The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:32 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4761 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 ... 239  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Fullerton, CA
Hey Jim
Sent you some photos
That knuckle shows up only in the right light.


James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: USS Kentucky
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 448
Does anyone know if the USS Kentucky (USS Illinois) had a different hull form than the other four?

It was this picture that raised that question to me:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016630.jpg

In addition to lacking a bow chock, it looks like the sheer strake is much narrower at the top.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
The forward shell plating transitions to the heavier midships plate appear to be the same. However it is my understanding that Illinois and Kentucky had a somewhat different and supposedly improved anti torpedo arrangement. Whether or not this had any discernible external expression I do not know. My guess is not...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Mocksville, NC
Fliger747 wrote:
Quote:
The forward shell plating transitions to the heavier midships plate appear to be the same. However it is my understanding that Illinois and Kentucky had a somewhat different and supposedly improved anti torpedo arrangement. Whether or not this had any discernible external expression I do not know.


I think that Norman Friedman mentions something regarding the BB-65/66 design in his U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History, but my copy is at my shop - there possibly was some improvement in hull defense in these two ships that was a further change in their internal layout and structural design.

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
Hank:

That was probably my reference, I think whatever the design changes were also incorporated in the Montana design. Possibly a change in the liquid loading scheme?

Back home tomorrow night late and can check it out.

Cheers: Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
With regards to the knuckle aft mentioned earlier, this is shown on the body plan on page 149 in Garzke and Dulin at about 29' 6" above baseline. It extends a bit further aft than the original design as the hull contours were altered after model tests indicated a change in shafting.

T


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
Garzke and Dulin are very vague with regards to the side protective system, which was still classified at the time of the book, 1976 and 1995. The only comment was that the last two ships (I'll and Ky) were modified as a result of Caisson tests and war experience. I would not expect any external expression of this.

Friedman: P 314 briefly mentions caisson tests in 1943 in connection with the design of the Midway Class carriers and a modification to the design of the torpedo protection scheme for Ill and Ky, too late to be incorporated in the first 4 Iowa's. An improvement of about 20% was expected.

Again no information as to any external expression.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Posts: 337
Location: San Diego
Hi all...

LOOOOOoooooooonnnnng time no post here. I changed scales for my project and have become absorbed in the new build, and have been more active on a different board. Sadly, one of my cats caused my 1/200 Missouri to fall four-feet onto hard tile floor (just the hull, and this is a different cat than the one that got my Boston, else I'd have one fewer cats). There is some damage, but - surprisingly - the grafted-in part came through unscathed.

I have a couple specific questions regarding 20mm mounts on BB63. After scrutinizing a LOT of photos, it appears that the mounts on Missouri differ from those on Iowa in at least one very significant area: Missouri's mounts have what appears to be a circular splinter (ricochet?) shield mounted horizontally about a third of the way up on the pedestal. Iowa's mounts do not have this feature - at least in the photos I have. I have not looked at photos of 62 or 64 yet.

Questions: does anyone a) know what these actually are, and b) does anyone have actual dimensions for them? See drawing below for an idea of what I'm talking about.

Hope you all have been doing well!
Randy


Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Posts: 337
Location: San Diego
David... thanks for the reply. Was wondering if it is a step/stand of some sort. But if you were to visualize someone standing on that plate with their shoulders in the rests - even if they were balancing on the tips of their toes/boots, their body would be at a nearly 45-degree angle, which to me seems extremely awkward.

I've read thru all the available OP documents and especially OP909, which deals specifically with the different versions of 20mm mounts. None of them reference this addition. Yet it was clearly added to all of Missouri's 20mm guns. Curious.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
18-21 year olds are a bit more flexible than those approaching some degree of geezerhood. The adrenaline flow while trying to stop an oncoming aircraft at 20 mm ranges they wouldn't even notice. Most likely something added at a yard period at the request of the Captain.

Interesting!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
When you look for one, the 20 mm mounts are hard to find. Didn't see a single clear photo of one in the entire Stillwell Missouri book!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Mocksville, NC
Well, after much searching I did find one possible photo of NEW JERSEY showing the similar type of pedestal. Once again, MO and NJ had a few more similarities between themselves as did WISKY and IOWA.

I have made a clip from photo #80-G-244433 showing the port side 20mm battery - it's the middle mount - seems to show the additional foot rest that RandyM is talking about:
Attachment:
BB62 port 20mm battery_1.JPG
BB62 port 20mm battery_1.JPG [ 26.58 KiB | Viewed 1495 times ]

Comments, etc. welcome as usual. It certainly would be nice to find documentation on this item.

