Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Fliger747]

There are a few too many different Iowa class Trumpy builds to keep track of which is which. Can't tell the players without a program...

[youngtiger1]

Thanks guys. I sure do appreciate the reply.

[Fliger747]

For those that might care, the DVB antenna is for radio direction finding.

Happy New Year for all!

T

[CPL_Wiggles]

Question for the Iowa crew - What would you suggest to use to reflect the MK51 FCS for the 40mm quad mounts in a 1/700 setting? I so far haven't found many examples. I do have the 1/700 Skywave US Equipment set that has a number of them - but they do seem little more than blocks with a couple of knobs on them. I think the kit has 8. I suspect I need more than that number.

Thoughts?

[Fliger747]

These are pretty small even in 1:192-1:200 scale! Pretty sure you will need (almost) one for each quad 40 mount, even Alaska has 14 of these little "gentlemen". The main visible item that gives some of the character are the handles. For the 1;200 Missouri kit Pontos had some PE parts to attempt to replicate some of the visual effect, if a little 2 dimensional looking. Adding some wire, possibly with a tiny glue blob on the ends might be good addition in your small scale. In addition to the Mk 51 there were variously installed Mk 47 (Iowa only) and Mk 57 units.

Good luck!

[Harquebus]

For those that might care, the DVB antenna is for radio direction finding.

Happy New Year for all!

T

Okay, you and Hank differ on the spelling; is it DVB or DBV? Neither really gave me any hits via web search. Does anyone know whether it has a typical military designation, a la an AN/SPD-XX (D for radio direction finding, if Fliger747 is correct )?

Here's a neat site that describes the genesis of the "AN" system and decodes the rest of the alpha-numeric characters: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... tml#_JETDS

[Fliger747]

Under the caveat of ya get what ya pay for: Page 110 Sumrall, Iowa Class Battleships has a photo of Iowa, 22 May, 1947 with a "DBA" radio direction finder, at the topmast and a DBM radar direction finder behind the topmast on the same platform as the SK radar.

Very little info.

T

[Fliger747]

Info on the DBM operation

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/RADELEVEN/

[Fliger747]

USN Antenna catalog:

www.virhistory.com/navy/manuals/ship-antennas.pdf

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Concerning the 5 inch 38 gun houses installed under North Carolina - Iowa classes. Visually they were all identical on the exterior, including all of the detail on them, has been stated in several places on this forum.

My reason for asking is because I'm looking to see if veterans models resin 5 inch 38 gun houses are better/more accurate than the new tool parts from Tamiya in their Missouri and New Jersey models. The Tamiya ones have sharper raised detailing on the rear of the houses, well the ones from veterans models lack some of that raised detailing, and are also a little bit smaller in size. Yet when compared with photographs of the real thing, at least to my eyes the Tamiya ones look to be more correct in overall size and scale.

If the ones from Tamiya are in fact more correct, I could purchase more of them from Tamiya for use on other battleship models since Tamiya sells individual parts sprues and all of the parts for the new guns are on one sprue, however acquiring additional ones from veterans models would be much easier. Hence my dilemma of which option to go for. Pictures comparing them are below.


https://goo.gl/photos/EtASMArjuj66Qtjv7

https://goo.gl/photos/BibEGN7ne3gGztU87

https://goo.gl/photos/M3Z7VLHNP7RqdBq27

https://goo.gl/photos/9jtjPV9jCqGFdWPZ7

[Thomas E. Johnson]

In addition to the 1991 Missouri, I would also like to build the retooled 1983 New Jersey to go with it, however I'm also thinking that it would be nice to have the 1991 version of the Wisconsin to go along with the Missouri, so I'd have both Gulf War battleships together.

So that brings up the question:

Along with the appropriate Pontos detailing set, which kit would be the better starting point for a 1991 Wisconsin, the New Jersey or the Missouri? I haven't done much research on the Wisconsin, so aside from the ECM housing on the 10th level, and the nonskid/planking arrangement on the fantail, I'm not really sure which of the other two she more closely resembles in terms of all the other details.

