As I near completion on the basics of the hull, I've started looking at the superstructure, specifically the area around the bridge. I've taken out the relevant parts and set them up next to the equivalent ones from Tamiya New Jersey. The YMW rendition is substantially different from the Tamiya one, as one would expect. Here's where I'm running into trouble:
I've decided I want to portray an enclosed bridge of the squared-off type (ie., as in Iowas' later config - was it Iowa and New Jersey which were build sans enclosure and had it retrofitted?). I'd been thinking of simply ripping off the bridge structure from the Tamiya kit, but on closer inspection, there really are some fairly significant differences. And of course, who's to say YMW got it right? But right now I'm thinking I really don't want to scratchbuild the entire kit, so I want to adapt a (scratchbuilt, if required) bridge enclosure to the YMW bridge, if possible. Here's my problem. Look at the following photos. The first shows both bridge assemblies from head on. I've not verified, but believe that in this view the respective deck levels (01, 02, so on) are about at the same height. Notice how much higher the roof of armored bridge is on New Jersey vs. Montana (again, for the sake of argument, let's assume both companies got it right). Note also the horrible resin casting at the base of the bridge.
The next two photos show each bridge from stbd side. Note the significant structural differences (I've been playing around with the 05 level here, replacing some way-too-thick bulwarks and adding some PE).
Finally, the last photo is a quickie attempt at grafting an enclosure onto Montana's bridge, using nothing more than the roof of the armored bridge as the reference.
I don't think this looks correct, and certainly not as cool as Iowa. There's no room at all for the smaller enclosed space beneath New Jersey's bridge (don't know what space that is), and I don't know whether, from a practical standpoint, this enclosure would be high enough above Turret 2. The easiest solution would be to increase the height of the armored bridge on Montana to give me more room for the enclosure. Thoughts? Also, if anyone has some insight into the way YMW (or whoever it was who originally did the master for this model) depicted the bridge structure: is there any literature to support this configuration?
Thanks for any and all comments.
Login
Register
FAQ
If an IOWA battleship would have been built with that configuration, the blast/concussion effects from the fourth turret would've seriously damaged those guns.
There is one thing I noticed though. In the third pic down, on the 03 deck level(?), I don't think you'll be able to put a 40mm quad in the spot next to the really short span of bridge windows if you know where I'm talking about. 
