The Ship Model Forum

It's too much work (haha) to cut out and paste all of the existing picture posts into a new thread, so we usually just leave them in place. However, if you want to post updates later on, a new thread in Picture Post would be great. Thanks!

If any Mod or Admin wants me to remove all my posts and pictures from this entire thread, then please tell me via PM. Though it'll be sad to see all my information and hard work go "out the window" so to speak. :(

Very well... I shan't post again.

The other thing to note is that these thread are NOT supposed to be WIP threads. If you have a WIP, it should have it's own thread in the Picture Post forum. When you update that thread, it's okay to post a link here that you've updated it, but you should not be posting your photos here.

That helps keep the threads down to manageable sizes and makes them a little easier to navigate. Most people who come to these CASF threads are, as Timmy said, looking for details on the real (or in this case, planned) ship.

[quote="Timmy C"]Just a note to all present: Please note that the CASF section is meant for the discussion of the actual (or rather, in this case, what-if) vessels, not models[/quote] Thanks for the note, Timmy! I did not realize that. That actually means I have violated the Spruance and Arleigh Burke thread a few times! :doh_1: Learn something new every day!

Just a note to all present: Please note that the CASF section is meant for the discussion of the actual (or rather, in this case, what-if) vessels, not models (except as necessary to compare for accuracy, etc.). It is perfectly within Seasick's right to bring up discussion and opinions on the actual ship/design in this section - it is not necessary (and indeed, undesirable) to focus discussion solely upon models of the vessels. I also fully recognize that some of the comments made by Seasick has already been addressed by other members in this thread and acknowledge the frustration of the latter in the matter.

Regardless, please keep a civil tone when addressing other members, thank you.

There's an axiom that comes to mind with respect to people who are prone to disturbance of the inner ear that is caused by repeated motion.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

[quote="Seasick"]The Iowas and the Montanas would be very vulnerable torpedo attack.[/quote] You know, Seasick, you have a good streak of making really weird claims about the ultimate vulnerabilities of battleships. I and other people counter almost every one of your comments, usually with no response from you. From your continued statements I guess you either make a post and never look back or you just don't like contradictory information. It kind of seems like you dismiss information that simply contradicts yours no matter the source material. So, after giving you lots of chances to counter my arguments that negate yours, now I kind of have to call you out.

I don't know what your background is, but I can tell that you hold what you think in very high esteem. I am sure you find yourself to be an authority on some things, but there are people who have more knowledge than you, and it seems to be especially true about the Iowa and Montana-class battleships. I regularly talk to the highest person there is on the battleship food chain. He is the guy who designed the modernizations for the New Jersey in 1967. He is the guy who designed the modernization for the Iowas in 1981. He was “Project Manager: Modernization and Reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships, Maintenance, Upgrade, and Replacement of their Equipment, Armor, Weapon Systems, and planned upgrades” based at Longbeach Naval Shipyard. He designed replacement armor. He knows exactly how much actual replacement armor exists. He knows what it would take to arm the ship with VLS for real. He designed the Warfighting Improvement Upgrades for the Ticos, Spruances, and Iowas. When the Missouri went into drydock recently, NAVSEA called him for advice about what they found when they drained the drydock. When the US Navy has questions about battleships, they call him. He is the ultimate living authority on the Iowa-class battleships as ships. I would suggest you consider his opinion.

So, let me tell you what he says about the ship's rating against torpedo attack.

[quote="Seasick"]The Iowas and the Montanas would be very vulnerable torpedo attack.[/quote]

He says that, designed for or not, the Iowas can withstand 6 modern under-keel torpedo detonations before the ship is put at risk. He says the Montanas would have much more protection, possibly twice as much. In addition, [u][i]Iowa Class Battleships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin (Weapons and Warfare) [/i][/u]by Malcolm Muir states that the Iowas were designed to withstand multiple detonations of one ton harbor bottom-resting mines. So, the ships were indeed designed with under-keel protection.
[attachment=2]BBarmor.jpg[/attachment]

Not only was it a triple hull with a 1.5" armor arrangement just above the keel, but that was met by a 13.5" class A armor belt that sat behind side-torpedo protection. There are pictures in Friedman's book showing the unclassified armor arrangement.[attachment=3]BBarmorarrangement2.jpg[/attachment]

The propeller shaft skegs were specifically armored to protect from torpedoes striking the prop shafts....underneath the ship. That is awfully close to the keel.

As you see there are large volumes underneath the ship left void. They were specifically to act as a crumple zone against detonations underneath the ship. Above those voids, there was a vast armor arrangement that protected the belly of the ship. Here is what the stern looked like.[attachment=1]BBsternprotection.jpg[/attachment]

Even the hull shape, huge, huge voids in the torpedo defense system, and triple hull illustrate the depth of design in the torpedo defense system.[attachment=0]Montanaframes.jpg[/attachment]

So, I hope you take some of this into account, because you can. I always think it’s a good idea not to assume, research, verify, and keep an open mind.

Over the few years you have commented on my modernized Iowa thread with common arguments, I have countered them with referenced data I have verified with sources such as NAVSEA and the Project Manager I mentioned earlier. Those are the highest authorities I have been able to find, and I think they might be the highest of them all. Even though you may be confident in what you're saying, I would ask you sharpen up on your battleship knowledge if you want to keep commenting on the topic of battleships...unless it’s just not worth your time.

I cannot wait to see langer525’s or anyone else’s Montana, WIF or not.

