 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / January 2006Can you relate?
http://www.percongrp.com/pelikan/images/shoe_models.jpg  SignatureM Stanley Webmaster: Pelikan Model Club www.percongrp.com/pelikan.htm . Most definitely >http://www.percongrp.com/pelikan/images/shoe_models.jpg Yeah. Especially the four to seven year part... :( SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." I know someone (Polly Scale?) produces this color, but I'm too lazy to go to the hobby shop for one bottle of paint. Does anyone have a ballpark FS number for WW2 US Deck Blue? TIA Pip Moss > I know someone (Polly Scale?) produces this color, but I'm too lazy to go to > the hobby shop for one bottle of paint. Does anyone have a ballpark FS > number for WW2 US Deck Blue? There isn't a close FS and the Polly Scale is incorrect as well. For enamels try WEM or for acrylics MM makes a marine line, both have the correct 20-B deck blue. > > I know someone (Polly Scale?) produces this color, but I'm too lazy to go to > > the hobby shop for one bottle of paint. Does anyone have a ballpark FS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enamels try WEM or for acrylics MM makes a marine line, both have the > correct 20-B deck blue. Do you know the number of this Model Master acrilic ?? TIA Slider >>> I know someone (Polly Scale?) produces this color, but I'm too lazy to > go to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > TIA > Slider Deck Blue 20B is 4243. Flight Deck Stain is 4242. I'm thinking the Flight Deck Stain is what I want for a wooden carrier deck? Pip Moss > Deck Blue 20B is 4243. > Flight Deck Stain is 4242. > > I'm thinking the Flight Deck Stain is what I want for a wooden carrier deck? What carrier and what year? Through 1942 and into early 1943 you want the 250-N deck stain, then Type 21 stain gets phased in with the Essex class and previous classes get it as they go in for refit. Sometine in 1944 a revised Type 21 stain came into use and it was very close to 20-B deck blue, best way to replicate the revised Type 21 is to add 10-15 drops of Type 21 to a bottle of 20-B deck blue, it gives just enough difference to notice. Both 250-N and the original type 21 are straight from the bottle MM colors, WEM has all three carrier deck stains available right from the tin. OK Ron, riddle me this: Why did they keep teak or whatever wood as a flight deck surface instead of steel with an anti-skid? (That's what's used now, isn't it?) When did they change? KL >OK Ron, riddle me this: Why did they keep teak or whatever wood as a flight >deck surface instead of steel with an anti-skid? (That's what's used now, >isn't it?) When did they change? > >KL especially since the brits had armored decks and lost a lot few carriers to bomb attack. though torpedos seemed to work just fine. >>OK Ron, riddle me this: Why did they keep teak or whatever wood as a flight >>deck surface instead of steel with an anti-skid? (That's what's used now, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > few carriers to bomb attack. though torpedos seemed to work > just fine. The criticism about lack of armoured decks has bothered me for some time. The US lost FAR more carriers to torpedoes than bombs. US philosophy was carrier was an offensive weapon. Adding heavy armour would have reduced deck load, reducing offensive effectiveness. Considering how we made out in general on carrier vs carrier battles, it looks like the admirals made a good choice. US carriers could carry more planes per ton of displacement than either British or Japanese. And, more CAP planes to get at those dive bombers. Once we were geared up to produce carriers in mass production, then we could overwhelm them with numbers of carriers and could afford a few less planes per ton, and did go to steel decks. But for those pre-war carriers, it looks like they did the right thing. >> In article <GhFxf.3402$ID1.2316@trndny01>, "Kurt Laughlin" >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >less planes per ton, and did go to steel decks. But for those pre-war >carriers, it looks like they did the right thing. when did the armor start? i can understand early and prewar but after 43, it seems silly. and i am aware of the franklin, was it? looked like the flight deck was swiss. > when did the armor start? i can understand early and prewar > but after 43, it seems silly. > and i am aware of the franklin, was it? looked like the > flight deck was swiss. Franklin was an early Essex and like the entire class she had wood over a thin steel support structure. She was repaired and went back into service. We never did adopt truly armored decks like the Brits but from the Midway class on the all steel decks got beefier as jets got heavier. > when did the armor start? i can understand early and prewar > but after 43, it seems silly. Don't follow ya - after '43 is precisely when it would have been desirable to have armored FDs against the kamikazes that started showing up. Not arguing against the wisdom of using unprotected decks, seems to have worked out fine - unless I guess you happen to be the one of the sailors and airmen that got caught up in the meat grinder. Just saying that in the kamikaze era the Brits were reportedly quite thankful to have the armored decks. In broader terms, what a US fleet carrier should be has always been debated. WWII forced the Navy Department's hand into standardizing the design and fixing an offensive doctrine around the CVs - but as soon as that conflict was no longer in doubt the polictical and doctrinal struggle began anew with the USS United States design. The debate continued thru the nuclear development era on in to today with the myriad of CV-lite and conventional fuel proposals that abound the defense circles. > and i am aware of the franklin, was it? looked like the > flight deck was swiss. Plank decked. It should be noted that the US lost a total of 4 fleet carriers to