Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[BB62vet]

CliffyB (Mike) -

I'm still looking - the three sources I THOUGHT I would find that projectile expenditure table in did not come through for me. So, I know it's out there, it's simply a matter of finding it

Hank

[BB62vet]

Mike (CliffyB) -

Well, I KNEW it had to be somewhere -

16� Projectile Expenditures for IOWA Class Battleships

IOWA: WWII-40s - 2,316 Korea - 4,550 1982-92 - 2,873
NEW JERSEY - WWII-40s - 971 Korea - 6,671 Vietnam - 6,200 1982-92 - 1,752
MISSOURI - WWII-40s - 1,084 Korea - 6,979 1982-92 - 2,699
WISCONSIN - WWII-40s - 1,058 Korea - 3,200 1982-92 - 1,068

Data from BATTLESHIPS, U.S. Battleships 1935-1992, W.H. Garzke Jr., R.O. Dulin jr. pg. 248

Hope this is what you were looking for.

Hank

[BB62vet]

I have received a used copy of Warship Pictorial #8 USS SALEM (CA-139) which has detailed scaled drawings of both the Mk. 37 and Mk. 56 Fire Control Directors as used on IOWAs in the '50s and '60s. The drawings are printed at 1:48 and 1:32 scales so CADing them and then scaling to 1:200 should give me properly scaled working drawings for my NEW JERSEY model. FYI - this publication is currently out of print so I sought out a copy on various modeling sites and someone on the SteelNavy board came through.

Along the same lines, I recently purchased a Veterans Model set of Mk. 56 directors (4) in 1:350 scale just to see what kind of detail they would have - quite surprisingly, they have a LOT of detail. Since the 1:200 director would be 1/4" sq. at the base, we're working with very small items and this will be a challenge.

My need for the Mk. 56 is that they will be entirely scratchbuilt. The Mk. 37 will only need the Mk. 25 radar mounting framework and dish to complete the kit-supplied director.

Hank

[RandyM]

I used the Veteran kits on my Boston build... they are pretty nice. If you'd like me to give it a shot I can put one into SW and print out a few for you to goof around with (I'll need drawings).

[BB62vet]

Randy M wrote:

I used the Veteran kits on my Boston build... they are pretty nice. If you'd like me to give it a shot I can put one into SW and print out a few for you to goof around with (I'll need drawings).

Randy,

Thanks, but I've already started with a CAD file of the Mk. 56 in MicroStation 2D (v8) and now I'll just start taking measurements to see how far off my "eyeballed" drawing actually is.

I'll post the final results of my CAD drawing - may take a bit. FYI - the book gives the stbd. side, front, and top views and a photo of the port side of the director.

Hank

[Rene]

Hi there I have got some seripous question concerning an old matter, that is the numberuing of the AA gun mounts onbaord BB-63. Since I'M working on a large scale model (1:72) of the aft part of Missouri I need to know which gun carried which number. Sofar it seems to be celar that all port mounts carried even numbers while on starboard uneven numbers were given. So far so clear but which mount carried which number?

Since I only need to know all the munts after the first funnel I will try to convcentrate on them. According to various sources the 3 staggered mounts amidships were numbererd 9, 11 and 13 on starboard and though the same one on port should carry 10, 12 and 14, but thats where my headache starts, because due to this photo:



Here you can clearly see that the upper 40mm Quad Bofgors carries the number 12 and the lower one is numbererd "20" both does not seem right according to all I know sofar.

Anyone here knows better than me?

Additional we all know that the Mk 51 carried the appropriate number of their Bofors mount, just like in this photo:



But since there are more Mk51 than Bofors, which director carried which number and did those Mk51 which were added just for safety measure (so I assume) carry any number at all?

At last a look at those 20mm Oerlikon, sofar I have only found this single photo where you can clearly see some numbers on the splinter shields.:



Once again my question is pretty obvious: does anyone here know which Oerlikon besides of these here carried which number?

Any help would be great

Thanks and Cheers
from Austria

Ren�

[Fliger747]

A clarification on barrel life. Just as with small arms very hot high pressure and temperature loads cause rapid barrel erosion. The quite less than 200 rounds per barrel figure I quoted was for full charges. For ship to ship engagement full performance was desired for range and penetration in a do or die struggle. In such an engagement such as with Washington vrs Krishima little over 100 rounds total of 16" were expended by her with devastating results.

For bombardment a flat trajectory would usually be a disadvantage, especially for anything in deflilade. Mostly destruction would be carried out by the explosive content of the HC shells. With a reduced charge of propellant both a more curving trajectory and greatly extended life of the barrels was possible.

Selection of type of propellant suitable to the shell used as well as postwar additive developments both could contribute to reduced bore erosion. Numerous sources discuss the shells and propellants. The references with regards to the Iowa turret 2 explosion have some interesting technical data.

