Ask An Expert- Battleships

[Gun Grape]

In real life, I'm a anal retentive perfectionist. Maybe it comes from my former life where 1 mistake could very easily get a lot of good guys killed. But thats 1/1 scale.

When building models, No.

A 1/200 scale model works out to 1 inch equaling 16 feet 8 inches. Viewed from a standard distance of 3 feet a ladder set at 55 Deg or one set at 60 Deg would not be noticeably different in the 1/2in height between decks.

And BBVet, I'll comment on any thread I want. Maybe when you become a Moderator here you can dictate board policy until then deal with it.

[RustyBattleship]

Awright awready. I couldn't remember the exact angle myself. That was under the design criteria of the Compartment and Access design section of the Code 250 design sub-division. "Big A" Radovcich was the supervisor of that section and told me what the angle was --- a couple of decades or so ago. Now, I can remember how to spell his name (and I'm usually lousy at even remembering names) but I forgot the angle he told me. But for some reason the angle of 56 degrees was in the back of my mind.

So I spent the last half hour digging up a readable book of General Plans (USS Missouri), finding my old protractor (at least it was where I last saw it a couple of years ago), transfering the deck heights and ladder ends to a piece of paper (I did not want to draw any lines on the Gen Plans booklet) and then measuring the angle with the protractor.

Well, my memory cells are playing mirror imagry tricks on me. The angle I carefully measured is 65 degrees --- not 56 degrees.

At least that was the standard angle of ladders as designed for warships that were to be manned by young, agile men and not middleagers (and beyond) as I have found that the older the ship gets, it either stretches vertically or the ladders shrink longitudinally and are now at a much steeper angle.

Or is it just me getting older and ??shorter??.

[Dreadnought]

Dreadnaught,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, the remaining 40mm BoFors mounts were all removed in 67-68 for NEW JERSEY's Vietnam service. Why these two particular pieces of equipment were left intact is a question - so, if I can find any documentation on their purpose and so forth, that's what I'm after.

Re. ladders - I'm hoping Rusty will ring in, but if he dosen't, I'll email him about these, if for no other reason than to help out my acquaintence in his CAD project. I do appreciate your perspective on them.

And, you are correct in the fact that all four IOWAs were not cookie-cutter ships - all incorporated the particular yard (or local) changes as well as various upgrades which differed from ship to ship.


Hank

*That equipment may also have to do with the targeting system they used in the original below decks CIC, Vietnam saw a targeting system put aboard the New Jersey that NONE of her other sisters ever had installed. To some that know what I am talking about its targeting "By the Hooks". That system was for the NJ and the NJ only. Many have never even laid eyes upon it. It still exists to this day aboard. You could have considered that particular piece of equipment the worlds first video game via the "joysticks". I have never seen even a photo of that system anywhere. I couldnt even find a "Mk" # on it.

It may have very well contributed to her accuracy and why it its accuracy was spoken about highly. Myself, I have never seen another one aboard any Vietnam era ship including the heavy cruisers. And its beginning to sound more and more like its a part of that system.

Just another example of why I state they were never "cookie cutter" ships.

[bbvet]

TBM3Fan - Thanks once again, I can identify with your predicament re. perfectionism - it's a never-ending battle with yourself and self-restraint.

Rusty B - We've corresponded and I thank you (again) for your response, etc. Take care and I'll pass on the info re. the ladders.

Dreadnaught - Ah! you're one of the few who remember!!! I've been down in Main Battery FC room and the "little black box" sits in front of the Ford main battery mechanical computer and takes up very little space. It was, as I recall, developed by Navy Dev. Labs for NEW JERSEY and as you stated, was never replicated for the other 3 sisters. It added several factors in calculating the ballistics equations for shell trajectory that were unable to be figured by the older mechanical units. The two TD units I've brought up were "joy" stick controlled (the photo I attached shows the port unit with the joy stick controller in place). I don't believe that they had anything to do with the main battery, but perhaps the 5"/38 secondary guns. I state this as I've re-read the 1950 MISSOURI Booklet of Gen. Plans and the 1956 WISCONSIN Booklet of Gen. Plans and they are in complete agreement with the 1968 NEW JERSEY Booklet of Gen. Plan in the location and description (Target Design. - Rang. & Receiv. - P/S). One further note I've found is in the USS MISSOURI Plan Book (The Floating Drydock) - a callout on the Gibbs & Cox model of that unit on the Nav. Bridge mentions "12" Base" and shows what appears to be some additional tracking (optical) gear above the console that is not shown in my photo. I'm guessing this was removed for storage purposes. While I'm sure that I have enough info to make these units, my curiosity is still wondering about their use, etc. I may have to try and contact some of the former FCG guys in the NJ reunion group and see if they can shed some light.

