SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

USS ARIZONA - A different Scenario

1041 views
18 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
USS ARIZONA - A different Scenario
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Friday, December 25, 2020 11:04 PM
USS ARIZONA “A New Scenario, Circa 1942 / 1943”
December 7th, 1941; USS ARIZONA, is struck by multiple aerial bombs, including four 800 kg., armor piercing bombs. The forward-most AP bomb strike punched through the ship completely, detonating in the coral shelf below the ship. With the hull holed forward, ARIZONA incurs solid flooding in one of the starboard, 14” powder magazines and partial flooding in several adjacent spaces. The ship goes down at the bow but remains lively. With several fires burning around the ship but most of her crew still manning their stations, the ship is effectively saved and as such, ARIZONA is one of the first ships to be drydocked and placed back into action. With the emphasis now on airpower, ARIZONA is ordered to Puget Sound for a major refit and upgrading of numerous systems.
 
The Modernization
Working within the given timeframe, there are several general directions to go. First off there is of course, PENNSYLVANIA, ARIZONA’s sistership. Despite being sisters, there are quite a number of differences, so ARIZONA may not have been modernized in quite the same way, but there would most definitely be some similarities. NEVADA is next. Again, there are both commonalities and differences, so seeing what was done to her should have an effect on our final configuration. The NEW MEXICO’s did not receive the big modernizations as the others did, so they are not a major influence at this point. TENNESSEE and CALIFORNIA, both damaged at Pearl Harbor, got varying rebuilds based to some extent on their level of damage, ended the war looking quite similar. Their rebuilds will have a possible influence, in the same way MARYLAND and WEST VIRGINIA’s rebuilds may. With the advent of carrier warfare, and decline of the battle line concepts, the biggest changes in the post Pearl Harbor modernizations include a major revision in anti-air guns and directors, and the addition of surface search and fire control radar. After that came other electronics such as IFF and basic ECM systems. The days of capitol ships slugging it out gun to gun are numbered, and NGFS is the new mission for the battleship.
 
The Model
Though well aware of the discrepancies in the Revell kit’s hull shape, as well as many, many other features, I decided to not do that part of the build in the way David (DDP59) does, and does so well. Instead, I chose to work primarily on the topside configuration (maybe I can con him out of a corrected ARIZONA hull!!). For this build, I’m using two Revell ARIZONA kits (or parts thereof), an Academy MISSOURI as it was the only similar scale source of upgrade components, and my miscellaneous parts bin. I am still debating on the inclusion of PE. It would make the model better, but since I’ve never used it, I’m not sure if this is the best place to start. I guess we will see. 

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Saturday, December 26, 2020 11:06 AM

David, if you PM me an address, I will send you a set of hull halves. 

Concerning the 3D parts, I may pick up some, depending on what I can glean from the MISSOURI kit (when it arrives). As I said, I'm not just building a 'Pennsy" out of this, since I'm sure that ARIZONA would have varied a bit; they always do (insert 20 years of naval service / experience here). There will most definately be some similarities, but my experience, on several different classes of ships, says there will be differences. Thanks much for the references on the parts.  

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Saturday, December 26, 2020 12:30 PM

i think the Arizona would be intially be a clone of the Pennsylvania after completion of modernization. look at the Tennessee, California & West Virginia, basically identical initially after completion of modernization.

2 emails sent

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Saturday, December 26, 2020 12:42 PM

Very true, but you also have to look at the times lines for those modernizations. California and West Virginia required major rebuilds right after Pearl Harbor, whereas Tennessee did not. Thus, Tennessee's modernization was delayed. Additionally, West Virginia was an entirely different class yet finished the war looking like the California. 

So, if we take this 'new scenario', Arizona would have potentially been modernized sooner than Pennsylvania, who got a quick make-over and then back into the fight. You see, timeline makes a big difference, and I'm looking at '43-'44 for this build, not 1945.

This is where the fun of it lies !!

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Saturday, December 26, 2020 12:56 PM

Pennsylvania finished her modernization around January 1943 so both would theoritically been identical at that time.

http://navsource.org/archives/01/038/013805d.jpg    A new deck house is base for 8 Twin 5-in. 38-cal. The mainmast is replaced by a stump tower carrying a Main Battery Director to open sky arcs. San Francisco, CA. 28 January 1943.

 

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Saturday, December 26, 2020 1:56 PM

BB-61 Iowa was already 18 months into construction by 12/7/41, for example. Too much resource diversion into rebuilding BB-39 would have been a stretch.

It might not be too big a stretch to have Arizona be a stationary coastal defence battery  at Darwin .

Bill

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Saturday, December 26, 2020 2:44 PM

I do appreciate all of the input, please don't stop. But despite the North Carolina's, the South Dakota's and the Iowa's; look at the variety of 'modernizations' across the remaining older battleships. Nevada got a major modernization, and she was the oldest (everything older only got somewhat upgraded), whereas Colorado retained her shielded 5"/25's throughout the war and Idaho only upgraded to 5"/38 singles. Pennsylvania got a upgrade and a modernization. The New Mexico's hardly changed at all, and the Tennessee's and the remaining two of the Colorado's all got major modernizations and ended up looking fairly identical by the end of the war.

End result, lots of changes but great variety across the board. I'm just looking at playing along. As I mentioned to David, you have to look at the timeline as well as the alterations.

