The Ship Model Forum

Well I see Roger's image from last week and add a photo of USS SALT LAKE CITY taken only about five months after she was commissioned that I scanned. Without that ugly dazzle camo and all those AA guns.

Ugly, ugly he says. Did you just say ugly to describe the paint scheme on Pensacola? Guess that just goes to show you, spend a week with a fellow scanning at the archives, break bread with him at breakfast, lunch and dinner and just when you think you are getting to know him he calls it UGLY. Now tell the truth Rick you did have both your eyes open when you looked at the photo……right?

Those are both nice photos! Thanks so much for sharing! I wish I lived close to a NARA facility that housed my interests!

Great photos of beautiful ships!
Just out of curiosity, why did they have the triple turrets above the twins? From what I understand it is usual to put the heaviest items as near to the waterline as possible to aid stability. I assume the advantage of having six guns able to fire in a heavy sea was deemed more important in the Salt Lake Citys?

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

May need confirmation for this, but I believe that while the barbettes for the twin and triple turrets were the same diameter, the hull was too fine forward and aft to accommodate the larger magazines and other associated equipment of the triple turrets. You're right, having the heavier turrets higher up did have a negative impact on stability, but it seems they didn't have a choice since they could only fit the smaller turrets nearer the ends.

_________________
Vlad

Mostly the assumption that Steve has done his homework

https://www.shapeways.com/product/E9N2F ... base-rings

"On the real ship, no matter whether the base ring supported a twin turret or a triple turret, the supporting base ring had the same diameter. True to prototype, these model base rings also have the same diameter."

Also, it does make sense, since although the twin turret is narrower, it is not shorter, so a smaller diameter barbette would not support the overhang sufficiently.

_________________
Vlad

True, the balancing thing was just speculation. For now I'm happy to accept Steve's conclusion that on Pensacola all the barbettes were the same unless someone provides specific evidence to the contrary.

_________________
Vlad

PENSACOLA still retained her MK-22 MB/8" director at the time of her (very severe) damage at Tassafaronga [Nov 30/Dec. 1, 1942], and she also still had her MK-19 5" directors as well.

Now I'm confused - Friedman mentions the PENSACOLA class as mounting "Mark 18" main battery directors. I've never heard of the Mark 22. Do you have any more info on this system?

The type (MK 22) of MB director is noted specifically (& more than once) in her after-action damage reports following the mess off Tassafaronga. Ditto the MK19 for her 5".

Perhaps she was built w/a MK 18 & it was changed sometime later between 1930 & 1941-42(?), but I honestly don't know.

Thanks Vlad, interesting stuff! Presumably a compromise made necessary by treaty limitations.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

I think that was it, they couldn't make the hull longer because it would push the displacement up, and they couldn't bulk the lines at the bow/stern without sacrificing speed, so they had to rearrange the turrets to fit and stability ended up being the thing that got compromised. I would still be curious though why the barbettes ended up the same diameter.

_________________
Vlad

I suspect that making them smaller in design (diameter) would have further compromised stability. Also from a design and cost perspective it makes sense. Just my opinion based on my naval architecture and mechanical engineering background.

Salt Lake City in Alaskan waters, March 1943:

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Can I assume this photo was taken before the Battle of the Komandorski Islands?

There was a time when NARA printed photos in-house and you could request for them to print for detail from the negatives. I did that a few times back then, but I haven't ordered prints recently. Martin's photo would have been a great candidate for that. Sadly, I believe they're all out-sourced now, so I don't know what kind of latitude you have with ordering prints.

This photo of SLC was taken just after the Battle of the Komandorskis...

Reproduction of images at NARA has been changing. For about 20-years (give or take), there were at least five vendors authorized to scan prints and negatives/transparencies IN-HOUSE at NARA-College Park for customers for a fee. Before the Vendor Program, NARA staff did the reproduction via the good "OLD" film-to-print processing. The Vendors did excellent work, if the original was in good shape. (Some negatives at NARA were actually made by using a camera to copy the original print so that more prints could be made, when the original negative was unavailable) However, the vendor program was ended in September 2016.

Researchers have been allowed to go to NARA and scan B&W prints at no cost, other than buying scanning equipment and getting to NARA for years. Or you can use a digital camera to copy a print at poorer quality than via scanning. But, B&W Negatives can ONLY be scanned with authorized equipment AND only if a GOOD print doesn't exist in one of the print collections. You have to VERIFY that there is NO PRINT available, and that can take work to research through multiple collections. Color images from the USN 80-GK and US Army Signal Corp (SC-111) collections can only be scanned from the copy slides made many years ago, unless special authorization is given. And then ONLY from the NARA furnished scanner and software. Negatives and Transparencies are kept in cold storage to preserve them. It is extra work for the NARA staff to retrieve and bring back to room temp before they can be scanned.

You can also "hire" a NARA registered "Pro-Reseacher" to scan prints for you. But, they will charge for researching (finding it if it exists) and then scan it to your requirements (dpi, digital or print, etc).

Things have certainly changed since I was sending print requests. Many of the changes happened because of budget and related staffing issues. Other measures were taken to preserve the collection and to try to curb rampant pilfering that was allegedly happening. In the end, it became too much of a hassle to try to do it by mail from the left coast.

There were also changes in the paper used for prints, going from the much more detailed bromide prints that had to go through the drum driers, to the resin-coated film that air dried. I still marvel at details and depths of field captured by the large-format 8" x 10" cameras used at Mare Island. I have one photo of Holland in 1943 where you can see the logo of the refinery on the storage tanks far in the background.

It's an odd paradox that more stuff is being found, but it's much harder to get to now.

Thanks for the insights, Rick.

At least it is still possible to find some historical information. A lot has been lost.

The USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 fired the first successful combat surface-to-surface missile and the first ARM (anti-radar) shot in US Navy history, but the Navy and the Archives have lost all records of it. It happened in February 1972 off North Vietnam. No one in the Navy Historical Center gives a damn.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

I'm building Pensacola in 1942 and one thing has me a bit stumped. Where are the directors located for the 1.1" quad mounts on the bridge wings?

_________________
Vlad