The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:16 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3729 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 191
Fliger747 wrote:
Does that drawing have any frame numbers associated with it? Aft, where the superstructure narrows there are several risers with the flanges facing inboard on the starboard side as shown.


FR101 and FR137 P/S.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:40 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: New Jersey
apologies if this has been asked in the thread already..

with the Very Fire NJ, are there any bridges released to convert it into 1944 appearance with the round bridge. I do have several Tom's Modelworks round bridges but those are designed for the Tamiya Missouri kit. The Joy Yard Missouri looks like the bridge is made out of PE to enable Iowa and NJ to be built later on?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 191
drdoom1337 wrote:
apologies if this has been asked in the thread already..

with the Very Fire NJ, are there any bridges released to convert it into 1944 appearance with the round bridge. I do have several Tom's Modelworks round bridges but those are designed for the Tamiya Missouri kit. The Joy Yard Missouri looks like the bridge is made out of PE to enable Iowa and NJ to be built later on?


I don't think so. It looks like they used photoetch just to make it thin. They'd have to change the deck above and below for the new jersey and the Iowa.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:14 am
Posts: 88
Location: SE Michigan
drdoom1337 wrote:
apologies if this has been asked in the thread already..

with the Very Fire NJ, are there any bridges released to convert it into 1944 appearance with the round bridge. I do have several Tom's Modelworks round bridges but those are designed for the Tamiya Missouri kit. The Joy Yard Missouri looks like the bridge is made out of PE to enable Iowa and NJ to be built later on?


Contact Model Monkey he makes several different scale NJ bridges. He also may be able to make what your looking for if he doesn't have it. I've been very satisfied with his parts.

https://www.model-monkey.com/product-page/1-350-uss-new-jersey-bb-62-round-bridge-1944

_________________
Our CO prior to flying to the boomer: “Our goals on this patrol is to shoot missiles and torpedoes.”
Junior Nuke Officer (me) : “Caption, don’t we really want to be like Monty Python and ‘Not be seen’?”
CO “You seem to be missing the big picture”
“Oh”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:33 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Hi Friends,

I ran across this by accident and thought you might enjoy it. It kinda gives you a perspective on how big things on these big ships are! Take note - each barrel weighs 120 tons!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSgxpZD2qRw

_________________
Larry Steiner


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:39 am
Posts: 3
Hello all,

I would like to ask you for a help.
I am working on Tamiya New Jersey 1/350
Dont you have armor plating scheme for hull of Iowa class?
I found just some photos of parts of hull, but nothing complex.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1866
The armor of the Iowa's was internal. Along the citadel there was a heavier external 60 lb plating, joined with riveted vertical buttstraps.

These would be the only external expression of the protection scheme.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:39 am
Posts: 3
Fliger747 wrote:
The armor of the Iowa's was internal. Along the citadel there was a heavier external 60 lb plating, joined with riveted vertical buttstraps.

These would be the only external expression of the protection scheme.


Thanks, but actually I mean this:
http://wp.nauticus.org/wp-content/uploa ... 0x1024.jpg
http://wp.nauticus.org/wp-content/uploa ... 0x1024.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1916
Boro, the bow & stern are not armored as they have regular steel plate. if the bow was armored then the Wisconsin would not have had her bow replaced after colliding with a destroyer. http://navsource.org/archives/01/pdf/016467.pdf


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 218
Location: Fullerton, CA
What you are looking for is the shell plate drawings.
They might not help you though as the show the metal as it starts out which is flat then bent into shape.

The best approach would be from photos.
Here is a good starting point to help with the reinforcement plates along the hull
viewtopic.php?f=74&t=158893&start=20

James


Last edited by James M on Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1866
There is some PE available that simulates the butt straps that join these 60 Lb ( 3/4") plates in two rows above the waterline. For my scratch built BB63 I made my own, but you might check out Hank Strub's New Jersey, modified from the 1:200 kit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:39 am
Posts: 3
Thanks guys,

Actually it is not that hard to create them, but harder is to create correct shape and size. So I was hoping for some drawings of hull from site. But if is not existing..

@Fliger747: cant you give me a name/link/ect for this? I didnt foun that on net..

One more question :)
Can you suggest to me which chain in 1/350 is best? Because I am little bit disapointed that pontos didnt include it in set.. And I ordered one from ebuy that should be for 1/350 scale, but looks little small to me (maybe for some cruiser is ok). And it is just simple O chain without that middle part. So I am looking for somethink better. I found 3d printed with correct shape, but in wrong scale..

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1866
Hi:

Well I'm in China at the moment and on my way to Russia, I know somewhere way back in the bowls of the thread I posted some photos from Missouri of these Butt Straps. It's an issue that has been significantly discussed and dimensions might exist. Possibly in the 60 something range of pages here.

