The Ship Model Forum

joy`s ohio now update

For what it's worth, earlier this year I came up with a dual 5"-54 gun mount that could have been a MONTANA class mount as a small mini-project. It's roughly based on the 1945 Mk. 39, Mod. 0 single gun mount which WAS incorporated into the MIDWAY class CVAs. My build is over on the Scratch Built Forum, but here are a couple photos of the completed 3D designed/printed gun mount: Before coming up with the final version, I solicited input from other modelers and the final version is based on that input. It is depicted on one of the raised (01 Level) amidships gun platforms. Was an interesting interlude. MONTANA class BB's simply won't go away, will they??

Hank

This is the closest I have ever found to plans for the Montana's twin 5/54's, clearly longer than 5/38 gunhouses.
Matt

Some have argued that the 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun would have been installed within the same gunhouses enclosing the shorter 5"/38 cal. guns fit to the Iowa class, South Dakota class and North Carolina class battleships. But a 3D design study shows that the 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun does not fit in that gunhouse. The gun is simply too big. The 5"/54 cal. Mk.16 gun's breech extends so far to the rear of the trunnion that there is insufficient space behind the breech in the small 5"/38 cal. gunhouse to load the gun or provide sufficient space for recoil. Additionally, when fully elevated, the breech of the 5"/54 cal. gun pierces the 5"/38 cal. gunhouse floor. Since the 5"/54 gun can't operate in the 5"/38 cal. gunhouse, a new, larger gunhouse that can accommodate the 5"/54 cal. Mk. 16 gun is required, hence the need for the Mk.41 mount.

No official plans, drawings or photos of mock-ups of the proposed 5"/54 cal. Mk.41 twin-gun mount's gunhouse are known to exist. So some educated guesswork is needed. We can make a reasonable design based on a theoretical enlargement of the very real Mk.16 single-gun 5"/54 cal. mount fit to very real Midway-class aircraft carriers and later installed in the very real Japanese Akizuki-class and Murasame-class destroyers from 1958 to 1959 (photo below). Credible sources indicate that the Mk.41 twin-gun mount would have carried the same gun as the Mk.16 single-gun mount. Since the real 5"/54 cal. gun is known to fit and work in a real Mk.16 gunhouse, the real Mk.16 gunhouse can be used as a logical basis from which a theoretical Mk.41 gunhouse can be designed (rendering below).

While the Montana builder's model does indeed have 5"/38 gunhouses, these were probably just placeholders for the new gunhouses which had not yet been designed.

Since a Mk.41 gunhouse would probably be larger than the gunhouse enclosing 5"/38 weapons, the location of the barbette, or nearby bulkheads, would need to be adjusted to provide sufficient space for the Mk.41 gunhouse to operate.

Just my 2 cents.

blw wrote: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?

You are correct. A NAVSEA engineer involved with the Iowa-class program said the twin 5"/54s slated for the Iowas in the 1990s were slightly longer than the 38 caliber mounts. The structure would have been modified slightly to clear the mounts, but it's not a big deal. The drawings in the 1980s were to make 5"/38 caliber mounts that were slightly longer but not wider.

Otherwise, with the Iowas in the 1990s, swapping them with Mk45 mounts would have been legit.

JoyYard�s new products?BB68 OHIO

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?

Spot wrote:

Betelguese90 wrote: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.

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.

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.

Dick J wrote:

Betelguese90 wrote: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.

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.

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.

Betelguese90 wrote: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.

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.

Betelguese90 wrote: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.

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.

EJM wrote:

Took many concepts and ideas from the successful Iowa class fast battleships.

@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 ... index.html
Look carefully and you'll see some similarities.

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.

Took many concepts and ideas from the successful Iowa class fast battleships.

@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 ... 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.

Betelguese90 wrote: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.

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.

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

Freetime has the box art up, if that counts: https://freetimehobbies.com/1-700-very- ... -preorder/

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

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