The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:10 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3975 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 ... 199  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:21 am
Posts: 90
Location: Madrid, Spain
chuck wrote:
Fliger747 wrote:
Somewhere in this thread, in a time long long ago, this subject was discussed in some detail. As a note, I believe that the boot topping on the Iowa's (Which has moved around a bit, especially at present) tapers toward the stern and is not as wide there. The apparent reason for this is that there are much more "consumables" loaded forward and the bow will tend to rise more than the stern at a light loading. This is probably an intentional design as the hull has little volume aft below the waterline due to the tapering and shaft tunnel between the skegs.

Good luck!



One reason why the draft at the front of Iowa changes much more than at the back is because of the hull form. How much draft changes when weight is added or removed is proportional to the area of the waterplane. US fast battleships had highly assymmetrical waterplane shale, with extremely blunt and fat aft section with a lot of waterplane area , and long tapering bow entrance with little waterplane Area. This is probably a major reason why Iowa class has much more variable draft in the front than in the rear.


Hello
I am working also in the other two classes. Is the boot topping also tapered?

Attachment:
North Carolina provisional.png
North Carolina provisional.png [ 93.89 KiB | Viewed 831 times ]

Attachment:
Alabama provisional.png
Alabama provisional.png [ 87.99 KiB | Viewed 831 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
I checked out the drawings in Garzke and Dulin and no taper is shown. But... The drawing for the Iowa's does not show a taper either.

Good question!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
A question came up regarding the effectiveness of hollow charge weapons against Battleship armor. Certainly the ability of such weapons to drill a (small) hole through thick armor is not questioned. However much of the armor on an Iowa is interior and the ship is replete with honeycombed compartmentations, heavy shell plating and various void and liquid loaded compartments which I would guess would largely defeat such weapons unless they hit something like the coning tower, turrets or barbettes where the armor is directly exposed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:12 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10717
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
No - they are completely different and have no parts for WWII components. Your best bet these days for a 1/350 WWII Iowa class is the Very Fire version: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ssouri.htm

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:12 pm 
Another bunch of questions if I may.....How accurate are the main gun turrets, direction finders, gun barrels on the modern New Jersey kit ? Do they need to be modified or replaced with say the Model Monkey parts ? I don't have the Tamiya kit in front of me so please excuse me for what might be obvious. Also, does anyone have any thoughts on the Pontos upgrade kit ?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:33 pm
Posts: 113
How about a 22' long 1/48th scale all-brass model of the USS New Jersey?
It's in the Atlantic City Expressway rest stop.
https://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clea ... ssway.html

http://www.snjtoday.com/story/35385613/ ... expressway

Image

_________________
Current build logs -
1/72 110' Subchasers as Rum Runners
1/96 Japanese 'Steel Truck'
1/96 12cm pre-Dreadnaught deck gun
1/124 CS Privateer 'Beauregard'
1/124 CS Blockade Runners Pevensey & Ella Warley
1/192 scale whaler PEQUOD


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
There is a similar one of Missouri in the Honolulu Airport. I understand these were built for radar evaluation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:33 pm
Posts: 113
Fliger747 wrote:
There is a similar one of Missouri in the Honolulu Airport. I understand these were built for radar evaluation.


That is what the two articles (links above) elaborate upon.

_________________
Current build logs -
1/72 110' Subchasers as Rum Runners
1/96 Japanese 'Steel Truck'
1/96 12cm pre-Dreadnaught deck gun
1/124 CS Privateer 'Beauregard'
1/124 CS Blockade Runners Pevensey & Ella Warley
1/192 scale whaler PEQUOD


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:02 pm
Posts: 6
Timmy C wrote:
No - they are completely different and have no parts for WWII components. Your best bet these days for a 1/350 WWII Iowa class is the Very Fire version: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ssouri.htm


Thanks Timmy C for that reply. Guess that I'll be building at least 2 1/350 ships, a Modernized NJ and WW2 Missouri :thumbs_up_1: I'll have to look into the Very Fire Missouri Kit but I do have a Tamiya NJ kit that I've pulled out of storage. I'm now retired and can give the kit proper attention now that I have the time. I have found a copy of Paul Stillwell's Battleship New Jersey Book which I hope will help reference wise.

Bob

_________________
Currently on the bench: Revell 1/530 USS Hornet CVS-12
Future builds and in planning: 1/350 USS New Jersey Modern, 1/350 USS Missouri WW2, 1/350 USS Indianapolis (1945), 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8 Doolittle Raid, 1/350 USS Pennsylvania BB-38

:newbie:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2981
Location: One valley over from Hayward fault.
Fliger747 wrote:
A question came up regarding the effectiveness of hollow charge weapons against Battleship armor. Certainly the ability of such weapons to drill a (small) hole through thick armor is not questioned. However much of the armor on an Iowa is interior and the ship is replete with honeycombed compartmentations, heavy shell plating and various void and liquid loaded compartments which I would guess would largely defeat such weapons unless they hit something like the coning tower, turrets or barbettes where the armor is directly exposed.



