Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Yes - I would build this as NEW JERSEY, 1967-69 configuration, as shown in the photo previously posted.

I'm close to a decision on this

The ship, in the 1 1/2 years it was in her third commission, saw only minor modifications once she left the Philadelphia Shipyard in early '68. She still had the forward 40mm tubs on the bow, but these were cut down to deck level after arriving in Long Beach in the summer of '68. Crossed anchors were then painted on the remaining steel deck within those circles. I remember leaving San Diego harbor during a routine training cruise on my 2nd ship, USS BAUSELL (DD-845) and NEW JERSEY was entering port, visiting during her shakedown cruise. She was moored at North Island NAS when we returned. What a sight!! Little did I know that barely 3 months later I would report aboard and depart for WesPac 68 as a crewmember.

One difference I've noticed in the various kits and the real ship - her aircraft crane was not the open latticed crane depicted in most of the PE sets. Her crane actually had 4 round pipe columns which formed the shape of the two legs of the crane. This was braced with round pipe at 45 deg. and between all this was welded plate steel with triangular cut outs spaced along the length of the legs. This was common on both legs, all four sides. So, I'm going to do a comparison of the Tom's PE set and Pontos Set to see which would be closer (if possible) to the actual crane. While the Pontos set is a super detailed set, many of the parts would go unused as NEW JERSEY in her third commission had no 40mm or 20mm batteries. In addition, the FC directors had a conical radar replacing the original bedspring type and her masts were entirely different, which will require some scratchbuilding in brass rods and plate. Luckily, I'm getting fairly adept at soldering these days. So, is the price of the Pontos set reasonable for what I would use of it? Perhaps the Tom's PE set would be more appropriate.

One other minor change carried out after we came back from WesPac was the after side of the upper superstructure forward of the forward stack was painted flat black. This was the ECM suite that was part of the modifications done to the forward tower. I'm guessing the reason for this change in painting scheme was to mask the discoloration of that side of the upper works from stack gas and smoke emitting from the stack.

I'm not sure at the moment that the teak deck offered by Pontos will work for this build as it appears to have cutouts for all the main deck 20mm AA batteries. When these were removed on the actual ships, the decks were re-planked and there was no visible trace remaining of the original weapons or their shields. Perhaps someone will post a photo of the raw deck pieces in the near future.

Well, tomorrow being Thanksgiving, I wish all a wonderful holiday and may this extend to our troops in harms way.

Hank

[Fliger747]

The Tom's PE set is well executed, but somewhat fragile as it is very fine, at least the rails. I used these for my ship but would favor a very slightly huskier set. If you do go with the Trumpy kit and find the 40 mm quads surplus I might be interested in buying them for an Alaska CB1 project that has been on the shelf for quite a while.

Certainly a real wood deck would add a great deal to the appearance of the model. I hand planked mine, a somewhat labor intensive project.

Satisfying to have a hand constructed model of a ship you served on! Some 50 years ago I built my dad a 1:96 model of the ship he served on off Okinawa, an ARL. The photos from his album were invaluable! Their main defense against the kamikaze besides a pair of quad 40's was smoke and a target rich environment that led to odds they would hit something juicier.

Do be aware that there is some controversy as to the underwater shape of the hull aft.

Regards: Tom

[BB62vet]

Thanks, Tom - I've read thru the other posts re. the underside of the hull - I have quite a few photos of the underside of NJ in drydock and at this point I feel that any indent in the aft underside can be filled in as necessary. I don't recall any such indent on the real ship; just a smooth flow downward, curving towards the centerline of the hull between the skedge keels. I'll have to consult some of my reference materials on this.

Actually, I'm thinking that if I purchase the kit, I may hold off any PE sets until I've surveyed the items in the kit and see what would be the best way to go. I'll keep your offer on the table re. the small AA batteries, etc.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Hank:

I think that the main concern was having to remove some extra fullness just below the waterline aft. Not an impossible task, certainly easier than scratch building this section! The skegs were a very clever device for both providing cleaner water flow to the inboard props, but also added a lot of structural strength to an otherwise thinning hull profile. The most unusual of these arrangements were with SODAK and her kin with the skegs outboard!

I am sure that you have both the skills and technical reference to produce an outstanding model. Especially as it will always be a reminder of your days on board as a battleship sailor!

I do have a scratch model in my hall case of Whitehurst that I built, but it is only 7" long. Came out pretty well considering I had nothing at the time but an Xacto knife, tweezers and a needle nose plier. Long before PE, the lifelines are strung with hair from an old girlfriend. My lady's hair is too short and wavy for battleship work!

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

Cliffy:

I built my ABL according to a length scaled off the HSNA 1:192 plans, which I think are wrong. They scale out at 27 ft, which even looks too long. I am sure that your 22 ft is correct and will have to cut out a section form my ABL....

T

[Cliffy B]

Well crap! I always thought those plans were a tad "off". Maybe because they look like they were re-drawn on a computer instead of the old fashioned hand drawn. None of that should mean a single thing but something is off about them... I don't know... Sorry man If you need anymore measurements or photos let me know.

