Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[James M]

40mm gun tub scuppers:

WWII:
USS Iowa- 1943
http://navsource.org/archives/01/061/016105t.jpg

USS New Jersey -1943
http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016209i.jpg

USS Missouri - 1944
http://navsource.org/archives/01/063/016300g.jpg

USS Wisconsin - 1944
http://navsource.org/archives/01/064/016400i.jpg

Modernized:
USS Iowa- 1985
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016154a.jpg

USS New Jersey -1943
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/01621a.jpg

USS Missouri - 1944
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 649a4c.jpg

USS Wisconsin - 1944
https://crashmacduff.files.wordpress.co ... 04/w13.jpg

[BB62vet]

I think I'm all scuppered out!

[alx]

Yet another difference.

In following the scupper trail, I noticed the early presence (WWII era) of stern handholds that later were removed.

The burn marks on the New Jersey in http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/01621a.jpg would seem to indicate the time frame for this, at least on New Jersey.

But then something else struck me.

Looking at the Missouri http://navsource.org/archives/01/063/016300g.jpg and Iowa http://navsource.org/archives/01/061/016105t.jpg, the handholds are definitely RIGHT of the centerline.

On the New Jersey, the burn marks would definitely lead me to believe that the handholds were to the LEFT of the centerline. Mirror images if you would, lining up with the corresponding chock.

This mirror image layout can also be seen in the circular object (my apologies for not immediately recalling just what it is) visible just above the E and R on the New Jersey being on the flipside in the photo of the Iowa.

Once again proof that plans on sisterships are only a starting point.

[bigjimslade]

Yet another difference.
The burn marks on the New Jersey in http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/01621a.jpg would seem to indicate the time frame for this, at least on New Jersey.

You appear to be correct:


http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016209i.jpg

[Cliffy B]

Here are some shots of BB-64's gun tubs from 2014.

[RandyM]

So... my intent was not to turn this thread into a Rivet Counter's Paradise. But, I enjoy understanding the evolution of a ship throughout its life. Almost like reading a history book. Knowing WHY scuppers might have been added - and then subsequently modified/removed - gives (me) better insight of how things are learned and products are improved. For example I think it is remarkable that while the Iowa designers got so much "right" right out of the gate (33knots!), they missed something as obvious as a walk-around, enclosed bridge. For all we know, there could have been a "Schedule of Scuppers" design drawing that was used (which would explain why they aren't shown in other drawings). Mysteries are fun.

For what it's worth, my prioritized list of research material goes something like this:

1. Primary documentation - dimensioned design documents from official sources like the now-infamous sponson drawing James provided. No interpretation needed for the items shown. No use for items not included.
2. Dimensioned drawings from unofficial sources. Not as good as #1, since who knows how much interpretation went into the generation of this material?
3. Photos of the prototype from verified sources - used in conjunction with #1 and 2 above to confirm my understanding of the drawing(s), but never alone unless absolutely necessary. I try to never "measure" a photograph.
4. Builders' models. When I use this term I am referring specifically to the G&C 1/48th Missouri model, which was actually commissioned AFTER the war (I think it was delivered in the early 50s) and ordered to represent Missouri at a precise moment in time. Since G&C designed the ship and therefore had access to every conceivable design document - and invested essentially infinite resources into the construction of the model - I feel it is reasonable to assume that the details they DID include are accurate. Still requires significant interpretation, but a great resource for determining the general way something may have looked or been constructed. (nb: looking at a typical 1/48th aircraft or armor model, something as large as the scuppers would nearly always be modeled).
5. Undimensioned line drawings from official sources, like the plan drawings Hank has. These are very good for understanding general and detailed layout , but subject to interpretation given their lack of dimensions.
6. Design study models are what in my line of work would be called conceptual pre-prototypes. Devoid of any real detail, and used mainly to study first- and second-order design features prior to letting a contract. Virtually useless for my purposes.
7. Museum models... absolutely stunning works of art and a true tribute to the modeler's talents, but again, who knows whether they are accurate for a given period of time?

I'd be interested to hear others' logic for their list.

Oh, and Happy Easter! I went to mass at the in-laws' church: the priest has an absolutely inscrutable accent, making the event a true challenge.

[BB62vet]

RandyM, et al re: documentation priorities:

Now, this is a very good way to prioritize your documents! I guess my list might be shorter, but somewhere in the same vein of thought:

1. Detailed drawings for overall measurement - scaled plans, etc. from the usual sources

2. Dimensioned drawings/plans - such as The Plan Book (TFD), copies of officially de-classified USN plans, etc.

3. Detailed or close-up photos that show very small details for further verificaiton.

4. General photos showing various parts and equipment, but maybe not so much detail - mainly for verification that things are where they should be.

Of course, at this point, everything's in several big piles here & there; go figure!!!!!

Hank

[bigjimslade]

Is there a stash in existence?

Much of the microfilm stuff at NARA is unreadable. Whoever did the copying, did so with little care.

There is a beautiful sheet that its 38" by about 30 feet long giving all the details of the New Jersey Bridge (a diagram on the microfilm), giving a hint of what existed at one time.

