Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[RandyM]

Well, here it is... what I call my "let's see what we've got here" coat of paint. This is just a coat of generic automotive primer. I use it on early coats because it sticks to anything, sands well, and pretty much everything sticks to it.

The first image has a red arrow showing where the replacement hull section begins. If you look about 1-1/2" further aft you can see the shadow of a seam - this is where the "transition" piece meets the main replacement section. You're going to have to take my word - for now - that the seam is virtually undetectable: I have a light shining on it at just the wrong angle. But the point is that with some more TLC, I think I'm going to be able to make this look pretty good. There still remain the inevitable "Oh, I missed that" spots, plus some odd dimples up by the sheer on one side, but nothing seriously troublesome. As you can see I added the chine keels, which took to the reshaped hull with no problem.

I've been working on reshaping the kit "skeg terminators" - although the plate around the shaft exit isn't quite accurate (and the stuffing box is a bit undersized - by my measurements a length of 7/32" tubing will be much closer), the rest of the shape seems pretty good. The last photo just shows the aft maindeck so you can convince yourself that this thing really does fit together

*IF* I were to make a v2.0 of this assembly, there are certainly some improvements to be made. First, I would set the shell thickness to 0.040" (this set is half that). I'd probably add some longitudinal stringers just to keep things honest. And the height of the sheer is off by about 0.10" - just about the same as the maindeck piece - this was a miscalculation on my part that can be easily corrected on this go-round.

Anyway, please let me know what you think, pros AND cons.

[RandyM]

I left off some obvious comparison pics as to the "why." It's difficult to tell in these photos (which may be enough to say "then I don't care!"), but the major differences are:

- in the exit from the midships section aft: the kit hull is far too "full" in this area and maintains a sharp chine whereas the ship tapers inboard to a great degree, resulting in a much less massive section - the last photo below shows this to good effect

- there is a pronounced flat area from aft of the skegs to just forward of the aft 40mm tubs which is not present in the kit's hull

- the entry to the skegs is completely different between the kit and the drawings: see the first photo below.

Anyway, do the ends (at this stage) justify the effort? That's subjective. I have motivations other than just trying to build a more accurate model... but so far this has been pretty challenging. And I've only consumed three of the kit's parts

[marengtech]

Hello Randy, great work! Can't help wonder if you will offer this to other modellers or if its even cost effective to do so in the first place. Have 2 kits, one for the original configuration and then other for her final configuration as she sits in Pearl Harbour. Even after following your project I've come to the conclusion that it would be a major pain or even destroy the hull trying to correct it by kitbashing so will not attempt it. But now I know trumpeter made a huge error...sometimes its bliss to be ignorant.

Keep up the good work!

[Fliger747]

I guess the centerline skeg is easy enough to add, put in there to add stiffness and support for turret 3. I do see the drawings indicate that the opening to the tunnel might be wider than the exit, which would make some hydrodynamic sense. Machinery drawings indicate that the inboard shafts are parallel whereas the outboards are canted outward a considerable angle.

At any rate a considerable achievement and certainly as accurate as the available data. Many thank you for sharing the development of this!

Regards: Tom

[BB62vet]

Randy,

Well, that is most impressive - I think you've captured the prize! As you mention, your several modifications to this first version should put it in line for a possible edition for those interested.

I was a bit concerned when I saw the gaps at the after 40mm tubs, but then your further photo showed the deck just slightly elevated from where it would normally be situated. The fit of the overall replacement is really good - with further sanding, etc. I think your model with end up looking very good once it's been given it's proper painting.

Interested, as always,

Hank

[Haijun watcher]

Has anyone here ever built a WW2-era USS Wisconsin using either the Tamiya Missouri kit or the Fujimi New Jersey/Missouri kits?

Were BB-63 and BB-64 essentially identical or were there glaring minor differences that a trained eye can easily pick out?

If this question is too elementary for the old salts here, then would the Shipcraft book on the Iowa class battleships by Lester Abbey be a good source?

[BB62vet]

Haijun watcher,

Well, I've personally never heard of that book, but will look it up and see what it's about.

(edit) - I may go ahead and purchase that book - one I've not been aware of until you mentioned it.

As to your 2nd question re. the differences or not between WISCONSIN and MISSOURI - YES!!! These IOWA class ships were not identical. Each ship was built to a class design, but due to any number of reasons were certainly not finished identical. The bridge areas of the two ships were different, although similar; and their anti-aircraft batteries (1.1" MGs vs 20mm in IOWA vs NEW JERSEY) were different upon commissioning. Those were a couple of the more obvious ones. One of the reasons for differences exists within the shipyard that the particular ship was constructed. The applies to all 4 IOWA battleships. While the overall size and design of the ship was pretty much standard, the actual ship (as evidenced by their conning towers/bridge arrangements) differed due to a variety of reasons - perhaps availability of certain steel members, plating, etc. As each ship progressed some small changes became apparant. You might call them production variations or perhaps Bureau of Ships saw a better way to fabricate something. I recall that NORTH CAROLINA had a major flaw in her Turret 1/Turret 2 arrangement that had it not been realized in time (it was and corrected) could have resulted in major damage to the structural integrity of the ship had they continued construction as designed. All ship classes have this in common - that they start out the same and that's where it usually ends, for one reason or another. ILLINOIS and KENTUCKY (the two incomplete IOWAs) were different from their older sisters in that they incorporated much more welding in their construction than did the other 4 sisters.

