The Ship Model Forum

I'd be interested in seeing a source list of plates for the Missouri and Wisconsin. I have that for the New Jersey and Iowa.

All of the upper belt class A plates on the New Jersey were from Midvale where any pitting would not be seen. The Iowa has a mixture of Midvale and Carnegie plates on the belt. All the readily visible class A plates for both ships (barbettes, turrets) came from Bethlehem. Transverse class A plates came from Carnegie.

So there is no safely accessible places where the hardened face of a midvale plate is visible on those ships.

On another typic, I noticed a new kit error on the 08 (secondary conn) on the Tamiya kit. It is not symmetrical. The shape of the deck as ot goes around the fire control tower is correct for the the right side but not the left. It extends farther aft on the left side than on the right. This is because of the ladder on the right side that is not on the left.



While I am at it, here is illustration of another common defect I have seen in kit (including above). The sides of the director tower start to taper in at the 07 level. The forward part of the 08 level weather deck (where the stack is) cuts in to meet the sloped in tower side. That creates the triangular panel in the side of the structure. This is visible in photographs.

Kits ignore this and start the taper at the 08 level.

Thanks for the info. I presume by Foremast you mean the Fire Control Tower? Always interesting to see how ships differ from one to another and during their service lives.

The Seven sided Mk 38 directors, were these adopted because of a requirement for more internal volume?

Cheers: T

Many other things.

1. The shape of the air defence platform on top of the foremast is different.

2. The shape of the mk 38 main battery director on top of t foremast are different. Those on the Missouri had 7 sides with vertical back, those on the New Jersey had 6 sides with slanted back

3. The shape of the mk37 5” director are different. Those on the Missouri has a open copula where as those on the New Jersey didn’t.

4. The conning position on level 8 on the foremast is different. Those on New Jersey is cubical and those on the Missouri is semi-cylindrical.

5. The fog horn platform around the foremast are different.

6. The Missouri has SK-2 and the New Jersey Sk-1 Radar.

7. The array of ECM antenna around the foremast are different.

8. The bulwarks around the 20mm Oerlikon platform on top of the bow is shaped differently.

9. The arrangement of the ammunition locker around the 4 foremost Oerlikon on the bow are different.

10. The antenna leads between the stacks are very different.

12. The number and location of mk51 directors for the 20mm Oerlikon on the superstructure were significantly different.

13. New Jersey carried a unique experimental spherical radar equipped AA director for her 40mm bofor during much of the war. Missouri never had those.

Etc etc

I can probably come up with 50 more. But suffice it to say if you want to accurate capture all visible differences, you will have to do quite a lot of detailed research and kit modification.

Class A armor used on US battleships were sourced to several specialty steel makers. They each had slightly different processes and quality controls. Those made by Midvale steel had particular problems with heat treatment that resulted in their showing surface cracking and spalling. It is said these did not affect their protective qualities. But they were unsightly. Missouri used mostly Midvale plates.

During the 1980s commission, the crew of Missouri went around and used epoxy putty to fill in most of the surface cracks and spalls on missouri’s exposed A class armor. So these are mostly no longer visible.

I'm going to suggest Navsouurce as a starting point.
They have a lot of photos of her during that time frame.

http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016209r.jpg

James

oh... the nightmare begins.

PASCALEMOD wrote:

Don't know anything about the kits, but you may want to research the AA batteries carried by NEW JERSEY in 1944 vs those on MISSOURI during the same time period. I'm talking mostly about those located between the stacks. On NEW JERSEY, that area was modified extensively during her 1945 Puget Sound yard period. I'm not sure how it was configured in 1944, etc. That would also include her 40mm, 20mm, and associated GFCS as well as her main and after stack masts/RADARs, etc.

Hope this helps,

Hank

I have a question on 1944 Missouri to New Jersey conversion. Aside from the bridge detail, is there anything else that needs to be done for 1944 New Jersey? Im going for the black dragon from the Academie kit.

Here's another detail where kits usually deviate. This is the top of the funnel. Notice the funnel slopes back, rather than going vertically. The rail apparently is to keep crewmen from accidentally touching the hot pipe. It's hard to get shots here because of the limited space.

You can duplicate the casting texture effect by stippling on Mr. Surfacer if you're working in the larger scales.

I vaguely recollect that the armor suppliers were different.

