SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

MAIN GUN ELEVATION--NEVADA & PENNSYLVANIA CLASSES

1746 views
13 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2010
MAIN GUN ELEVATION--NEVADA & PENNSYLVANIA CLASSES
Posted by LEWISMATKIN on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:04 PM

In the Sept, 2010 edition, Dan Jayne does a beautifully exquisite job on both his models of the Bismark and USS Arizona with one problem on his Arizona.  He shows seperate elevation on the main guns (#1 turret).  Researching Friedman's book U.S. Battleships, an illustrated design history, which he quotes as using, states that the main battery on both the Nevada's & Pennsylvania's (of which Arizona is a sister) were mounted in a single carrier(called a sleeve) and were incapable of individual elevation. This is found on p. 107 & 111.  Dan did a exquisite job on this ship, other than this mistake.   I have just recieved the 1/200 Trumpeter version of the Arizona, and from everything I have seen, Trumpeter has corrected all the flaws that have existed since the Revell version of the ship.  Thanks for all that you all do.   Cordially, Lewis Matkin, Dade City, Florida                                            

 

  • Member since
    May 2008
Posted by tucchase on Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:48 PM

Well, Trumpeter hasn't quite corrected ALL the flaws, but they seem to have come a LOT closer than anyone else has in a plastic model.  For which I am grateful.  There are several threads here about the Arizona, and this particular model.  Check them out!  There are also many threads about the Arizona over on ModelWarship.com in the Ship Model Forum if you are interested in more information about the Arizona.  There is also steelnavy.com, and probably several others.  I think this forum and Ship Model Forum are the best though.

Welcome Sign Aboard! 

  • Member since
    November 2010
Posted by LEWISMATKIN on Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:55 PM

Thank you for your kind reply and warm welcome.  I am already on steelnavy.com and several others.Big Smile

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Bethlehem PA
Posted by the Baron on Friday, December 3, 2010 1:17 PM

Thanks for that tip!  I'm currently building the Hobby Boss Arizona kit in 1/700, converting it to the Pennsylvania in 1935.  They modeled the battery as turrets with sockets where the gunports are, and separate gun barrels.  I will take extra care that the gun barrels are all level with one another--no small task, because I assembled one turret, and the middle gun is a little out of line with mates.  I will have to cut it out and re-attach it.

Best regards,

Brad

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Philippines
Posted by constructor on Friday, December 3, 2010 5:12 PM

Now that we are in the subject of main batteries, may I ask if they have bloomers just like the new fast battleships?

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Friday, December 3, 2010 5:37 PM

if talking about blast bags then yes.

  • Member since
    November 2010
Posted by LEWISMATKIN on Friday, December 3, 2010 6:25 PM

I agree.  The few photos that I have found of ships of these 2 classes (late-war) in Mr. Friedman's book show that both have "bloomers" or blast bags, though they aren't as billowous as the later battleships.  The earlier photos in his book, though showing the faces of the main turrets, are inconclusive as to the appearance of these devices. However, one photo of Arizona seems to indicate the presence of blast bags. 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, December 3, 2010 7:00 PM

If you look closely in this photo, there appear to be blast bags in place.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    May 2008
Posted by tucchase on Friday, December 3, 2010 7:39 PM

Supposedly, the Blast Bags were removable, and replaceable, as needed.  I would think having them off while in warmer climates would help ventilate the turrets.  I believe their purpose was to keep the over-pressure blast from the firing of the guns from coming back into the turret.  I am sure there is someone around here who will know what their intended purpose really is.

  • Member since
    November 2010
Posted by LEWISMATKIN on Friday, December 3, 2010 7:49 PM

looks like you are correct.  Thanks for that clarafication.

  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: West Virginia, USA
Posted by mfsob on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 8:05 AM

I know they are called blast bags but I believe - and I am not an expert - that the main purpose on at least the forward mounts was to keep seawater out in heavy seas, since otherwise the turret faces around the gun barrel sleeves would be essentially open. A secondary purpose was to keep out debris from the firing cycle.

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Exeter, MO
Posted by kustommodeler1 on Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:44 PM

Yeah, they were removable/replaceable. Here is a pic of Arizona in January '41. They are easiest to see on turret 4.

 

Oh, by the way, what's with the words "amp;" building up with each reply in the topic titleWhistling

Darrin

Setting new standards for painfully slow buildsDead

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Monday, December 13, 2010 12:29 AM

Let's see if this fixes the incrementig &s

 

Bloomers were used to protect the interiors of the turrets as well as the slides on the guns.

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Monday, December 13, 2010 2:24 PM

kustommodeler1

Oh, by the way, what's with the words "amp;" building up with each reply in the topic titleWhistling

HTML artifact.  Certain characters are reserved, but you can "force" them into use.

For instance, the "less than" angle bracket (Shift+Comma) "<" is used to start html tags.  To make one print not as a tag, you use &+LT+; or &lt; to make a "<"

The ampersand character (Shift+7) being 'reserved' needs a code, too.  Said code would be &+AMP+; to make "&"

The "gotcha" is that a "plain" ampersand "says" read next as code; the "amp;" afterward gets rendered as an add-on with each iteration after that.  this can be too much exciting on fora that use xtml and html in the reply boxes, rather than a text-edit window as here.  The title bar responds differently to allow search functions (is my bet).

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.