Hope this helps,

Hank

[Fliger747]

I have a similar booklet for the Fletcher Class destroyers. In essence it discusses several of the various kits available, has some drawings and shows some completed models assembled with some of the add-on PE sets etc. Basic, probably useful, but these ships all varied from each other and at various times in their lives.

Good Luck! T

[DBlack]

Has anyone here ever built a WW2-era USS Wisconsin using either the Tamiya Missouri kit or the Fujimi New Jersey/Missouri kits?

Were BB-63 and BB-64 essentially identical or were there glaring minor differences that a trained eye can easily pick out?

If this question is too elementary for the old salts here, then would the Shipcraft book on the Iowa class battleships by Lester Abbey be a good source?

I believe that BB-63 and -64 were, externally, very nearly identical as-built, with the exception of their main radars. The Missouri had an SK-2, the Wisconsin had an SK.

[ChrisCareless]

killer work...

I know I haven't been around in a great long while, but I just recently started working on my own Mighty Mo kit, tamiya's 350th with all the bells an whistles... I don't know how you guys do it with all the PE... my god.. lol you chaps are some skilled beasties..

so I've gone through all 93 of the pages.. WOW.. the wealth of info and sharing just blows me away guys... I need to get into more naval stuff... the other fields of modeling are not as forth coming with info an tips in my exp...

some of the links an photos are dead, guessing murphy got hungry.. but for the links an photos I can see.. :O wowzr !!


if I may ask a question... I have a product from Uschi that I'll be using for my rigging, but my brick wall is.. I'm clueless as to where, how an when.. some of the photos I've looked at online an searched for don't really give a clear idea.. I was wondering if anyone may have come across a drawing that showed off what an how an where ?

Will def keep tabs on this thread and the build goings on.. has inspired me to hunker down an build this old project.. an then there is the Big E as well 9 yrs lol and I've only gotten the nose of the hull on..

well thank you again gents for being awesome with your help and knowlege

V/R

Chris

[BB62vet]

Chris,

Glad you're aboard - about your question - you're rather vague about what you are seeking. What rigging are you questioning - foremast, main mast, yardarms?

I would suggest that you get a good set of plans of MISSOURI in order to acquaint yourself with the ship. I had the Tamiya MO kit also (sold it) and while the instructions were ok, if you want to produce a really nice finished model, the plans are a prerequisite in my opinion. Then make a copy of those and work from them - you can yellow highlight the items you finish as you proceed. Check out The Floating Drydock (http://www.floatingdrydock.com/)

But, keep in mind, asking this crowd is like visiting Hotel California on the Battleship Nerd Floor - once you're there - you can't leave We're into this stuff FOR KEEPS!!!

[ChrisCareless]

lol, I like that song an my lifes been pretty much like it lol uncle sam never lets go..

as for the rigging... everything..lol

I have Mr. Thomas's Ebook plan on the Mo, just got a new copy of it as the one I had originally got back in 09 had no data on it an then I was off in a far away land.. so I dropped him a line and now I have a new one..

maybe I chewed off a lot for my first ship plus both pe sets.. but hell I was taught if you go, might as well go big lol beginning to think maybe I should have gone smaller.. but same scale lol

[Fliger747]

An advantage of the build for you will be there is a lot of interest, knowledge and materials available.

Welcome aboard!

Cheers: Tom

[ChrisCareless]

Thank you Tom,

an yes sir with what I've seen in this thread alone.. this ole grunt landed in the right DZ


next will be the flat top lol

[Gaston]

Great job correcting this thing!

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but how does the Tamiya 1/350 scale Iowa hull compares to the 1/200 Trumpeter hull with the correction insert seen above?

Gaston

[Sutho]

I am talking about the 1/350 Tamiya modernised USS New Jersey kits here.

I have the kit but I would like to construct it as the USS Iowa as a modernised battleship. I have visited and toured the USS Iowa in Los Angeles so modelling the Iowa would have more meaning to me.

My question is what are the essential changes that would be required to that kit to make it Iowa. I have noticed on the conning tower that Iowa has venturi wind deflectors where the other ships in the class do not have this. Also on the dark grey would have to be changed on the aft decks to match Iowa. I have also noticed the port side phalanx platform has a complete vertical drop without any walkway from the Tomahawk deck around it. Also the forward conning tower needs to look more like Missouri at the top just under the SLQ32 machines.

Is there anything that as a modeller with photo etch skills and intermediate to advanced kit-bash scratch construction skills should focus on.