enemy engagement in WWII. All were pre-Essex class, all lost in 1942, - 1 to air strikes, 1 to torpedo (sub), and 2 to a mixed bag of air, torpedo and scuttling. The often cited slight against the Franklin is that she was so badly damaged that she was scrapped. I tend to think that had she made her way home in that same condition during the dark days of 1942, the she would have been repaired and returned to duty. As it was, there was no reason economically or militarily to do either in late 1944-45. WmB > The often cited slight against the Franklin is that she was so badly > damaged that she was scrapped. I tend to think that had she made her way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > WmB Note: Franklin was under repair when the war ended. The impetus to do so was not as great as it might have been earlier in the war. Franklin was placed in the reserve fleet, never returning to active service. When the wercking ball came she was listed as an auxlilary type. WmB Wasn't the Bunker Hill in the same category after she was Kamakazied?? And I don't believe it was intended to put the Saratoga back into fleet service after her bout with the Kamakazes either. Bill Shuey > Note: Franklin was under repair when the war ended. The impetus to do so > was not as great as it might have been earlier in the war. Franklin was > placed in the reserve fleet, never returning to active service. When the > wercking ball came she was listed as an auxlilary type. > > WmB >> The often cited slight against the Franklin is that she was so badly >> damaged that she was scrapped. I tend to think that had she made her way [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >WmB were the repairs completed? must have been a hell of a ride home. >> when did the armor start? i can understand early and prewar >> but after 43, it seems silly. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >WmB seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... agree on the franklin. in 42 they would have panic fixed her in 10 months working 24/7. > seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... Ah.. gotcha. WmB >> seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... > >Ah.. gotcha. > >WmB e is dancing the dance of joyus obfucese explained with a lack of fearful symmetry. (guess what other i'm readin and win a shiny new nickel!) >>> seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lack of fearful symmetry. > (guess what other i'm readin and win a shiny new nickel!) Barkeep - I'll have what he's having. To drink, that is. WmB >>>> seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >WmB barkeep dances the dance of joyess welcome at a regular customer's return. <snippage> >>> e is dancing the dance of joyus obfucese explained with a >>> lack of fearful symmetry. >>> (guess what other i'm readin and win a shiny new nickel!) <snippage, again> > barkeep dances the dance of joyess welcome at a regular > customer's return. I'd have to guess something from Keith Laumer's Reteif series. "To raise your manipulative members above your sense-organ cluster" -Kevin in Indy ><snippage> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >-Kevin in Indy to join your hive mates in the breeding pits, oh soft ones..... yep, retief it is. reread retiefs war and the pangalactic pagent of pulchritude last night. more today. to laugh in appreciation of one's own wit..... >>seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... > > Ah.. gotcha. > > WmB Couldn't it just have been as simple as the availability of steel during the war effort? I mean, we were building ships, tanks, planes, guns and all sorts of machinery all at the same time, in quantities greater than we shall probably ever build them again. Even the Germans went back to wooden decks on U-boats because of a shortage of available steel. We (the USA) certainly had plenty of timber, in light of a bounded ability to produce steel. A carrier is a BIG boat...even then. Seems like we might have been just managing our material distibution in light of the war effort...steel where it was absolutely needed only. Signature- Rufus >>>seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Seems like we might have been just managing our material distibution in > light of the war effort...steel where it was absolutely needed only. Sounds reasonable enough to me, but I think the primary aim in using wood decks was more of a design consideration. The Essex class ships were extensions of the Yorktown class and the later half-sister Hornet design. Those prewar designs were hindered by tonnage limits imposed by the prewar naval treaties the US had signed. The use of wood allowed the designers to "spend" the tonnage in areas of the design where they felt it most mattered - as Ron mentioned. Which again is nothing against the selection of wood. As Ron pointed out it had its design advantages and the combat results shine favorably on the US designs despite the expediency of the design. So as it happened, the war loomed in their faces, they locked in the Essex design and went to war with it. The Midway class came down the slips as the first fleet carrier free of any treaty limitations and the recipient of much hard won and valuable combat experience. Notably including in its options list, an armored flight deck and a slew of AA mounts. ;-) WmB >>>>seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > WmB Weren't most of the first carriers also conversions from other existing architecture? Might there also have been some engineering points that required those conversions use a lighter material for the decking? After all, we were just figuring out what a working, "modern" aircraft carrier should look like. Signature- Rufus > Weren't most of the first carriers also conversions from other existing > architecture? Might there also have been some engineering points that > required those conversions use a lighter material for the