Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Hey, Thanks everybody!!!! I knew I could count on you to come through! I think I'll take Tom's advice though and either use gunmetal or a really dark grey.

Glad to have been of help.

[ModelMonkey]

Hi all!

A question was asked by PM about the Mk.49 tub for New Jersey as it appeared in 1944, specifically about its orientation and whether or not there was a supporting structure below the tub.

IMHO (I stress opinion), there was indeed such a structure, large enough to be a small compartment, present from 1943 until at least 1981, so I included it (and the Mk.49 tub above it) in the design for a 3D-printed New Jersey '44 "round bridge".

In the absence of definitive, authoritative 1943 plans, this opinion is based on careful study of several photos. Here are a few of those photos that tend to indicate the prior existence of this structure, suggest its dimensions and extents, and also confirm the orientation of the tub.

In this October, 1943 photo, the tub, it's extents, details, and orientation are very clear. Notice the size and features of the Mk.49 director itself. This was obviously a very heavy director compared to, say, a Mk.51. It may have been heavy enough to require significant structural support below the tub. As Sherlock would say, "The game is afoot"!

The cropped photo below is from June, 1945 at Puget Sound. "My dear Watson", we can see that the tub is still there looking very much like it did in October, 1943, but the heavy Mk.49 director has been replaced by what looks like a Mk.51. Now look very carefully directly below the tub, just beyond the corner of the bridge. There appears to be the edge of a large supporting structure, big enough to be a small compartment. Looking through the bridge windows, it appears to extend inward all the way to the bulkhead.

Now zoom ahead to 1981 at Long Beach. This photo of the bridge shows that the tub is gone. But look behind the bridge and there is a boxy compartment in the same position as the supporting structure just visible in the photo above. The deck overhead is shaped to cover it entirely. It is my opinion that this boxy structure is what remains of the supporting structure for the Mk.49 tub.

[SIBIRIAK-66]

Thanks BB62vet, Cliffy B, Model Monkey! Stefan Draminski make a mistake....

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The Pontos sets come with extra parts for some of the smaller and more fragile pieces I hope? I know I'm probably going to wreck a few 40mm ammo racks and loose a few 20mm gun parts....

[Channell]

So I could no longer resist and broke down and bought the 1/200 kit of the Missouri. Debating over whether or not to purchase the Pontos super detailing set for it. After comparing the kit and its included PE, to the photos of the Pontos set installed on the model in the Pontos thread about the set in the manufactures section of the forum, I don't really see where the Ponto set is needed. All it appears to do is replace the kits existing brass and plastic parts with more brass, and doesn't really improve anything on the model. Aside from the wooden deck and a few other goodies, pretty much all of which involve the anti-aircraft guns and the ammunition racks in the gun tubs, the Pontos set to me looks to be redundant and unnecessary. Since like many others who have to work with a limited amount of funds available, this does not appear to be a very wise allocation of those funds. Please tell me if I am missing something here about the Pontos or similar detail-up sets.

In this scale and level of molded detail which is really nice, one should be able to realistically paint the wooden deck (should have blue stain on it anyway) and not need to use a stick on wooden replacement like we have to do with older models that don't have realistic planking molded in.

To me it looks like the areas of the model which do need extra super detailing the attention are the aircraft guns, both the 40mm and 20mm, and the 40mm gun tubs which do need ammunition racks inside of them. I know that Eduard makes them but I have no idea how many sets are needed to equip the whole model.

The 16 inch guns look a little off to me and I could see going with some brass ones.

But it seems to me that would be a better allocation of one's modeling budget.

I would appreciate some input about this from those of us here that are building this beast in 1/200.

Here's my $.02

I've build 1 Trumpeter 1/200 kit "out of the box" (USS Arizona); it was the first and last time I'll ever do that.

Yes, you can build a relatively impressive model that way but you will be tearing your hair out by the end from the frustration of fighting Trumpy's way too soft and simplistic brass PE and accidentally broken tiny plastic masts that seem to snap off if you so much as breathe on them.

If you are like me, you will also feel bummed out by a finished model that looks great at a distance but is annoyingly simplistic and toylike up close... and because it's a big battleship model EVERYBODY will want to get up as close to it as possible when looking at it.