The most pitted plate armor is the class A armor. The heat treatment process leaves the plates with a very irregular surface. I have been told that the pitting is more pronounced on the Wisconsin and Missouri than on the Iowa and New Jersey. You can see the contrast on the turret where the class B front plate meets the class A side plates.

Perhaps for most ship scales a somewhat spattery air brush spray might simulate some such surface. On the Iowa's the most obvious rough cast items are probably the conning towers.

As far as Hank's sandpaper idea goes, there are some really fine grits like 1000-2000.

can give the object a rough surface by using sand paper. large scale models like tanks can have very fine grain sand put into paint then brushed onto the model's surface. don't bother doing that on a model warship no matter what scale as resulting finish will be out of scale.

I would like to thank Jim Slade for his last post - one that's overdue in the Big Picture of Military Modeling. Let me explain:

In regards to certain implements of war, such as battleships, cruisers, battle tanks, etc. not everything is "satin smooth" and perfect as most industry model manufacturers would have us believe. Photos don't show it, artists haven't a clue, and unless you've personally been involved with these types of weapons (systems), you probably don't realize it either.

I can attest to the crude surface features of various items on battleships, tanks, and possibly even cruisers. These are the turret faces, sides, top, and rear surfaces, as well as the rangefinder hoods as Jim has pointed out. Also, the cast sections of the main barbette is a rough surfaced object which is welded into a solid unit but its texture is far from smooth. Tank turrets are also cast items and have the same surface features as I've described. Actually, if you think about it, there is no need for the expense of smoothing these surfaces as their size, weight, and density are what's important, not their surface finish.

So, how do you mold this into a modeling part? I guess most model manufacturers have never given this a thought, but the innovative modeler HAS...or perhaps should. When I was working on my NEW JERSEY project I several times toyed with the idea of actually covering the turret sides with a moderate to rough grit sand paper to give the turret surfaces the proper exterior finish that they should have. Actually, they each have about a 4"-6" smooth surface along each edge and then the metal becomes rough surfaced - even after coats of primer and paint, they feel and look pitted and coarse. This again, is true of the range finder hoods that Jim has described. In some cases I've seen these surfaces ground into almost parallel grooves and this is the way the part was assembled in its final configuration. Some WWII German battle tank turrets come to mind. Even the old Sherman Tank - its turret was a rough cast metal object, not a machined or ground smooth item.

If manufacturers were accurate in their representations of parts (esp. on the larger scale models - 1:48, 1:96, 1:125, even 1:144) I believe that they could with today's technology produce molds and dies that would reproduce these surface features that are currently missing from their final product. I don't know how a 3D printer would be able to handle this sort of mottled surface, but one can only guess.

Just one modeler's opinion...

Hank

I thought I'd share a detail that I have seen wrong in most documentation; that is the turret hoods. I think one of the reasons is a lack of sources. The turret hoods are buried in the BuOrd plans; not BuShips.

Another issue is that the hoods were cast and look like the were cast in sand. The surfaces are rough and vary from the idealized design lines. Where the computer gives a crisp line the casting gives a more rounded seam.

This is a top view of an idealized version. All of the openings in the sides of the turret were cut normal to the centerline (ie not normal to the faces). The hood has to become normal to the centerline to fit into the opening.



The hood sticks into the opening (this model does not have the hood hollowed out):



The edges were designed with odd fillets. The fillet have different radii making it impossible for them to blend together smoothly. Instead, the fillets run into each other to create corners. Some of these corners are visible on hoods such as here. However, the casting process blurs the edges corners that you get in an idealized computer version.




I'll add one more image. Note that even in the rendering the back of the hood appears straight.

Chuck wrote:


As Jim Slade replied that these were for oil hose storage, he is correct. Photo P36-B in the FDD MISSOURI Plan Book (Page 36) shows this storage rack on the model - it is for storage of at-sea replenishment oil hose sections. The Deck Plan views of this area of the 01 Level are shown on pages 48 and 50 and labeled "Hose Stow" - and shown in both plan and elevation views.

Hope this helps,

Hank

I had never been able to get an answer to this question and I have seen it asked in an number of fora:

Q: What are the dimensions of an ABL?

A: Length 278", Height 74" Width 77-1/2" for the box
The support below the box that is part of the ABL is 13" high and is 78-1/2" wide at the bottom. It is the same width at the top.

The size of the mounting below that varies.

The beauty of tape measures.

Looking at the 1:92 plans, it says that these are "Oil hoses stored".

There is hose stowage against the deckhouse.