The Ship Model Forum

Rick, very good information, thanks. But...… if I am correctly interpreting what I see in the photo you have provided of Ericsson, the disk in question appears very much larger in diameter than it does in photos of the equivalent part on Missouri: on Ericsson it extends out to beyond the trigger end of the gun, and possibly out to the shoulder rests when the gun is horizontal. This would make perfect sense as an auxiliary standing platform as you describe. In contrast the photos of the same part on Missouri seem to show a disk *much* smaller in diameter.

In the photo below I've tried to illustrate what I'm trying to describe. In the mount on Missouri the disk appears barely larger than the major diameter of the pedestal, while on Ericsson the same disk is clearly much larger in diameter - very much as you describe - like a platform.

Obviously, I could be misinterpreting what I see in these photos, but if correct, I just don't see how the smaller-diameter disk on the Missouri mounts could be useful as a platform.

Rick,

I see what you are saying - I think you (and David P) have come up (or down ) with the purpose of the "stand". I would love to come up with a combat photo to confirm but that is really asking too much - for me, this question is resolved AND it makes sense.

RandyM,

Don't wait 'til November - take a STAND now!!!! LOL!!!!

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

David:

Good point. And I think I misunderstood the purpose of this Ericsson photo: it was not to illustrate the disk, but a photo of the mount in extended height config.

So... my issue remains: I don't see how a gunner could both stand on that platform and operate the gun - with his shoulders in the rests - at the same time!

Hi Hank! Long time no talk to. I've made substantial progress on my "other" project. The decking took 18 months, almost to the day

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/bb63_96/intro.aspx

The website is not current. More photos/updates on a different forum. But I can't find your email address!

It isn't in combat, but here are a few images showing the Mk 4 20-mm gun mount in operation. How envision if these gunners were tracking a target coming in a dive and then got low to the surface from a dive and was trying to fly away. There wouldn't be time for a crewman to lower the trunnion so the gunner could keep track while standing on the deck. If there was a ring on the mount base or the deck that he could step on he could get the gun down to a lower angle. In these images you can see that the gun is elevated to different heights. The first two guns have the Mk 14 gunsight installed and the last gun doesn't.

They varied the height of the gun depending on the gunner's height and preference. I don't think there was a "full-time" crewman controlling the elevation wheel, crewmen assigned to assist the gunner during combat were normally kept busy bringing more ammo.

At max elevations of the gun, the gunner could get "pretty" comfy with the mount base.

These are great photos, and the last one illustrates very well the point I'm struggling with: it also raises a question.

Is the gunner strapped into the gun? That is, are his shoulders "mated" to the shoulder rests with some sort of harness? In the last image, the gunners balance would cause him to be holding himself up using his hands on the triggers. This in turn seems like it would be difficult to keep the gun trained on the target (I'm assuming the gun is balanced such that it does not take much effort to move - but that could be a bad assumption).

Here's where I'm having trouble. The image below shows a very to-scale (incomplete - missing the cradle, shoulder rests, other things) gun/mount, with a body puppet (using my basic measurements - I'm 6'1"). Even with the mount fully elevated, the angle of the gunners body seems impossible for any sort of actual use... unless the gunner is strapped to the gun. Lowering the gun would make it even more awkward.

Anyway, that is why I raised the question in the first place - I just don't see how this disk could be useful as a stand: but then, I've never fired a gun this large

I can't answer most of your questions. I believe that there was a strap ... you can see it clearly in the second image on the back of the gunner and the other two images suggest that they could be using a strap as well ... there would almost have to be with the recoil and weight involved when even balanced was a chore keeping hold of the gun. AKA, how strong would the gunner in the first image have to be to hang on while firing without a strap? I think you have the gun elevated too high for you gunner "model", look at the images I posted of the 20-mm in operation and none have the gun extended to its max height. As I said how high the gun was elevated was a function of what height the gunner operated the gun. Finally, USN gunners during WWII ranged over a fairly wide range, so your illustration needs to include the shoulder rests, Mk 14 gunsight, and sampling a range of gunner heights.