[James M]

16" projectile unearthed in Vietnam:
Obviously from a battleship as the Army doesn't have anything to fire one of these.

http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/wa ... 53273.html

[lgmccauley]

This is my first post to the Iowa's forum. I have just completed my 192nd scratch built Alaska. Tom was a big help in that project. Thanks again Tom.

I have just finished going through all the current 144 pages of this forum and have found a wealth of information that will assist me in the construction of my next project, the Missouri, also in 192nd, as she was fitted out in the fall of 1945.

One of reference materials is Stefan Draminski 3D book on the Missouri. I must say I was surprised to find only one reference to this book in all the previous pages of this forum. I found it had plentiful pictures from stem to stern of all the equipment on board. I compared it to the FDD plans for accuracy and except for a few minor differences, they are very compatible. Now I'm certainly no expert in regards to the Iowa's, compared to most other contributors to this site, which brings me to the point of this post. In your expert
opinions, would you use this book as a reference for constructing an accurate model of the Missouri in 1945 configuration or not?

Thanks
Larry

[steinerman]

Howdy Larry,

I have this book and yes, it has a lot of detail that I haven't been able to find in other sources. I also have the TFD plan set (192 scale) and also the TFD CD on the Missouri. In addition, I got Paul Stillwell's book for Christmas.

Yes, I have notice that for the most part, Stefan's book and the other sources do agree, but there are slight differences. I'll give you a few examples I've caught so far:

1: In Stefan's book he shows shell ejector chutes at the back of the 5 inch gun mounts. No where else can I find evidence that these ever existed and when I posed this question on my build log, people who were familiar with this ship indicated they never were present. I don't know where he got the idea for them, but they definitely were not there on September 1945.

2. Stefan shows the splinter shields of the 20mm Orlikon AA guns with a "V" shaped notch at the top. The Iowa had this, but the Missouri did not. On the Missouri, the shields had rectangular cutouts that were straight up and down.

3. Take a look at the 40mm Quad Bofors gun mounts in Stefan's book, especially the pictures on page 31. He shows the rear guard rail as 4 separate sections when in actuality, this guard rail is one continuous railing from one side to the other. There were no cut-outs in the railing

4: Stefan doesn't show any hull detail whatsoever where in reality there are numerous plates, etc located on the hull surface.

Since all I have done so far on my build is to assemble the AA guns, these are the only discrepancies I've noted so far. Stefan's book is excellent for close up details, but check with other sources to insure accuracy. Of course, it's totally up to you as to how accurate you want your ship to be. I'm building the Trumpeter 1:200 kit and already know that the hull shape near the stern is way off, but fixing it is beyond my capabilities, so I have to accept it.

Good luck with your build and I hope you decide to start a build log on this site.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Howdy Larry,

I have this book and yes, it has a lot of detail that I haven't been able to find in other sources. I also have the TFD plan set (192 scale) and also the TFD CD on the Missouri. In addition, I got Paul Stillwell's book for Christmas.

Yes, I have notice that for the most part, Stefan's book and the other sources do agree, but there are slight differences. I'll give you a few examples I've caught so far:

1: In Stefan's book he shows shell ejector chutes at the back of the 5 inch gun mounts. No where else can I find evidence that these ever existed and when I posed this question on my build log, people who were familiar with this ship indicated they never were present. I don't know where he got the idea for them, but they definitely were not there on September 1945.

2. Stefan shows the splinter shields of the 20mm Orlikon AA guns with a "V" shaped notch at the top. The Iowa had this, but the Missouri did not. On the Missouri, the shields had rectangular cutouts that were straight up and down.

3. Take a look at the 40mm Quad Bofors gun mounts in Stefan's book, especially the pictures on page 31. He shows the rear guard rail as 4 separate sections when in actuality, this guard rail is one continuous railing from one side to the other. There were no cut-outs in the railing

4: Stefan doesn't show any hull detail whatsoever where in reality there are numerous plates, etc located on the hull surface.