[Channell]

I am talking about the 1/350 Tamiya modernised USS New Jersey kits here.

I have the kit but I would like to construct it as the USS Iowa as a modernised battleship. I have visited and toured the USS Iowa in Los Angeles so modelling the Iowa would have more meaning to me.

My question is what are the essential changes that would be required to that kit to make it Iowa. I have noticed on the conning tower that Iowa has venturi wind deflectors where the other ships in the class do not have this. Also on the dark grey would have to be changed on the aft decks to match Iowa. I have also noticed the port side phalanx platform has a complete vertical drop without any walkway from the Tomahawk deck around it. Also the forward conning tower needs to look more like Missouri at the top just under the SLQ32 machines.

Is there anything that as a modeller with photo etch skills and intermediate to advanced kit-bash scratch construction skills should focus on.

The Iowa still has her bow 20 mm gun platform too, it's also a somewhat different shape than her sister's were. Do you know about the pontos kits? They do one to turn the New Jersey kit into the Iowa.

[DBlack]

I am talking about the 1/350 Tamiya modernised USS New Jersey kits here.

I have the kit but I would like to construct it as the USS Iowa as a modernised battleship. I have visited and toured the USS Iowa in Los Angeles so modelling the Iowa would have more meaning to me.

My question is what are the essential changes that would be required to that kit to make it Iowa. I have noticed on the conning tower that Iowa has venturi wind deflectors where the other ships in the class do not have this. Also on the dark grey would have to be changed on the aft decks to match Iowa. I have also noticed the port side phalanx platform has a complete vertical drop without any walkway from the Tomahawk deck around it. Also the forward conning tower needs to look more like Missouri at the top just under the SLQ32 machines.

Is there anything that as a modeller with photo etch skills and intermediate to advanced kit-bash scratch construction skills should focus on.

You hit most of the major differences, and Channell mentioned the 20mm gun tub on the bow. Here's a few others:

- It's not just the port side of the aft Phalanx platform that has a different base. The starboard side is squared off, also (tho it does have a narrow walkway along it, unlike the port side). The NJ is different from her 3 sisters in this area, because she still shows the rounded structures left over from old 40mm gun tubs.

- Speaking of 40mms, the NJ still has the outlines of her 2 forward 40s, forward of Turret 1. (All the wood from this area has been removed from the IOWA now because it was rotted out, but it was there when she was active.)

- On the 01 level forward (the "Surrender Deck" on BB-63, but in this case both sides, not just starboard), the NJ's life raft racks curve around in one spot, following the leftover portion of the old 40mm tubs. The other 3 ships have the racks in a straight line, no curve.

- The NJ has ladders on the sides of all 3 16" turrets. The IOWA only has ladders on the sides of Turret 2 (but 4 ladders on the front of all 3).

- Below Sky 2 and Sky 3 (the port & starboard Mk 37s) on the IOWA is an open area fronted with an X bracing. The other 3 had this covered over years ago.

- Aft of the first funnel, the deck on the NJ is rounded, following the shape of the funnel. On the IOWA, at least (not sure about the other 2 ships) the whole deck extends a few feet further back and goes straight across, with no roundness to it.

- The NJ's UNREP kingpost has some extra horizontal bracing on the sides that the IOWA doesn't.

- Just forward of the helo deck, slightly to starboard, is a long mushroom vent that's actually 2 vents joined together. The final 3 ships were built with this style, but on the IOWA these are actually 2 separate, round vents.

- The NJ was the only modernized ship that had the helo deck markings with the circle off to one side... and even she only had that style for a year or so, since the helicopter pilots didn't like that approach and requested it be changed.

And the details on the sides of the forward FC tower are different (The NJ's is a little more "cluttered"). I converted the Tamiya kit into the IOWA, too, and the best advice I can really give you is to consult reference photos and look for differences--especially as you begin working on a new piece or section. When I started I just figured "Oh, they're sister ships, so I'll slap some 61s on the hull instead of 62 and it'll be the Iowa." LOL, not quite. I was pretty amazed to find out how different they actually are...

--edit--

Also, those vertical strips on the sides of the hull... I'm spacing right now on the correct name for them... but only BB-62 and -63 had those in the 80s/90s. BB-61 and -64 didn't.

[RandyM]

Quick question... regarding ladders between 04 and 05 levels: it appears that Missouri's ladders always inclined forward, that is, when climbing the ladder you moved toward the bow, and vice versa when descending. However, I have some unidentified photos of this area showing these ladders reversed. I assume this is a photo of Iowa (or maybe even New Jersey?) prior to the enclosed/square bridge refit.

Do all four ships now use ladders which incline forward in this area?

[Sutho]

Thanks for all the info above.

Some modifications seem easy.

The pontos upgrade sets look great and they are expensive. Has anyone used them that can describe them and how easy it is to upgrade the ship with pontos.

My main question with them is the wooden decks like how thin are they and will I need to destroy much of the model to put the wooden decks on?