The Ship Model Forum

I'm building the 1/350 Very Fire / Blue Ridge Montana. I'm using GMM Missouri PE to upgrade, and I presume that I'll need to supplement with quite a bit of railing as the kit has no railings for the main deck, just railings for the 01 deck and superstructure. One thing that is pretty obvious is that the 5" gun houses are quite a bit wider (35%) than those found on Iowas and every other ship with twin 5"/38's. I realize that they're 5"/54's, but that's not the point.

The main issue is that it appears that the center of rotation of the 5"/54's is placed in the same place as the 5"/38's on the Missouri. That places the edge of the gun houses hanging over the ocean. Not only is that almost certainly unrealistic, it makes for oddball situations with the railings. This might be one reason why there are no main deck railings included? I think what I'm going to do is simply to relocate the gun houses back toward the centerline of the ship, allowing them to clear the railings. There is enough room to do this.

I guess my main question is if I shouldn't also raise the outboard gun houses, which is more like what is seen on Iowas. Any opinions on this?

[quote="Spot"][quote="Betelguese90"]SO very fire is at it again with their Montana class in 1/700. Just posted pre-orders for the Uss Louisiana BB-71. Does not look much different from their Montana BB-67 though.[/quote]


If I were them I'd probably release kits of the whole class, maybe even with optional "what if" parts for the various proposed armament upgrades. Once they've done the work to produce the Montana, it makes sense to sell it as many times as possible.

I'd like to see someone explore the various German "H-class" what ifs.[/quote]


I agree, might just release all 5 ships, or just do one or 2 variations with the option of changing out the hull number to accomodate which Montana class the modeler wants to go with. I know one company did the Montana, Ohio and another but each was different as it had different main guns. Montana was the base with the original 16". another was an upgraded 16" or dual 18". Can't find them, but hopefully I will stumble across them eventually.

I would hope someday someone decides to do the H-series designs. Companies have done the US what-ifs, alot of the RN What-ifs, as well as a few IJN what-ifs, just no DKM what-ifs.

[quote="Dick J"][quote="Betelguese90"]SO very fire is at it again with their Montana class in 1/700. Just posted pre-orders for the Uss Louisiana BB-71. Does not look much different from their Montana BB-67 though.[/quote]
The big difference is the bridge. The Montana kit has the Iowa style bridge while the Louisiana has the North Carolina type. The official navy models of the Montana (the ones you see in the Montana section on Navsource http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/67.htm) show the North Carolina bridge. But with that bridge, Very Fire should have deleted the quad 40MM on turret II. It would have blocked the sight lines from the lower conning tower level. (The same reason both North Carolina's, South Dakota and Iowa had no 40MM on turret II.) Many people assume that had the Montana's been built, they would have had the Iowa bridge config, but that is only an assumption. As a fleet flagship though, Ohio probably would have had the Iowa bridge because that would have been the only way to add a third conning tower level. It is possible that her config might have induced the bridge change in the others. Maybe yes or maybe no. We will never know for sure.[/quote]

I did notice that with the bridge. Basically the Montana bridge as designed verses the Iowa bridge update many assume she would have had during construction. Would make sense to keep the North Carolina style bridge if you need the extra space as a fleet flagship. The original Iowa bridge was similar in design as the North Carolina and early Montana design and they too would use 20mm platform over a 40mm quad. Wonder if they left that 40mm on turret B for aesthetics over what would have actually been designed as.

[quote="Betelguese90"]SO very fire is at it again with their Montana class in 1/700. Just posted pre-orders for the Uss Louisiana BB-71. Does not look much different from their Montana BB-67 though.[/quote]
The big difference is the bridge. The Montana kit has the Iowa style bridge while the Louisiana has the North Carolina type. The official navy models of the Montana (the ones you see in the Montana section on Navsource http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/67.htm) show the North Carolina bridge. But with that bridge, Very Fire should have deleted the quad 40MM on turret II. It would have blocked the sight lines from the lower conning tower level. (The same reason both North Carolina's, South Dakota and Iowa had no 40MM on turret II.) Many people assume that had the Montana's been built, they would have had the Iowa bridge config, but that is only an assumption. As a fleet flagship though, Ohio probably would have had the Iowa bridge because that would have been the only way to add a third conning tower level. It is possible that her config might have induced the bridge change in the others. Maybe yes or maybe no. We will never know for sure.

[quote="Betelguese90"]SO very fire is at it again with their Montana class in 1/700. Just posted pre-orders for the Uss Louisiana BB-71. Does not look much different from their Montana BB-67 though.[/quote]


If I were them I'd probably release kits of the whole class, maybe even with optional "what if" parts for the various proposed armament upgrades. Once they've done the work to produce the Montana, it makes sense to sell it as many times as possible.

I'd like to see someone explore the various German "H-class" what ifs.

SO very fire is at it again with their Montana class in 1/700. Just posted pre-orders for the Uss Louisiana BB-71. Does not look much different from their Montana BB-67 though.