Also, hollow charges are effective egainst tanks because the interior of the tank is small and very tightly packed with killable crew and explodable ammunition. So a small penetration by a thin gas jet has a good chance of killing the crew or setting off the munition. The interior of the even very crowded ships are cavernous by comparison and mostly air (hopefully). A thin hot gas stream cutting through steel has little chance of doing catastrophic damage unless it enters the magazine. A antiship missile with a shape charge warhead that explodes outside Iowa’s belt but cuts through the belt seems unlike to do nearly as much damage to the vitals of the ship as a 16” or 18” APC shell that penetrates the ship’s sides and properly detonate inside the citadel, Except of course the shape charge warhead, in the process of penetrating armor, is likely to do a lot more damage to the surrounding area outside the armor because in a shape charge, only a fraction of the energy is directed towards forming and propelling the armor piercing jet, the majority of the explosive energy will be dissipated as a normal outward explosion.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 236
chuck wrote:
Also, hollow charges are effective against tanks because the interior of the tank is small and very tightly packed with killable crew and explodable ammunition.


Another problem is the layers. A side shot on IOWA would have to go through three layers of steel to get to the armor. Then it would have to go through a layer of concrete two more layers of steel to get to the vitals. It about 15 feet of penetration that would be required.

In the best case, a top shot would have to go through four layers of armor. In that case the distance is even greater.

On the turrets, the three layers are not spaced, so it would be easier to penetrate. While theoretically, a shaped charge could go through a turret face, it would be hard to do from a fired shot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
The Fritz x was able to penetrate Roma's magazines and also Savannah's. Sinking the BB but not the CL! Not sure how their warhead was configured or what the watertight state Roma was at since they were on their way to surrender.

Modern tanks and warships have some Kevlar incorporated in their protection schemes, anybody know much about this?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2210
While the force was in the Strait of Bonifacio, Dornier Do 217s of the German Luftwaffe's specialist wing KG 100—armed with Fritz X radio-controlled bombs—sighted the force. The first attack failed, but the second dealt Italia (ex-Littorio) and Roma much damage. The hit on Roma caused water to flood two boiler rooms and the after engine room, leaving the ship to limp along with two propellers, reduced power, and arc-induced fires in the stern of the ship. Shortly thereafter, another bomb slammed into the ship and detonated within the forward engine room, causing catastrophic flooding and the explosion of the #2 main turret's magazines, throwing the turret itself into the sea. Sinking by the bow and listing to starboard, Roma capsized and broke in two, carrying 1,393 men—including Bergamini—down with her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_b ... Roma_(1940)

A radio-controlled Fritz X PGM gravity bomb had been released at a safe distance by a high-flying German warplane and it exploded 49 ft (15 m) distance from Philadelphia. Savannah increased her speed to 20 kn (23 mph, 37 km/h) as a KG 100 Dornier Do 217 K-2 bomber approached from out of the sun. The USAAF's P-38 Lightnings and Savannah's anti-aircraft gunners, tracking this warplane at 18,700 ft (5,700 m), failed to stop the Fritz X bomb, trailing a stream of smoke. The bomb pierced the armored turret roof of Savannah's No. 3 gun turret, passed through three decks into the lower ammunition-handling room, where it exploded, blowing a hole in her keel and tearing a seam in the cruiser's port side. For at least 30 minutes, secondary explosions in the turret and its ammunition supply rooms hampered firefighting efforts.[4]
Savannah's crew quickly sealed off flooded and burned compartments, and corrected her list. With assistance from the salvage tugs Hopi and Moreno, Savannah got underway under her own steam by 1757 hours and steamed for Malta.[4]
Savannah lost 197 crewmen in this German counterattack. Fifteen other sailors were seriously wounded, and four more were trapped in a watertight compartment for 60 hours. These four sailors were not rescued until Savannah had already arrived at Grand Harbor, Valletta, Malta on 12 September.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Savannah_(CL-42)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
Thanks David, I was a little familiar with both scenarios. As I understand it the trailing smoke was to help the individual guiding the glide bomb. In the case of Savanna it was a case of less (armor) is more, allowing immediate flooding to smother much of potential magazine fires. A little like the 18" AP shells from Yamato passing right through the escort carriers without exploding. The accompanying DD's and DE's unfortunately had a lot of solid stuff like machinery taking up much of their length.

Amazing how quickly radial countermeasures were developed!

Cheers: T


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2210
don't you mean " radical" countermeasures not "radial" countermeasures?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:26 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10717
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Radio

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
Spel Chequr....

: )


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2981
Location: One valley over from Hayward fault.
Fliger747 wrote:
The Fritz x was able to penetrate Roma's magazines and also Savannah's. Sinking the BB but not the CL! Not sure how their warhead was configured or what the watertight state Roma was at since they were on their way to surrender.

Modern tanks and warships have some Kevlar incorporated in their protection schemes, anybody know much about this?



I believe roma’s Touch construction was her undoing. Savannah’s explosion ripped open her magazine to the sea and the flooding prevented her magazine from being detonated. Roma was not able to flood her magazine in time, and it detonated.

I believe Kevlar armor is largely for protection against fragments and kinetic energy projectiles. The Kevlar layers are often added to the inside of tanks to contain fragment that would spill off of the inside of tank armor from non-penetrating hits on the outside. These fragments would otherwise be enough to kill the crew. I don’t believe Kevlar is much use against Heat Or shaped charge explosives.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2981
Location: One valley over from Hayward fault.
Has anyone seen any plate expansion plan for the Iowa class? I am using primer to build up the overlapping hull plating on the Iowa, but I have no photos that shows how the plating seams are laid out on the bottom of the ship, along with shapes of external sea chest openings.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1980
All the sea chests are on the flat bottom and are if I remember correctly shown on some of the general arrangements drawings of the double/triple bottom. The only photos I have seen of them are in the Missouri Grounding Report (available at HNSA) and are generally rectangular with a coarse louvering.

Good Luck!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3975 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 ... 199  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alejandroarbic, Evannogma, Ian Roberts and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group