Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[NigelR32]

Iowa Up close and personal. Iowa (BB-61) inside floating dry-dock ABSD-2, 28 December 1944 http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016141.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/61a.htm

Missouri Bow view looking aft from inboard end of drydock http://navsource.org/archives/01/063/016338.jpg
Port side of upper bow looking inboard from side of drydock. http://navsource.org/archives/01/063/016311a.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/63a.htm

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my query David.. I feel quite stupid now.. however, I have been looking through some built model pics and found that the Missouri models I've seen don't have the "overhang" on the gun platforms, yet clearly the beautiful pics you have linked above do show that both ships had, to the naked eye, identical Bows?

So, are certain kits incorrect? Was there a change to this area during Mo and Iowas' long careers? I will obviously do a lot of research before I start my build, but for now I'm a little confused.

Edit:- It would appear that there are just inaccurate models out there?

Nige

[NigelR32]

originally, they did not have those bow tubs as built. take a look at the links & you'll see no bow tubs when launched.

Thanks David, I saw that earlier. The issue I have is that there are models where the bow tub is blended into, or the same profile in plan view as the hull. I think I have now worked out that at some point in her career, post 50's Mo had the wide tub removed and the sheet metalwork was faired into the hull, hence my confusion.

I have ordered the AOTS book and already have the brilliant Iowa class battleships by Robert Sumrall. I need to start some research I think...

[bigjimslade]

Quick question.. I've been watching Aussie Trekkie remodel the bow on his trumpeter 1/200 Iowa. Looks like Trumpeter got the shape of the Bow deck area wrong, (Fo'c'sle)? so Aussie is using the deck plan to reprofile this area. It would appear to my eye that the gun platforms on Iowa are wider than Mo's, or is the hull beneath it skinnier? No doubt Trumpeter used the same parts for both kits?

So, is the bow skinnier and/or is the gun platform wider?

He is using profiles from the AOTS book. Are these profiles accurate

Originally, the Iowa and New Jersey had a small vertical bulwark, There was an early upgrade of the AA armament after commissioning but before service that included adding 2x20mm mounts at the bow. This required adding a circular foundation for each gun that extended past the side of the hull and a bulwark that wrapped around.

When the 20mm guns were removed during the Korean War, the foundations and bulwark were removed from the New Jersey and Missouri and replaced with a vertical bulwark. The foundations and bulwark were not removed from the Iowa and Wisconsin.

I tried to upload an original plan showing the dimensions of the wide bulwark but the site is not allowing me to do so. My inclination is not to trust the AOTS profiles.

[bigjimslade]

file size might be to big to be posted on the site. how big is the file?

The upload button was not responding. I shrunk it down but I could not select it.

[bigjimslade]

I did a PDF. I could select that. The the forum says I can't upload a PDF file.

Until they remove the strange upload restrictions here, you're SOL.

[Timmy C]

Yeah we only allow image files to be uploaded (e.g. .JPG). There are websites that let you convert PDFs to JPGs. Alternatively, you can take a screen shot of the section of the drawing you want to show and save that as an image to upload here.

[chuck]

Quick question.. I've been watching Aussie Trekkie remodel the bow on his trumpeter 1/200 Iowa. Looks like Trumpeter got the shape of the Bow deck area wrong, (Fo'c'sle)? so Aussie is using the deck plan to reprofile this area. It would appear to my eye that the gun platforms on Iowa are wider than Mo's, or is the hull beneath it skinnier? No doubt Trumpeter used the same parts for both kits?

So, is the bow skinnier and/or is the gun platform wider?

He is using profiles from the AOTS book. Are these profiles accurate

thanks

Actually, the shape of the tub on the bow of the Iowa class were different for each ship during WWII, and subsequently underwent modifications that were also different from ship to ship.

trumpeter�s bow 20mm tub is modeled on the shape on the Missouri during WWII. It is not extremely accurate, because the tubs should stick out over the sides much more, but it is recognizable as that of missouri.

The bow gun tubs were not part of the original ship�s design. Oringinal design call for neither gun tubs nor bulwarks. The railing goes completely around the bow. The Iowa was completed in this manner. Subsequently oerlikon tubs were added shortly after the ship ran trials and before she took FDR onboard to travel to the Tehran conference. The other 3 ships had these tubs added before they were completed.

Because they were small additions, apparently the yards had freedom to make their own decisions on minor aspect of the arrangements, such as how the ready service ammo boxes were laid out, shape and design of the wind deflectors on the forward rim of the tub walls, and how the back of the bulwark faired into the sheer line of the hull.