Wow. O.O Can't we all just get along? I don't know about anybody else, but I for one would love to see lancer continue his Montana and I would enjoy seeing it to it's completion. :) If you guys want to argue, then take it to PM. The last thing I'd like to see is this thread getting locked by the MW staff.
As far as I'm concerned, No Montana, whether model or otherwise, will ever be perfect. There is such little info. on the Net and elsewhere about the Montana, that no final conclusions can be made about it's design, specifications, etc.
Anybody who builds one is going to build it in their own unique way. I like a bit of variety and creativity. It spices up the modeling world. ;)

Carry on, lancer. You have my full support. :thumbs_up_1:

Judging from the commentary following your previous post, I honestly don't think anyone cares what you think, Seasick... I know I don't.

I'm going to be blunt. I hope you're man enough to take it.

If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, say nothing.

The problem with battleships and the under keel torpedo is the weight of the armor, and yes a BB can be designed to better withstand an under keel explosion. I'll add that just about every warship designed before 1943 will be vulnerable to an under keel torpedo explosion. For the Iowas the strength deck would have to be reenforced. Most likely the second and later Montanas would have been modified during construction. The armor protection would need to have its weight supported so that the keel would carry less of the burden. I'm not against modeling what if ships for fun.

I honestly think that propaganda about less collateral damage with smart bombs and missiles are just all out fake. A battleship, using shells and maybe one similar to the laser guided Paveway adapted from the 8"/55 mk71, could do just about the same damage with a single, cheaper shell than a million dollar missile that punches merely the same punch.


And purely for reference, each standard armor piercing shell fired from an Abrams tank costs $1,000 USD.

I like to think of it this way... There is no ship on the planet that is capable of firing a gun at a Battleship, and doing anything more than scratching the paint. If that isn't enough, then tough.

I also believe that there are no more capable shore-bombardment platforms than a Battleship. Rate of fire, volume of fire, mass of fire on target, and accuracy cannot be matched by Tomahawk or anything else.

Ship to ship combat is no more, and there are few types of ships that are versatile enough to do everything else that Battleships can do intrinsically, as a part of their basic capability.

[quote="lancer525"]That's nice... So from what you've posted, no one should ever like one of these ships enough to model them? We can't just think "how neat this looks" without some negative technical discourse that tells us how horribly flawed the design was? Gee, I suppose I'll have to take a match to the thing as soon as I get home...[/quote]Good point. :thumbs_up_1: In the real world, torpedoes are the biggest threat to every kind of ship from submarines to aircraft carriers. Our fellow contributor just likes to pick on battleships. He likes to bring up vulnerabilities that apply to every ship as if they are special vulnerabilities unique to battleships. What he will always stay silent on is how [i]few [/i]vulnerabilities battleships share with any other ships and how [i]few [/i]vulnerabilities battleships actually have...not very objective is it?

Sauragnmon:

I've noticed that too... It seems interesting to me, that instead of saying "wow, you're doing a great job" or, "I really like the way you did..." or "what inspired you to build this?" type posts. Over on another forum, I got this several-hundred word thesis on how the Montanas were too big, too slow, could never have carried 18" guns, were too wide to fit in the Panama Canal, and all sorts of other not-so-subtle slams on me for picking this particular class of ship to model. I told the guy, "if you don't like the model I am designing, you go right ahead and design one of your own. I'll wait on yours." He then came back with an indignant "I'm not a model designer! I don't have any idea how to do that!" Well, until you do, buddy... don't tell me how to do it.

The fact is, If someone doesn't have the ability, skill, talent, determination, or intelligence to do what I am doing, then they certainly don't have the right to bash me for doing it. There are those who can, and those who kibbitz.

Why, oh why can't people just say something nice, or say nothing at all? I guess they didn't have a grandmother who brought them up like mine did me. I miss her.

I'll be sure to jump off the highest curb the next time someone complains about my ship. Then again, I ought to be flattered that they're paying so much close attention to what I am doing... Heh.

Lance, I personally have to find it absolutely mind numbing how this argument only ever comes up with Battleships. It's completely biased douchebaggery in all entirety - the argument is seemingly only valid for Battleships, completely regardless of the fact that the weapons have the same effect upon anything that bloody well floats, so the people who think to bring up an argument like that against Battleships should just shut their pieholes and go somewhere else. Put the argument in the proper context of the fact that it applies to All ships, and they're just being whiny douchebags who can't think past their eyebrows.

That's nice... So from what you've posted, no one should ever like one of these ships enough to model them? We can't just think "how neat this looks" without some negative technical discourse that tells us how horribly flawed the design was? Gee, I suppose I'll have to take a match to the thing as soon as I get home...

The Iowas and the Montanas would be very vulnerable torpedo attack. The Iowas and Montanas were designed before under keel magnetic torpedos had entered service. The USN's Mk48 and Mk48 ADCAP both would do serious damage to these classes. While these torpedos would not sink them outright, a single hit would cause what is called a "soft kill". A "Soft kill" results in the vessel having to retire from combat and go to drydock for repairs. The problem with this is that many warships in WW2 were soft killed which resulted in the ship becomming disabled and having to be scuttled to prevent capture (USS Hornet), or the ship being taken in another engagement (Bismarck).

[quote="MichiganBB27"]Don't know if this thread is dead but was wondering if there has been any progress on your Montana?[/quote]

Not enough to make a decent report, frankly...

I had started skinning the aft section, and about frame 20 ran into a problem. A huge problem. An insurmountable problem. So, I had to cut off everything aft of frame 21, cut new frames, and rebuild the entire aft section so it can be skinned again. Unfortunately, this has set me back much farther than I had hoped.

I am finishing up framing out the last few frames this week, and hopefully by the weekend should have it skinned.

Thanks for the inquiry, and sorry to disappoint...

Don't know if this thread is dead but was wondering if there has been any progress on your Montana?