Since all I have done so far on my build is to assemble the AA guns, these are the only discrepancies I've noted so far. Stefan's book is excellent for close up details, but check with other sources to insure accuracy. Of course, it's totally up to you as to how accurate you want your ship to be. I'm building the Trumpeter 1:200 kit and already know that the hull shape near the stern is way off, but fixing it is beyond my capabilities, so I have to accept it.

Good luck with your build and I hope you decide to start a build log on this site.

Could you please post a picture of these "supposed" shell ejector chutes? May be helpful in clearing up some detail confusion on my own project. Thanks.

[steinerman]

Hi Tom,

Check out my post dated September 22, 1025 part way down this page:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4683&start=2780#p668815

This is what I'm referring to. Also, please read the two subsequent postings from Tom (Fliger747) and Hank (BB62Vet)

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Hi Tom,

Check out my post dated September 22, 1025 part way down this page:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4683&start=2780#p668815

This is what I'm referring to. Also, please read the two subsequent postings from Tom (Fliger747) and Hank (BB62Vet)

OK I see now. Those doors are represented on the new tooled parts from Tamiya, but the ejector chutes are "correctly" not.

I'm still looking for additional imput from my post above comparing veterans models 5 inch 38 gun houses to the new ones from Tamiya, looking to see which of the two is more accurate.

[Harquebus]

...The Tamiya ones have sharper raised detailing on the rear of the houses, well the ones from veterans models lack some of that raised detailing, and are also a little bit smaller in size. Yet when compared with photographs of the real thing, at least to my eyes the Tamiya ones look to be more correct in overall size and scale.

If the ones from Tamiya are in fact more correct, I could purchase more of them from Tamiya for use on other battleship models since Tamiya sells individual parts sprues and all of the parts for the new guns are on one sprue, however acquiring additional ones from veterans models would be much easier. Hence my dilemma of which option to go for. Pictures comparing them are below.

I think your original assessment is pretty much spot-on here. The Tamiya 5"/38's are correct in size as near as I can tell. One of the reasons is that the turret has the correct overhang on all sides as it relates to the mount platform both on the model and on the 1/1 ship. The Veterans are noticeably undersized which is a bit dismal but they're not awful. I see a benefit of going with the Veterans though as they are one piece and the Tamiya require assembly and careful attention to eliminate the side seams. Only those of us with a trained eye will ever notice the discrepancy if you go with the aftermarket choice but it will save you a bit of a headache on the assembly side, not to mention easier obtain-ability.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

...The Tamiya ones have sharper raised detailing on the rear of the houses, well the ones from veterans models lack some of that raised detailing, and are also a little bit smaller in size. Yet when compared with photographs of the real thing, at least to my eyes the Tamiya ones look to be more correct in overall size and scale.

If the ones from Tamiya are in fact more correct, I could purchase more of them from Tamiya for use on other battleship models since Tamiya sells individual parts sprues and all of the parts for the new guns are on one sprue, however acquiring additional ones from veterans models would be much easier. Hence my dilemma of which option to go for. Pictures comparing them are below.

I think your original assessment is pretty much spot-on here. The Tamiya 5"/38's are correct in size as near as I can tell. One of the reasons is that the turret has the correct overhang on all sides as it relates to the mount platform both on the model and on the 1/1 ship. The Veterans are noticeably undersized which is a bit dismal but they're not awful. I see a benefit of going with the Veterans though as they are one piece and the Tamiya require assembly and careful attention to eliminate the side seams. Only those of us with a trained eye will ever notice the discrepancy if you go with the aftermarket choice but it will save you a bit of a headache on the assembly side, not to mention easier obtain-ability.

True on all accounts. I still would want the more accurate of the two however. I've also noticed that the front of the veterans turrets are WAY off where the lower straight edge meets the beveled upper facing.

[Fliger747]

The exact dimensions of the 5" mounts can be found in the HNSA turret and mount catalog. Properly dimensioned 5" twin mounts can be found in both 1;192 and 1:200 from Steve "Model Monkey" Larson's offerings at Shapeways. I do not believe the Trumpeter mounts have the proper front shape and dimension.

Cheers: Tom