Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[William Smallshaw]

All,

One of the ABLs was open today on USS Iowa. Thought you would be interested in the following photos:

[Cliffy B]

Very much so William, thank you!! Reminds me I need to ask our boss if its possible to open up any of Wisky's ABLs. Guests always ask us how they fired and what better way to show them by opening one

[William Smallshaw]

Cliff,

The doors are locked with a barrel lock. Trick is to go in though the access hatch and remove the three bolts that hold the lock to the doors.

I have been aboard three of the Iowas, the exception being Wisconsin. I will need to make the trip to Norfolk, as a Wisconsin native I need to get aboard to see my home state's namesake

Bill

[Sauragnmon]

Well, that's the loading hatch side, isn't it? If you could get the ABL elevated, it'd show people how they fire, without having to pop the lock on the loading hatches, right?

[Fliger747]

Would it be possible to get length, width and height for the Tomahawk Luncher? I don't have and plans but can probably do OK otherwise from photos.

Cheers. Tom

[Cliffy B]

Tom, have you seen BB-62's 1/192 plans form 1984?

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb62.pdf

Did you see my photos in this thread from 9/10/13?

I'll see what I can do about measuring them tomorrow. Might have to wait until next week.

[Fliger747]

Thanks Cliffy:

I have the hnsa PDF, on my eye pad but wasn't aware it was full size a 1:192! Between your photos and ones I have taken aboard BB63 I should have enough photo info.

Regards. Tom

[Cliffy B]

Tom,

Well just in case I measured one of our ABLs this morning and its rough measurements are:

Length = 22'
Height = 8'
Width = 6.5'

Interested to see how that compares with the plans. Have fun building man. If you want anymore shots let me know.

-Mike

[Sutho]

I will be visiting Iowa in LA when I arrive there in April for a few days.

I have already seen and toured USS Missouri back in 2004 in Pearl Harbour and cant wait to see Iowa.

Does anyone know of any videos that exist of these ships actually firing Harpoon missiles. It is easy to find Tomahawk missile firings from them as they fired them in the first Gulf war.

Would it be a true statement to make that the 16" guns on these ships had more destructive power than the Harpoon missile. When you look at an Iowa it would be easy to assume that a Harpoon at its sub-sonic speed would never penetrate the armoured hull. The battleships main guns are more than capable of sinking many and any ships with their deadly plunging fire where the shells are fired high into the sky only to descend at rapid speed smashing through a ships hull and superstructure only to destroy the underwater compartments and engine rooms and smash it wide open.

[Fliger747]

Thanks Cliffy, lots of help as at a minimum a cross check and confirmation. Construction at a standstill for a bit more as the power remains out after several days and likely to remain so.



Cheers. Tom

[navydavesof]

Does anyone know of any videos that exist of these ships actually firing Harpoon missiles. It is easy to find Tomahawk missile firings from them as they fired them in the first Gulf war.

Easy day, man. There are lots of pictures.

Would it be a true statement to make that the 16" guns on these ships had more destructive power than the Harpoon missile.

Yes, when fired against land targets, a 16" HC round has the same effect as a Mk82 500lb bomb when the fuse is set to detonate on contact and a 750lb bomb when set delayed to detonate after penetration. When fired against ships, 16" HC rounds are uniquely destructive because of their high fragmentation mass. They wreck everything around very well. In the 1980s, the USS Iowa was involved in a SINK Ex that tested the HC rounds' abilities against unarmored ships. They used a mothballed Liberty ship. At 26,000 yards, it took 4 direct hits to break up and sink a liberty ship. After all of the Spruance-class SINK Exs, we came to find that accurate estimations are that it would take more than 8 Harpoons to sink a destroyer sized ship.

However, it would only take one SS-N-12 or SS-N-19 to sink a modern unarmored ship.

This is accomplished by 2 combined effects: one, the kinetic energy of a 1,960lb projectile impacting around 2,000 fps, and two, its 147lb burster charge (explosive load) yields nearly 4 times that of its weight because the projectile, 3.5" thick walls of steel contains the reaction for so long. It's the same idea as holding a fire cracker with an open hand or a closed hand; open hand, the explosion chars your hand, closed, it blows your fingers off. The longer the explosive charge is contained, the higher its yield can be.

An 8" HC round is nearly as destructive as a Harpoon.

