Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[SebastianP]

Quick question brought up by some discussion on another forum. I'm fairly certain it's been brought up in this thread already but it's a very long thread....

What was the deal with the different paint scheme Missouri carried during Desert Storm, with the dark gray hull numbers? (and what were the FS numbers/color names for those anyway?)

I know I found an explanation for it somewhere, but it was a really long time ago, and what I remember of it boils down to something along the lines of "Missouri was posted in the sun so long her paint faded, and they painted dark numbers on her so they wouldn't have to paint the whole ship" or something like that. The problem with this explanation is that she looks like she's the same base color as Wisconsin in the b/w at sea pics where both of them are together, and she doesn't appear to have carried the dark hull numbers for very long at all - pretty much only that one cruise, seeing as she was wearing white numbers for the pics immediately preceding Desert Storm, and again for the ones immediately afterwards. And it being because the paint faded doesn't ring very true either, given that she hasn't really changed colors after sitting still at Pearl for a bunch of years...

The reason it came up is because someone posted that old photo of the whole class in line abreast formation, and assumed the furthest ship was Missouri since she was lighter than the others (it's actually not Missouri, it's New Jersey according to Navsource; and as far as I can tell from the other photo in that set, the reason she looks white in the picture is because the other three are under a cloud.)

[Fliger747]

The dark hull numbers a low viz device. I suppose someone had the brilliant idea that it might make a battleship less visible (suicide boats?).

[SebastianP]

Huh, that doesn't make much sense, you'd think they'd have applied them to more of the ships if that was the reason (and they're not really that much less visible than the white ones). The only other ship I've found which had the dark hull numbers is USS Vincennes, which carried them as early as 1988 (I've only found two images of her like that though). I also think I saw one of the FFGs with dark numbers at one point, but I can't remember which one. The newer low-vis versions use light gray numbers instead, which are a lot more low-visibility.

[Fliger747]

At the discretion of the Captain I would guess. Page 328, Stillwell, Battleship Missouri says it was at the direction of the Pacific Fleet Surface Force to make visual detection at night more difficult. They were indeed drk gray.

T

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Does anyone know if the new tool 5 inch 38 caliber gun current parts that Tamiya made for the 1991 version of the Missouri kit are also concluded with the New Jersey kit as well, and the World War II version of the Missouri model kit?

[MatthewB]

I guess 143 pages of thread is what happens when you have (a) ship(s) that people can still go look at.

I wish that I cared more about the Iowa-class than I do.

It isn't that they aren't beautiful. It's that, like the Yamato and Musashi, they just never got to play "Battleship" (really - although the Yamato and Musashi TRIED).

And it is more than a little worrying that I am disinterested in a ship because it failed to slaughter a bunch of people. I have problems...

Edit:

I knew I had a question:

Were the 5"/38 Twin Turrets on the Iowa-class the same as those on the South Dakota-class and North Carolina-class?

MB

[BB62vet]

Matthew B wrote:

Were the 5"/38 Twin Turrets on the Iowa-class the same as those on the South Dakota-class and North Carolina-class?

Well, first - they aren't "Turrets", they are gun "MOUNTS", and YES! THE 5"-38cal dual gun mounts were the same on all modern USN BB classes (NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, IOWA). NC & SD carried Mk. 28, Mod. 0 while the IOWAs shipped Mk. 28, Mod 2 mounts. These differed somewhat from the similar mounts on destroyers in that the battleship mounts were armor plated and the destroyers were not. Like most equipment, these mounts were constantly being modified as refinements and enhancements were being made thru battle experience and use.

And while the IOWAs didn't engage their adversaries in the types of warfare that made their predecessors famous, non-the-less they were much more lethal and effective than those older ships. We have the experience of four different wars in which IOWAs served proudly and quite lethally.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Mounts in USN parlance usually were 5" or smaller and "Turrets" 6" and larger. Numbered bow to stern; For example a Fletcher Class DD would have 51 through 55 mounts. An Iowa would identify turrets of the main battery as "Turret one through three", bow to stern. Usually mounts carried the barrels in a single elevating sleeve. The modern era turrets usually had individually elevating barrels whereas some of the pre war turrets even of Battleships and Cruisers carried the barrels in a single sleeve. The twin 5" 38 mounts could not be individually elevated, though the barrels could be declutched for maintenance.

T

[Guest]

In my ongoing 1947'ish New Jersey project, I need assistance in positively identifying the radars she carried during that post war time. In the image stolen from Navsource I have added call outs to the predominant mast and tower radar sets and have identified those I know of already, to the best of my knowledge.

1:
2: SK-2 ?
3:
4: TDY-1 ?
5: SP ?
6:



There's more I'm sure but these are the only ones I can readily depict in 1/350 scale.
The #5 radar was the real trick for me as this was strictly an end of the war addition and not part of her classic WWII appearance.

I understand Alliance Modelworks has most of these included in a PE radar set. Anyone have experience with this set and/or the vendor?

[Fliger747]

Top of the foremast is probably an SG, little hard to see in this photo.

T

[Cliffy B]

1: SG
2: SK-2
3: A small radome, type unknown
4: TDY-1
5: SP
6: SG

Looked through Stillwell's BB-62 book at some of the photos and the drawings in the back to source those answers

[Harquebus]

Thanks! Fantastic. That was my post--not sure why the forum turned me into a guest but maybe it had something to do with off-site photo hosting.

I looked at the photos from Alliance Modelworks' instruction sheet and their finished radar sets and antennas to better guess at what some were. The SK-2 was a given though.

[BB62vet]

#3 on your list appears to be a DBV radar antenna - any further info I don't have currently available as I'm home and not where my workshop/info resides.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Number three does not appear on any of the wartime photos I can find. Of course some other might turn up or they could have been censored out, but all the other radars are visible so I suspect it was a postwar item?

[Cliffy B]

It exists after the big 1945 refit where she received the square bridge and the new main mast on the after funnel from best I can tell.

[Fliger747]

ABC drawing page 296-7 Stillwell, NJ. :

Shows this on the foremast July 1945. For some reason I had Missouri on the brain, this does not appear to be a wartime addition to Mo.

T

[youngtiger1]

Question for you Iowa fans, can trumpeter 1/200 Iowa be made into Missouri with any problem? TIA

Mike

[Timmy C]

No. Missouri never had the open bridge that the Iowa kit comes with.

[Fliger747]

You could scratch build the bridge, not so difficult with it's fairly straight sides.

T

[Harquebus]

Number three does not appear on any of the wartime photos I can find. Of course some other might turn up or they could have been censored out, but all the other radars are visible so I suspect it was a postwar item?

I thought it was plainly obvious that it was postwar with the overall haze gray, black funnel tops and tripod mainmast clues. I should never assume though. Navsource says it was taken in 1947.