The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4264 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 ... 214  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
Was the deck planking painted at the time?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Linoleum is not strictly an internal deck material. The British used linoleum in some of the exterior decking on superstructures, while the Japanese used linoleum almost exclusive as decking material for the hull on destroyers and cruisers. In the IJN only battleships Ana carriers get wooden deck planking.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
Just hadn't seen it exterior for USN. My understanding is that some ships removed it as well as interior paint to reduce fire hazard.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1608
Location: Mocksville, NC
I think there was some question a while ago on older U.S.N. battleships about the use of linoleum (brown) in exterior spaces for deck covering. Don't know there was any final proof or answer to that thread.

Steve - can you provide a copy of the photos you mentioned? It's quite possible that the ship still had primer paint in the gun tubs when the photo was taken although a dk. brown primer paint I've not come across; who knows what was done in the '40s!

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
Any color photos of the era would be highly suspect. Reds might be rendered muddy browns with age.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:49 am 
Fliger747 wrote:
Was the deck planking painted at the time?


During the shakedown cruise, the decks had not yet been painted, yet another reason to model the Iowa in that time frame. More interesting than most of the wartime schemes. But, I also wanted to do it as originally designed, and plan to build the Missouri in end-of-war configuration to show the evolution. Given enough time I considered doing the other sister ships at other times in the class's history. Also doing the 1/350 Yamato in its shakedown cruise configuration (though am doing the Musashi and Shinano in fantasy configurations)


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 307
The only non-wood exterior deck covering I am aware of is the black rubber mats placed on top of adhesive over the wooden decks in the vicinity of Turret No. 3.

I have seen no signs of British style covering over the exposed steel.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
Is there a difference between the original design and the original construction? How much change was there between shakedown and trials and initial service?

BJS: What was the purpose of the mats?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: equidistant to everywhere
I believe in the original design, the area between funnels were intended for stowing the typical prewar complement of boats. These would have been serviced by cranes located on either side of the aft funnel. The base for the crane and the boat chocks were actually installed before the decision was made to build the mid ship triplex bofor tower over them. According to Friedman, when the midship bofor towers were removed from the Iowa and New Jersey during the 1980 modernization, the workmen discovered the original boat chocks and crane base still there under the tower.

When the Iowa was ran her trials in March 1943, she had a different arrangement of bofors and oerlikon than what would become standard on the lowa class. She had no oerlikon tub on top of the bullnose. instead of a pair of bofor tubs in front of A turret, she had a triangular oerlikon tub there for three oerlikom mounts. The base of the triangular oerlikon tub were uncovered when as part of museum sponsored restoration, the deck planking were replaced. The main turrets didn’t have any AA guns on them, and the pair of bofor tubes flanking aft end of the superstructure were not there either. In their place were 2 oerlikon mounts. These original features were all gone by nov 1943, when she ferried FDR to the Tehran conference.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 307
Fliger747 wrote:
BJS: What was the purpose of the mats?


As a cost saving measure areas of teak in need of repair aft were not repaired. Instead, the shipyard poured a glue (expoxy?) over the wood and laid a rubber mat on top. This created the dark areas of different shapes on the Iowas one sees in the 80's that one might think from photographs are places where the wood was removed.

This was all taken up on the NJ because it was such a mess.

Here the rubber is in place.
http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016219.jpg

Here is the ship after decommissioning and where the rubber (and some of the wood) has been pulled up.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0162057.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: equidistant to everywhere
FWIW; I discovered a couple of other minor errors in FDD’s missouri plan:

1. When missouri was completed, the two 40 mm bofor mounts on judge abaft the B turret each carried a separate tub with a mk51 Director. The Gibbs and Cox model and the FDD plan both show this tub. However, for mid-late 1945 when she wore measure 22, including the surrender ceremony, this appears to be incorrect. The oft reprinted photo of the Missouri during underway refueling, and a very clear overhead photo of the Missouri taken during the VJ Day parade on the Hudson, clearly shows the mk51 tubs and their support have been removed from next to these two bofor mounts.

