The Ship Model Forum

I saw a video review of the Blue Ridge 1:350 Missouri. Here is a screen capture from the review showing the stern bottom and above is my computer rendering based off the original blueprints.

[attachment=0]Stern.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 2.47.46 PM.jpg[/attachment]

There are a number of places where the engineers went crazy with unnecessary complexity in the Iowa class. Here's one that took me a couple of months to sort out.

The Upper Belt ends at FR166. The Lower Belt plates have a different configuration aft of FR166 than forward. Aft they are 13-inches at the top. Forward they are 12.1". Due to their configuration, the aft plates are thicker than the forward plates at their top and bottom while the forward plates are thicker in the middle.

The plates were welded together using scalloped straps on both sides. It was felt the joint needed to be flattened. This illustration shows what they did. At the top, the aft plate was planed even with the forward plate.

In the middle, both plates were planed down (it would have been simplle to just have planed the forward plate). The edge created on the forward plate was beveled.

At the bottom the aft plate was planed then beveled down to the forward plate.

In the middle area the strap welded over the joint is forward of the bevel. In the bottom area, the strap has to be shimmed.

A) They could have welded the two plates together directly (which would have been stronger than what they did).
B) They could have shimmed the entire joint and skipped all the planing.
C) They could have done a lot less planing to even things out.

[attachment=0]Aft Belt V2 02.jpg[/attachment]

[quote="chuck"]I think the armored transverse bulkheads at the ends of the citadel are made from class B armor. Class A armor is typically used where armor piercing shells have a good chance of striking at a high angle of 60 degrees or more.[/quote]

They are definitely Class A.

[attachment=0]Untitled-1.png[/attachment]


I climbed down there today for the first time. Different from the plans (and my rendering), the openings are staggered and oval shaped.

[attachment=1]P1050827 3D Attachment to Armor.jpg[/attachment]

I think the armored transverse bulkheads at the ends of the citadel are made from class B armor. Class A armor is typically used where armor piercing shells have a good chance of striking at a high angle of 60 degrees or more.

Because it has been dead here, I thought I'd share some more Iowa class construction details.

One of the myths that appears frequently is that Class A armor was not used structurally. While generally true, it is not totally true. One example is the transverse armor bulkheads.

The outside face of a Class A plate could not be welded because the heat would crack the hardened surface.

This image shows the inside face of the forward transverse armor (looking forward). The vertical lines are grooves for welding the class A plates together. A plate with holes was welded to the inside face. The holes provide additional welding surface. The Third Deck was welded directly to that plate. Unusually for the Iowa class there are no other supports at the attachment point.

The large deck opening is where turret no. 1 goes.

[attachment=1]Third Deck 1.jpg[/attachment]

This shows the forward face of the transverse armor. The seams between the armor plates (angled but close to vertical) have slots in the them Vertical supports were inserted into the slots and a beam was welded between them. The beam supports the third deck.

An L-bar was welded to the the third deck on the upper side that butts up against the armor. The L-bar is not welded to the armor.

[attachment=0]Third Deck 2.jpg[/attachment]

Note that the third deck takes a large step down at the armor. The step is not visible because there are no openings in the armor plate. The Third deck shelf runs outside the citadel on both sides. At its forward end, the shelf joints the third deck flush. As it moves aft, the shelves descend below the third deck.

[quote="intruder500"] I have a question for you guys out there that may have built Trumpeter's Iowa's in 700th with metal barrels. When doing the 5" guns, do you use the metal barrel drilled directly into the turret or do you cut the plastic barrels off those tiny angle thingy's that keep the plastic barrels fitted into the turret straight?
[/quote]

Because no one has answered, you are going to need some kind of gas shield. The barrels are mounted to an shield that covers the opening. Typically on plastic kits, the gun is molded with the shield. Be that the case, I don't think you'd want the metal barrels going directly into a right angle slot.

You could create your own with sheet styrene.

Gentlemen:

I have a question for you guys out there that may have built Trumpeter's Iowa's in 700th with metal barrels. When doing the 5" guns, do you use the metal barrel drilled directly into the turret or do you cut the plastic barrels off those tiny angle thingy's that keep the plastic barrels fitted into the turret straight?

Stephen C.
intruder500

Welcome back, Randy!! I was following your work religiously and then you just dropped off the map. Great to see you back!

The two shipyard queens...



[img]http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/bb63_200/images/twoMo.jpg[/img]

Randy,
Glad you're amongst the living!!! Good to hear from you again. It would be nice to see you complete your 1/200 scale model - after all it's been thru!

Hank

Hi all... just checking out the forum - it's been two years since I last visited! You may not remember, but I am the fool who created and 3D-printed an "aft third hull correction" for my 1/200 Missouri. I was working on that kit along with the Pontos detail set back in 2014/15 timeframe, while learning Solidworks in preparation for a different project. It's really great to see this Iowa thread still going strong, with many familiar authors.

