The Ship Model Forum

Chuck wrote:
[quote]
The drawings in FDD conflicts with Gibbs & Cox model. the Gibb & Cox model appears inaccurate. It omitted the flag bag and had most of the halyards ties off to the railing on either edge of level 03. My interpretation of the FDD drawings is there are 4 sets of halyards under each yard arm, 3 sets ties off to the brass bar on the front of the flag bag (really a cabinet), 1 set tails off to the railing on edge of 03 level. The halyards from the battle gaffs ties off on a separate tie rod that protrudes from the back of the funnel on the starboard side.[/quote]

The model is not accurate 100% - I understand it was a builder's model to show the initial design of the ship, but not how she actually was built. I am referring to my FDD Plan Book, pages 65, 66, and 67 which shows the after stack, main mast and so forth. So, we're discussing the AFTER flag halyards associated with the after stack, NOT the main mast yardarm signal halyards, etc.

Photo P66-A shows McArther's pennant flying from the port side outrigger above the SG Service Platf. which is also above the yardarm and its own sets of halyards. Where his pennant halyard tie off is not clear but APPEARS to tie off on a rail on the port side of the 03 Level as I agree with you - the model does not show the single after flag bag. From that standpoint, the model is wrong depicting how the halyards (all) are tied off on the side handrails of the 03 Level. However, I have a couple photos of IOWA (WWII) which shows no after flag bag and the halyards appear to tie of on either side of the handrails as noted above.

Yet, my 1950 MISSOURI Booklet of General Plans and my 1955 NEW JERSEY Booklet of General Plans both show the after flag bag centered behind the two ammo lockers behind the stack. My 1956 WISCONSIN Booklet of General Plans shows no flag bag behind the stack.

As for your comments re. how/where the flag officers aboard would have tied off their pennants, I can't address as I have no experience with signal flag etiquette or the proper display of those items. It would seem logical that if the model showing McArthur's pennant is correct, then wouldn't Nimitz pennant be hoisted on the stbd side? I just don't know.

Hope this was (somewhat?) helpful! I would say at this point that the FDD Plan Book could have given more detail in this area and more photos to show the actual equipment, etc.

Hank

[quote="BB62vet"]Chuck,

What time period are you asking about for the signal halyards? WWII, Korea, or 80's?

Yes, the halyards are tied off on a brass rail in front of the flag bag. Brass belaying pins are provided for belaying individual halyards. The after flag bag (aft of the after stack) is similar. The 80's modernization modified the signal boxes and tie-off rails to a certain degree.

Hope this helps,

Hank[/quote]

I am looking at WWII, Mid August 1945.

The drawings in FDD conflicts with Gibbs & Cox model. the Gibb & Cox model appears inaccurate. It omitted the flag bag and had most of the halyards ties off to the railing on either edge of level 03. My interpretation of the FDD drawings is there are 4 sets of halyards under each yard arm, 3 sets ties off to the brass bar on the front of the flag bag (really a cabinet), 1 set tails off to the railing on edge of 03 level. The halyards from the battle gaffs ties off on a separate tie rod that protrudes from the back of the funnel on the starboard side.

Both battle gaff halyards being tied off to the separate tie rod on the back starboard side of the funnel is consistent with the tradition that halyards for commissioning pennant, national ensign, and admiral’s flag are always belayed on the starboard side.

The problem with the halyards to truck out rigger is they don’t have a clear run to the front of the flag bag. The little platform on the back of the funnel stands in the way. The halyard for the outrigger on the starboard side to go to the tie rail on the back of the funnel, but the halyard on the port side will chaff against the platform if it crosses over to the starboard side. So were they tied off each to its own side to the railing on the edge of 03? If that is the case, is only the starboard side outrigger used for,commissioning pennant and admiral’s flag?

When both Nimitz and McAuthur’s flags were hoisted, were one of their halyards belayed on the port side against tradition?

Chuck,

What time period are you asking about for the signal halyards? WWII, Korea, or 80's?

Yes, the halyards are tied off on a brass rail in front of the flag bag. Brass belaying pins are provided for belaying individual halyards. The after flag bag (aft of the after stack) is similar. The 80's modernization modified the signal boxes and tie-off rails to a certain degree.