Unfortunately Missouri�s WWII tub was the most atypical and distinctive of any of the ships. Putting Missouri�s bow tubs on any other ship will instantly identify the modeler as not having done his homework. She had a straight cut back end to her bulwark, no wind deflectors, and ready ammo boxes arranged differently from all other ships. To modify it for WWII Iowa, you will need to round the back end of her bulwark, add small wind deflector to the front, and relocate the ammo boxes.

To make the shape accurate for either Missouri or Iowa, you will need to essentially make them from scratch because the sides of the tubs should bulge out a lot more and over hang the sides of the hull.

[NigelR32]

WOW!!! Thanks guys!!

What a brilliant bunch of detailed and concise descriptions you have posted there. It's one of those little things in life you glance at and never really see any difference, then something happens that makes you look closer.. then you see that the kit as moulded is wrong and all the variants of a certain type of ship/aircraft/car have differences that the kit manufacturer either ignored or didnt see?

I am currently correcting the hull shape on the 1/200 Titanic and want to do the same to Iowa, so i bought a kit and will do that on on my Youtube channel, Nigels modelling bench, so others can follow along.

If the AOTS profiles are not to be trusted, which doesn't surprise me, where can I find some known good ones please?

[SeanF]

New Jersey commissioned with merely railings around the bow also. See for example:
http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016219w.jpg
and
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016254.jpg

- Sean F.

[bigjimslade]

I am currently correcting the hull shape on the 1/200 Titanic and want to do the same to Iowa, so i bought a kit and will do that on on my Youtube channel, Nigels modelling bench, so others can follow along.

If the AOTS profiles are not to be trusted, which doesn't surprise me, where can I find some known good ones please?

I hate to criticize fellow authors but, while the book does well illustrating details, the structural aspects of AOTS: Iowa are problematic. To be blunt: correcting the hull to AOTS would be a total waste of time.

For some reason the hull structure of the Iowa-class has caused problems for kit makers. This is surprising because the documentation is available. The bow is and stern are always wrong in kits.

This is the MOLDED shape of the hull taken from the original blueprints:

Kits tend to miss:
1. The twin keels are an integral part of the hull form and are not attachments (ie, not true skegs).
2. There is a docking keel running from through the space between the twin keels.
3. The tunnel between the twin keels widens as you move forward them takes a slight turn inward at the forward end.
4. There is half siding that runs from through the tunnel to the end of the ship.
5. There are two knuckles in cross section at the stern.
6 The flat siding at the bottom of the hull tends to have the wrong shape.

Tamiya made some misteaks and it appears that others took the Tamiya hull form, blew it up, and make the misteaks even bigger.

Kits also tend to make the bow waterline waaaaaaaaaaay toooooo wide.

My other peeve is that the they tend to make the forward tower start to narrow at the 08 level (primary conn) when it actually narrows at the 07 level.

Here is a screen cap from a YOUTUBE video of the Trumpeter Stern:

It should be immediately obvious that the hull form is not even close here.

[bigjimslade]

I promised myself I would not do this but, in response to this thread, I pulled out AOTS to look at the sections, waterlines, and buttocks. What I have is quite different. Then again, I'm just some schmuck in an Internet forum.

AOTS does not indicate where the waterlines, sections, and buttocks are, so I cannot make a direct comparison.

A) Note the discontinuities at the knuckles.

B) The discontinuities are more subtle in the frames. Note the position of the shaft relative to the inside of the twin keel.

C) Note the straight lines across the keel

I'd also not recommend following AOTS for the plating lines.

[NigelR32]

More BRILLIANT information thanks guys,

I have the kit in the mail right now, and am really excited by the thought of cutting up the hull to make it right. I have done the 1/200 Bismarck, Arizona and am currently working on the Titanic, which can be seen on my YT channel. I tend to modify the hull then put it away or sell the kit!! Yeah, I've done Bismarck twice now.

I am fully aware that Trumpeter really messed up the stern.. well, from mid ships aft really on the Iowa/Mo kits. Some artistic license is required to avoid messing up the decks as I want to fit wooden decks off the shelf.. but a far more accurate shape is achievable.

Thanks for the advice on not following AOTS. Where can I find/buy drawings that show profiles with stations, as the AOTS shows please.

