Was the USS Helena (CL-50) ever fitted with blisters or bulges?

[Max89]

I've learnt that some of the Brooklyn-class cruisers were fitted with blisters or bulges, and this leads me to two questions:

1. Are "blisters" the same thing as "bulges"? I'm assuming bulges refer to anti-torpedo bulges.
2. Was the USS Helena ever fitted with either blisters or bulges?

 

For example, here is a photo of USS Savannah with the following caption: "5 September 1944 photo as rebuilt after FX-1400 guided bomb damage off Salerno. Hull is blistered up to the main deck and her former single 5"/25 guns have been replaced with twin 5"/38s. She is also fitted with a new bridge and new light weight antiaircraft guns and arrangement of those guns. The entire Brooklyn class was planned to be so modified but this was canceled at the end of the war."

 

I can't really tell what they're referring to when they say "blistered up", because I can't really see anything that resembles blisters in that photo.

[Our Ned]

Blisters were fitted to enhance stability.  In the case of some of the Brooklyn class (and others) they extended up to the main deck (ie the quote below indicates that Savannah was blistered "up to the main deck"); the blister was faired in quite neatly to the original plating of the hull and is not visible in most photos.  Only Savannah, Philadelphia and Honolulu (and perhaps Brooklyn) were blistered - Helena was lost before this could be achieved.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Our Ned
Typo

[EwenS]

Long story short, no blistered hull on Helena because she was lost before the plan ever arose.

 

Being designed as they were to Treaty limits, the Brooklyns had stability issues from the start, having to carry fixed pig-iron ballast in the ship's bottom. Come WW2 with all the additional extra AA weapons, radar etc this became an increasing problem. When Savannah was bombed off Salerno in Sept 1943 the opportunity came to design a solution. The main alternatives to improving the stability were, lose number three 6" turret or widen the hull by bulging/blistering. The latter route was chosen.

 

But the design solution did not simply involve sticking a bulge on the outside of the hull as done inter-war with various battleship classes. A much more elegant solution saw the "blister" extending right up to the upper deck and faired neatly into the existing hull fore and aft. The beam increased by nearly 8ft. The effect can be seen much more clearly in this photo of Savannah.

 

https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/0404219.jpg

 

Note the line running just inboard of the edge of the deck each side abreast number 3 turret. That delineates the inside edge of the blister. It narrows forward of that and is faired into the hull around no 1 turret and runs all the way aft to around the forward end of no 5 turret. Going back to the photo you posted, there is a slight kink in the deck edge aft at that point just where the blister starts/ends. See here

 

https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/042/0404204.jpg

 

It was initially planned to modify the other 6 Brooklyns (St Louis & Helena were considered a separate sub-class, which while having the same general external profile, had a different machinery layout and 4 twin 5"/38 mounts from the outset). And by the time all this was being considered, Helena CL-50 had been sunk in July 1943 anyway.

 

Plans then changed. Instead of Savannah plus 6, in Aug 1944 it became Savannah plus materials for another ship in the event of severe battle damage. Then Honolulu suffered that damage in Oct 1944 to become the second ship to be blistered, but her repairs lasted until Oct 1945. Photos of her post refit seem to be lacking entirely. Wiki, referring to ship's records, says she also got the armament upgrade but Friedman disagrees.

 

Subsequently in 1945 both Brooklyn & Philadelphia were blistered according to Friedman but did not receive the twin 5"/38 in place of the single 5"/25 previously fitted. Looking closely at post war photos of them in service with Chile & Brazil respectively, they both seem to me to show evidence of the blister around the deck edge aft, just like Savannah.

 

Ref "US Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History" by Norman Friedman

 

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Guys, I never knew of the blistering of these ships. Seeing the photos posted you can make it out, just, if you know to look for it. Many thanks for the info. Regards, Jeff.

[Max89]

Interesting. So a "blister" is essentially a widening of the hull to increase the ship's beam, and therefore provide additional stability, correct?

 

In the context of Brooklyn-class cruiser modifications, did the terms "bulges" and "blisters" refer to the same thing? Or were the bulges a separate modification?