Hope this helps,

Hank

On the Missouri, there are two outriggers on the railing around the SG platform on top of the main mast above the aft funnel. The SG platform was considered the truck of the mast, so these outriggers Were used for hoisting commissioning pennant or the admiral’s flag, and used to hoist Nimitz and McArthur’s flags during the Tokyo ceremonies. FDD plans clearly show these. However the plans don’t show were their halyards are belayed. I also can find any photos where their halyards are shown clearly.

I think the naval tradition is to belay halyards for status flags on the starboard side. There are a set of tie rods on the starboard side of the base of the aft funnel. But Port side outrigger halyards would not have a clean run to those tie rods. The small platform at the base of the main mast would be in the way.

Does anyone know where their halyards are belayed?

[quote="chuck"]The process of cementation causes small and difficult to control dimensional changes to the armor plates. This might be the reason why the turret dimensions aren't specified more exactly.[/quote]

They give theoretical dimensions. However, in the days before CAD programs with 12 decimal digits of precision, the draftsmen used 1/32 as their limit of precision.

The plan will say the [theoretical] maximum roof width is 18' 4-17/32". But that is a rounded figure. If you use that rounded [theoretical] measurement as a starting point in your CAD program, the farther you move way from that point, the more the rounded dimensions deviate from those on the plans.

If you start at the turret face, whose width is a round figure, and follow the angles you get a a figure for the widest point that isn't exactly 18' 4-17/32" but is that when rounded to the nearest 1/32". When you follow the specified angle to the rear corner you get a value that isn't exactly the specified value but is within 1/32 of it.

In fact, there is no rear corner (on the NJ at least). The corners are rounded as the result of shrinkage. The theoretical values on the plans are only theoretical.

The process of cementation causes small and difficult to control dimensional changes to the armor plates. This might be the reason why the turret dimensions aren't specified more exactly.

Because it has been dull here for a while, I thought I'd throw out an observation about plans because I got some questions about the turrets.

The drafters used much greater precision with angles than linear dimensions. Angles are frequently specified down to the nearest second while dimensions go down no more than 1/32" in most cases. If you try to model the turret, you have to go by the angles to get to get things to work out right.

The front face of a turret is 31' 10" wide. That is a round figure. If you start with that and follow the angles the published dimensions work out when rounded to 1/32". If you use use the linear dimensions, things do not work out.

These are the major round measurements:

The turrets go 32' aft of the CL. The upper surface goes 12' 2" forward. Front face is 6' 5-1/2" forward of that.
The total length of the armor is then 50' 7-1/2"

The outer radius of the circular gas seal over the barbette is 20’ 9-7/16”.
The overall length of the turret (minus barrels) is 52' 9-7/16"

The barrels are 10' 2" apart.

The turret height is 10' at the bustle. It is 9' where the gas seal projects.
The vertical front face is 12".

The angle outwards going back is 12d 34' 43" from the front edge.
The angle of the side corner from the CL is 3d 17' 31"
The angle from the corner is 5d 30' 6".
The angle from the rounded back the flat side is 9' 58 52".
The angle at the back underside is 13d 8' 2"

Those are all the dimensions needed to model the basic turret shape.

[quote="ModelMonkey"]Regarding [i]New Jersey[/i]'s original fire control directors, here's [i]New Jersey[/i] in June, 1945. At the time of this photo, she still has her original 6-sided Mk.38 directors and angle-back Mk.37 directors.
[/quote]


I am looking for measured drawings of the Mk. 38 directors. I have found some partially measured BuOrd drawings but am looking for something complete. If anyone has such an animal, I'd appreciate getting the info.

Regarding the IOWA Class Battleship Main Battery Rangefinders:

The Mk. 38 Optical Rangefinder has NOT been replaced on these ships. What has been changed is the RADAR that is mounted on top of the rangefinder. Originally, each ship had (2) Mk. 8, Mod. 3 RADAR units which was replaced late in the war with the Mk. 13, Mod. 0 which is still in place today on all 4 ships.

NORTH CAROLINA, ALABAMA, and MASSECHEUSETTS retain one each of the two different RADAR units.

One other note - NEW JERSEY retains the original Mk. 37 Secondary Battery Director Enclosure with modifications eliminating the open cupola on the front (as built). MISSOURI retains her original Mk. 37 Directors including the open cupola (as built). IOWA and WISCONSIN received the newer Mk. 37 Director enclosure with the straight walled upper part including the open cupola. This is the version that these two ships retain today.

