Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Fliger747]

One single layer is ballistically better protection than several (2 or more) layers but amongst the theories to help defeat projectiles or bombs was to decap the projectile by an initial layer, or perhaps more usefully initiate the fuze so as to cause bursting prior to reaching and/or penetrating the main layer. This applied to horizontal protection mainly.

Some ships would have the side armor affixed directly to the shell plating. The Iowa's and SODAK design instead used an internal inclined main vertical belt. The idea being to increase the angle at which a projectile would strike giving a greater effective thickness and also increasing the possibility of a deflection. The whole point? keep the weight down for a desired protection. However the internal armor left the shell plating vulnerable to perforation by splinters. To counter this somewhat the Iowa's along the armored citadel used a heavier plating or 60 lbs/sq ft, or approx. 3/4" as opposed to the usual 25 lb plate used elsewhere. The compartmentation outboard of the tapered armor belt used various liquid and void loading systems to reduce effects of penetration of the shell by smaller "items". This also was intended to increase the effectiveness against underwater contact explosion such as by torpedoes.

Even the finest warship is a series of compromises!

[chuck]

It is not all together conclusive that a single layer of armor is better than 2 layers of the same total thickness even without considering decapping and fuse activation. A benefit of using 2 layers of armor space some distance apart instead of one is that if the incoming shell shrike the first layer at an angle, then in the process of penetrating the first layer, the shell will yaw. This will enhance the resistance of the second layer by causing the shell to strike the second layer while pointed in a different direction than the direction in which it is traveling. The Germans seem to believe this approach afforded better overall protection than single thickness all or nothing protection.

[Fliger747]

indeed, nothing is conclusive in ship design, everything is a compromise for some particular optimization, and this is just in theory! In US WWII fighters a considerable mass of radio equipment was placed behind the pilot, which tended to cause tumbling of rounds arriving from the rear and considerably increased the effectiveness of the armor.

It is/was not possible to fully protect more than the vitals of the ship, leaving the likely hood of easy kills of fire control positions etc. Bismarck's main director was put out of action quite early, most likely from a Cruiser (Dorsetshire) 8" round.

A ship would be issued fighting instruction, ideal battle ranges, angles of approach etc. All things to only be hoped for in implementation. In the Hood-Bismarck engagement Holland was attempting to close the range to minimize Hood's deck armor vulnerabilities.

My USN fighter pilot friends had a saying "lucky beats good, any day".

[bigjimslade]

Much has been written criticizing (and praising) the Iowa class's protection. E.g.:

Torpedo protection was inadequate.
Too much armor on the conning tower.
Armor belt does not extend far enough.

The reality is their protective scheme was never put to any real test (other than ping pong balls from shore batteries). So we will never know�as is true with nearly all WWII Battleships.

A lot of thought went into it. A projectile going through the side would have to go through 5 layers to reach vitals. One coming through the top has go to through at least 4 layers.

There is effectively no way for projectile to strike the belt head on.

In regard to the Anatomy of the Ship, I just got the new Bismarck one, so I have both the Conway and Osprey versions. The New Osprey version (different author) relies heavily on 3d graphics which are totally absent from the Conway version. At times I wonder of these graphics are distracting because they often seem to be pretty pictures, rather than explanations of the anatomy of the ship.

[chuck]

What color were the life rafts and net floats during wwii? Were they haze gray?

[chuck]

Much has been written criticizing (and praising) the Iowa class's protection. E.g.:


In regard to the Anatomy of the Ship, I just got the new Bismarck one, so I have both the Conway and Osprey versions. The New Osprey version (different author) relies heavily on 3d graphics which are totally absent from the Conway version. At times I wonder of these graphics are distracting because they often seem to be pretty pictures, rather than explanations of the anatomy of the ship.

The CG graphics in the new Iowa book from the series is by Stefan Draminski. I have several books from his Super Drawings In 3D series, including battleship Missouri and Iowa. His work is generally very good and very good looking, but not perfect. He clearly research some areas of the ship more exhaustively than others, so many areas have accurate rendering of hidden and obscure details. But other more mundane areas may look right at first glance, but comparison with readily obtained photos show errors that reflect inattention to detail.

[Fliger747]

From some photos I have seen, the rafts generally matched the color of the adjacent part of the ship they were attached to. This is notable with particular camouflage schemes where photos have shown for instance a color boundary continuing right over the rafts just as they might for instance a gun tub or bulwark.

This is not definitive but something I have seen instances of.

[bigjimslade]

Much has been written criticizing (and praising) the Iowa class's protection. E.g.:

The CG graphics in the new Iowa book from the series is by Stefan Draminski. I have several books from his Super Drawings In 3D series, including battleship Missouri and Iowa. His work is generally very good and very good looking, but not perfect. He clearly research some areas of the ship more exhaustively than others, so many areas have accurate rendering of hidden and obscure details. But other more mundane areas may look right at first glance, but comparison with readily obtained photos show errors that reflect inattention to detail.

