The Ship Model Forum

No, none of the tubs on the as-completed Iowa were meant for 1.1" quads. Sorry if my musings caused any confusion on that point.

As for drawings with them, it's quite possible that 1.1" tubs may never have been drawn... if I recall correctly the tubs, along with other AA shielding, only started to be added to USN ships in mid or late 1941, after the Iowa's construction had begun - hence their absence from the early model. Maybe the Navy got around to drawing in the 1.1" gun tubs as a modification to the initial drawings; or maybe they skipped over it and went straight to the exciting new Bofors that they could reasonably assume would be available before Iowa completed. That is to say, ships in-service or nearing completion would need the tubs and shields right away and couldn't wait for the 40s to arrive, while the Iowas and Essexes wouldn't be ready until later anyway.

- Sean F.

I could not find a picture of this detail so I made one. This is the transition from double bottom to triple bottom. The triangular sheet is the rider plate on the keel.

I have a question, what bibliography and books Iowa and Missouri do you recommend to build these ships?

_________________
Wojtek

The question about WHAT AA-weapons were planned for the USS IOWA class (and other USN ships) was driven by the outbreak of war in Europe and the experience feedback from the UK to the USA. In the Spring of 1940, Adm. King initiated a board to study ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENSE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FLEET. It was realized that the current "medium-AA weapon", the quad 1.1-in gun mount was inadequate. Several alternatives were studied, until the Swedish Bofors was considered to be a better option that "could" be produced in relatively short order. A sample "twin 40-mm" Bofors mount arrived in the USA in August 1940. Comparative testing took place and BuOrd was impressed with the guns performance, but soon realized that this weapon as it was produced in Sweden, had problems for mass production. Most of the components were "tailor" fitted for each gun. The USN preceded to redesign the guns for US production lines with interchangeable parts. This all took time and mounts produced in the USA and settling license agreements with Sweden, means that mounts weren't ready until early 1942. Even then they couldn't be installed until new fire control systems were also, developed and put into production. The first "production" twin 40-mm mounts were delivered in May 1942. The first shipboard mounts on "fighting" ships and not training ships, took place in about July 1942.

The King Board AA-Defense Improvement Plan came out in December 1940. The 40-mm guns were to be the ULTIMATE medium AA weapon, but quad 1.1-in mount was considered to be the best "INTERIM" option. Even then, production of the quad 1.1-in mounts lagged demand and single 3-in/50 guns were installed as a stop-gap weapon.

What this means is that depending on when given drawings of the new IOWA class were drawn, AND when the ships in that class were scheduled to be completed, the weapons in those plans that were to be installed could change. The first two IOWA's design in 1938 included quad 1.1-in and 50-cal MGs. However, they were laid down in 1940. This would mean that the "Build Plans" would have been altered with the previously planned quad 1.1-in mounts being replaced by 40-mm mounts and the 50-cal MGs replaced by 20-mm guns.

This is a VERY short summary of USN AA-weapons development from 1939 to 1942. Lots of reference material goes into the ugly details.

What kinds of things are you interested in?

That was the information I tried, and failed, to find yesterday! Dates and particulars on the King Board conference!
So it turns out the directions were in place earlier than I'd thought, but it still remains: Since Iowa was laid down in mid-1940, and the King Board improvement plan came out in December 1940,Iowa and New Jersey must have gone into construction with 1.1" mounts still on the plans. But I even more strongly suspect now that when the plans were subsequently modified they probably skipped over the phase of adding tubs to the 1.1" quads, and simply deleted them entirely and went straight to 40s with tubs.
Yes, it's wild how quickly these things changed.
- Sean F.

I am primarily interested in hull plans, deck plans, superstructures and other details with dimensions.

I found such books:
Iowa Class Battleship by Lester Abbey
USS Missouri (BB-63): America's Last Battleship
Battleship Missouri: An Illustrated History

Does anyone know what they contain?