Hope this clarified things a bit.

Hank

At least the Iowa still has the 6 sided Mk 38 directors today. The Mk 37 directors have been modified so the shape of the housing is substantially different now.

Regarding [i]New Jersey[/i]'s original fire control directors, here's [i]New Jersey[/i] in June, 1945. At the time of this photo, she still has her original 6-sided Mk.38 directors and angle-back Mk.37 directors.

[i]Iowa[/i] originally had the 6-sided Mk.38s and "angle-back" Mk.37s, too, as did the preceding North Carolina and South Dakota classes. [i]Missouri[/i] and [i]Wisconsin[/i] were built with the enlarged 7-sided Mk.38 directors and "square-back" Mk.37 directors. So, too, were the Alaskas.

Interestingly, after a deadly friendly-fire incident involving a 5" round destroying USS [i]North Carolina[/i]'s port-side, angle-back Mk.37 director, the destroyed director was removed and replaced with an enlarged "square-back". To this day, she retains three "angle-back" Mk.37 directors and one "square-back".

In some of the original drawings of the Iowa class, the fire control tower is not connected to the forefunnel. Instead stands alone and separate from the forefunnel more like what is usually shown on drawings of the Montana class.

If I read the chronology right, the initial plan was to have the forward fire control tower lean forward, and the funnel integrated with the fire control tower, with a funnel cap that has squared off front, in a manner similar to the South Dakota class. A conceptual model of the Iowa class shows this configuration. This model almost certainly represent an early design stage, because it lacked much of the light AA positions, still had a bevy of boats midship and two big cranes for handling them, plus a clipper bow that lacked a characteristic bullnose of the Iowa class.

Sometime later, the fore funnel become stand alone with round funnel cap, while the fire control tower stood separated from the funnel like an obelisk, similar to what's on the North Carolina class or planned for the Montana class. I've seen pictures of at least one model in this configuration. In all other respects, including the arrangement of AA batteries midship, this model closely matched the real ship, so I assume this means the separated funnel and fire control tower configuration lasted late into the design stage.

Then still later, the tower and funnel reverted back integrated configuration and the gap between the funnel and stack filled in with additional staterooms. I don't know when this change occurred, but it suspect it is near very end of design phase, it may even have been done at the ship yard. We know the lead ship yard for the Iowa class recommended and made some major changes to the design that was handed to it for construction, including revising the entire layout of the engineering spaces to further subdivide the hull.

So I wonder if the fact that the tower leans in at level 7 is a carry over from the intermediate separated fire control tower and forefunnel design. The revision to the design didn't chose to change the lean of the tower sides when the gap between the funnel and fire control tower was filled in.

Well geez, I think all of us are gong to have to tear apart and re do our fire control towers! Rather interesting bit of micro geometry, wonder why they did it that way? All of my Box launchers are the same on my model, but I had only the four midships ones to look at on Missouri.

Good info!

jim,

Thanks for posting your very fine ABL 3D rendition! As you & I have been discussing, the ABLs were not all the same and making a "master" unit that would fit all models is probably not realistic. Esp. from your own findings on NEW JERSEY. In contrast, I have included the photo I took last week on WISCONSIN of her port angled ABLS:
[attachment=1]Port 04 Level Angled ABLS_1.jpg[/attachment]
and one of her amidships ABL in raised position:
[attachment=0]Resized Port ABL Launcher_1.jpg[/attachment]

I think I have finally remedied the lack of references on the ABLs. I climbed over ABLs and filled two notebooks with measurements. There are a few caveats.

1) The feet at the ends vary in length. They are not even the same on each ABLs.
2) There are two variants. The one shown has a ladder on one side. The six aft-most ABLs on the NJ are like this. The two forward-most ABLs have rungs welded to the ABL on both sides.
3) There is 2-1/2" of blast shielding under the back ends. The ABLs are cut upwards over the shielding. Not shown here.


[attachment=0]Tomahawk ABL V2 02.jpg[/attachment]

[quote="chuck"]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.
[/quote]

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.

[img]https://modelingmadness.com/review/misc/robertonjd.jpg[/img]

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.

[attachment=0]Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 10.49.26 AM.jpg[/attachment]

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

[quote="pascalemod"]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. :)[/quote]


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.

[quote="bigjimslade"]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.[/quote]


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