[Fliger747]

Cliffy:

It was easy enough to cut a section out with the trusty bandsaw and heal it with a micro amount of putty. Just as with woodworking, sometimes the huge tools provide the precision for small work. I use a 500 lb cabinet makers table saw for cutting the Plexiglas! Probably should have used it to cut veneer for the deck planking!

Thanks for taking the time to measure the ABL's, really helped out!

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Re. the deck planking - While my piece of NJ decking is nice to have, I noticed it was not a full plank width. The actual planks are 5 1/2" wide and this is confirmed in the Floating Drydock Plan Book. That works out to 0.0275" wide at 1/200 scale. I've contacted ScaleDecks and asked about their generic decking but haven't gotten a reply yet. Not sure if they're actually in business even though their website seems to be functional. It might work out that the Pontos Teak Deck set for everything above the main deck would work well and make the main deck from a generic sheets of teak decking.

The kit should be waiting for me at home Thurs. night. That will be fun!!!

[Pontosmodel]

Hank,
The width of real plank of Iowa class is 5in.
So we epressed it as 0.635mm exact 1/200 sclae.
And for the Vienam era version New JErsey there are too many area to be modified.
As I might reply to you some weeks ago, If Trumper would not do ,we may consider some other era too but not near future maybe because now there are too many ship projects that have been promised to each ship fan.

Thank you
Keumho Kim

[BB62vet]

K. Kim,

Thanks for the information re. planking. I will make a note in the Plan Book. This does make sense since the piece I have has one of the stud holes in it and 5" would make the width correct.

I fully understand about having a full schedule on your plate. Will the 1/200 Pontos Teak Deck Detail Set be available soon or is it already available here in the U.S.?

thanks,

Hank

[Fliger747]

Also thanks for the planking info! Here is a shot of BB63, Port side, main deck abeam the bridge. Counting the number of planks vrs the distance, it appears that the 5 1/2" width is correct. Note the random butt ends.

[Fliger747]

Interesting shot of BB62 of Vietnam on page 228 of Stilwell's Battleship NJ. It shows the stbd 5" mounts firing a support mission and the 51 mount has no blast hood. One can clearly see the 51 mount below the bridge wing has no blast hood, the hatch is open and the mount captain's head is protruding.

Perhaps Cliffy B could answer the question as to how these are attached? Bolted on?

Regards: Tom

[Cliffy B]

I'll look and take some photos early next week. I do know that our forward, upper 5" mounts do not have blast hoods because they would hit an overhanging deck when trained outboard.

[BB62vet]

Tom,

I'll check out that page in Paul's book. It' possible by the time that photo was taken that the hood had been removed. It' clearly in place on the photo I mentioned to you when the ship transited the Panama Canal in early 68.

I'll have to got through some of my photos also to see if I may have 51/52 in any of them.

Cliffy B - I would have to say for my modeling intents, that the current museums ships, being that they are all '80s modernized in this case won't apply.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Cliffy

The clearance above the 51/52 mounts isn't much but some photos shown here do indicate that there was originally enough, if not a lot of clearance below the bridge wings. Just sort of one of those interesting why did they do that deals. I saw a close up of the top of a 5" mount on Alaska at Iwo Jima, with the mount captain and an associate on top of the mount watching the "show", no hood, wonder which mount it was as my Ak has hoods on all of them.

T

[Fliger747]

The cover of Paul Stilwell's book Battleship New Jersey shows a salvo firing, the ship in Vietnam Era fit. It appears that the 51/52 mounts are without hoods. Makes me wonder if some blast concentrations were possible due to the close proximity of the overhead bridge wings that was exacerbated by the hood? I certainly believe Hank in that they were fitted at various times!

Probably a mystery to anyone but those who served those mounts, or perhaps the gunnery officer.

Cheers: T

[Cliffy B]

Here's a large version of this photo I've seen before in books (found it somewhere online) that shows BB-62, presumably in 1969 (but most definitely during her Vietnam service). ALL but her forward most 5"/38s have mount captain hoods.

[Fliger747]

Great photo! Boy the 26 ft motor whaleboat looks tiny!

Thanks: Tom

[James M]

I think the blast hoods would hit the bridge wings if they were installed. I haven't actually measured the difference.
And I don't remember seeing any photos of any of the Iowa's with them installed on those mounts.

There held onto the mount by welded tabs and bolts




James

[Fliger747]

Ah, thanks for the photo. The Iowa's, at least BB62 and 63 originally carried the blast hoods on all the mounts, so there is clearance. However accidents have happened in the Navy with rotating mounts and low overhead clearance causing bodily injury and death. Perhaps these were removed as a safety issue with the lack of body sized clearance between the hood and the bridge wing?

Stillwell's Battleship Missouri page 54 shows the hood installed at the time of the surrender ceremony.

Cheers: Tom