The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4542 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 224, 225, 226, 227, 228  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 368
Fliger747 wrote:
Interesting the "Joy Z" has three light turret roofs. An ID feature? As BJS noted much of the after deck was covered by a rubbery mat non skid wire as the Helicopter deck and ramp were non skid on steel. Mo at various times had her whole after decking cover with the stuff aft of the aft MK38 and forward of the Heli Ramp. Some others had wooden walkways left in.

As to the "anchor deck" note the black between the anchor chains.

T


I don't think it was a specific ID feature for New Jersey, she would have been the only Iowa Class in commission at the time of that photo in 1983. So her silhouette likely spoke for itself. I'm not sure what the reasoning for the light grey was? Personally I think it looks better than the dark grey, well in 1980's configuration anyway. In any case New Jersey later had her turret roofs painted dark grey. Not sure of the exact date, but they were certainly dark grey by the time this photo was taken in 1985:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/ships-us/ships-us-n/uss-new-jersey-bb62/330-cfd-dn-st-87-06864.html

Same with Iowa, she had light grey main gun turret roofs on her sea trials but they seem to have been repainted dark grey upon her 1984 recommissioning or some time thereabouts.

Missouri to my knowledge never had light grey main gun turret roofs anytime during her 1980s era service from 1986-1992.

While Wisconsin had light grey main gun turret roofs throughout her all too short 1980's service life from 1988-1991.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
I add that USS New Jersey Museum pulled up the planking in this area a long time ago because this rubber/wood/adhesive combination oozed into a giant mess. It has recently been covered with teak. Generally, the USS New Jersey strives for 1980's–90's accuracy but here beauty triumphed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 368
I can imagine.

The Battleship New Jersey Museum's video about the teak deck really explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhvWGXFX0GE&t=53s


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
Does anyone know why the shield on USS New Jerseys 20 gallery next to turret no. 3 was changed? We we following the weld lines on the exposed deck yesterday and were puzzled by the plans. This is a 1945 plan:

Attachment:
1945.jpg
1945.jpg [ 148.12 KiB | Viewed 982 times ]


Here is picture from June 1945 showing the gallery is bowed out in front of the 20mm twin mount:

http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016209o.jpg

In this later plan (1947 or later, dates largely unreadable), the gallery shield is straight:

Attachment:
1947.jpg
1947.jpg [ 218.23 KiB | Viewed 982 times ]


It's not bowed out in there Korean War pictures

http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016248a.jpg
http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016248a.jpg

This seems to be an odd change to make.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11611
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
The bowing out would allow the gunner to aim the gun aft and inboard; perhaps they decided that wasn't a great idea and the likelihood of the gun being aimed at parts of the ship itself (e.g. crane) outweighed the benefits?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
Timmy C wrote:
The bowing out would allow the gunner to aim the gun aft and inboard; perhaps they decided that wasn't a great idea and the likelihood of the gun being aimed at parts of the ship itself (e.g. crane) outweighed the benefits?


Except that the guns are in the same location for both. It might have given more downward angle to remove the curve.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11611
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
I just meant it'd remove the physical possibility for the gunner to move into the curved area in the heat of battle while trying to hit a plane moving across the ship's stern.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Fullerton, CA
As built the shield is straight:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016253.jpg

It looks like it was "blistered" during her 1945 refit at Puget Sound
I would bet it was to receive a 20mm twin mount in that location.
http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016209o.jpg

Bow gun tub has also been "blistered":
http://navsource.org/archives/01/062/016294.jpg

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3492
Interesting photo, the bow tubs having a very short extra ready box, one that I hadn't seen before. The twin and singles had the same working circle of 60" radius, but as noted previously perhaps the idea was to increase the trainable arc a bit more, after all the Divine Wind was blowing at the time.

Thanks for sharing the images!

Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Trivia
PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
Since it has been dead here recently, a little trivia:

The trainer and pointer hoods on the 16-gun turrets are not mirrors of each other. They are slightly different on each side.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:37 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3492
That would make sense as the equipment is different.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:37 am
Posts: 76
Some time ago I run into an article about comparison of three different
1/350 Iowa class kits, re. what kit has the most correct bow, hull,
stern shape etc... I believe that article was about Tamiya, VeryFire and
Joy Yard 1/350 Iowa class kits, but I am not able to find that article.
Any help, please?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
Zacharias wrote:
Some time ago I run into an article about comparison of three different
1/350 Iowa class kits, re. what kit has the most correct bow, hull,
stern shape etc... I believe that article was about Tamiya, VeryFire and
Joy Yard 1/350 Iowa class kits, but I am not able to find that article.
Any help, please?


I can't show you any article but I can tell you that none of the above come close to having a correct hull form. Tamiya guessed when information was not available. Everyone that followed seems to have copied it and its errors. The Trumpeter kit looks like it did that and Tamiya's errors get magnified at 1:200 scale.

In looking at pictures now, Joy Yard improves on Tamiya's bow. The stern it totally wrong. The bilge keels are finer but have the wrong shape.

Interestingly, Joy Yard got the fact that there is a casting at the end of the twin keels but the shape is wrong because they made the shaft bossing way too short.
Image

The plating lines are off but it looks like a valiant attempt.
Image



The bow and stern on the Very Fire kit are both way off. Its plate detail is way off but there is less of it and would be easy to get rid of.

Note the rounded bow, rather than pointed:

Image

The rounded stern, rather than flat on the underside.

Image

IMHO, the Joy Yard is the least incorrect of the three.