In general, yes, a 16" HC round is remarkably destructive to a modern ship. Because of its very thick walls, I don't believe it would be very feasible to shoot one down with a CIWS. If the 20mm or 30mm rounds of the opposing CIWS were to impact the projectile, they would probably just skip right off the 16" rounds' ogive and not trigger the explosive. The projos are made from a steel that is equivalent to HY-90/100. See below:



EDIT: I verified the strength of the steel in the walls of the projectile. HY-90/100.

[Fliger747]

Interesting info! For many targets the HC shells would be more effective. Examples were the 18 inch shells from Yamato going right through a Jeep carrier without exploding, or the many shells that went right through SODAK at Gudalcanal. Her armor worked well keeping out all the hits in the armor belt and turrets. The small boys at Leyte did OK till an AP shell would hit something solid like a turbine, boiler etc.

Cheers. T

[RandyM]

Received my copy of Trumpeter's monster last Thursday... finally had a moment to open the box this evening (aka, my wife went to the store without me). Good grief Charlie Brown, that's a lot of plastic. If anyone is interested in pics of specific areas let me know.

[navydavesof]

Interesting info! For many targets the HC shells would be more effective. Examples were the 18 inch shells from Yamato going right through a Jeep carrier without exploding, or the many shells that went right through SODAK at Gudalcanal. Her armor worked well keeping out all the hits in the armor belt and turrets. The small boys at Leyte did OK till an AP shell would hit something solid like a turbine, boiler etc.

Cheers. T

indeed!

I will expound upon this in my Modernized USS Iowa and Wisconsin thread, but even the 11" Excalibur GPS/SAL rounds would provide an excellent anti-ship capability at long ranges. The Shadow UAV is barely detectable, and it can laser designate targets from more than 10 miles away.

Battleships: The apex of strike-warfare assets...it's insane we don't still use them.

[Fliger747]

One big reason we don't use them anymore is the US is a mostly post analogue society. The meaning is that all of those farm boys of WWII who grew up tinkering with tractors and old jalopies have been replaced with a push button generation that have not the feel of machinery to make the stuff work reliably.

Certainly the 16" 50 cal was the finest large naval rifle ever floated, matched with the best fire control of its era.

T

[Fliger747]

I saw a photo of the opened box, interesting how the bow was produced seperatly. Let us know how well this goes together! Interested in the detail of the Quad 40's!

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

There was a large brass Missouri Model at the Honolulu airport, at the entrance to one of the concourses. Wonder if it is still there or if it is the one now at Pearl?

If the 40 mm Quads are good in the new Trumpy kit, and someone decides to do a conversion to a later era, would be interesting in acquiring some for a 1:192 Alaska.

[stevegallacci]

Just got the new Trumpy kit too. Bow section fits only so-so to main hull, but no big issue. hull is devoid of any detail, save the various vents and drains, and, perversely, indents that they misinterpreted from the daft numbers (I know that's not the right term, but can't think of it). No lapped plate joints. I have a little question/doubt about the hull lines in general, as the mid-ship section is basically a rectangle with rounded lower corners, and I'd assume the whole business, the sides and bottom radius, sweeps forward into a graceful set of curves towards the bow, right? Sighting down the length of the kit hull, the transition looks "funny" but I don't have any data to compare.

[Fliger747]

The eye is quite good at detecting the fairness of a hull. There are quite a number of dry dock photos to compare.

I am sure the design of the transition was quite critical. Water did tend to pile up here and the ships were a bit wet as a result. Everything is always a compromise.

Cheers. T

[BB62vet]

I read Steve Gallacci's post re. the Trumpeter hull and would like some further info - how many parts form the hull and how are they sectioned? Could someone provide more detail about the fit, quality, etc. of the parts. I've heard that the PE sets that are included in these 1:200 Trumpter kit are worthless - much too thin to have any strength - is this true/untrue with this kit? It would be a good argument for purchasing the Pontos detailing set, I imagine.

Note re. the shape of IOWA hulls - this class of ship was "flat bottomed" - no tumblehome due to armor blisters, no curvature to the hull, either on sides, or bottom - only the curved plates flowing into the bottom from the sides of the ship. NEW JERSEY was a very good sea boat and I would not classify her as "wet", perhaps "damp" at times would be a better description. I've been through very heavy Pacific seas in her as well as seas caused by a typhoon and she rode all out extremely well (compared to a FLETCHER class can I served on prior in similar seas ).

Any information re. the Trumpeter kit would be appreciated. I've not yet purchased, but rather would like some first hand commentary re. the kit. I've been building POB kit/scratchbuilt models for the last 12 years and this kit would be my first plastic kit in so many years.

Thanks,