I personally do not see the point of building a huge 1/200 battleship without going "all the way" and throwing an aftermarket detail set or two at it... really these Trumpy kits are just 1/350 kits blown up to 1/200 size without really upgrading the detail level to match and they need a lot more help to truly reach their potential. A good aftermarket set and/or copious amounts of scratchbuilding is essentially the difference between a 1/200 "bathtub toy" and a 1/200 "museum quality" centerpiece of your model collection.

I have both the Pontos Iowa and Missouri sets in the stash; they absolutely DO improve the model in a HUGE way and on almost every part of the model. Beyond that, the aftermarket brass replacing the kit PE/plastic is far better engineered, more resilient to accidental damage, more technically accurate and easier to work with.

You'll also find the "Big Mo" is absolutely riddled with accuracy issues OOTB and Pontos actually helps resolve the majority of 'em (from the maindeck up anyway!) in a fairly straightforward way. Hopefully I don't sound like a salesman but I highly recommend going aftermarket if you are up to the challenge and are building a static display model... and Pontos is the best stuff you can get for a "Big Mo".

While I haven't really done much of the Pontos brass specific to the Iowas, I've been neck-deep in the stuff for the last few months on my Nelson build and I absolutely love it. I couldn't imagine building Nellie without Pontos despite the extra cost and relatively minor imperfections of the Pontos set... and Nelson/Rodney are probably the most technically accurate of ALL the Trumpeter kits. The Missouri deserves better than what Trumpeter put on the market... and it's up the the modeler to get there.

[Harquebus]

Hi all!

A question was asked by PM about the Mk.49 tub for New Jersey as it appeared in 1944, specifically about its orientation and whether or not there was a supporting structure below the tub....

What you've done is some excellent extrapolation in my opinion, and "best guessing" what is under there. I just figured you had a 'smoking gun' photo we had not seen before that proves without a doubt the nature of the structure and what is underneath it. Instead of floating there and only being supported by the deck it is attached to, it is probably de rigueur to have a support structure under there just like the much heavier 40mm quad mount located further aft on the same level.

[bigjimslade]

I have a lot of Iowa class data collected from the National Archives and such. I know a lot of you have a lot of similar data.

I just got a massive scanning bill so I also know that it is expensive to both collect that data and to publish it. Ergo, those with data have a huge $$$ disincentive not to share; not out of selfishness but rather it takes time and $$$ to do so.

In order to provide such an incentive, I was wondering if some kind of data sharing collective might be set up.

[James M]

color video of the Missouri at the wars end
Shows the the 01 40mm gun tubs well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MMVd5XOK8

[bigjimslade]

Does anyone have measured plans of turret details?

Rangefinder Hoods
Trainer/Elevator Hoods
Periscopes

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Where were the boarding ladders stowed along the main deck bulkheads during the 1980s? I'm trying to place them on my Missouri model. I know there was one on the starboard side, behind the hatch that leads to the officers' wardroom, but I believe that there are three more somewhere, but I don't have any photos that show an unobstructed view along the bulkheads.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

accommodation ladders or board ladders?

I think they are one and the same.

[Cliffy B]

On Wisconsin at least one was stowed on brackets built under the barrels of Turret 3 that have since been cut flush to the deck. There was also a fire fighting station with some hoses directly aft of it that is also gone. If you look at underway shots you can see the ladder laying under the barrels. Hardware for the Accom ladders (brackets, platforms, etc...) was stowed on the bulkheads, main deck starboard side, fore and aft.

The forward ladder is stowed and the after ladder is rigged on the port side currently on BB-64. The after ladder was in use recently when the underwater hull was being inspected and we had a dive boat moored alongside.

That attached files are of BB-64 in 1988-1991. The 2nd photo was taken transiting the Suez Canal. Note the Conex boxes for the RPVs.

[Sutho]

I am just doing a disk cleanup of all my model reference photos I have downloaded from the internet over the years.

I am interested in renaming the photos in date order in order to provide better reference when looking over files and was wondering if any experts out there could put a date to the photos.

