Calling all Cleveland-class (CL-55) fans

[bgire]

Doing a Google Earth survey of museum ships, I zoomed on USS Little Rock in Buffalo, NY... only to realize she had to be towed from the East Coast (Boston ?) around Newfoundland then up to the Saint Laurent and through the Welland canal to bypass the Niagara Falls. What a cruise!

I found the Welland canal locks can cope with a 220m ship, this being enough for Little Rock but she would have been a big piece to handle... I "Google flew" along the canal (altitude 330m) and I still wonder how they did it...

I tried to find something about this cruiser in the Welland canal locks without finding either pictures or even a report on this journey.

Could someone help and post something about? Pictures, testimonies...

By comparison, the French CLG Colbert (roughly an equivalent in size and type of Little Rock) was towed from Toulon through Gibraltar strait, around Spain and Portugal and up the Gironde estuary to Bordeaux, France to become a museum, 15 years ago. But for her no canal and no locks. Last autumn she was again towed from Bordeaux to Brest to be B.U. by 2011.

[Capt652]

Hi all,

Are there any plastic models, hopefully in 1:350 scale out there? I'm thinking on doing a representation of CL-103 Wilkes-Barre.

Thanks

Capt652

[Timmy C]

Not in injection molded plastic, unfortunately. Maybe in resin, but not sure about that either.

[Sean Hert]

ISW had a kit in resin, but like Timmy said, nothing in plastic.

Sad really.

[MartinJQuinn]

ISW had a kit in resin, but like Timmy said, nothing in plastic.

Sad really.

YMW has announced both round bridge and square bridge versions of this class, in 1/350. Yeah, not plastic, but still a new release.

[Capt652]

Thanks for the help guys, but as a newbie I have questions. What does ISW and YMW stand for? Since I only have experience with injection molded polystyrene kits what are the differences and benefits of resin kits? Getting back to building a CL-103 Wilkes-Barre, I would like to build something without a lot of scratch building. Maybe a little PE to enhance the look but after I finish my Shangri-la I'll be looking for something not quite so in-depth and time consuming.

Thanks,

Capt652

[MartinJQuinn]

ISW = Iron Ship Wright, a division of Commanders Models

YMW = Yankee Model Works.

[ModelMonkey]

The ships of the Cleveland class are among my favorite USN cruisers. Favorite Cleveland is USS Duluth.

Am I from Minnesota? You betcha.

[Capt652]

Thanks for the input on what's available... I looked at the resin kits but I got sticker shock. I haven't used resin yet but the premium price considered against the warping that I see on the close-ups, I don't know. I am used to plastic kits though and hope a 1:350 scale kit will be offered.

I want to build one (the Wilkes-Barre) because my Dad was assigned to it and just missed it because as he was driven to the dock the ship was already away from the dock and he was then assigned to the Shangri-la.

Capt652

[Christoph Mentzel]

Hi,

who can say me what was the darkest colour of MS 33/3d?
The USS Denver CL 58 was painted in that measure in 1944.
Ms 33 says the darkest colour must be 5-N Navy Blue. But if i looked at the b/w pics it could be also be dull black.

Any suggestions?

Best regards
Chris

[Dick J]

Aside from the fact that Columbia was CL-56, this photo is misidentified. It is the real CL-58, Denver. I have never seen a photo that was truely Columbia in that pattern. Denver had one unique identifier. She was the only Cleveland with the second pair of quad 40MM at the 01 level. All others had them even with the forward pair at the 02. (The square-bridge group did have twins at the 01, however.) Columbia was one of two that had a square support structure below the forward quads. (Montpelier was the other.) All the rest had rounded support structures under the forward quads.

[Christoph Mentzel]

Hi ,

it was my mistake i'm searching for CL 58 Denver ..not the Comumbia !!!

CL 58 Denver was painted in MS 33/3d and CL 56 Columbia was painted in MS 33/1d.

I have also seen Martin's photo which shows not CL 56 Columbia. This was the CL 58 Denver. And this was the pic where i'm not sure if this is dull black or Navy blue.

But up to now no one has any information about the darkest colour of MS 33/3d from Denver?

Here are a pic of the Columbia in MS 33/1d

Best Regards

Chris

[MartinJQuinn]

While trying to figure out the Ms12-R pattern on CL-55 Cleveland at lunch today, I was looking at some pictures I received from a source at NARA, and noticed something on this class that another modeler showed me recently on a Washington class BB. Notice how high the radar on the Mk37 director is? The radar on the aft director is the same. Two questions:

1) Why did they mount the radar so high up? Wouldn't that cause vibration issues with the radar?

2) I've never noticed this on any of the PE sets - does anyone replicate this in PE?

[Dick J]

Hi Martin,

I have an answer for your first question. This proves that these ships were NOT designed to include the fire control radar. The MK-4 antenna would interfere with the sight lines for the optical part of the MK-34 directors. (Or the after MK-38's in the North Carolina's.) That is why they were elevated in the first 7 (round bridge units) Cleveland's - less view was obstructed by the struts than by the antenna itself. The North Carolina's, at first, omitted the MK-4 from only the after director when the other 3 were fitted, and when the last one was finally installed, it was elevated. When the ships upgraded antennas from the MK-4's to the MK-12's, the new antenna was too heavy to elevate this way, so the MK-34's were raised to have a clear view over the top. This was not good for the topweight in these ships, but was seen as necessary. This optical interference was the reason the square-bridge units transposed the MK-34's with the MK-37's, placing the MK-37's above. The low MK-8 radars required less elevation in the MK-37's to see over the top. When the Fargo's were designed, the MK-34's again were placed in the preferred high position. When MK-12's were installed in the North Carolina's, the optical interference was simply tolerated - they had little choice.