Everyone misses the centerline keel between the twin keels. They also miss that the half siding (flat) starts at the front of the twin keel and continues all the way up the stern to the top of the sheer strake. There is a widening where the rudders are mounted. Yet, this tends to be rounded.

The odd thing about the bad hull forms is that the original data is available. It would cost a kit manufacturer $125 to get it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2093
Location: Mocksville, NC
Thanks, BigJim for pointing that out (the hull imperfections)! As well I know how BAD the 1:200 Trumpeter kit hull is from my own experience in building that kit (as USS NEW JERSEY) - the bow area is wrong, the stern area & twin skegs are wrong. I can't comment on the Tamiya or older LIfe Like kit that it originated from as it's been way too long since I worked on those hulls, but your comments appear to be correct.

Once again, these manufacturers have the wherewithal to purchase and use the available researched plans to get the hull right - why they choose to short cut the R&D kit process is beyond me. Oddly enough, I do know of one modeler (he used to participate on this forum) who has produced a correct hull thru 3D design/printing that DOES incorporate the correct design.

Again, thanks for pointing out these deficiencies in the various kit hulls.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, USS-LSM/R-194 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: Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:27 pm
Posts: 21
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba; Canada
If we're talking about the same individual, then it is with his assistance and input that I'm working on building an accurate hull. I will add though, that I'm taking the concept to the "Nth" degree. I am following the mantra's of:

"A job worth doing, is worth doing well"

"If you're going to do it, then do it RIGHT"

"We're not doing this, because it is easy. No. We're doing this because it is HARD"

(Loosely translated and somewhat 'ad-libbed')


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:15 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 3492
Good luck! The most important attribute will be perseverance . A lot of ambitious projects here never result in a completed ship model. My estimation is that a hull is less than 10% of the time and effort in a completed warship model of this type. Especially if the desire is to maintain a standard.

Bets regards: Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3266
Location: equidistant to everywhere
bigjimslade wrote:
Zacharias wrote:
Some time ago I run into an article about comparison of three different
1/350 Iowa class kits, re. what kit has the most correct bow, hull,
stern shape etc... I believe that article was about Tamiya, VeryFire and
Joy Yard 1/350 Iowa class kits, but I am not able to find that article.
Any help, please?


I can't show you any article but I can tell you that none of the above come close to having a correct hull form. Tamiya guessed when information was not available. Everyone that followed seems to have copied it and its errors. The Trumpeter kit looks like it did that and Tamiya's errors get magnified at 1:200 scale.

In looking at pictures now, Joy Yard improves on Tamiya's bow. The stern it totally wrong. The bilge keels are finer but have the wrong shape.

Interestingly, Joy Yard got the fact that there is a casting at the end of the twin keels but the shape is wrong because they made the shaft bossing way too short.
Image

The plating lines are off but it looks like a valiant attempt.
Image



The bow and stern on the Very Fire kit are both way off. Its plate detail is way off but there is less of it and would be easy to get rid of.

Note the rounded bow, rather than pointed:

Image

The rounded stern, rather than flat on the underside.

Image

IMHO, the Joy Yard is the least incorrect of the three.

Everyone misses the centerline keel between the twin keels. They also miss that the half siding (flat) starts at the front of the twin keel and continues all the way up the stern to the top of the sheer strake. There is a widening where the rudders are mounted. Yet, this tends to be rounded.

The odd thing about the bad hull forms is that the original data is available. It would cost a kit manufacturer $125 to get it.



In fairness, I suspect the hull shape of 1/350 or 1/200 scale mass manufactured kit covering most other subjects would be found equally wanting if subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as that applied to the Iowa class kits.

In my case, I found I do naturally apply the “does it look like the real ship” standard to hull shape. If it does, I more often than not let the errors go, UNLESS the errors are very well known because of extensive discussion on forums like this. If it is, then I usually feel challenged to correct it to as high a degree as I’ve seen other people do.

I also initially explored working with someone else’s 3D printed after market hull. That fell through. So I decided to discard about 1/2 of Trumpeter’s 1/200 hull, and scratch built the complete rear 1/3 of the hull from keel to deck using styrene plank on bulkhead method to correct the generally nonsense depiction in the kit. I also scratch built the front 1/3 of the hull from keel to waterline to correct the far too skinny bulbous forefoot. The only major error I left uncorrected is the insufficient flare that the kit gave portions of the front 1/3 of the hull.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
Quote:
In fairness, I suspect the hull shape of 1/350 or 1/200 scale mass manufactured kit covering most other subjects would be found equally wanting if subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as that applied to the Iowa class kits.


That is exactly what I am afraid of. In the case of the Iowas we have the actual ships for inspection.

And it's not just kits. We have not [yet?] had an "ATOS: U.S.S. Iowa" discussion in this forum. That book was a eye opening that calls into question the accuracy of the entire series


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 385
On board USS New Jersey there are a lot of items that were removed from the ship and placed in storage. Maybe you can identify what this is:

Attachment:
P1080697.jpg
P1080697.jpg [ 239.41 KiB | Viewed 57 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:42 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3685
Location: USA
Fighting lights?


Attachments:
BB-63 1944_48 comment.jpg
BB-63 1944_48 comment.jpg [ 179.19 KiB | Viewed 45 times ]
BB-61 1943 016144 comment.jpg
BB-61 1943 016144 comment.jpg [ 280.06 KiB | Viewed 45 times ]
BB-62 1945.06.24 016293 small comment.jpg
BB-62 1945.06.24 016293 small comment.jpg [ 359.01 KiB | Viewed 44 times ]

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve L.

Catalog of over 3000 products for scale modelers - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4542 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 224, 225, 226, 227, 228  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SSNJim and 18 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