The Ship Model Forum

by **GrizzlyBear** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:36 pm

Just getting our thread up again.

by **EJM** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:31 pm

It's going to be awhile before I get the time and nerve to post all the info. that was lost again. *sigh* Everyone else can discuss the Montana at their leisure. I'll try to have some info. ready later this week or on the weekend.

by **GrizzlyBear** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:02 pm

OK guys, we need to get the ball rolling again here. Montana is the biggest and the best, yet our section here is falling behind again.

So, here's a question:

What is it about the Montana Class that appeals to you the most as a modeler?

For me, it's a combinations of things. I've always liked 'things' that stand apart from the rest and have something that makes them truely unique. My 'Favorites List' includes: The Montana class; SS Manhattan; Titanic; Jahre Viking; B-52G & H models; XB-70; F-16XL; Tiger I; M1 Abrams; and the Gottwald AK-850 & AK-912 mobile cranes. The Montana's stand out because they were the biggest US BB designed, and would likely be able to hold their own against against any seriously proposed BB. (German H-42, 43 & 44 are excluded, since they were never feasable in the 1st place)

I also like Montana because of the challenge in trying to come up with a probable design. We've got a very loose set of guidelines, and after that, it's totally up to us as to what we figure they'd look like.

So, what about the rest of you?

by **EJM** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:51 pm

What is it about the Montana Class that appeals to you the most as a modeler?

1. It's a mystery ship. Nobody knows what she truly would have looked like since she was never built. There's so many concept drawings, sketches, blueprints, etc. that it's really hard to figure out what is correct and what's not. To each his/her own.
2. Sometimes it's just great to daydream and think about what would happen if she had been built and had faced other Axis battleships in fictional combat.
3. Four 16" triple turrets = FIREPOWER, BABY! Yeah! :woo_hoo:

by **EJM** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:10 pm

Ok, time to get back on track here. I'll use this post for mentioning official/unofficial plans, text, etc. about the Montana, and then I'll write another post sometime later discussing again the project I am undertaking at home.

For those who wish to read about and look up info. regarding the Montana, the single best source IMO is Norman Friedman's "US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" book. Pages 328-343 list everything you want to know about the Montana.
Line drawing of the proposed Montana class made by Alan Raven in Norman Friedman's book:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... oncept.jpg

A great source for photographic images is here:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/67.htm

Montana class specifications courtesy of Warships1.com : (Site no longer available. Had to scan pages into my computer.)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... an0012.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... an0013.jpg

Another Montana site (Not much info. though.):
http://navysite.de/bb/bb67class.htm

Comparing the 18" guns which could have been used for the Montana vs. the 16" used on the IOWA class and then subsequently chosen for the Montana as well.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Comparing the 5"/38 guns used on the IOWA class vs. the 5"/54 proposed for the Montana.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk16.htm

Copies of pages from Garzke & Dulin's "US Battleships" book that someone sent to me:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... gandd1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... gandd2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... gandd3.jpg

Page showing armor comparisons between the Montana class BB and other battleship BB's.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... copy-1.jpg

Copy of an article from the May 1992 issue of FineScale Modeler of a person who built his own fictional version of what the Montana looked like based on what info. he had at the time:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... mmont2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... mmont1.jpg

by **EJM** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:43 pm

Well, I think I'll finish by talking about what I've got at home right now. About two years ago, my best friend wanted to have a model of the Montana. At that time, there were no kits available. All we could think of doing was taking a TAMIYA 1/350 IOWA battleship and lengthening and widening that. Fortuneately, fate smiled on us......sort of. Someone decided to make a 1/350 resin hull for us. We gladly accepted the offer. However, when we got the hull, there were some problems. I won't go into a long story about why the hull is the way it is in the pics; apparently, the person who made the hull had some problems with the casting process. I don't remember. But still, we decided to keep the hull as it was our only option. Besides, it gives me practice and experience working with resin. It's one big learning curve.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... nhull1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... nhull2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... nhull3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... nhull4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... amage4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... amage1.jpg

And here's some pics of the difference in length and width between the resin hull and a TAMIYA 1/350 Iowa hull. The resin hull is 32" long and 4" wide.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... mpare1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... mpare2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... mpare3.jpg

And here's some pics where I took some of the TAMIYA battleship parts and laid them on the resin hull to figure out how I was going to plan everything out. Nothing is glued on the hull; the parts are just sitting there. This does not depict how the final version of the layout will look. This is only temporary. Everything is subject to change.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... na/c20.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... na/c21.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... na/c22.jpg