[quote="EJM"][quote]Took many concepts and ideas from the successful Iowa class fast battleships. [/quote]

@Betelguese90: Did you also "take" some concepts and ideas from other people's Montana builds? I noticed some of your placement of parts kinda mirrors what I did for my Montana build which is here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/bb-67/350-em/em-index.html
Look carefully and you'll see some similarities. ;)[/quote]

Take is a strong word lol, borrowed ideas from other people's builds sounds better, but yes I did. Yours was closer to what I had for an idea so I used your build as my main reference along with the late war Iowa's as well.

[quote]Took many concepts and ideas from the successful Iowa class fast battleships. [/quote]

@Betelguese90: Did you also "take" some concepts and ideas from other people's Montana builds? I noticed some of your placement of parts kinda mirrors what I did for my Montana build which is here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/bb-67/350-em/em-index.html
Look carefully and you'll see some similarities. ;)

Ended up getting the resin IHP 1/700 USS Montana craftsman kit (2 weeks later very fire came out with their kit), but this is a mock layout, only scratch built sections are permanent. Just my idea of what the Montana might have resembled if she were completed at the end of WWII if she was built and commissioned. Took many concepts and ideas from the successful Iowa class fast battleships. kitbashed the superstructure off of an extra tamiya USS Missouri kit I had lying around. Though I do not have access on making the 5"/54, so using the 5"/38 as a place holder for the time being, or might just settle on them but make the barrels a little longer. USS Wisconsin as size and shape comparison as well as reference. any criticism and suggestions are welcome.

[quote="Betelguese90"]I'm sure it's been asked and answered here on this thread, but what camo measure was the Montana planned for? I have seen 4 different variants of MS 32 thst people have made for her. Though I'm sure by the time of her commissioning she would have been sailing in a MS 22. Anyone have both starboard and port side designs for the MS 32? I ask because I have a 1/700 IHP Montana resin kit on order and trying to get idea for it before it comes in.[/quote]


I would assume it would look something close to New Mexico's (BB-40) plans for MS 32. I plan on doing a Montana class in the future that is Measure 32 and am going to work off of those plans.

An update on the Very Fire Montana has been posted by Hanchang Kuo in the Main Forum's upcoming releases thread. Bonus: Flyhawk is also making one in the same 1/700 scale.

I'm sure it's been asked and answered here on this thread, but what camo measure was the Montana planned for? I have seen 4 different variants of MS 32 thst people have made for her. Though I'm sure by the time of her commissioning she would have been sailing in a MS 22. Anyone have both starboard and port side designs for the MS 32? I ask because I have a 1/700 IHP Montana resin kit on order and trying to get idea for it before it comes in.

[quote="Cliffy B"]Has anyone seen anything about the Very Fire kit? Any test shots, a release date, or anything?[/quote]
Freetime has the box art up, if that counts: https://freetimehobbies.com/1-700-very-fire-uss-montana-bb-67-battleship-1945-preorder/

[quote="Cliffy B"]Has anyone seen anything about the Very Fire kit? Any test shots, a release date, or anything?[/quote]


I was curious on that to cliffs. I don't think it's out yet as most places have it for preorder

Has anyone seen anything about the Very Fire kit? Any test shots, a release date, or anything?

I am currently looking into the IHP 1/700 uss Montana. Is it worth the 100 USD price tag? I already have a Tamiya Missouri kit as well, and probably might invest in a missiouri/Iowa PE set for radar and such. Also I did some searching and a company I have never heard of, Very Fire, is taking pre-orders of a 1/700 Montana for 50 USD. Anyone heard of the company and if so, how's their quality?

I found the following link on Facebook. I figured anybody who is a Montana BB fan might be interested in reading it. It talks about some "myths" and "truths" about the Montana class battleship.
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/3-myths-montana-class-battleships.html

[url]http://imgur.com/a/zte9C[/url]

So I started painting before y'all chipped in! So this is what we have. I have to paint the 5 inch and 16 inch barrels, place them, and then do some weathering.

Since we're in what-if land already with a Montana..

If you're up to doing Post-War..

You might consider either finding or scratch building the proposed 3"/50's in Mk 33 dual mount that was supposed to supplant the 40mm quad bofors on Iowa class ships in the late 40's/early 50's.

They were supposed to replace the quad's on a 1:1 basis.

Ms 22 would have been the standard camo for any capital ship from Sept/Oct 44 towards the end of the war. After about October 45 the hull was overall 5-N without any 5-H at all.

Depending on when you're doing it...

Sept 44'-Sept 45 would be Ms 22, October 45-Oct 46 would be solid 5-N. Starting in 47 the camo had gone and was overall haze grey.

BirchM -

Sorry for the long delay in a reply. I'm probably not the one to ask about painting. [i]If[/i] I were to build a MONTANA it would probably be post war, say early-mid '50s. I really have very little knowledge of the WWII camo that was used for USN BB's and the AA batteries would more than likely have been placed similar to the IOWAs locations. Just a guess.

Hank