Regards. Tom

[Russ2146]

Well, back to that Booklet of General Plans that I offered recently.
The various deck plans show the positions of the 20mm mounts, their mount numbers and their group numbers. The plans also indicate that they have been removed.
The plans also indicate the 40mm mount numbers and the matching director numbers.

Again, PM me your email address if you want the pdf.

Note that on the plans, the mount numbers are prefixed by 2, 4 or 5 as in 20mm, 40mm or 5"

[Fliger747]

The numbering and orginization of the mounts and batteries would have been very important to the overall air defense coordination against multiple targets! The ideal attack if seldom achieved was a coordinated one with simultaneous threats from different directions and levels.

T

[RandyM]

Hi All:

As an aside, I've been practicing with test samples, looking for a consistent way to smooth out the surface on my hull shells. Once I have the surfaces smooth (ABS is a pain to sand), I'll make the decision to either use the pieces as molds for resin parts, or install them directly.

In the meantime, I've been researching other areas. Currently, I'm looking at the air defense platform and also the platform which I have seen referred to as either the "primary conning" or "steering" station. I'm looking for photos/information regarding the construction of the "inside" of these areas. Photos show that as-built, the AD station had braces external to the vertical shield on the forward portion, while on the steering station it is reversed: the external braces are on the after portion. I'm trying to understand the bracing scheme on the INSIDE of the vertical shield.

Comments/suggestions, anyone?

Thanks,
Randy

[Fliger747]

Randy:

Hank answered some questions I had about the shields at the 08 level conning station. probably best to get the accurate answer from him. Apparently it varies a bit with the ship, where it was built and the time frame. I think I remember a photo someone posted earlier taken from the arm of the fwd Mk 38 director looking down at the air defense platform and also possibly showing a bit of the 08 level. It was I believe during a light AA practice.

Regards Tom

[Cliffy B]

Don't know if you guys have seen these or not but they're worth a re-post anyway. Found a documentary on BB-62 being reactivated for Nam on youtube; enjoy

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHtsBgJBoiU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ym56jMZMoQ

[BB62vet]

CliffyB -

Good videos!! The second one (which is the Vietnam Era reactivation film) - I watched that last month - too bad there isn't a way to capture individual frames from that movie - there are a few really good shots of various details that woulad be worth making pictures from.

It's interesting to see how far we've come in video presentation - the narrative & music is right out of WWII/Korea - all hype and propaganda.

Hank

[Timmy C]

too bad there isn't a way to capture individual frames from that movie

Pause the movie (preferably full screen), hit the Prt Sc (Print Screen) key on your keyboard, open up Paint, press Ctrl+V, and voila, the frame is now an image you can save on its own!

[BB62vet]

T.C. -

Thanks! I'll try that.

Hank

[RandyM]

Another knucklehead detail question for those who know.... I've found a document which states that exterior inclined ladders shall be installed at an angle of 50-degrees to the deck: however the current date on this doc is 2005 and I suspect things were different in the WW2 era. Also, 50-degrees on Missouri seems to take more room than is allowed in certain areas.

Does anyone have specific dimensions/drawings?

Thanks as always,
Randy

[Fliger747]

Randy:

50 seems perhaps a bit shallow. I will see if I can measure some from my photos. Indeed a modern spec might be different, not so many aging sailors in 1943.... My problem is that my ladders are for 1:200 and I am in 1:192, so they come out a bit steep sometimes.

Again Hank might be able to find out from some of his sources.

Cheers. Tom

[RandyM]

Tom: as always, Thank You for any info you might be able to provide. The best I can do is estimate 63-65 degrees, based on ladders running between the nav bridge and pilot house top. But then, according to the blueprints I have, the trio of ladders near the forward stack all have deck openings which are ~ 57-inches long, plus a 6-inch coaming. Deck-to-deck spacing is 90-inches. All of which leaves the geometry shown below... I could believe that the upper ladder mount might push the ladder away from the coaming a bit, which would correspondingly increase the pitch. Granted I'm probably overthinking this, but a ladder sitting at 50-degrees looks substantially different from one at 60- or 65-degrees!

[Fliger747]

Randy:

Scaling from some photos I have from BB63 I come up with 58.75 deg. There is a slight inaccuracy here as the photo as I had to correct it for convergence as the photo was taken with a slight up angle. Close examination of photos show the ladders just slightly over the lips of the coamings such as by the fwd stack.

Regards: Tom

[Fliger747]

Randy:

A second measurement of superstructure ladders taken from some distance confirms a 56-58 deg angle. Less correction needed here. Perhaps Cliffy B could measure it for us?

Cheers: Tom