[Dreadnought]

TBM3Fan - Thanks once again, I can identify with your predicament re. perfectionism - it's a never-ending battle with yourself and self-restraint.

Rusty B - We've corresponded and I thank you (again) for your response, etc. Take care and I'll pass on the info re. the ladders.

Dreadnaught - Ah! you're one of the few who remember!!! I've been down in Main Battery FC room and the "little black box" sits in front of the Ford main battery mechanical computer and takes up very little space. It was, as I recall, developed by Navy Dev. Labs for NEW JERSEY and as you stated, was never replicated for the other 3 sisters. It added several factors in calculating the ballistics equations for shell trajectory that were unable to be figured by the older mechanical units. The two TD units I've brought up were "joy" stick controlled (the photo I attached shows the port unit with the joy stick controller in place). I don't believe that they had anything to do with the main battery, but perhaps the 5"/38 secondary guns. I state this as I've re-read the 1950 MISSOURI Booklet of Gen. Plans and the 1956 WISCONSIN Booklet of Gen. Plans and they are in complete agreement with the 1968 NEW JERSEY Booklet of Gen. Plan in the location and description (Target Design. - Rang. & Receiv. - P/S). One further note I've found is in the USS MISSOURI Plan Book (The Floating Drydock) - a callout on the Gibbs & Cox model of that unit on the Nav. Bridge mentions "12" Base" and shows what appears to be some additional tracking (optical) gear above the console that is not shown in my photo. I'm guessing this was removed for storage purposes. While I'm sure that I have enough info to make these units, my curiosity is still wondering about their use, etc. I may have to try and contact some of the former FCG guys in the NJ reunion group and see if they can shed some light.

Hi Vet, I know what you speak of however, that system is in gun plot (foreward plot) The system I speak of is in the original CIC on 4th deck, Portside before you get to foreward plot. As soon as you enter the room it is on the right. It cannot be seen without uncovering it, it has a cover very similar to the covers on the main gyro's in foreward steering however not round. I was told about this piece of equipment by someone that had its purpose explained to them from someone that was stationed inside the CIC during that time period. This piece of equipment has 4 joysticks, one on each corner, a square video screen that lays flat and when energized illuminates (guessing taking reading from the FC computer). The "Hooks" (4 green "target") & (4 red) the green encompasses a half moon around the targets and the red you move with the joysticks on to the intended target and complete the circle. It is my guess that once matched it sends this to the FC system via main battery plot and then transmits this to the turrets.

[Doktor]

Never thought there will be drama in a naval thread. Usually the squid guys are all calm from all that water and the occasional radio silence with their wives.

[bbvet]

Hi Vet, I know what you speak of however, that system is in gun plot (foreward plot) The system I speak of is in the original CIC on 4th deck, Portside before you get to foreward plot. As soon as you enter the room it is on the right. It cannot be seen without uncovering it, it has a cover very similar to the covers on the main gyro's in foreward steering however not round. I was told about this piece of equipment by someone that had its purpose explained to them from someone that was stationed inside the CIC during that time period. This piece of equipment has 4 joysticks, one on each corner, a square video screen that lays flat and when energized illuminates (guessing taking reading from the FC computer). The "Hooks" (4 green "target") & (4 red) the green encompasses a half moon around the targets and the red you move with the joysticks on to the intended target and complete the circle. It is my guess that once matched it sends this to the FC system via main battery plot and then transmits this to the turrets.

Dreadnaught,

Well, this just gets even more intriguing! THAT was something I was not aware of - I was in CIC, 4th deck one time during watch earlly in the cruise to deliver some teletype communications to the OIC and didn't spend any time gazing about. What you described sounds very much like a modified Target Designation System console but with the added video screen replacing the std. mech. glass covered dials, etc. I'm wondering if this (the unit you described) isn't somehow tied electronically to the digital box in foreward plot as they both would have been added prior to her Vietnam Service.

I have found one further photo of the TD units in the After FC tub - I think it is basically the same photo only not cropped and shows the entire port side unit. So, a more complete picture of the pedestal base which will aid in the modeling effort.