Good Luck!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:33 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
The butt straps he is referring to are Eduards #53126 Detail set #10 for the USS Missouri, but in 1:200 scale. I don't know if they make a set for 1:350 scale or not. You could check Eduards site and see. As for size, the best I can do it to measure mine and have you reduce the size to your 1:350 scale.

_________________
Larry Steiner


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2844
Location: One valley over from Hayward fault.
A new Anatomy of the ship series book on the Iowa is due in Feb 2019. I don’t know how good this series in new format under Osprey is going to be. But older books in the series under Conway were often exhaustively detailed and some have plate expansion plans for the hull, showing how all the hull plates laid flat look like, giving indications such details as plate boundaries on the bottom and location of the sea chests under the hull bottom

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 191
Boro wrote:
Hello all,

I would like to ask you for a help.
I am working on Tamiya New Jersey 1/350
Dont you have armor plating scheme for hull of Iowa class?
I found just some photos of parts of hull, but nothing complex.

Thanks.


This is what the armor layout of on the Iowa's looks like. I took a shot from the stern because the front is tapered vertically.

The only parts that are visible are the tops of the barbettes and the conning tower.

The armor scheme of the Iowas is complicated because the Navy only counted plates 4" or greater as being armor. The Iowas liberally used STS plate of lesser thicknesses throughout the ship. For example, the turret supports are 1-1/2" and the barbette supports are 3" STS. Together, that's 4-1/2" Inches of armor plate that are not counted as armor. Much of the deck plating is actually armor. Some of the hull strakes are as well.

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2018-09-24 at 12.44.50 PM.jpg
Screen Shot 2018-09-24 at 12.44.50 PM.jpg [ 116.91 KiB | Viewed 277 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1866
One single layer is ballistically better protection than several (2 or more) layers but amongst the theories to help defeat projectiles or bombs was to decap the projectile by an initial layer, or perhaps more usefully initiate the fuze so as to cause bursting prior to reaching and/or penetrating the main layer. This applied to horizontal protection mainly.

Some ships would have the side armor affixed directly to the shell plating. The Iowa's and SODAK design instead used an internal inclined main vertical belt. The idea being to increase the angle at which a projectile would strike giving a greater effective thickness and also increasing the possibility of a deflection. The whole point? keep the weight down for a desired protection. However the internal armor left the shell plating vulnerable to perforation by splinters. To counter this somewhat the Iowa's along the armored citadel used a heavier plating or 60 lbs/sq ft, or approx. 3/4" as opposed to the usual 25 lb plate used elsewhere. The compartmentation outboard of the tapered armor belt used various liquid and void loading systems to reduce effects of penetration of the shell by smaller "items". This also was intended to increase the effectiveness against underwater contact explosion such as by torpedoes.

Even the finest warship is a series of compromises!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2844
Location: One valley over from Hayward fault.
It is not all together conclusive that a single layer of armor is better than 2 layers of the same total thickness even without considering decapping and fuse activation. A benefit of using 2 layers of armor space some distance apart instead of one is that if the incoming shell shrike the first layer at an angle, then in the process of penetrating the first layer, the shell will yaw. This will enhance the resistance of the second layer by causing the shell to strike the second layer while pointed in a different direction than the direction in which it is traveling. The Germans seem to believe this approach afforded better overall protection than single thickness all or nothing protection.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1866
indeed, nothing is conclusive in ship design, everything is a compromise for some particular optimization, and this is just in theory! In US WWII fighters a considerable mass of radio equipment was placed behind the pilot, which tended to cause tumbling of rounds arriving from the rear and considerably increased the effectiveness of the armor.

It is/was not possible to fully protect more than the vitals of the ship, leaving the likely hood of easy kills of fire control positions etc. Bismarck's main director was put out of action quite early, most likely from a Cruiser (Dorsetshire) 8" round.

A ship would be issued fighting instruction, ideal battle ranges, angles of approach etc. All things to only be hoped for in implementation. In the Hood-Bismarck engagement Holland was attempting to close the range to minimize Hood's deck armor vulnerabilities.

My USN fighter pilot friends had a saying "lucky beats good, any day".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 191
Much has been written criticizing (and praising) the Iowa class's protection. E.g.:

Torpedo protection was inadequate.
Too much armor on the conning tower.
Armor belt does not extend far enough.

The reality is their protective scheme was never put to any real test (other than ping pong balls from shore batteries). So we will never know—as is true with nearly all WWII Battleships.

A lot of thought went into it. A projectile going through the side would have to go through 5 layers to reach vitals. One coming through the top has go to through at least 4 layers.

There is effectively no way for projectile to strike the belt head on.

In regard to the Anatomy of the Ship, I just got the new Bismarck one, so I have both the Conway and Osprey versions. The New Osprey version (different author) relies heavily on 3d graphics which are totally absent from the Conway version. At times I wonder of these graphics are distracting because they often seem to be pretty pictures, rather than explanations of the anatomy of the ship.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3729 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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

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