[Robin]

Doing a Google Earth survey of museum ships, I zoomed on USS Little Rock in Buffalo, NY... only to realize she had to be towed from the East Coast (Boston ?) around Newfoundland then up to the Saint Laurent and through the Welland canal to bypass the Niagara Falls. What a cruise!

I found the Welland canal locks can cope with a 220m ship, this being enough for Little Rock but she would have been a big piece to handle... I "Google flew" along the canal (altitude 330m) and I still wonder how they did it...

I tried to find something about this cruiser in the Welland canal locks without finding either pictures or even a report on this journey.

Could someone help and post something about? Pictures, testimonies...

By comparison, the French CLG Colbert (roughly an equivalent in size and type of Little Rock) was towed from Toulon through Gibraltar strait, around Spain and Portugal and up the Gironde estuary to Bordeaux, France to become a museum, 15 years ago. But for her no canal and no locks. Last autumn she was again towed from Bordeaux to Brest to be B.U. by 2011.

Just to let you know I am taking the family to Buffalo this summer for our vacation. Got tickets to the AAA baseball team and the Falls is close by. So I am going to see the USS Little Rock and take lots of pics. If any one needs pics of certain sections let me know. Plus the USS Sullivans is parked there too.

[Stevefink]

Hello,

I was refered to this thred from Modelshipwrights.com. I know the thred looks old, but is anyone still here? I AM a Cleveland Class fan! I'm from Cleveland, OH originally and am currently building the Midship Models 1/700 kit. I have a few questions about the class, if anyone can help.

* From looking at pictures on navsource.org, It seems like the boat cranes on either side of the ship were removed by 1943/44. Did they replace lifeboats/yachts with dinggys and float baskets on the ships?
* And what did they use the seaplane hanger for? I know this sounds stupid, but I could not find any pictures of the Kingfisher being stored or lowered into the hanger. Could its wings be folded?

Thanks!

- Steve

[Dick J]

From looking at pictures on navsource.org, It seems like the boat cranes on either side of the ship were removed by 1943/44. Did they replace lifeboats/yachts with dinggys and float baskets on the ships?

Generally speaking, the boats and cranes were removed before the ships entered combat. The removal was weight (and space) compensation for added AA and electronics. It was usual to retain one or two cutters as about the only boats, but the actual survival equipment consisted of numerous rafts and floater nets (stored in "baskets" around the ship).

And what did they use the seaplane hanger for? I know this sounds stupid, but I could not find any pictures of the Kingfisher being stored or lowered into the hanger. Could its wings be folded?

The aircraft aboard the surface ships were divided into two basic types. "OS" (Observation/Scout) aircraft were intended for the battleships. As the designation implies, observation was the primary function and scouting was secondary. Because the BB's had no hangars, folding wings were optional. The OS2U Kingfisher was one of these. Its wings didn't fold. The aircraft aboard the cruisers were usually "SO" (Scout/Observation) types, reflecting the cruisers primary function as scouts. These generally had folding wings. The SOC Seagull and SO3C Seamew were of this type. Sometimes, one type (usually a folding-wing design) could be used for all ships.

It had been intended to replace the SOC's in the fleet with Kingfishers on the battleships and Seamews on the cruisers. However, the failure of the Seamew, as a type (apparently, due in part to problems with the engines) caused the Seagulls to be retained pretty much through the war. Limitations in numbers of Seagulls resulted in Kingfishers being used aboard some cruisers, but they were not able to be stowed in most hangars. Eventually, the SC Seahawk began to replace all of the shipboard aircraft. These folding-wing aircraft were, as the designation implies, pure scouts - the observation function having been largely superceded by radar. Ships built later in the war often had their hangars reduced in size, reflecting both the reduced need for the floatplanes and the need for more berthing for the increased AA crews.

[KEITH HUFNAGEL]

Cleveland Class cruisers generally had their boats removed as fire hazards. (as shown in early battles) The hangers were used mostly as food and supply storage. Apparently the smell in the hangar deck sometimes got pretty ripe. Fortunately it was aft. Generally Kingfishers and a few Seamews were carried aboard early light cruisers. After the first few months of the war the Seamews couldn't cut it. The design was a victim of a poor powerplant . . . Cleveland Class fans are still here and since I've started my 1/350 USS Mobile 1944 maybe I can help revive the cause. Have fun modeling!

[MartinJQuinn]

10 months after I posted this, I've been working on CL-55 during my lunch (when I get to actually take lunch) at work. Was working on assembling some smaller parts today, when something struck me odd about parts C41 and C44, which are the main battery directors. I went back to the picture I posted last May and realized that the parts in the CL-55 kit are more like what USN battleships carried, and not at all like the director in the photo (it's the director higher, and aft, of the Mk 37 director).

I went through the hi-res pictures I had gotten from a couple of sources, but can't seem to nail down the shape of this director. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Edit: I'm building the Cleveland "as built", with the boats and cranes in Ms12Mod.

TIA

[Dick J]

Martin,

The director is the MK-34. The early version on the Brooklyn's was a bit different externally. C-41 is supposed to be the director itself, and C-44 is the "early" MK-8 radar. (The later MK-8 radar was essentially the same thing fully enclosed in fiberglass, and is what we are more used to seeing.) The best MK-34's I have seen are on the Tamiya Indianapolis kit. The Pit-Road version is pretty poor. As for photos, the MK-34's were carried by the Cleveland's, Fargo's, Baltimores, Oregon City's, the modernized Northampton's and Portland's, the reconstructed Tennessee's and West Virginia (these directors and the MK-37's on these BB's were originally ordered for the Cleveland's that were converted to CVL's - they were definitely the same directors) and later were mounted aft on the Pennsylvania and Maryland. You should be able to find some good pics somewhere amongst the many taken of these ships. I would have to look further to ID a specific shot to look at.