Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


TOMLABEL -> Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 12:59:04 AM)

Found this pic on another site. Notice she still has the early bridge layout. Can anyone guess the BB off the starboard qtr?


[image]local://upfiles/19527/599D15C2C38049728DECEF82746FFE03.jpg[/image]




dr.hal -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 1:42:22 AM)

Not sure, but nice photo!




btd64 -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 1:50:24 AM)

Nice.... The other BB is hard to see. no idea... GP




TOMLABEL -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:09:20 AM)

Ok, here is a bit of a hint.

Let's think about "class".



[image]local://upfiles/19527/DF09E87FC55740BC8643B3764EBA5BAE.jpg[/image]




JuanG -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:10:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Ok, here is a bit of a hint.

Let's think about "class".


Shape of the superstructure and what looks like the front of a pair of twin 5in/38s makes me think its one of the rebuilt standards, or one of the South Dakotas.

What looks like a three gun main battery turret narrows that down to a South Dakota, Tennessee, Pennsylvania or Nevada. Pennsylvania never lost the tripod, so that leaves the other three classes.




TOMLABEL -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:14:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Ok, here is a bit of a hint.

Let's think about "class".


Shape of the superstructure and what looks like the front of a pair of twin 5in/38s makes me think its one of the rebuilt standards, or one of the South Dakotas.


I know the detail of the pic is bad, but....

In 1944 what rebuilt would be in formation with Iowa?




dazoline II -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:15:43 AM)

So why does the port side secondary turret look like its in front of the main turret? And what's with the the first main turret's gun base not looking like the second turret's gun base? Looks photoshopped.

Based on that I'd say the second BB is the Musashi.




JuanG -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:19:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Ok, here is a bit of a hint.

Let's think about "class".


Shape of the superstructure and what looks like the front of a pair of twin 5in/38s makes me think its one of the rebuilt standards, or one of the South Dakotas.


I know the detail of the pic is bad, but....

In 1944 what rebuilt would be in formation with Iowa?


Haven't really looked at the date too closely - probably fairly easy to narrow down exactly where Iowa was at the time and what else was in the area, but thats no fun... [8D]




TOMLABEL -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:36:00 AM)

Ok then.....last hint.

Anything about the paint scheme? Why two 5 inch turrets stand out?





Lokasenna -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:44:07 AM)

Hard to tell because it's so grainy, but it looks like triple turrets. That says South Dakota to me.

Also it looks really short. That also says South Dakota-class to me.

The Wiki pic for USS Alabama is strikingly similar to this paint scheme, too [;)].




TOMLABEL -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 2:51:03 AM)

You mean this one? [;)]



[image]local://upfiles/19527/869BCCE358464D979A58EE7849695C95.jpg[/image]




Big B -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 8:12:48 PM)


... Actually - it's this one [sm=happy0029.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/16855/6A6AD288325B4435B718630488C50952.jpg[/image]




Lokasenna -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 9:35:24 PM)

I'm no expert, but that sure looks like a South Dakota class to me.




TOMLABEL -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/15/2014 10:42:13 PM)

[:D] Ok, I guess you guys are close enough...

The caption from the original black and white photo.

The Indiana (BB-58) & Iowa (BB-61) underway.
This 1944 photo shows Iowa in her anti-submarine camouflage measure, applied in December or in early January 1944 with Navy Blue (5-N) and Light Grey (5-L) and Deck Blue (20-B) horizontal surfaces. Highly visible in this view are the fine forward hull lines for a higher speed than the preceding South Dakota class battleships. Consequently her #1 turret had little depth for torpedo protection.
Note the 20mm gallery atop #2 turret.


TOMLABEL




geofflambert -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/16/2014 3:42:48 AM)

TOMLABEL it's really not fair for you to give us a challenge like that and then, without any circumspection whatsoever, give us the answer. Please cease and desist.




warspite1 -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/16/2014 4:25:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

[image]local://upfiles/16855/6A6AD288325B4435B718630488C50952.jpg[/image]
warspite1

Nice picture [8D]

You gotta love the South Dakotas. Mean, moody and magnificent, a pugnacious thug of a ship [&o]




Chickenboy -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/16/2014 4:28:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dazoline II
Based on that I'd say the second BB is the Musashi.

[:D]




Big B -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/16/2014 4:54:20 PM)

Why? Because that's what camouflage is designed to do...fool your eyes [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazoline II

So why does the port side secondary turret look like its in front of the main turret? And what's with the the first main turret's gun base not looking like the second turret's gun base? Looks photoshopped.

Based on that I'd say the second BB is the Musashi.





wdolson -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/16/2014 10:41:39 PM)

The uncolorized version of this photo is on Wikipedia's page for the USS Iowa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29

I've wondered if the Navy could have gotten a bit more speed out of the South Dakota's by lengthening the bow. The North Carolina and SD classes were designed for 28 knots to top what was thought to be the top speed of the Kongos. They tried to keep both within the treaty limits and the SD ended up so short because it had a bit more protection than the NC, but it had more powerful engines than the NC to make up for it. The same power with a longer hull would have probably made the ship faster.

The low speed of the NC and SD classes was the limiting factor with the fast carriers. I would think a few more knots would have given the carriers a little more flexibility tactically. Though the poor DDs on the edge of the screen would have burned out their engines even faster. The edges of the screen had to work harder than the middle because they had to go to full speed or near full speed while the formation turned in zig zags. The outer screen were usually older DDs like the Faraguts too.

Bill




TOMLABEL -> RE: Very nice IOWA 1944 Pic colorized (5/17/2014 6:24:34 AM)

That is some great information, Bill. I also believe (if I remember correctly) that the NC hulls were originally designed for 14 inch guns, hence the lighter armor. At the time, a US BB was supposed to be armored to withstand shells of its own caliber. But the NC's were up-gunned sometime before war broke out - never receiving the 14 inch guns.

Interesting observation and I agree. If the SD's had a more lengthened bow, with the size of their powerplants, they would have made for a truly fast battleship.

TOMLABEL




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625