The problem is that creating an accurate 3D model of a ship would take a life time. It seems to me less detailed 3d model showing structural details would be of more use to this kind of crowd than a 3d model that is supposed to be photographic.

[EJFoeth]

The problem is that creating an accurate 3D model of a ship would take a life time. It seems to me less detailed 3d model showing structural details would be of more use to this kind of crowd than a 3d model that is supposed to be photographic.

If you have the original you can scan it... modern warships are actually scanned to that it's easier to make replacement parts to fit

[bigjimslade]

The problem is that creating an accurate 3D model of a ship would take a life time. It seems to me less detailed 3d model showing structural details would be of more use to this kind of crowd than a 3d model that is supposed to be photographic.

If you have the original you can scan it... modern warships are actually scanned to that it's easier to make replacement parts to fit

But try to scan the Bismarck.

[bigjimslade]

The plans collection on the New Jersey is currently randomized. There can be anything in any given box. Most of the material is pretty dry, like wiring diagrams for things than cannot be identified. You have to sort though a lot of dirt to find a gem. Here is one.

It's a plan for the Wellin screw opening on the breach of the 16" guns.

[Fliger747]

Some serious large scale precision machine work in making those! There were good reasons why the main armament of a Battleship required such a long lead time. There were various production bottlenecks in all out war production. Amongst them were drafting! Another was such precision machine work, especially the cutting of reduction gears for steam turbine drive. As a result numerous merchant type hulls were equipped with the direct drive three cylinder uniflow piston steam plants and DE's equipped with either diesel or turbo electric drive. Imagine the equipment for cutting rifling for a 50+ ft barrel!

[chuck]

Does anyone have drawings or photos showing the sizes of the navigation lamps on WWII US battleships? I am trying to make the lights for the 1/200 Missouri by cutting sections of clear plastic rods. I need to know how large these lamps were.

I had considered using altar-small LEDs, but there is no way to run the leads to the LEDs up the mast without ruining the accuracy. So they will not light up.

[BB63Missouri]

Chuck, check on flea bay in toys & hobbies for SMD (Surface Mount Diode) Leds. These are available in very small sizes, I think #402 is the smallest. This size is smaller then a pin head They are numbered according to size and are available in Bright white, warm white, red, green, yellow and blue - covers most of our modelling needs. The really good part for scale ships is they come with the wires soldered on and the wire is ultra thin and insulated with a very tough material. The wire is something like .003" thick. When buying get the ones with red and black wire as they are the thinnest wire. I just had a look and they are available 20 leds for under $10 Australian.With the wire being so small they could be run down a mast and be almost invisible.

[Fliger747]

The use of such lights in wartime would be quite limited, though I have a USN WWII key (from my dad) that was used to send morse code via the masthead light...

.003 wire is pretty tiny!

[BB63Missouri]

I just measured the wire with my electronic calipers. It should be .24MM not thousandths.
Sorry about that.
BUT it is still very thin wire and could easily be hidden in plain sight on a model boat.

[Fliger747]

That works out to about 2" in scale, no too bad!

[chuck]

Chuck, check on flea bay in toys & hobbies for SMD (Surface Mount Diode) Leds. These are available in very small sizes, I think #402 is the smallest. This size is smaller then a pin head They are numbered according to size and are available in Bright white, warm white, red, green, yellow and blue - covers most of our modelling needs. The really good part for scale ships is they come with the wires soldered on and the wire is ultra thin and insulated with a very tough material. The wire is something like .003" thick. When buying get the ones with red and black wire as they are the thinnest wire. I just had a look and they are available 20 leds for under $10 Australian.With the wire being so small they could be run down a mast and be almost invisible.

Thank you. After reading your message, I found a German ebay store vendor called LED Baron. He seems to have the entire assortment of pinhead LEDs. The leads on the LEDs are apparently very thin magnetic metal wire painted with an insulating paint. Does anyone know if the insulating paint will last if used with crazy glue or overpainted with enamel paint?

[bigjimslade]

Does anyone have drawings or photos showing the sizes of the navigation lamps on WWII US battleships? I am trying to make the lights for the 1/200 Missouri by cutting sections of clear plastic rods. I need to know how large these lamps were.

I know I have come across these on the ufilm at NARA. I'll keep an eye out for the plans as I go through the boxes.

[Fliger747]

I believe you are referring to the "truck lights" on the mast? My recollection is that the Red and Green (Port and Starboard) lights are mounted on the exterior of the navigation bridge wings. Somewhere I have photos onboard Missouri that show these, but being in the middle of Siberia at the moment... On my eye pad I do have a photo detailing the forward mast arrangements of North Carolina, labeling all sorts of small items. In this photo the truck lights as labeled are on a small horizontal extension aft the mast, near the top and are (WAG) a little larger than a mans head as an assembly. Below this and similar in appearance (-10') is the "man Overboard and Breakdown light".