Hope this helps,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
Could be a shadow as well. Maybe with the original photo/negative one could pull the shadow detail out. Maybe Missouri has especially short sailors? I would think that the Pedestal would be designed to allow for full elevation range manipulation by a "standard issue" sailor. Though maybe not, the F4U didn't have adjustable rudder pedals and shorter pilots had to add wooden blocks!

Randy: you could always take the cats to the "Farm"....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Mocksville, NC
OK, no mistaking the modified pedestals on the 20mm on this photo of MISSIOURI:
Attachment:
BB-63 Main Deck Aft #F1112C214 - resized.jpg
BB-63 Main Deck Aft #F1112C214 - resized.jpg [ 169.71 KiB | Viewed 1490 times ]


And, also in a similar photo of NEW JERSEY:
Attachment:
BB-62 Turret 3  Reclining Tests 06-24-45 #3101-45 resized.jpg
BB-62 Turret 3 Reclining Tests 06-24-45 #3101-45 resized.jpg [ 151.78 KiB | Viewed 1490 times ]



Hope this helps,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
Hank

Great photo research!

Cheers: T


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Posts: 337
Location: San Diego
They are definitely really there - the first queue for me was photos of the Builder's model - they are very clearly on that ship, and there is just no way the model makers would have made that sort of mistake that many times. I agree, there are not many photos of 20mm mounts with the pedestal visible on 63: however I did find three which indisputably show this feature, as well as other photos of 61 which indisputably show mounts without it.

Very odd, and now of course it is gnawing at me: why are they there, and what are their dimensions?

Thanks all for the input!
Randy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Mocksville, NC
RandyM -

As is the case with many other facets of MISSOURI & NEW JERSEY, these two IOWAs are similar in their construction and I'll maintain once again that this was due in part, to the local shipyard and it's ability at the time of construction to purchase materials and equipment which may have differed from one of the other shipyards also building an IOWA class ship.

Yesterday, while otherwise unoccupied timewise, I searched for any known photos, documents, etc. regarding the 20mm single mount and with the exception of the original drawing that you provided, could not find any official drawings/details of these pedestals with the additional "foot rest". Still looking...

Hope this helps,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
Those look like more of a shield and somewhat unsubstantial for a foot rest. A foot rest of the period would more likely take the form of a pipe ring?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Posts: 337
Location: San Diego
I just don't see it being a shelf/footrest/body support. The geometry is all wrong for the gunner with respect to the shoulder rests. The vertical pivot point for the gun is well behind the vertical axis of the pedestal, and the shoulder rests are well behind that. The gunner's feet would probably be 2-3 feet away from the center of the pedestal. I'm thinking more the equivalent of a baseball player's cup for the gunner :)



Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Guys, the "ring" around the base of the 20-mm guns is an aid for the gunner to stand on when and if he needs to "quickly" shift his elevation of the gun without having to adjust the height of the gun. Normally with the Mk 4 base, while in action against aircraft targets, the gun is cranked up depending on what the gunner desires so he can get high elevations on an aircraft target. If a gunner is concentrating on one approaching target he isn't going to want the gun lowered while firing and he can simple step up on the ring for a reduced elevation to maintain track on the target. I see these a lot on USN destroyers. I could see that not every 20-mm gun location on a large ship like a battleship would need these rings if they are located where the gunner would have to disengage a low angle attack because of cam restrictions on NOT FIRING into the ship.

The Mk 5 bases, seldom used on USN warships and sent off to be used on merchant ships, didn't have a gun height adjustment cylinder to save weight and they installed a "step" bulwark around the gun.

Also, after experience during the Philippines campaign, mines (floaters and moored) got to be a major concern. I have read many War Diaries for destroyers talking about "plinking" mines. Such rings helped to get a better depressed angle against a mine closer than the crew would really like to be near one. When the Mk 4 bases were replaced with none elevating Mk 10 tripod bases to save weight, either a similar ring was attached or more likely a tube ring was mounted on the deck on stand-offs.

You seldom see the Mk 4 mounts in the elevated position in either yard photos. Here is one of USS ERICSSON (DD-440). One of the problems the USN had with this elevation cylinder, was it getting corroded and difficult to operate. Hence keeping it down when not in use.


Attachments:
zDD440x23crop-23Sep43.jpg
zDD440x23crop-23Sep43.jpg [ 191.27 KiB | Viewed 1385 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4761 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 ... 239  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group