It's interesting to me to see the way the digital age has taken over from the analog instrumentation age (and prior to that the mech. dials, rachets, & gears age). My company has just upgraded our boiler room controls to state of the art digital control & monitors in a brand new control room that reminds you of Starship Enterprise. I haven't been aboard NEW JERSEY since 2004 and did not go into CEC when I was aboard at that time. I'll have to make a point to visit all these locals the next time I'm up there. And looking up this equipment will be on my list "to do".

Thanks once again for the historical info on the ship - always interesting to read about!

[bbvet]

Dreadnaught,

Re. the Target Designators: Here's what I found in one of my reference books last night:

From IOWA Class Battleships, Robert F. Sumrall – (Paraphrased w/my own input) The target designation system (as installed) included Mark 3 target designation transmitter and receiver and Mark 5/Mark 6 target designation transmitters. The target training & elevation information can be exchanged between the Mark 3’s and sent to the Mk. 37 F.C. Directors. Target training data can be sent to the Mk. 40 director via the Mk. 3, Mark 5, or Mark 6 for use with the Mk. 38 main battery directors.

Aboard the IOWAs were the following: (8) Mk. 3s, (1) Mk. 5, and (1) Mk. 6. Mk. 3s were installed one to Stbd and one to Port at the following locations – primary conning station walkway (08 Level), navigating bridge (05 Level), fwd air defense station (011 Level), and after air defense station (03 Level). The Mk. 5 was loc’d on the stbd. side of the conning station and the Mk. 6 to port.

In reviewing the 1967/68 NEW JERSEY Booklet of General Plans, I find that the following locations are still called out as having TD units present – 011 Level (2 units), 08 Level (4 units), 03 Level Aft (2 units). The After Air Defense Station units are confirmed by photos and were subsequently cocooned in 1969 when the ship was decommissioned. I have not been able to find any close up photos of the 08 snd 05 Levels to confirm whether or not that equipment was in place in 1967-69. Having been on the 011 Level during the ship’s one WestPac Cruise in 1968-69, I have a slight recollection that the units were in place. From one overhead photo of NEW JERSEY being maneuvered from drydock to pierside in 1969, I can confirm the location of both Mk. 3 Units on the 011 Level (Fwd. Air Defense Sta.) and both Mk. 3s in the After Air Defense Sta., all 4 units in cocoons. I cannot confirm Mk. 3’s as being on the 08 Level Conning Station as I only visited that station one time during my time aboard and the photo just mentioned doesn’t show this area clearly.

Since Sumrall’s description mentions the Mk. 3 as being the units in place in the After Air Defense Station, I have a pretty good idea now of what they consist of and will probably be able to reproduce them fairly accurately. Why there is no description of any of this equipment in detail in TFD’s MISSOURI Plan Book I find rather strange in that the smaller and older Mk. 1 TD units are detailed with official illustrations quite well. I am continuing my onlline research on this in hopes of locating "something".

I've also contacted one of the Navsource principals to see if they have any further information on these pieces of equipment.

[85 gt kid]

Two more questions and they're completely off the wall :slap::

1) What do you all think would be a realistic crew size for a "modern" Iowa? By this I mean auto loading guns, gas turbines etc but the same size as the Iowas we know today. I had had a rough estimate figured out for an Alaska Cruiser but the paper is buried but then I was wondering how far you can cut the crew before you have issues with damage control.

2)Ok so let's say the US actually found out about the true specs of the Yamatos by 1939/1940 what would we had done? Would we have still stuck with making the 16" Mark 7s and take them on with that or would we have used the 18" design we had started on? I know before the Iowas were finalized there were plans for an 18" ship but was deemed unnecessary but had they known about the Yamatos...?

As always thanks for the help guys!

[bbvet]

85 gt kid wrote:

1) What do you all think would be a realistic crew size for a "modern" Iowa? By this I mean auto loading guns, gas turbines etc but the same size as the Iowas we know today. I had had a rough estimate figured out for an Alaska Cruiser but the paper is buried but then I was wondering how far you can cut the crew before you have issues with damage control.

As a matter of reference only, the original crew size for NEW JERSEY as planned in 1967 was to have been somewhere around 1300-1400, but that was deemed insufficient for maintaining the ship in a safe manner and was subsequently increased to the 1500 +/- level prior to actual commissioning. I don't have my crew's list with me to confirm the exact number on board when we left LBNSYD in Sep. 68. This might give you an idea for your totally theoretical exercise here.

[85 gt kid]

Yea i remember reading that in Muir's book. I think they brought it up to like 1580 maybe? But they also have steam plants and other manpower intensive jobs so that'll take alot.

