The Ship Model Forum

The Mk51 has no range adjustement. It's set to a fixed range. This should make the parallax adjustement considerably easier.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

But they could still be transferred to direct other mounts. A very sophisticated system!

The attached photo shows a boat showed on missouri’s Quarterdeck during the time when she operated the kingfisher, which would have been before April 1945. From the flat sheer, pointed bow and bumper all around, this looks like a 35 foot float plane rearming boat. Since no crane or any davit can reach it at this location, it must be mounted on some roller cradle that can be moved, and secured to tie downs on deck.

Does anyone know if she still carried this boat in August 1945?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

That photo is from a series taken in Aug. 1944. The boat cradles aft of the 20mm armor are visible in August and September 1945. In my quick scan I did not see a photo with a boat in the cradle.

Here's one from August showing the cradle but no boat.

https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/High-Resolution/Battleships/Missouri%20(BB%2063)/80-G-K-4531&rendition=original

Chuck/Jim:

Here is MISSOURI 14 July 1945 and this shows the boat in question:


Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Thanks.

A couple of interesting thing I noted in the photo:

1. The boat in the July 1945 photo is definitely not the same as the one in August 1944 photo. The July 1945 photo definitely shows a 33 foot re-arming boat because the torpedo cradle inside the boat is visible, and the front of the boat terminates in a blunt cut off. The boat in August 1944 has a sharp bow. I think it is a 35 foot rearming boat because it has flat sheer, and bumper all around. See But the canvas cover (which interestingly is clearly not watertight as it leaves gaps where it is laced to the side of the boat) obscures the inside so I can’t be 100% sure. See https://maritime.org/doc/boatcat/index.htm#toc for drawings of both types of boats, and photo of torpedo being loaded into the boat https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/torpedo-being-lowered-into-plane-rearming-boat-news-photo/615313652

2. The inner face of the splinter shield around the 20mm Oerlikons are repainted in a light color, possibly haze gray, in July 1945. In August 1944 the insides of all vertical splinter shields and bulwarks were a dark,color, possibly deck blue.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Chuck,

Sorry about that - your eyes are picking out more details than mine!

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

The 14 July photo looks to be the same 36' boats they use on the APA's as command boat for the LCVP's. What I see is the midships engine with the cover off and a bunch of cursing sailors working on it.

To the right of the sailor in the boat facing the camera, you can make out a bracket for holding a torpedo. This is almost certainly a 33 foot floatplane rearming boat https://maritime.org/doc/boatcat/cat-0047.htm. The float plane rearming boats have brackets for holding 2 torpedos, one to either side of the engine.

Since neither the OS2u king fisher nor the SC1 seahawk float planes the Missouri carried were capable of carrying a torpedo, I assume theses brackets were not used during service aboard the Missouri. Exactly what this boat is used for aboard the Missouri is a bit of a mystery to me.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

A discovery that may be of interest to modelers:

The aft missile platform at the 03 level was enlarged around 1985 add tracks for a gantry to load tomahawks into the ABLs. When recommissioned, the 03 platform extended to the width of the superstructure below. It overhangs the aft diagonal, Now the 02 platform extends beyond the superstructure and there are angled stanchions to support it.

I found a picture that shows the change. Unfortunately, at the file sizes permitted here it's more difficult to see. I have placed black bars inside the weld seams of the original deck. The side one is not hard to make out The forward seams is hard at this resolution.

Back to the Mk 51 director: The Mk 14 gunsight has a range adjustment knob on the right side. I'll presume that the director operator might have some range input "suggestions" via his sound powered phones?

Yes, as to the 03 overhang, this is correct, my scratch built 1:192 Missouri incorporates this as I built it mostly from the many hundreds of photos I took of the ship in Honolulu. The deck jogs outboard at this point. I was unaware of the earlier configuration.

The operator might manually move the sight crosshairs a little ahead or behind the target to use experience to correct for the range if he knows what it is, but I believe Mk51 Director itself has no ability to correct its lead for different range. It uses a series of fixed springs of constant strength dragging on its gyros. So it will always provide just a single angular leading and drop corrected aiming lead for a given target cross rate. It has no ability provide the different lead angle and drop correction for Different ranges or different range rates. It takes something the size of the Mk1 FC computer is the Mk37 Director to do that.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

On the port side, superstructure level 1, between the handling rooms for the 3rd and 5th 5” mounts counting from the front, FDD plans show a cage like rack on the deck that stows a sizeable pile of something long and straight. The explanation on the plans are smudged can’t be made out. What are those? Are these more refueling hoses? There are some refueling hoses affixed to the outside of superstructure right above these. Or I thought they might be wooden shoring beams for damage control. Does anyone know what these are? Or have pictures from WWII showing this area?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

There is hose stowage against the deckhouse.

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

_________________
Larry Steiner


Currently working on (and will be for years to come!)
1:200 USS Missouri (Monster Mo)

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.

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

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

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.

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

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

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.