Micronaut Only Thread

[Donald M. Scheef]

I don't have the model itself, but based on the photographs in the on-line catalog, GHQ's CV-2, Lexington, already has five of the quad 1.1" mounts: one at each corner of the ship and one on the deckhouse forward of the funnel (between the funnel and the bridge). When the twin 8" mounts were removed, they were replaced with seven of the quad 1.1" mounts. Two of the quad 1.1" mounts replaced each of the 8" mounts except that only one was in the place of the superimposed 8" mount after the funnel (I believe a fire control position was placed here instead of a second 1.1" mount).

The sprue from USN61 has only three of the 1.1" mounts, so at least three sprues are necessary. Note that the mounts on the sprue are in gun tubs (circular splinter shielding around the mount itself). From the references I have seen, the mounts replacing the 8" mounts on Lexington were unshielded.

At the time of her sinking, Lexington carried the following gun armament:
- 12 x 1 5"/25 Mk9 anti-aircraft guns - these are on USN18
- 12 x 4 1.1." - USN18 has five of these, seven needed in place of the 8" mounts
- 22 x 1 20mm , six in a new platform at the base of the funnel, six on each side in the bays once used for ship's boat storage, two at the stern and two on the roof of the control top. Most of these seem to be on USN18. (This is a bit confusing, as I believe the 20mm were added at the same refit in which the 8" were removed.)
- About 20? .50 cal.; six on each side of the funnel on platforms near the top plus two at each corner near the 1.1" mounts - I can't tell if these are modeled on USN18 or not.

Don S.

[Brigade Commander]

Thanks Don. While I knew Lexington had quad 1.1" mounts in place of the 8" turrets I did not realize they received pairs of them. Facing port and starboard I assume?

[Donald M. Scheef]

No, the 1.1" mounts were in-line.
Forward of bridge structure, from front to back: two in line at deck level, two in line elevated.
Aft of the funnel, from front to back: fire control station in line with 1.1" mount elevated, two 1.1" mounts in line at deck level.

The best pictures I have seen of this arrangement is in a review of the Trumpeter 1/700 scale model. I know I've got a detailed drawing somewhere, but I can't find it. Perhaps it's in Friedman's book on US Aircraft Carriers, but I'm away from home right now.

Don S.

[av8rmongo]

While I await the arrival of my new PLAN South China Sea Fleet units I have begun construction of a naval base facility. Its in the planning stages with some of the pier foundations/outline cut but not assembled. Once actual construction begins I'll post some pics. Intent right now is just to have something for a backdrop to appropriately show off GHQ's excellent ships (shameless plug for more ships in the 2013-14 model year). It will of course have some wargame potential if I ever get back to a place where that happens.

[dragon6]

No one makes it... at least not that I am aware. I don't think she ever was in combat but she was important to Guadalcan*l.

What would be the best base to modify? I seem to have a problem starting from scratch but doing a kit bash is doable. Bogue? Leave the island off and...

Bogue was 495 feet long
Long Island was 492 feet long
beam
Bogue 111 feet
Long Island 102 feet

Leave the island off, what else?

[av8rmongo]

beam
Bogue 111 feet
Long Island 102 feet

Ray,

I like the project idea but I think your numbers may be a bit off. The sources I have say the beam for both ships is a little less than 70 feet. As a comparison the Iowa class BBs were 108 feet, the largest beam that can fit through the Panama ** CENSORED ** (lol, you know that ditch thing). CV-9 class carriers had a 93 foot beam give or take.

Otherwise the Bogue is a good choice as both were conversions of C3 cargo ships and the flight decks were of essentially identical dimensions after Long Island had her's extended. I can't speak to the exact details as far as placement of defensive armament etc. between the two but dimensionally they are the same.

The major problem I see is while Bogue has a mostly enclosed hull Long Island doesn't. Probably based on lessons learned with Long Island. On Long Island the enclosed hull extends from amidship, essentially where the C3 superstructure was, toward the stern. Forward of that the flight deck is mostly supported by trusses. I'm not sure how easy that would be to replicate.

[Donald M. Scheef]

Ray's numbers are not off, just different. The difference in dimensions is explained by different standards. When discussing the hull, the "beam" is the maximum width at waterline. For both Long Island and Bogue (and all C3s) the beam is 69'6" (a bit over 21 m).

For both ships, the flight deck was significantly wider than the hull. The overall width of the Long Island was 102' (about 31 m). The overall width of Bogue was 111'6" (about 34 m).