[EwenS]

They are effectively the same thing. Both increase the vessel's beam. Why it was referred to as "blistering" in the Brooklyns I don't know. Perhaps it was because they covered the full depth of the hull and were much more elegantly installed. "Bulges" usually only cover part of the hull depth and have a much more "stuck on as an afterthought" appearance.

 

One other point about Honolulu and her armament fit. Only St Louis and Helena were retained by the USN. It was those retaining the single 5"/25 secondary armament, blistered or not, that were sold off to Argentina, Chile & Brazil.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

6 hours ago, EwenS said:

Only St Louis and Helena were retained by the USN. It was those retaining the single 5"/25 secondary armament, blistered or not, that were sold off to Argentina, Chile & Brazil.

Gidday, USS Helena CL-50 was sunk. USS Savannah CL-42 was retained, along with USS Honolulu CL-48, according to a book I have. Although originally carrying single 5-inch guns both had been refitted with twin 5-inch turrets. USS St Louis was one of two that carried twin 5-inch turrets from the beginning but was also sold to Brazil.

The USN also built a Baltimore class heavy cruiser named USS Helena CA-75 which was retained, then scrapped in 1974. HTH. Regards, Jeff.

[Alan P]

18 hours ago, EwenS said:

Note the line running just inboard of the edge of the deck each side abreast number 3 turret. That delineates the inside edge of the blister. It narrows forward of that and is faired into the hull around no 1 turret and runs all the way aft to around the forward end of no 5 turret. Going back to the photo you posted, there is a slight kink in the deck edge aft at that point just where the blister starts/ends

Excellent explanation. Would never notice unless you pointed it out. Would be nice if Friedman's US Cruisers book was reprinted! Like the equivalent Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War you'd be very lucky to have a copy nowadays!

13 hours ago, EwenS said:

Only St Louis and Helena were retained by the USN.

Guessing just a slip of the keyboard here!? Of interest, one of the Brooklyns sold off was USS Phoenix CL-46, which entered service with the Argentine Navy, renamed General Belgrano.

[EwenS]

8 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday, USS Helena CL-50 was sunk. USS Savannah CL-42 was retained, along with USS Honolulu CL-48, according to a book I have. Although originally carrying single 5-inch guns both had been refitted with twin 5-inch turrets. USS St Louis was one of two that carried twin 5-inch turrets from the beginning but was also sold to Brazil.

The USN also built a Baltimore class heavy cruiser named USS Helena CA-75 which was retained, then scrapped in 1974. HTH. Regards, Jeff.

Ooops! What I meant and typed in the first post#3! It is what I get for doing it in a hurry!!

[EwenS]

2 hours ago, Alan P said:

Excellent explanation. Would never notice unless you pointed it out. Would be nice if Friedman's US Cruisers book was reprinted! Like the equivalent Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War you'd be very lucky to have a copy nowadays!

Guessing just a slip of the keyboard here!? Of interest, one of the Brooklyns sold off was USS Phoenix CL-46, which entered service with the Argentine Navy, renamed General Belgrano.

 They have recently reprinted his US Carriers book. So maybe.....! But it is simply a reprint and has not been updated. Heard some comments that the print quality isn't up to the original.

 

I'm lucky enough to have both cruiser books. Just don't ask where the second came from!

[ArnoldAmbrose]

3 minutes ago, EwenS said:

Ooops! What I meant and typed in the first post#3! It is what I get for doing it in a hurry!!

Gidday, I did wonder about the contradiction. 🙂 If I rush things I make mistakes too.

       I didn't know about the bulging/blistering of these ships. Those that had it done it seems to be a very neat job. Neither did I know that some of the ships of the class had their single 5-inch guns replaced with twins, so thanks to all who have contributed to this. If I can get some plans maybe I could do a model of one of them someday.       Regards, Jeff.

[Max89]

I found a drawing that hopefully makes it a little easier to identify the blisters/bulges on the Brooklyn-class cruisers.

 

On this drawing of the USS Savannah, the "blister" is clearly demarcated and can be seen running all the way from the first turret to the last.