[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Richard Harden on August 28, 2024, 10:59:48, in reply to "Re: USN WW2 stern cranes and seaplane catapults"
Well, That explains that. I've always wondered why ta few Clevelands had that style crane boom. Now the question becomes "why did Bethlehem 'reinvent the wheel' with the Baltimores?" Did it have anything to do with the stern being originally designed for two cranes? 
Previous Message
The Baltimore's were a Bethlehem Shipbuilding design. The Cleveland's with similar cranes were those built by Bethlehem. Previous Message
Our observations of available photos, while far from comprehensive, shows at least three versions of the stern aircraft crane base. One was used on the battleships that were modernized in the late 20s and early 30s, the other two types were basically the same but with some small differences in the base casting. The strongback bracing could be either open or filled in. The booms of these cranes were mostly constructed of rounded pipe save for the Baltimore class and some later Cleveland class ships which had a more solid, girder-like construction. I believe all were designed to lay flat on the deck when necessary.
The catapults of the Omaha class were different than those of other cruisers and I believe the three installed on Fletcher class destroyers were also of this type. Previous Message
I will let Nautilus Models answer the catapult question:
http://nautilusmodels.com/CATAPULT.HTM
As far as the crane, this Navsource page shows the plan for the aircraft crane for the BB Massachusetts was "made applicable" specifically to that ship. Seems to imply a likely standard basic design which would then be adjusted to individual ships:
https://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57n.htm
HTH some Previous Message
Considering WW2 USN used SOC-3s and OS2U seaplanes (with some Seamews and Seahawks ) were stern cranes and catapults standardized on each ship that carried observation aircraft?
Responses