For anyone who is thinking of trying to convert a 1/350 TAMIYA Iowa class battleship into the Montana, here are some measurements that I got from a friend at work two years ago when I originally thought about converting a TAMIYA kit.
"To confirm, the Montana is 921' long and 121' wide, thus at 1/350 scale it will be 31.577" long and 4.149" wide. The Iowa is 887' long and 108' wide, thus at 1/350 scale it will be 30.411" long and 3.703" wide. The difference is 1.166" in length and 0.446" in width. To simplify, 1.125 is exactly 1 1/8", thus 1.166 is close enough to use 1 1/8. 0.500 is exactly 1/2", so 0.446 is close enough. Simply lengthen the TAMIYA hull by 1 1/8" and widen the hull by 1/2" (1/4" on each side.)

However, where you decide to cut and lengthen the TAMIYA hull is up to you. I have no answers for that.

EDIT: And yes, for those who are wondering, I do plan to use extra IOWA parts from extra TAMIYA Missouri kits to build the Montana. Neither me nor my best friend have a lot of money to afford photoetch, brass barrels, and all sorts of other fancy accessories. My friend gave me two extra Missouri kits to rob parts from, and then I'll use what's leftover in those kits to make some other What If battleships. Parts that I'll be using are:
16" turrets.
5" guns
40mm tubs and guns.
20mm galleries and guns.
Ship's boats.
Searchlights
Various superstructure parts. (Too many to list.)
All gunfire control directors.
Seaplanes, crane, and catapults.
Life rafts.

Photoetch that I'll probably use if/when I have the money. (Gold Medal Models)
WWII Battleship Missouri Upgrade Set x1
Gold Plus Missouri Fine Details set x1
Extra Ladders set x2
40mm & 20mm gun Detail Set x1
Watertight Doors set x2
Assorted Cable Reels set x1
WWII USN Floater Net Baskets set x1

The ship will probably have a Measure 22 paint scheme and will be displayed on a water base.

by **EJM** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:43 pm

Here is something that I've been thinking about tonight. Anything I mention here does not necessarily mean I am going to buy the barrels and make the changes. I'm just curious, that's all. Anyway, Is it possible to make the Montana with 18" gun turrets? Can the TAMIYA Iowa turrets be used to hold 18" scratchbuilt/bought brass gun barrels? Or would a new turret need to be scratchbuilt? If 18" barrels were used on the model, Is it better to have 2 or 3 barrels per turret? Which do you think would look better on the Montana: 16" gun turrets or 18" gun turrets? And how many barrels per turret?

by **Timmy C** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:46 pm

She would look good with three barrels per turret. Size of guns won't affect the look much.

by **GrizzlyBear** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:20 pm

Hi Eric,

Since I'm wide awake, I'll give you nice, complex, multifaceted answers...

1. I've got the sprue from a Tamiya Yamato w/the 18" barrels and a completed NJ 16" turret sitting right here. The Yam 18"ers are very noticiably bigger, and also have some molded on detail that the NJ 16's don't have. On a 1/350 MT, the changeover would stand out and add to the image of power (and detruction) that MT conveys. So, for just looks, why not?

2. It couldn't be done. The US 16"/50 weighs 133.9 tons each. The Jap 18.1" Type 94 weighs 162.4 tons each. US 18"/48 = 177.8 tons; US 18"/47 = 177.0 tons. Due to the weight increase of gun, ammo, turret & barbette you'd have to drop to twin mounts and still extend your 921' hull to about 1,000'. If you stuck with 4 triples, you'd need a hull in the neighborhood of 1,150' x 145' just to keep your keel from looking at the sky (or to keep a 90,000 ton BB from pretending it's a submarine).

And yes, I know I'm a wise-ass. :big_grin:

Bill

by **GrizzlyBear** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:22 pm

PS: Near as I can tell, the Tamiya Yam 18.1"ers will easily mount up to the Missouri turret faces.

by **GrizzlyBear** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:27 pm

PPS: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.htm

Everything you could ever want to know about US 18" naval guns.

by **EJM** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:18 pm

Bill, if you get a chance, can you post a pic showing the comparison of the TAMIYA Yamato barrels and turret next to the ones from an Iowa? I would be interested in seeing that.

by **GrizzlyBear** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:19 am

I'll do the best I can, but my digital cam doesn't do too good on closeups.