decking? After > all, we were just figuring out what a working, "modern" aircraft carrier > should look like. Only CV-1 Langley would have had that restriction. CV's 2 & 3 (Lexington and Saratoga) were not conversions per se but redesigns based on half built battelcruiser hulls that otherwise would have been scrapped due to treaty limits on type/guns/tonnage, when built as carriers they has less tonnage restrictions, if any. They were also the longest US carriers until the supercarriers were built. Engineering wise CV's 2 & 3 could have been built with armored decks but the perviously mentioned hangar deck capacity was deemed more important. All following fleet carriers (CV not CVE/CVL) were designed as carriers from the keel up. >> Weren't most of the first carriers also conversions from other >> existing architecture? Might there also have been some engineering [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > deck capacity was deemed more important. All following fleet carriers > (CV not CVE/CVL) were designed as carriers from the keel up. And that's kind of what I was getting at - even if they weren't "conversions", they were built on existing hull designs of the period. This may hav placed a limitation on just how much additional structure (weight) could be carried above the waterline for that particular hull, being that it was originally designed for a different purpose. I'm not a naval architect...but that would seem to make some sense. Please school me on the subject if I've got it wrong. Signature- Rufus > And that's kind of what I was getting at - even if they weren't > "conversions", they were built on existing hull designs of the period. > This may hav placed a limitation on just how much additional structure > (weight) could be carried above the waterline for that particular hull, > being that it was originally designed for a different purpose. They did study the effects of an armored deck but the restrictions it placed on airwing capacity ruled it out. As built there wasn't much tophamper and the massive AA fits of late WWII were not yet envisioned, most likely the additional weight of the armored deck and structure would not have had much effect as built. It would have had a deterimental effect later in WWII. As it was CV-3 got extra blisters during the war not only for torpedo protection but also added bouyancy as the AA and radar fit increased her tophamper significantly. The blisters were asymmetric as well since the starboard side (island) had very different tophamper weight than the port side. >> And that's kind of what I was getting at - even if they weren't >> "conversions", they were built on existing hull designs of the period. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > blisters were asymmetric as well since the starboard side (island) had > very different tophamper weight than the port side. Thanks. Very interesting, from the engineering of it. I got to spend nine days aboad USS Lincoln a few years ago and walked off the ship fully impressed by what a marvel of machinery a modern carrier is. Signature- Rufus > Thanks. Very interesting, from the engineering of it. I got to spend > nine days aboad USS Lincoln a few years ago and walked off the ship > fully impressed by what a marvel of machinery a modern carrier is. Ship design is amazing, especially late WWI on. The Tennessee and Colorado class battelships were the first "all electric" ships. Designed in 1916, launched between 1920 and 1924 they featured powerplants that drove generators which in turn powered everything on the ship with electricity, from the main propulsion motors to the potato peelers. Reading war damage reports on some ships is also a good way to find out design features that worked and those that didn't. After Lexington CV-2 went down almost every combat ship that carried avgas had the lines rerouted outside the hull, they pieced together enough information from the DC parties and others on CV-2 to determine internal piping of avgas contributed the fires and ultimate demise of the ship. >> Thanks. Very interesting, from the engineering of it. I got to spend >> nine days aboad USS Lincoln a few years ago and walked off the ship [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the DC parties and others on CV-2 to determine internal piping of avgas > contributed the fires and ultimate demise of the ship. One of the things that I didn't get to see aboard Lincoln that I have since becomeinterested in is the fresh water generating system. I got to thinking about how much steam must be needed to operate the boat and service the personel. (I also learned not to try and shower while the cats were running...) Signature- Rufus >>> Weren't most of the first carriers also conversions from other >>> existing architecture? Might there also have been some engineering [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'm not a naval architect...but that would seem to make some sense. > Please school me on the subject if I've got it wrong. But they were the largest carriers in the world for many years. I would think that if we wanted armoured decks, the Lex and Sara would have been the ones that would have most easily accomodated that. >>>> Weren't most of the first carriers also conversions from other >>>> existing architecture? Might there also have been some engineering [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >think that if we wanted armoured decks, the Lex and Sara would have been >the ones that would have most easily accomodated that. i find it hard to believe no one has written about the builds. bet there's at least a grad dissertation out there smewhere. sure would be a good subject. >>> seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Seems like we might have been just managing our material distibution in > light of the war effort...steel where it was absolutely needed only. From what I have read, it was more that they did