For passage through the Panama C*n*l, the beam must be less than the width of the locks, but the deck overhang can be greater than the lock width so long as the overhang clears the walls of the lock when at the low water condition. This is how the CV-9 class (beam = 93', about 28.3 m, overall width = 147'6", about 45 m) managed.

Don S.

[dragon6]

I like the project idea but I think your numbers may be a bit off. The sources I have say the beam for both ships is a little less than 70 feet. As a comparison the Iowa class BBs were 108 feet, the largest beam that can fit through the Panama ** CENSORED ** (lol, you know that ditch thing). CV-9 class carriers had a 93 foot beam give or take.

Yes I was quite taken aback when I initially read that but then I realized it was the landing deck overhang as Don says.

The major problem I see is while Bogue has a mostly enclosed hull Long Island doesn't. Probably based on lessons learned with Long Island. On Long Island the enclosed hull extends from amidship, essentially where the C3 superstructure was, toward the stern. Forward of that the flight deck is mostly supported by trusses. I'm not sure how easy that would be to replicate.

The landing deck is one piece full length so all I gotta do is chop a hunk o' lead (pewter) off and put some bracing in there for the deck to sit on.

I suppose I can see why there is no model, single ship, no battles but I think she's interesting and did influence the campaign.

I do believe there is no model of Long Island in 1/2400?
And I think this maybe be the easiest route to Long Island. For me. I understand that it might be easier just to cut the hull from plastic. I just seem to have a phobia about that.

[Donald M. Scheef]

I agree; I have seen nothing about a commercial 1/2400 model of Long Island

btw, I received the most recent catalog from Squadron today and the newest volume of Squadron at Sea is USS Lexington, CV-2. I'll be ordering one this weekend.

[A quick update on Squadron's book on CV-2: It's a great reference on CV-2, starting with photographs of the hull under construction, dozens of pictures through the '30s and WWII, and some excellent drawings showing appearance at various stages. Unfortunately, there is no drawing of the appearance after the 8" mounts were removed.]

Don S.

[dragon6]

I agree; I have seen nothing about a commercial 1/2400 model of Long Island

Bummer

btw, I received the most recent catalog from Squadron today and the newest volume of Squadron at Sea is USS Lexington, CV-2. I'll be ordering one this weekend.

Don S.

Excellent news

[av8rmongo]

I've resurrected my on again off again project to modify some Spruance class DDs into Kee Lung class DDGs for the ROC Navy. Here's the latest update photo and the full update can be read on my blog.

[Unfathomable]

Hi all.

The silence is probably it's own reply, but just in case my WWI Gangut and Weymouth questions are still valid, even though I've pressed on since then.

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone has any info on the surfacing of the raised pedestals on which the turrets, particularly the forward superfiring ones with the upturned lips, are mounted on early V&W class destroyers. Confusingly, I can find a spirited defense of more or less everything somewhere on the internet, from the brown-red linoleum of the era through to painted metal finishes of light blue, brown or grey. I've seen good looking models of all these colours, but I'm hunting down an early career example, perhaps at or near launch.

I have just completed three with a strong cortecene (sp?) finish and something is bothering me - it doesn't look right.

Cheers.

[tstockton]

Unfathomable,

Just a guess on the Weymouth -- could they be skylights?

As for Gangut -- no idea...

Regards,
Tom Stockton

[Unfathomable]

Cheers, tstockton.

No worries then, have pressed on anyway. Will try my luck with something else:

Anyone have tips for adding a red band around a single funnel - that in the middle of three on a single, pre-made piece?

A stand-alone funnel is one thing, or even a flanking funnel, but by virtue of being attached to two outside verticals the inner cylinder is very difficult to work with. The band would need to be roughly half way down. Anyone out there tackled this problem? (Suppose I'm hoping for a cunning trick ...)

- U.

[Donald M. Scheef]

GHQ has finally posted a photograph of the last ship released in the 2012-2013 season. I have been waiting for a picture of GWB31, CL "C" class Calliope since the first of May (I have ordered several packs, but the order has not yet arrived.) The ships of this class went through several remodellings during their career and I wanted to know which appearance was modeled.

Fortunately (in my opinion), GHQ has chosen to model these ships as they were originally built (and appeared at Jutland). This can be seen clearly in the photograph by the two 4-inch guns mounted side-by-side on the forecastle.

Thank you, GHQ.

Don S.