs02.jpg

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
maxs75
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Thank you very very much! very interesting!
Strange that later Casablancas were authorized with SC-2, even if some of them already got the more modern SK.
I had a look at navsource.org and it seems that all ships from CVE-59 Mission Bay to CVE-97 Hollandia got SK, but later ships had the better SK-2 instead. Maybe, but I'm not sure, also Anzio (CVE-57) and Corregidor (CVE-58) got SK after refit.

Do you know if Sangamon class carriers received a more modern radar than SC-1 or SC-2 later in the war? They were refitted in late 1944/early 1945. navsource had no late war photo of them. The similar Commencement bay class at that time was receiving SK-2 and SP. Maybe they were scheduled to have a similar outfit.

Max
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
maxs75
PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Interestingly I found the following from http://www.carrierbuilders.net/element/ ... php?id=447 :
Quote:
According to the plans which I had, Sangamon should have carried SK, SG, and YE radars, but even in photos of rather poor quality, it was clear that Sangamon did not carry SK, but the much smaller SC-2 and in a different position than in the plans as well. According to some books, no Sangamon-class carrier had the SK Radar installed at any time and there were no really good photos available where I could see which antennae were installed in early 1945. Once again, though, I only had to contact Don Schroeder about this problem and he got in contact with former radar operators on Sangamon who identified for me which radars were installed in 1945. There was still the problem that on one photo it seemed that there was another antenna, which I could not identify. Finally with the help from an old friend, carrier expert Stefan Terzibaschitsch, we were able to identify this mystery radar as an SP, with a so called 6 ft. cut antenna. Where the normal round dish is cut off on the top and bottom forming a rectangle with curved sides. The SP was a fighter director radar, which was needed by the Sangamon, because during her last major overhaul in Bremerton she was designated a night-fighter escort carrier, the first CVE used in this role.


It is not right that "..no Sangamon-class carrier had the SK Radar installed at any time ..." but it seems logical that she had SP. Now the question is if the sisters had SP as well.
Anyone knows?

Max
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
I have some photos of CVE-26 radars in 1945 but won't have time to dig for them until next week.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
maxs75
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Thank you very much. I'm interested also in photo of Suwannee, Chenango and Santee.

Max
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
Holes... HOLES I SAY!
52 drilled so far with at least another 50 to go :eyes_spinning:

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
One thing I've come across for builders of the Hasegawa 1/350 Gambier Bay; as per page 28 of the "Anatomy of the Ship: Gambier Bay" book, the 2.5m optical range finder on top of the island (part AP20, step 16) was removed and replaced with sky lookout stations (similar to the ones I posted a memo on here but later models). It looks like there were three of them; one on the starboard side of the platform facing forward and two on the port side (forward one facing starboard and aft one facing port).

Yankee Modelworks might make them as a separate set of photo-etch but their web site menus are unusable so I'm not going to try and look to see.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
Final tally is 81 holes drilled in the structure underneath the flight deck overhangs. I probably could have skipped 6 with no one other than me and God knowing (center support on the bow, behind the main transverse girder).

A couple items of note to watch out for:

The raised hull plating lines will mess up parts fit as Hasegawa continues them regardless of whether or not a part fits over the top or not. So far I have had to mark and cut away these lines underneath the propellor shaft skegs and sponsons as tey would have otherwise left gaps where the piece contacted the line and not the hull surface.

The hull is three pieces; left, right, and the flat stern surface. The fit of this last part into the first too was a bit vague and needed a lot of testing & work to get right. Even with that, it was slightly off, so that when I glued the supports underneath the aft 5" tub in, they were slightly misaligned due to the stern piece not being true. The essential effect would have been to have a parallel lean to each one when the alignment hole on the stern piece pulled the pieces to one side. After the first one, I just cut off this alignment piece and hand-aligned it to eyeball.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
If you want to be REALLY anal about your Gambier Bay build:

1) drill a hole on both sides of piece C17 where the blue spot is. This was present on all of the ships but missing on the part.
2) The red area was added as a ShipAlt starting with CVE-94 USS Lunga Point. I don't know if it was retrofitted to Gambier Bay but I can see from the AOTS Gambier Bay book on page 27 that she did not have it originally.

Attachment:
File comment: Unknown CVE, possibly CVE-94
1944 June Shipalt CVE148A 02 L-10359 5-27-44.jpg
1944 June Shipalt CVE148A 02 L-10359 5-27-44.jpg [ 370.71 KiB | Viewed 6448 times ]

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
I actually need to add eight holes to my tally (total of 89 now). There are four each on the two forward side pieces for the catwalk galleries; you can see them in the photos above on the left side.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Firecaptain
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:49 am
Posts: 57
Location: Virginia
Tracy,
Would you post some pics of this work when you get a chance?
Thanks

_________________
Joe
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Tracy White
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
It's a build for Internet Modeler, so they have first rights to the photos. That said, Chris hasn't been as interested in build photos, so I might be able to post some here.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
jep1210
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:49 pm
Posts: 51
Location: NJ
Wait, Hasegawa makes a 350th Gambier Bay?!?!?!?!?!? :woo_hoo: How did I miss that? I should crawl out from under my rock every once in a while. :big_grin:
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
maxs75
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:38 am
Posts: 59
Hello,
It seems that during the second half of 1942 the production of Bofors 40mm guns didn't reach the desired level, and not all the ships (new building or refits) could be fitted with the 40mm Bofors.

I asked myself if the early escort carrier conversions were built with 1.1" instead of 40mm guns.
Friedman's US carrier design history says that
Quote:
early conversions had four quadruple 1.1" guns scheduled for replacement on a one-to-one basis by twin 40mm.
Late in 1942 however the 40mm envisaged for C3 were doubled, and those for the Sangamons increased to 9 twin 40mm guns.
About a year later the Sangamon battery was set at seven twins and 2 quads.


Now I'd like to know which ships actually carried the 1.1".
From photo at navsource.org, it seems that the following ships were completed with only 4 positions for quad 1.1" or twin Bofors.
In each case the positions were: two on the fantail and two on both sides of the fore flight deck.
ACV-9 Bogue
ACV-12 Copahee
ACV-16 Nassau
ACV-18 Altamaha
and the four Sangamons
Probably some or all of them could have the 1.1" fitted.
The question is: any info about that?
Copahee was commissioned first so she is the most probable one.

Card, Core and all ships commissioned in 1943 had 8 twins before going to combat. By that time the 40mm availability was better than in 1942. For that reason I guess that they had Bofors as built.
The earlier Long Island and Charger porbably never carried neither 1.1" nor Bofors.

Thank you in advance for any answer.
Max
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 14
  [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next

Board index » ModelWarships.com general forum » Calling all Ship Fans » CASF » Aircraft Carriers

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group