We need someone who actually operated one of these guns to clarify actual operation. My Uncle who served on an ARL and a DE late in WWII. He was a Surface Radar operator, but had a secondary duty as a 20-mm gun crewman (ammo passer) on the ARL while at anchor off Okinawa when Kamikazes came for a visit. I have never asked him about how the 20-mm gun was operated, plus I suspect both of his ships had been updated with tripod mounts that didn't elevate.

All I know from my digging through destroyer files at NARA, that the stand rings (as seen in on MISSOURI initially as a "disk" and then as a ring that was mounted to the deck ... AT A GREATER DIAMETER than the disk) were added because the gunners wanted them. The trunnions on the Mk 4 base were a mess to keep operating. At sea operation corroded the trunnion and it got "frozen" in place. So, in a sense the step rings may have been primarily to allow the gunner to operate the gun at different heights once the trunnion was no longer able to be moved.

So…. you are correct, there WAS a strap. OP911 ch. 8 describes its use: it attached to the shoulder rest brackets and passed under the armpits and around the back of the gunner. Seems like once you're strapped in, you could do a lot more contorting without compromising accuracy.

Strapped in the gunner is rather committed to shooting it out with his opponent, a little like an old west gunfight. Admiral King was quoted as saying that shields were mostly for psychological comfort whereas the tubs were to provide splinter protection, even from below!

The shield mounted on the 20-mm mount was "MORE" protection that the bulwarks around most 20-mm guns. In 1940-41 the bulwarks installed as part of the King Board AA Improvement Mods were thicker and hardened steel that offered a degree of splinter protection. But, as the war progressed, the heavy gage bulwarks (and shields on 5-in gun mounts) was replaced with a "lighter weight-saving" 10 gauge steel. At least on the destroyers.

The gunner likely could release the strap pretty quickly if he had to.

10 gauge is only 1/8" thick, pretty light stuff not really capable of stopping much of anything. Understandably top weight became an increasingly critical issue as the war progressed and both radar and light AA batteries increased on ships of already marginal stability.

The STS steel was preferred for such uses if available. Even nominal 30 cal bullets can penetrate some degree of steel, my son and I would fire Russian 7.62x54R Czech Silvertip rounds at a manhole cover at 350 yards and make it look like Swiss Cheese. Certainly the STS steel with it's hardening would be more resistant for a similar thickness.

The Fletcher's were designed with a "belt" alongside machinery spaces of 30 lb (3/4") STS steel to provide some strafing and splinter protection. Initially some superstructure was constructed of aluminum, but material shortages changed that to mild steel with a penalty of about 50 tons. As a result the 5" director was lowered six feet and various STS protection was reduced such as shields etc.

My Friedman destroyer reference is hiding somewhere...

Interesting stuff!

The gunner is strapped into the shoulder stock. The purpose isn’t to make sure he doesn’t duck. It is to allow him to better use the muscles of his legs and torso to swing the gun.

My guess is the disk on the pedestal allows the gunner to more comfortable fire over a larger range of elevations by giving him two different level to stand on. The wheel on the side of the pedestal adjusts the height of the trunnions. To fire the comfortably at high elevation, the trunnion of the gun need to be cranked up so the gunner doesn’t need to squat down and then look up to fire the gun. But if the trunnions is cranked all the way up, then the gunner will find himself standing on top toe to fire at low elevation. The disk gives the gunner a higher step to stand on so he can fire comfortable at low ekevation even if the trunnion is cranked up. This ensures in the heat of battle he or his loader does need to crank the trunnions up and down like crazy.

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

On the WWII era Iowas, there are small "tub" positions above the amidships 40mm guns and around the aft fire control tower. Does anyone know what those are for? They don't appear to have searchlights.