_________________
Wojtek

Wojtek,

I would suggest you read thru the following sub-forums and see what information others have already posted regarding the IOWA Class BBs:

Picture Post/Works in Progress & Completed Builds
CASF/IOWA Class Battleships
Completed Builds - Fully Documented
Online Scratchbuild Projects

There is a lot of information out there regarding IOWA Class BBs, plans, drawings, details, etc. - Yes, it will take some time to read thru all this, but remember - other members took our time to post all of it for others (such as yourself) to use.

_________________
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

The Floating Dry Dock's Plan Book is the only source I have seen outside the original blueprints with dimensions. It covers the Missouri at the end of WWII. The dimensions are accurate.

"Battleship Missouri: An Illustrated History" is mainly a historical narrative. There are some deck plans in the appendix but they are small.

Jim is correct. The Floating Drydock plans are an excellent source of detail. I have both the big set (almost 9 ft long!) and the smaller 1/192 set, as well as the PDF booklet. Another source is the Kagero book of 3D drawings by Stefan Draminski, if you can find it. Be careful here, though, because there are some errors in it here and there. Also, take some time and read through this thread. There is a wealth of information here

_________________
Larry Steiner


Currently working on (and will be for years to come!)
1:200 USS Missouri (Monster Mo)

Kagero is accurate enough to be very useful for visualizing many of the arrangements in 3D. But it is not accurate enough to be a detail reference.

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

What era?

I have a question where can I find information on hull skin, hull plates and hull specifications?

_________________
Wojtek

I had to resort to using transverse sectional drawings in booklet of general plans identify where the hull strakes are at different frame numbers illustrated in the booklet, true them up as much as possible against photographs of the ship, and then connect the strakes between frame numbers illustrated, again using photo as reference where possible to determine how strakes merge or split.


I have to say although good direct information is hard to come by, there actually seems to be more information about Iowa's hull plating floating around in pieces and bits than other ships I've tried searching for. For example I've never found any information on the plating patterns on the bottom of the Hood or on much of the Arizona below waterline.

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

Sadly, there is no one place that has all the information. The microfilm for this data is largely unreadable. Only one blueprint of the hull plating (out of eleven) has survived to my knowledge.

That said, I have been piecing the information on plating together from various source into a computer model.

I think that I have identified every hull plate, its type, its thickness, and type of joint to adjoining plate in a computer model. I know this is a bid of a tease but I need to figure out how to publish the data in a useable format (i.e. for those who do not have access to Rhino).

The plating structure is needlessly complex. The Kentucky and Illinois dispensed with some of the complexity. (I cannot tell how much.)

I have not seen any published source that gets the plating right. Even the recent AOTS book is way off in this regard.

Brilliant!

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen

Catalog of over 2500 products for scale modelers, most in 3D-printed gray resin - https://www.model-monkey.com/

I bought the Trumpeter Missouri 1/200 set, I looked at the hull and wondered what the hull holes are.Maybe someone knows?
I am sorry to ask for such a thing but I am not an expert in this topic

_________________
Wojtek

Wojtek90 wrote:


Once again - take the time to read thru the 1:2oo scale IOWA class build logs and you just might find out how those holes relate to 3rd party accessories. This is NOT a beginner's kit - it involves quite a bit of modeling experience to build it correctly. Just my opinion, of course

_________________
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

Hank didn't mention the hull shape, especially aft. You might want to examine this issue before proceeding.

Welcome aboard!

Most of the holes molded into the side of the trumpeter hull above waterline depicts various waste water discharge holes on the side of the ship. A few of them are for aligning railings used by the boarding ladders.

As mentioned before, while trumpeter did a reasonable job matching the planform and side profile shape of the hull, the contour is way off. Depending on your standard, you may or may not chose to correct the contour errors. If you do not, the kit would build up to something that to most people with passing interest in ship models in general or the USS Missouri in particular, would not look wrong.

But if you are an engineer or just detail oriented enthusiast, then the magnitude of contour errors are far too great to be taken care of by sanding and filling. You would need to rebuild around 60-70% of the hull from scratch.

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