And this is supposed to be fun. I'm just letting the imagination out on a longer leash.

As for the coastal battery; sending Arkansas, New York or Texas would have made more sense, logistically speaking.

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Sunday, December 27, 2020 12:53 PM

There was considerable angst over removing the "proven effective" 5"51 mounts and using the "new" 5"38 twins.  The 51 was considered better for both surface engagements and shore bombardment.  As the Kamikaze threat becem real, the AAA utility of the twin 38 shifted that perception.

It's important to remember that the "what" decisions would be made very early on, and would have been decided on perceptions in that time frame.

Arizona was considered a "modern" ship right up to 07DEC41, had she only suffered minor damage, they probably would have just finished out fitting the 3" AA fit out that had been intended.  Perhaps 40mm mounts to replace the 1.1 inch mounts.  That would have been based on the 1942 thinking, which would have still envisioned surface actions.

Coral Sea and Midway would stil lbe in the future; the success of "island hopping" as yet unknown.

Now, in fairness, Arizona might have been moved to the Atlantic, where the needs would be much different.

None of which would get in the way of a build with a grafted-on 5"38 battery (and ad lest two fire directors).  radar on the main fire control directors, a very much leaned-down masting with air search and surface search radar installs.  And a huge pile of 40mm & 20mm mounts.

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Tuesday, December 29, 2020 5:32 PM

So, had several conversations with my favorite Canadian, and have decided to go with one of his corrected ARIZONA hulls. Therefore, almost everything other than planning, is now on hold until I get the hull back. From what I'm told, I will have to rebuild / re-detail the main and fore deck sections as they will come back only as flat plastic. The project just doubled in perspective.

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Tuesday, December 29, 2020 7:44 PM

i'll mark off the 14" barbetts, catapult & crane locations plus a few other things. as i don't know if you are going to use the modernized Pennsylvania superstructure deck or not, i'll leave that alone til you tell me otherwise. already started to fill in the stern like i did in some of those pictures i sent you this past Sunday afternoon.

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:32 PM

As I am looking at a 1943-44 completion, the stern crane will be needed, but the Frame 89 B&A (boat and aircraft) cranes will not. I will be rescaling Arizona drawings to ascertain locations of vents, windlasses and other deck equipment, and hatches. With the blank deck to play with, I've been tempted to relocate the aft line handling winch further aft as on Pennsy.

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:46 PM

i meant the stern crane location as didn't even think of others.

  • Member since
    December 2020
Posted by Thuntboss on Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:49 PM

Looking forward to seeing some pics as you build. Definitely peaked my interest here.

"Do it as well as your experience and skill allow. Practice and persistence increase skill"

 

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Thursday, December 31, 2020 11:07 AM

If you look at the majority of the modernizations, here is what you will see; turret three catapults deleted, mainmast, be it tripod or cage, deleted and replaced with a boxy tower supporting the aft main battery director and a couple of quad 40mm plats / tubs. Then you have 5"/38's replacing the secondary and anti air guns, and more 40mm tubs. Then you add a bunch of bunches of 20mm between everything else.

Other than the stern cranes, all others are deleted and replaced with boat handling booms. Then you add a bunch of 40 and 20mm directors and some surface search and FC radar .  .  . and you are done, Viola!

Ahhh, if it were just that simple !!!

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Thursday, December 31, 2020 12:52 PM

most of the concave in the stern plated over. will finish that plating then use the dremel tool to smooth it out before gluing 5mm wide stripes onto that plating but parallel to the deck at least 3 layers thick to give the stern a rounded look.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Friday, January 1, 2021 1:50 PM

HooYah Deep Sea
If you look at the majority of the modernizations,

Yes and no.  Which is just it.  Both Texas & New York kept their 5"51's, tripod masts, and midships cranes.  IIRC, NY carried no a/c after '43; Texas stowed 2 aft, the catapault was retained on the third turret, but not used.  TX gained 6 quad 40s, and around a dozen 20s. 

Cutting down the spotting decks on the houses on the tripod masts was considered, but would have required too much dock time (preferred method was to hitch a crane to the hosue, and take a cutting torch to the tripod legs, then setting the house on th edockside for any work, at a much reduced altitude.

TX & NY were not extensively danaged by air attack, either--so that's a factor.

Now, an interesting supposition could be made in that the "Pearl" rebuilds had a great deal of effort spent on whether or not to fit torpedo launchers. 

Still, it's a fascinating exercise.

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Friday, January 1, 2021 6:13 PM

CapnMac,  Texas had no room to store aircraft aft as crowded with weapons & associated gun tubs. Texas's catapault was still used til end of war. about 40 20mm guns  8 40mm quads.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013535b.jpg An OS2U Kingfisher scout plane is seen before launch atop the middle turret while at Iwo Jima, February 1945

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0135861a.jpg The Texas (BB-35) steams into the port of Los Angeles, California, sometime in mid October 1945

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/35a.htm 

 

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • From: Central Oregon
Posted by HooYah Deep Sea on Friday, January 1, 2021 11:09 PM

AND, most of the older BB's were originally equipped with torpedo tubes but were deleted later. They were considered ineffective in the battleline especially when destroyers and cruisers were present.

"Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives, okay?"

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.