by **Steve Larsen** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:42 pm

One of the things that Windjammer got wrong was the hull shape.
Montana's hull sections were not slab-sided like Iowas but had a
pronounced blister more like North Carolina. See the bottom left of this
plan:

"Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board as part of the
process leading to the Montana class (BB-67--71) battleship design.
This plan, dated 15 March 1940, is for a ship of 70,000 tons standard
displacement and 82,000 ton trial displacement, with a main battery of
twelve 16"/50 guns, a secondary battery of twenty 5"/54 guns and a
320,000 horsepower powerplant for a speed of 33 knots. Ship's
dimensions are: waterline length 1050'; waterline beam 120'; draft 35'.
Scale of the original drawing is 1/32" = 1'.
Port side 5" gun arrangement is labeled "previous secondary battery
arrangement". Starboard side has a "proposed secondary battery
arrangement."

"The original plan is in the 1939-1944 "Spring Styles Book" held by the
Naval Historical Center."

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

by **EJM** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:34 pm

Thanks for the pic, Steve. :thumbs_up_1:

Yes, I am aware of the side hull shape for the Montana. Unfortuneately, the Windjammer plans were all I had to work with a year or two ago before I had access to Norman Friedman's book on Battleships or the Montana plans found in Garzke & Dulin's book. It will be next to impossible to shape the side of the resin hull I have to account for the external armor slanted hull shape. I'm not willing to go into THAT much work and fatigue to create that. :faint:

by **Steve Larsen** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:44 pm

I don't blame you, that would be a LOT of work.

by **GrizzlyBear** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:43 am

Hi Steve,

You really can't fault Windjammer's plans for showing Montana as slab-sided. While they may be wrong, they just may be right. Sadly, the same can be said of the A.L. Raven plans and other drawings in Norman Friedman's US Battleships book. The problem is that we just don't know.

I've been researching the Montana class for the past few years now, and the single biggest question that I've come up with is this: 'Does a set of Final Design plans actually exist?' I'm still trying to find the answer to that.

Given Dr. Friedman's reputation and naval contacts, it's safe to assume that the plans & drawings in his book are at least the closest to Montana's final design that we have, and possibly actually taken from the official plans.

The reason that I question the authenticity of Dr. Friedman's plans/drawings is that the US Naval Historical Center states catagorically that the images and plans on their website "...features all the images we have concerning the Montana class battleship design." The Naval Historical Center IS a department of the US Navy. How could even Dr. Friedman have acquired battleship plans that the US Navy itself doesn't seem to have?

Now, just for sake of arguement, let's say that the plans in that book are the final plans developed before construction was to commence. Well, that still doesn't say that they look anything like what actually would have been built. Even after construction has started, plans often undergo extensive revision. Keep in mind that Montana was scheduled to be laid down January 25, 1941. That's just 13 days short of being 1 year after Pearl Harbor. Allowing a minimum of 3 1/2 years for construction (High-Priority rush job), but a more plausible 4 years, she would have missed all but the last 9 to 14 months of the war. So, the bulk of the lessons learned during the war would have lead to design mods during construction.

I, personally, doubt that that big wide space for the boats between the funnels would have been retained. It's basically wasted space, and the boats never would have survived anyways. Everyone from Zero pilots to BB gunnery officers aims at the center of a target. Those boats would have quickly been turned into scrap-wood. It seems likely that that area would have been built up, armored and more AA added there.

There is also a possibility, slim but there, that, to speed up construction, Montana's design would have borrowed heavily from the Iowa class, which were being built during the same time frame.

So, where does all that leave us? Right back where we started. What Montana would have looked like is still a matter for speculation and conjecture. Basically, it's anyone's guess.

Bill

by **EJM** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:02 pm

Ok, Bill, given that if the Montana had been built and entered service late in WWII as you suggested, and have the boat cranes replaced with 40mm and the boats replaced with more AA, how would you build up the amidships section in the link below?
(Link no longer available. Sorry.)
Should I keep the 40mm emplacements on either side of the boats on the deck as is, or put them up higher on some sort of platform? Is there anything else I could/should do to improve the mid section?

The only reason I wanted to have boats and boat cranes still on the model was to give some sort of impression of what the Montana still looked like when planned. I wish I could think of the words I want to say but I can't. I'm trying to keep some sort of balance between the Montana and Iowa classes. I don't want to make this ship a 100% Iowa wannabe as I've gotten harshly criticised for that long ago.

by **Steve Larsen** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:23 pm

Hey, Bill!

