The Ship Model Forum

Unless you can come up with some better data! It gets a little interesting when painting a model to incorporate the taper! I had to wedge the bow and stern variously a little when scribing the lines for the boot top.

Cheers: T

In the original plans, the boot topping is 17" above and and 5'6-1/2" below the design waterline at the bow and 17" and 12-1/2" below at the stern.

The waterline is 34'7-1/4" above the baseline (34'9-1/4" above the bottom).

I know I found some later diagrams showing the boot topping at a later date but they are somewhere in my massive sorting stacks.

The center of buoyancy is aft of the center of the ship so there is more movement at the bow.

One reason why the draft at the front of Iowa changes much more than at the back is because of the hull form. How much draft changes when weight is added or removed is proportional to the area of the waterplane. US fast battleships had highly assymmetrical waterplane shale, with extremely blunt and fat aft section with a lot of waterplane area , and long tapering bow entrance with little waterplane Area. This is probably a major reason why Iowa class has much more variable draft in the front than in the rear.

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

Hello
I am working also in the other two classes. Is the boot topping also tapered?

I checked out the drawings in Garzke and Dulin and no taper is shown. But... The drawing for the Iowa's does not show a taper either.

Good question!

A question came up regarding the effectiveness of hollow charge weapons against Battleship armor. Certainly the ability of such weapons to drill a (small) hole through thick armor is not questioned. However much of the armor on an Iowa is interior and the ship is replete with honeycombed compartmentations, heavy shell plating and various void and liquid loaded compartments which I would guess would largely defeat such weapons unless they hit something like the coning tower, turrets or barbettes where the armor is directly exposed.

No - they are completely different and have no parts for WWII components. Your best bet these days for a 1/350 WWII Iowa class is the Very Fire version: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ssouri.htm

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Another bunch of questions if I may.....How accurate are the main gun turrets, direction finders, gun barrels on the modern New Jersey kit ? Do they need to be modified or replaced with say the Model Monkey parts ? I don't have the Tamiya kit in front of me so please excuse me for what might be obvious. Also, does anyone have any thoughts on the Pontos upgrade kit ?

How about a 22' long 1/48th scale all-brass model of the USS New Jersey?
It's in the Atlantic City Expressway rest stop.
https://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clea ... ssway.html

http://www.snjtoday.com/story/35385613/ ... expressway

_________________
Current build logs -
1/72 110' Subchasers as Rum Runners
1/96 Japanese 'Steel Truck'
1/96 12cm pre-Dreadnaught deck gun
1/124 CS Privateer 'Beauregard'
1/124 CS Blockade Runners Pevensey & Ella Warley
1/192 scale whaler PEQUOD

There is a similar one of Missouri in the Honolulu Airport. I understand these were built for radar evaluation.

That is what the two articles (links above) elaborate upon.

_________________
Current build logs -
1/72 110' Subchasers as Rum Runners
1/96 Japanese 'Steel Truck'
1/96 12cm pre-Dreadnaught deck gun
1/124 CS Privateer 'Beauregard'
1/124 CS Blockade Runners Pevensey & Ella Warley
1/192 scale whaler PEQUOD

Thanks Timmy C for that reply. Guess that I'll be building at least 2 1/350 ships, a Modernized NJ and WW2 Missouri I'll have to look into the Very Fire Missouri Kit but I do have a Tamiya NJ kit that I've pulled out of storage. I'm now retired and can give the kit proper attention now that I have the time. I have found a copy of Paul Stillwell's Battleship New Jersey Book which I hope will help reference wise.

Bob

_________________
Currently on the bench: 1/350 USS Indianapolis (1945)
Future builds: 1/350 USS New Jersey Modern, 1/350 USS Missouri WW2, 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8 Doolittle, 1/350 USS Pennsylvania BB-38, 1/350 USS Arizona PH, 1/350 USS Hornet Apollo Recovery

Also, hollow charges are effective egainst tanks because the interior of the tank is small and very tightly packed with killable crew and explodable ammunition. So a small penetration by a thin gas jet has a good chance of killing the crew or setting off the munition. The interior of the even very crowded ships are cavernous by comparison and mostly air (hopefully). A thin hot gas stream cutting through steel has little chance of doing catastrophic damage unless it enters the magazine. A antiship missile with a shape charge warhead that explodes outside Iowa’s belt but cuts through the belt seems unlike to do nearly as much damage to the vitals of the ship as a 16” or 18” APC shell that penetrates the ship’s sides and properly detonate inside the citadel, Except of course the shape charge warhead, in the process of penetrating armor, is likely to do a lot more damage to the surrounding area outside the armor because in a shape charge, only a fraction of the energy is directed towards forming and propelling the armor piercing jet, the majority of the explosive energy will be dissipated as a normal outward explosion.

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

Another problem is the layers. A side shot on IOWA would have to go through three layers of steel to get to the armor. Then it would have to go through a layer of concrete two more layers of steel to get to the vitals. It about 15 feet of penetration that would be required.

In the best case, a top shot would have to go through four layers of armor. In that case the distance is even greater.

On the turrets, the three layers are not spaced, so it would be easier to penetrate. While theoretically, a shaped charge could go through a turret face, it would be hard to do from a fired shot.

The Fritz x was able to penetrate Roma's magazines and also Savannah's. Sinking the BB but not the CL! Not sure how their warhead was configured or what the watertight state Roma was at since they were on their way to surrender.

Modern tanks and warships have some Kevlar incorporated in their protection schemes, anybody know much about this?

Thanks David, I was a little familiar with both scenarios. As I understand it the trailing smoke was to help the individual guiding the glide bomb. In the case of Savanna it was a case of less (armor) is more, allowing immediate flooding to smother much of potential magazine fires. A little like the 18" AP shells from Yamato passing right through the escort carriers without exploding. The accompanying DD's and DE's unfortunately had a lot of solid stuff like machinery taking up much of their length.

Amazing how quickly radial countermeasures were developed!

Cheers: T

Radio

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Spel Chequr....

: )

I believe roma’s Touch construction was her undoing. Savannah’s explosion ripped open her magazine to the sea and the flooding prevented her magazine from being detonated. Roma was not able to flood her magazine in time, and it detonated.

I believe Kevlar armor is largely for protection against fragments and kinetic energy projectiles. The Kevlar layers are often added to the inside of tanks to contain fragment that would spill off of the inside of tank armor from non-penetrating hits on the outside. These fragments would otherwise be enough to kill the crew. I don’t believe Kevlar is much use against Heat Or shaped charge explosives.

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

Has anyone seen any plate expansion plan for the Iowa class? I am using primer to build up the overlapping hull plating on the Iowa, but I have no photos that shows how the plating seams are laid out on the bottom of the ship, along with shapes of external sea chest openings.

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