2. between the 2nd and 3rd 5” mount, on deck 002, FDD shows there are 2 oerlikon mounts on a platform. But photos in both late 1944 and late 1945 clearly show 3 mounts there.

http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/2013/08/uss-renshaw-dd-499-dde-499.html

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 307
chuck wrote:
FWIW; I discovered a couple of other minor errors in FDD’s missouri plan:

2. between the 2nd and 3rd 5” mount, on deck 002, FDD shows there are 2 oerlikon mounts on a platform. But photos in both late 1944 and late 1945 clearly show 3 mounts there.

http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/2013/08/uss-renshaw-dd-499-dde-499.html


Every picture of the Missouri in service I could find did show three mounts there. The plans for the New Jersey show every 20mm has a 5' working radius and only two mounts in that location. The platform looks the same size as on the Missouri. There is not enough room for 3 guns and a 5' working radius to they probably they just had the guns and wedged them in there. Unless the mount had a gyro sight, all it took to install a 20mm mount was to bolt it down. The 1947 BGP for the Missouri shows two guns in that location and has a note that the center gun was removed. The outer gun mounts are shown farther apart than on the NJ.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 307
stevegallacci wrote:
After a long pause, I'm getting back into working on my Trumpeter conversion of the Iowa in spirng of '43 configuration. Have pretty good images and such for most of the details, including the new "Anatomy of the Ship" book. A little finishing question (may have brought this up here some years ago before I dropped out). It appears that there was unpainted (?) linolium (?) on the unplanked decks during the '43 shake down. Only have a few photos that suggest it, most clearly in the 40mm tubs and maybe elsewhere. Any insight?


I stumbled upon a plan today showing "Asbestos Mats" on some of the superstructure decking.

I've tried to upload the relevant parts but the web site will note allow me to do so.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Based on what I've seen, the floor of all 40mm Bofor tubs that were originally planned for the ships, and show on the Bureau of ships drawing room model, was steel decking, maybe with tread pattern plates. These remained steel throughout the war. These include all the 40mm tubs on the superstructure, and the 2 on the fantail. But main deck level 40mm tubs that were added after Iowa's shake down cruise, which include the 2 forward of A turret and the 2 abreast of the C turret, had plank floors. On the other 3 ships of the class, eventhough these tubs were included right from the start, their floors were still planked. The 40mm bofor tub added on top of main turret had steel floors.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
When the ships were designed were any of the tubs originally intended for 1.1"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 648
Location: Downey, California
Fliger747 wrote:
When the ships were designed were any of the tubs originally intended for 1.1"?


In a broad sense, yes... Though no tubs are there, it looks like the standard prewar battleship allocation of four 1.1" quads is in evidence on the early design model. As are range clocks!
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016175.jpg

(Sometimes I think it might be fun to build a "completed as contracted" version of an Iowa, South Dakota, or Essex class vessel - just to see people's reaction to that something that's not quite right...)

- Sean F.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
That would be fun!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: equidistant to everywhere
SeanF wrote:
Fliger747 wrote:
When the ships were designed were any of the tubs originally intended for 1.1"?


In a broad sense, yes... Though no tubs are there, it looks like the standard prewar battleship allocation of four 1.1" quads is in evidence on the early design model. As are range clocks!
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016175.jpg

(Sometimes I think it might be fun to build a "completed as contracted" version of an Iowa, South Dakota, or Essex class vessel - just to see people's reaction to that something that's not quite right...)

- Sean F.



The model pictured In the link above represented a stage in the design evolution before the drawings were prepared by New York navy yard. Here the hull side above top of the armored belt was not plated in, and the ship still carried a range of boats midship. There was a later much more detailed builder’s model reflecting the construction drawing that showed the ship in essentially the same configuration as seen on the Iowa at the time of commissioning. It was dated 1941. That model showed all the 40mm tubs on the superstructure, and 2 40mm tubs at the fantail.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2146
That same image is in Garzke & Dulin. Definitely showed the stretched SODAK look.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 307
Fliger747 wrote:
When the ships were designed were any of the tubs originally intended for 1.1"?


The Iowa class were conceived with 1.1". Construction started before the 40mm was adopted. The switch from 1.1" to 40mm took place rapidly and the number of guns was greatly increased. By the time they got to building the tubs, the switch had been made. The tubs were all designed for 40mm guns. The openings in the centers of the tub floors are all measured for 40mm guns.

It is possible that designs existed for 1.1" guns in tubs but I have yet to see one. There are drafted plans to mount 3" twins in the tubs.

The 40mm plans start in the fall of 1942, around the time the Iowa was launched.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4264 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 ... 214  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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

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