[Dreadnought]

Without looking, off the top of my head was to be about 1,556 + 80 Officers. That is ONLY standard company. This would not include the "extras" aka all visiting Brass (US & Foreign) and entourage, USO and entourage, special guest, Our own Soldiers etc.

[Dreadnought]

Two more questions and they're completely off the wall :slap::

1) What do you all think would be a realistic crew size for a "modern" Iowa? By this I mean auto loading guns, gas turbines etc but the same size as the Iowas we know today. I had had a rough estimate figured out for an Alaska Cruiser but the paper is buried but then I was wondering how far you can cut the crew before you have issues with damage control.

2)Ok so let's say the US actually found out about the true specs of the Yamatos by 1939/1940 what would we had done? Would we have still stuck with making the 16" Mark 7s and take them on with that or would we have used the 18" design we had started on? I know before the Iowas were finalized there were plans for an 18" ship but was deemed unnecessary but had they known about the Yamatos...?

As always thanks for the help guys!

IMO,
1) It depends greatly upon your intentions (Thats how you come up with the numbers hence the budget, hence the updated armament and mission.)

2) The USN 16"/50 Mk 7. Better built, able to put on a faster hull form and just about the same ability but a little less penetrating wise then the Yamoto and the Musashi just slightly less range. Also easier to manufacture the 16"/50 as the Yamotos 18"/25 were quite a complex build and diffacult.

[RustyBattleship]

IMO,
1) It depends greatly upon your intentions (Thats how you come up with the numbers hence the budget, hence the updated armament and mission.)

2) The USN 16"/50 Mk 7. Better built, able to put on a faster hull form and just about the same ability but a little less penetrating wise then the Yamoto and the Musashi just slightly less range. Also easier to manufacture the 16"/50 as the Yamotos 18"/25 were quite a complex build and diffacult.

As far as crew numbers are, you are all close enough as bunks or staterooms were filled or emptied depending upon who was on board and why they were on board.

But there were plans to make all four Iowas Flag Ships with full Admiral's staff. Some of the superstructure would have to be enlarged. Some of it raised another deck to take VLS. I have a copy of the estimated manning schedule, somewhere here in this converted garage at the bottom of some filing cabinet.

But roughly the crew size would have been around 1800 men. Battlship Helper and I took a year and a half to do a feasibility study of how to protect the future BB from a CBR attack. The main thing was having rapid ability to don their gas masks and CBR suits. So by "inducting" half a dozen other engineers from a design section we scoured the ins and outs of two of the BB's. Both Army and Navy Natick laboratories worked very closely with us in developing scaled down day packs, special boots for main machinery space crews, special coolant vests for crewmen in hot spaces, etc. We were able to come up with locations for about 4,000 lockers to be place by the crewmans' bunk and his GQ station. That's about 2 1/4 lockers per man.

The concept was that a crewman would retrieve his CBR suit and Gas Mask from his berthing locker and put it in a locker located in his normal work space or GQ station. The extra 25% of lockers were for extra gear such as the special coolant underclothes and boots for the machinery space crew so they could stand at least a 4 hour watch. The Army found out that without cooling vests (with tank crewmen) they can't last more than 20 minutes.

Our feasibility study took up two volumes. Both were always on a shelf above my computer. Some time ago, Volume II (with the final assesments) mysteriously disappeared. I did send a copy to a person in another organization. If he is on this forum, could you please send it (or a copy) back to me?

I have a better place to hide them now. To try to lift them would be a bit messy though. Hope they have ObamaCare.

[85 gt kid]

IMO,
1) It depends greatly upon your intentions (Thats how you come up with the numbers hence the budget, hence the updated armament and mission.)

2) The USN 16"/50 Mk 7. Better built, able to put on a faster hull form and just about the same ability but a little less penetrating wise then the Yamoto and the Musashi just slightly less range. Also easier to manufacture the 16"/50 as the Yamotos 18"/25 were quite a complex build and diffacult.

1b) Well no different then what they did in he 80s/90s bu this would be an entirely new ship with GTs, auto loading 16"mounts, 5"/62s etc (hypothetically of course). Just been playing around with this for my book, I think sometimes I over think things for this but o well .

2b) Makes sense BUT would we gamble on the penetration ability not knowing of Japans so-so armor they had? Well just because the Japanese 18" guns were hard (which I have read they had a difficult time although I believe they made a prototype 20" IIRC) wouldn't mean we couldn't. We did have one built back in the 20's ;). Just spit balling ideas late at night.

Rusty - If you ever dig those plans out i'm sure alot of people would drool over them .