What led me back here? Long story, which I will convert to a reader's digest version. My original plan was to build the 1/200 model and learn about Missouri along the way. In addition I created a 1/200 e-model using Solidworks. THAT effort led to the creation of the aft hull correction parts, which I successfully (I think, anyway) installed onto the trumpeter kit. My ultimate plan for all this was to acquire and build a 1/96 Missouri, using skills developed up to this point to create accurate, custom parts using solidworks.

Soooo (and I'm getting to the good part), at some point I did purchase the 1/96 hull and associated parts, and put the 1/200 model on the shelf for the time being. "Time being" stretched into several months as I generated Missouri in 1/96 and began the process of engineering that project (if you know where to see that build log, you'll understand the use of the word "engineered" :) ), at which point one of my cats knocked the 1/200 model onto the tile floor, five feet below (different cat from the one that destroyed USS Boston...). Anyway, I mopped up the tears and gathered the wreckage, and "stored" it back on the shelf, where it has sat since. Mocking me.

In the intervening five-ish years, I have made reasonable progress on my 1/96 project, but the 1/200 hull - and that beautiful Pontos detail set - continued to call to me. So two weekends ago I took the hull down, dusted everything off, and took stock of the damage. Fast forward two weeks, and I claim it would take a sharp eye to tell what had happened. The 1/200 model is back where it was all those years ago, plus some additional work on one of the turrets. While working on the repairs it dawned on me that I haven't been to modelwarships in a very long time... so here I am :)

As I said, it's great to see activity on this thread. I'm going to lurk for awhile and catch up.

Good day all,
Randy

Here's a little information that conflicts with what is published.

The lower belt plates are 12.1" thick at the top (16"in length at the top). Then they taper to knuckles of 11.7" , 6.4", 2.3", and 1.62" thickness.

But that was the mill size of the plates. At the shipyard they were cut to length (so the bottom would be thicker than 1.62") and they were machined to create a taper to 1" at the bottom.

So the plates arrived at the shipyard 1.62" at the bottom but when they were installed they were 1" at the bottom.

[quote="wojtekp90"]What were the dimensions of the portholes in the superstructure?[/quote]


12" DIA FWD FR87
16" DIA
12" DIA AFT FR137

[attachment=1]AP1.png[/attachment]
[attachment=0]AP2.png[/attachment]

What were the dimensions of the portholes in the superstructure?

Iowa and Wisconsin have the new shell with the commanders copula
Missouri has her original director with the commanders copula
New Jersey still has her original modified director without the commanders copula

Iowa and Wisconsin:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0161077.jpg

Missouri
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016361d.jpg

New Jersey
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016201d.jpg

[quote="Thomas E. Johnson"]You model looks fantastic Chuck! :thumbs_up_1:[/quote]

Thanks!

If I recall, the MK-37 directors had their external shells replaced after WWII with a new style. Did the difference in commander's copula persist?

[quote="wojtekp90"]Were there big differences between Missouri and New Jersey from 1990?
[/quote]

A few:

By the 1990's there were number differences. The forward director tower on the New Jersey is completely different from those of the other ships. The NJ has "ears" while the others have a wrap around structure.

The Missouri has a mess for the main mast deck. It is solid on the other ships.

The forward support of the main mast ends at a support on the NJ. It extends down to the secondary conn level on the other ships.

The NJ and IA have different MK.38 directors from the other ships. The WI and MO have black backs (giving more room) while the NJ and IA have sloped backs.

The Missouri has MK.37 directors with commander cupolas. The NJ's directors lack these.

The forward turret on the MO has ventilators at the side. The NJ lacks these.

The NJ has lockers behind the bridge doors. The ships lack these.

The light lock in the open air tunnel behind the flag bridge (03 level) is different on all four ships.

The vents on top of the 20mm clipping room forward of turret 2 are different.

NJ has a large vent at the O1 level next to the FAS control platform. MO has a vent with a different shape.

The supports under the chaff platform are different both forward and under the side Mk.37 directors.

The two forward tomahawk launchers are slightly different on the NJ than from the MO.

The 04 extensions below the Phalanx launcher go all the way to the end of the deck on the MO but jut back in on the NJ>

In 1945, the Missouri carried 5 36" search lights, 2 24" signal/search lights, 9 12" signal lights.

If by target designators, you means the pedestal mounted bearing transmitters with binoculars, then there were 8 of them.

Hello, I have some questions

Were there big differences between Missouri and New Jersey from 1990?
How many searchlights 36 In had Missouri in 1945 and How many searchlights 24 In had Missouri in 1945.?
How many 12 In signaling lamps and target designator had in 1945?
It is worth buying this book, which includes:
USS Missouri (Bb-63): America's Last Battleship by David Doyle?