[NigelR32]

Unfortunately Missouri�s WWII tub was the most atypical and distinctive of any of the ships. Putting Missouri�s bow tubs on any other ship will instantly identify the modeler as not having done his homework. She had a straight cut back end to her bulwark, no wind deflectors, and ready ammo boxes arranged differently from all other ships. To modify it for WWII Iowa, you will need to round the back end of her bulwark, add small wind deflector to the front, and relocate the ammo boxes.

To make the shape accurate for either Missouri or Iowa, you will need to essentially make them from scratch because the sides of the tubs should bulge out a lot more and over hang the sides of the hull.

Thank you so much for clarifying my confusion. You have confirmed my thoughts after a little research. I was surprised to see three Iowa class models lined up with identical bow gun tubs, all with no overhang!!

[bigjimslade]

Thanks for the advice on not following AOTS. Where can I find/buy drawings that show profiles with stations, as the AOTS shows please.

Interesting question. Many books on the Iowa class have sections but I don't know how accurate they are. All of the ones I have check have been off to varying degrees.

I have the data in my queue to organize and publish somehow but have not gotten to it yet. I took the X/Y/Z coordinates from the TOO and manually in in a CAD program. That's what I use to measure accuracy,.

[BB62vet]

NigelR32,

When launched, the 4 IOWA class BBs did not follow a single protocol for what was or was not aboard at launching - here are some photos to illustrate my point - BB-63 DID have her 20mm bow enclosure in place, BB-61 did NOT. BB-62 did NOT, BB-64 I can't confirm - no launch photos. Here are some photos to explain:
BB61 -

BB62 -

BB-63 -

Additionally, here is a photo of IOWA's 20mm Bow enclosure from the deck level:

Each shipyard handled things differently as to how much of the ship was actually completed at launching. Most were fairly incomplete (lacking 16" turrets, 5" gun mounts, all smaller arms, etc.) and the ship was then towed to a "fitting out" pier nearby for months of completion of all shipboard systems prior to a Shakedown Cruise and subsequent commissioning.

Edit - So, here is a bow plan I converted from a .pdf BigJimSlade sent me - this shows the configuration of the 20mm mounts as they were designed on IOWA class ships.

Hope this helps,

[SeanF]

Quite right about the precise state of completion at time of launch; my point earlier was that both Iowa and New Jersey commissioned without bow 20mm tubs. And yes, ships are known to commission slightly incomplete at times (Washington is a fantastic example, see: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015646.jpg Iowa likewise still had work being done: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016122.jpg ) But photos of both ships during the months of their shakedown periods show no obvious signs of intended items left off till later; it seems to me that the bow tub, like the pair of 40mm quads that replaced the pentagonal 20mm enclosure forward of turret #1, or New Jersey's enclosed bridge, were "additions/revisions," not "completions." And, of course, all three elements were incorporated into Missouri and Wisconsin before commissioning (and the bow tubs are present at launching!)

- Sean F.

[BB62vet]

I've just edited my prior post to include the bow plan that BigJimSlade discussed a few posts back.

To what SeanF just posted - The IOWA class (as were other USN warship classes) were in a constant state of "evolution" - their continual changes in anti-aircraft defenses were on-going as were modifications to superstructures; this state of "flux" in what actually commissioned from the origiinal builder's plans is a study in itself.

Understanding the differences between the ship "as launched" and the ship "as commissioned" AND subsequent alterations made after initial shakedown and 1st deployments helps one understand that nothing with these warships was static - I'm fairly sure that the initial battle reports coming back to the Bureau of Ships from all theaters of combat more than likely contributed greatly to how the follow on ships were configured and thus commissioned.

Ships that are launched are still "under construction" - lacking most, if not all weapons systems, very little of the final superstructure, and no masts/RADARs, etc. - a lot of this has to do with the location of the launching ways, depth and breadth of the waterway where this would occur, and other logistical factors which would make launching a "completed" ship almost impossible.

Hope this helps,

Hank

[bigjimslade]

Here's another as commissioned shot of the New Jersey. Note the lack of an enclosed bridge and a total lack of 40mm guns on the main deck. There is a cluster of 5x20mms forward of turret #1. This how all the construction plans show the ship.

[James M]

To further muddy these waters, Iowa had her bow gun tub blistered at some point.
My understanding it was done to add twin 20mm to the location.

James

[pascalemod]

Guys, is there a good solid summary of changes needed for Academie Missouri 1/700 to turn it into New Jersey ca 44-45 when she was painted MS21?

Is Academie kit bad also in terms of the hull?