not want to pay the penalty in reduced payload of the carrier. Armoured decks would have resulted in less planes, bombs, fuel, etc. We wanted to put as many planes in the sky as possible. Again, during the war, most US carriers that were lost were lost to torpedos, not bombs. If I remember right, no fleet carrier was lost to Kamikaze. Damaged, yes, but not sunk. I think only one was lost to bombs, and that was not a Kamikaze. >> seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... > >Ah.. gotcha. > >WmB e again dances the dance of obfucese explained.... > seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... > agree on the franklin. in 42 they would have panic fixed her > in 10 months working 24/7. This assumes that the U.S. Navy saw the Kamikaze program coming. They didn't! It was a real psychological shock when Ohnishi unleashed this new form of attack off the Philippines. Ask any veteran of the Philippine landings about that. I had an Uncle who was there and he said it was absolutely frightening, especially on the small carriers. Bill Shuey >> seems silly NOT to have armor after 43.... >> agree on the franklin. in 42 they would have panic fixed her [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bill Shuey no, i was actually thinking that just aerial bomb damgae and what we saw from the brits would have been enough. nobody in the west but a real japophile could even have concieved of the kamikaze's. mark peatty, my old prof and the guy you see on the history channel said his japan professor said kamikazes were obvious in hindsight IF you knew the japanese really well. >>> OK Ron, riddle me this: Why did they keep teak or whatever wood as a >>> flight deck surface instead of steel with an anti-skid? (That's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > less planes per ton, and did go to steel decks. But for those pre-war > carriers, it looks like they did the right thing. It comes down to horses-for-courses. British carrier design included the assumption that carriers would have to operate largely within range of land-based air assets, in defence of Empire territories: "coastal" thinking, if you like. The carrier would need to be able to survive attack from land-based bombers without a mission kill. US thinking was naturally more "oceanic", emphasising self-sufficiency and carrying the biggest warload. > OK Ron, riddle me this: Why did they keep teak or whatever wood as a flight > deck surface instead of steel with an anti-skid? (That's what's used now, > isn't it?) When did they change? Teak was only used as plank laid decking on battleships and cruisers by the US Navy. I'm not sure what CV-1 Langley had but CV-2 Lexington and later were either Douglas Fir or Southern Yelow Pine, the latter on some Essex class carriers due to availability. The wood decking was used because over a thin steel structure it provided sufficient strength for the aircraft of the time without the weight penalty an all steel deck presented. The Brits used armored steel decks with non-skid and the design had several drawbacks, lower hangar capacity due to the substructure required, more costly and time consuming to repair when damaged. True the Brit carrier decks were harder to damage but those that were damaged were out of commission much longer than US carriers that suffered the same or worse damage. IIRC, the US changed to steel decks beginning with the Midway class which launched at the end of WWII but did not see combat service until Korea. The Essex class ships eventually got steel decks as part of their modernization but I think they stayed wood until they got the hurricane enclosed bows. Most photos of Essexes during Korea show wood decks. Once you get past WWII I pretty much lose interest in ships because they revert to boring neutral sameness. > The Brits used armored steel decks with non-skid and the design had > several drawbacks, lower hangar capacity due to the substructure required, > more costly and time consuming to repair when damaged. True the Brit > carrier decks were harder to damage but those that were damaged were out > of commission much longer than US carriers that suffered the same or worse > damage. So how was this averted in the US designs, or at least rationalized such that the steel deck became viable? KL >>The Brits used armored steel decks with non-skid and the design had >>several drawbacks, lower hangar capacity due to the substructure required, >>more costly and time consuming to repair when damaged. True the Brit >>carrier decks were harder to damage but those that were damaged were out >>of commission much longer than US carriers that suffered the same or worse >>damage. > So how was this averted in the US designs, or at least rationalized such > that the steel deck became viable? If you mean the repairs to damage most US yards could replace the thin steel substructure and wood planking, if the damage wasn't too severe it could be done at the ABSD's at Manus or Ulithi. The Brit decks took heavy construction yards to repair and those were limited in number and capacity. Like all things ship related from the first ironclads until the end of the large fleet action the designs all had tradeoffs. We opted for high capacity hangars, less topweight, faster/easier repair and accepted the ease of damage penalty. When the Midways were built deisgners knew planes were getting heavy enough to begin requiring steel decks and they also knew jets were not too far in the future. Lessons learned in carrier use and design allowed non-armored but structurally strong steel decks, they probably could have been applied to the later Essexes as built but would have introduced a production delay we didn't think we could afford. At least some of the modernized Essexes has steel laid over the old wooden decks (part of why it's taken so long to certify Oriskany for sinking as a reef). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.