[chuck]

For me, if arrangements in photographs from correct time period can't be reconciled with any drawing, primary or derived, arrangement shown in photos take precedence. But I also don't trust photo as a source for accurate dimensional measurements due to angle, lens distortion, misunderstood optical geometry, etc. the discrepancy between relative dimensions shown in photos and those shown in drawings has to be fairly large for me to begin questioning drawings.

[Fliger747]

BB61 on the ways, note the scupper drains have no flaps or covers.

T

[Fliger747]

By way of answering my own question, the drains are currently plated in, at least on Missouri. Perhaps Cliffyb could answer the current status of the semi circular "chutes" dead aft and if they have hinged covers. in a decent seaway at speed, the aft mounts may get "pooped" once and a while and the original small scuppers totally inadequate, as well as providing a (small) gap in the splinter protection. The chutes for the 40 mm brass would have to be W/T which might make their use more difficult. Missouri currently has an external set of drain pipes from the lower base of the cone, dead aft, on each side.

I just noticed that the ABC drawings in my Stillwell Missouri book show the small scuppers in all but the modern ship. Not sure why they would be plated in for a modern ship except perhaps to reduce manpower needs for cleaning and painting the sides.

Cheers: T

[BB62vet]

Tom,

I am just now looking at Cliffy B's photos of the after tubs on WISKY - the small drain scuppers are there and intact. They appear to be something (just a guess here) like 2" high x 6" wide. The stbd. tub contains a small mushroom ventilator and the port tub has a package HVAC compressor unit. The remnants of the RPV fuel bladder trolley are somewhat visible on the port side and some vestiges of angle having been cut down at floor level on the stbd. side.

After checking my NEW JERSEY museum photos, I didn't take any that show the tubs. However, the 1999 photo from Philly shows the port tub w/bladder cart/rails intact. However, it does not show the drain scuppers. Perhaps welded over. With the large side opening for the trolley rails, why bother with the small scuppers?

Hank

[Cliffy B]

Hank, the stbd tub has the mushroom (original to 88) and the ac unit was added by us for museum use. I can measure the scupper openings if you want next week.

[BB62vet]

Cliffy B - Oops got 'em backards!!

Yea - for everyone's info, do take measurements and that way we'll all have them. I will need to incorporate them on my model, as well. I believe I have at least one photo of NJ in the late '60s that shows short, narrowing spouts on the exterior side of those scuppers. I'll have to check.

Thanks, Cliffy!! Oh, when I was checking out your photos, I noticed that MISSOURI still has all her RPV fueling equipment intact on the port side and on the stbd side, a large vertical hose reel. Similar to NEW JERSEY, at least on the port side.

[Fliger747]

At the aft most part of the stern tubs is the quarter cylinder shaped chute. These which were added early in the ships careers do they have a flapper or a just a hole inside the tub, or connected to something else?

When running about Missouri taking hundreds of photos, who would have though so many digits would be spent on the interior etc of these tubs!

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

Referring back to Friedmann's design history of the Iowa's, I don't see any indication of a Gibbs & Cox involvement in late design changes. The Brooklyn Navy Yard as the lead yard made many final design changes including an extra foot of beam and extra hull volume aft to correct a prospective stern low trim issue, which can still be seen in the light load museum ships. As the navy was building the ships themselves there was no "change order" charges as often bedevil modern shipbuilding contracts.

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

On the current Missouri on the stbd aft gun tub, at the most outboard position is a vertical I beam perhaps 4' in length and suspended parallel to the tub side about 8-10" distant.

What was this for?

[Cliffy B]

Any idea when Wisconsin traded her Kingfishers for Seahawks? I've been tasked to repair and finish a pair of 1/350 kits (one 1945 and one 1991) for the ship and I want to get the proper birds aboard. She's in Ms. 22 for 1945 and currently has Seahawks. I know she had them postwar but I want to know if she got them before she was repainted into Ms. 13.

[Russ2146]

I just checked Fold3.com and, in the Ship's history as sent out on 21 September 1945, it is noted that on 8 June 1945, a Kingfisher from Wisconsin rescued a downed aviator from Shangri-La. Therefore, she had Kingfishers at least until June.

I also checked Naval Aviation papers on the NHHC site and in June of '45 it is noted that BB's are to have SC's but only as the planes become available. Also, BB's from the NC onward were assigned 3 aircraft while the older ships got 2.

[Cliffy B]

On the current Missouri on the stbd aft gun tub, at the most outboard position is a vertical I beam perhaps 4' in length and suspended parallel to the tub side about 8-10" distant.

What was this for?

Only thing I can think of is its the mounting bracket for line up lights for helo pilots.

Russ - Thanks! That narrows it done to 6 months. I'm guessing she probably didn't swap birds until she came home which would mean Kingfishers for the duration of hostilities and possibly the rest of the year.

Based on Sumrall's Iowa Book, best I can tell She did one Magic Carpet run, arriving at Pearl on 10/4/1945 and then San Fran on 10/15/1945. Next entry is a Panama transit from 1/11-13/1946, arriving at Norfolk on 1/18/1946 and undergoing an overhaul at Norfolk Naval Shipyard that "Summer".

I'm gonna guess she was repainted into Ms. 13 and got Seahawks during the overhaul unless we can find something to indicate she got the birds while still in the Pacific but after the war.