Aw, come on now, Windjammer should have caught the hull shape. I'll grant you that a "final design" may not exist but the design model and shemes commonly available to us all show a blistered hull.

But I agree with you in that since no ship of the class was ever built, we'll never know exactly how they would have looked.

Personally, I like the single funnel schemes. I think they look great. And if I were to build a twin-stack Montana, I'd put the triple Bofors towers between those funnels just like on the Iowas because I think you are right, the Navy would have eventually mounted them no matter what the deign called for, just like the Navy did with the Iowas.

Interestingly, Floating Drydock sells copies of the official US Navy Booklets of General Plans for many ships. Floating Drydock has Montana's Booklet of General Plans dated 1943. I'd really like to see them. See:
http://floatingdrydock.com/G.htm

I have ordered copies of Booklets of General Plans from Floating Drydock for other ships (USS Saratoga CV-3, etc.) and they are indeed true plans, complete with proper builders yard stamps and signatures, not some historical recreation or artist's/modeler's interpretation. Of course the complete set of real builders plans for a large warship might be several hundred sheets, typically in a huge scale like 1/48, so a "booklet" is perfect for us modelers.

I agree with you, the Naval Historical Center is a superb resource. But just because they are a department of the Navy does not mean they have, and have published, are all that has ever existed regarding the Montana design. What they say is that they have published "all that they have". The National Archives frequently has considerably more material about a specific ship or class of ship than does the Naval Historical Center. Perhaps Friedman found material at the National Archives or from another terrific source that had not been made available to the Naval Historical Center. Folks here on this site, Tracy White for example, often find fantastic photos that are not published by the Naval Historical Center. It's great when they share these gems they find with the rest of us.

Although the Naval Historical Center is part of the Navy, we should recognize that the US military is a huge bureacracy and often times the "left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing" as the saying goes. Paperwork, especially older documents, often get lost or are destroyed. I know, I work at the Pentagon. I often have to go searching for documents that get "lost in the sauce" as we say. So it would not be unusual if a government organization, even one as respected as the Naval Historical Center, did not have all the material about a specific subject.

All that being said, I agree with you in that we'll never know what the Montana would have looked like. And I suppose I should take it easy on Windjammer. Afterall, they do have a set of plans available to us that look good and from which a decent model can be made.

by **GrizzlyBear** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:08 pm

Hi Eric,

First, I tried to do pics of the 18.1" gun and the 16"/50 for you, but the pics come out blurry if I get close enough to really see the stuff. If I move back enough for clear pics, you really can't see the parts. Sorry, I tried.

As for your question about what to do with the midships boat section, I'm afraid that I have to say that I really don't know. Filling in the 'boat deck' with AA is a logical step that follows the number of AA emplacements found on other BB's operating in the Pacific during the later half of WWII. But how to do it is largely a matter of creative guesswork. An AA deck could be built over the boats, and then the boats could slide outwards to a point where the cranes could get them, but then you'd loose the 40mm tubs that you have there.

If you take the drawing from Friedman's US Battleships book, and work out the scale, you'll find that that plan uses 51 feet for the boats! Think of all the AA that you could pack into 51'!

My best suggestion would be to talk to Abram and see if he can/will draw you up a top & profile view based on your resin hull. Then, either drawing by hand or PC, you can work out various ideas and layouts on paper/screen. It's alot less frustrating that way. Believe me, I know that from experience. My Montana is currently in it's 5th 'revision', and not an hour ago I came up with a few more changes to make to the aft superstructure.

Here's how she looks for now:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/GrizzlysPics/1001x134topview.gif

As for what you said about: "I don't want to make this ship a 100% Iowa wannabe as I've gotten harshly criticised for that long ago." Hey, the only thing that matters is that you're happy with the model. My current plan is for Montana to be 1,001' 3" long and 134' 2" wide. I may (or may not) upgrade to 32 5"/54's (8 twin turrets per side). I'm also doing a modified Missouri superstructure on her. Now, some joker is gonna come along and say, "Hey, that's all wrong!" My reply will be, "Prove it to me." Will my Montana look like what the Navy would have had? I seriously doubt it. But, she'll look just the way I want her to. And that's the only thing that matters.

Bill

PS: If you look real close on my pic, you'll see a few people standing there. That's one BIG hunk of metal!

The Ship Model Forum

Calling all USS Montana class fans

Calling all USS Montana class fans

Who is online