Example the commissioning photos that I know were taken on 10th May 1986 I am giving a file name of 1986-05-10 and if there are excessive numbers I then sequence them like 1986-05-10-001 and so on. This keeps them in precise order on my computer.

I have a large collection from WWII to present day of Iowa and Missouri that I have dated and there are a few that do not have dates. I also think it is helpful for historic reference when looking at the photo.

[James M]

First photo: Missouri - Sept 1986

Second photo: Missouri - Oct 1983 Sydney Harbor
Navsource
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016353d.jpg

Fourth photo: Missouri - 10 May 1986 San Francisco
Navsource
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0163028.jpg

[Sutho]

First photo: Missouri - Sept 1986

Second photo: Missouri - Oct 1983 Sydney Harbor
Navsource
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016353d.jpg

Fourth photo: Missouri - 10 May 1986 San Francisco
Navsource
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0163028.jpg

Thanks for that it is helpful. As you can see with the third photo thumbnail I have given it the file name corresponding to the date.

As a tourist I have visited the USS Missouri memorial and USS Iowa in San Pedro. I have modelled both ships with the Pontos Detail up set and am trying to do the finishing touches to model them in the prime of their modernised service life.

Once I get all the photos dated then I am happy to help others with the collection I have by passing on dates and information from what I learn over time. I think resources like approximate dates and periods of ships should be labelled for the benefits of all modellers.

[Plastic Habit]

Best I can tell you of this one is that it is taken in San Diego, CA.
The blue bridge in the back round is most definitely the Coronado Bridge,
thus being docked at North Island.
Possibly 1988 as she did have a port visit here that year.

[Harquebus]

OK, now I'm confused. Looking at the photos in Stillwell's book on the Missouri, it looks like the entire gun barrels of the 40mm AA guns are black, yet in the photo that Cliff posted above, just the recoil springs and the muzzle flash suppressors were black and the rest was grey.

I'm ready to paint my guns, but I don't know what to do now. What color were they at the time of the surrender?

The thing is, the barrels could be painted because the outer barrel jacket is what you're seeing. The naval Bofors guns were water cooled so the outer barrel was kept much cooler and whatever paint applied would not flake off from the excessive heat usually generated by an (bare) air-cooled barrel. Whether or not they were painted was due mainly to aesthetic concerns or whatever ship camouflage was in use at the time.

Whether or not the guns in factory condition were blued or parkerized, I know not but I wouldn't use gunmetal as the metal flakes in the paint would be noticeably out of scale in 1/350 or 1/200.

[Channell]

Thanks for that it is helpful. As you can see with the third photo thumbnail I have given it the file name corresponding to the date.

As a tourist I have visited the USS Missouri memorial and USS Iowa in San Pedro. I have modelled both ships with the Pontos Detail up set and am trying to do the finishing touches to model them in the prime of their modernised service life.

Once I get all the photos dated then I am happy to help others with the collection I have by passing on dates and information from what I learn over time. I think resources like approximate dates and periods of ships should be labelled for the benefits of all modellers.

The second pic down of Iowa is at Gibraltar; she was there in 1988 and 1989.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Are there any clear photos of the docking keel so I can add it to my 1/200 hull?

[marengtech]

First photo: Missouri - Sept 1986

Second photo: Missouri - Oct 1983 Sydney Harbor
Navsource
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016353d.jpg

Fourth photo: Missouri - 10 May 1986 San Francisco
Navsource
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0163028.jpg

Thanks for that it is helpful. As you can see with the third photo thumbnail I have given it the file name corresponding to the date.

As a tourist I have visited the USS Missouri memorial and USS Iowa in San Pedro. I have modelled both ships with the Pontos Detail up set and am trying to do the finishing touches to model them in the prime of their modernised service life.

Once I get all the photos dated then I am happy to help others with the collection I have by passing on dates and information from what I learn over time. I think resources like approximate dates and periods of ships should be labelled for the benefits of all modellers.

Fifth photo down with the supply ships port of Missouri, the second one out, is a Canadian Supply Ship. Either HMCS Protecteur or HMCS Preserver which would mean NATO standing fleet. When blown up the hull number is blurred; can anyone confirm this?