What you are looking at likely were for the 40-mm guns Fire Control Directors. From mid-1942 the directors were either Mk 51 (most common) or Mk 49. Late in the war there were a host of newer GFCS (Mk 57, Mk 63, etc) with radar and had directors that were "basically" more elaborate Mk 51 directors.

MK 51 can also control the 5”/38 Mount’s. If you look at the Iowa in original fit in 1943, there were the same number of mk51 directors as quad 40mm Bofors. Each mk51 controlled 1 quad 40mm bofor mounts. By early 1945, the Missouri had 4 more MK 51s, two on either side of the tower mast, and 2 extra ones over the midship 40mm clusters. This allowed the four mk51s on either side of the forward and aft centerline MK37 5” directors to be repurposed as auxiliary directors for the 5”/38 Mounts, to,be used for bringing 5” battery onto a close range kamikaze target faster than could the much more elaborate and sophisticated mk37 directors.

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

The flexibility of the director arrangement for close in fast moving targets is a substantial advantage. The 5"/38 became much more effective for such targets with the use of the proximity fuse, additionally in many cases there would be much less parallax than with the Mk37 directors located high in the superstructure. Also use as a backup in case of battle damage or multiple targets could be critical.

In effect a brilliant system for the time. Fast Battleships became something to avoid more than a target.

Those below decks could tell the tempo of an unfolding attack, the bark of the 5", then the hammering of the 40's and finally the twenties coming into play, a rising crescendo!

I took the NJ Turret 2 tour. It was very interesting and I hope they will open more of the ship up soon.

I was surprised at how spacious the powder handling area was. It looked like something out of a movie set.

There were significant deficiencies in US naval AA direction even late in the war. But Japanese kamikaze tactics and relatively calm seas masked these deficiencies.

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

Hi Everyone,
I'm looking for some info on kits to portray the New Jersey as she looked in her Korean War fit. Does anyone make a kit for the 1950-52 time period? If not would it be possible to convert the WWII version to Korean War? I'm looking mainly at 1/700 scale due to space limitations. I've been researching on the web some and haven't found a lot of technical details of the changes to the ship from '45 to '50. About all I've found was removal of the 20mm AA and sea planes. I know she got major upgrades prior to Vietnam and the Mideast but not sure what was initially done when she was recommissioned for Korea. My father-in-law served on her during the period and I would like to take a stab at building a reasonably accurate kit. I'm only an average-skilled builder so it won't be perfect. Any comments or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
John

John,

As a NEW JERSEY vet (Vietnam) I am currently working on a 1:200 scale NJ for the 1967-69 time frame and I have done extensive research on this ship (my ship!). To answer your question:

No, there are no models of the Korean War version of any IOWA class BB that I'm aware of. When the ship was recommissioned for Korea, the seaplanes/catapults were removed, the 20mm mounts - gone; and various other small details that mainly involve the fore/main mast & RADARs, etc. You will probably do best by finding as many photos as possible of the ship from the 1949-1953 time frame. The only Booklet of General PLans I found at NARA was dated 1955 so that's post-Korea and not what you're needing. A BoGP of MISSOURI would be helpful and one from 1950 is available. PM me and I'll send you a copy. HOWEVER - the main mast is incorrect for NEW JERSEY. But, that's only one detail.

As for the WWII NEW JERSEY as a kit in 1/700 - I think there may be a couple out there - look for the MISSOURI model if NEW JERSEY isn't available as those two ships were more similar than IOWA/WISCONSIN. You can remove the 20mm molded mounts and so forth and any 40mm tubs that would have been removed on NEW JERSEY. I only have one 1950 photo of NJ and I will include that with the BoGP. You should check out NAVSOURCE online as there may be some appropriate photos of NJ there, as well. At 1/700 scale, I think you're mainly interested in the correct masting & electronics to make the model fairly correct. See what's available for this time frame from the 3rd party PE companies for detailing, etc. Of the kits available, there may be one that might have the correct Main Mast for the period (the 3 point mast attached to the after stack); the pole mast of WWII vintage was long gone.

Hope this helps,

_________________
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