The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:25 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 810
In the last few months, I've been having a few arguments with people about whether the hull shape/form of the Midway class carrier was based on the hull shape/form of the Montana class battleship. Is this true or not?

I was under the impression that only the engineering systems of the Midway carrier were based on the arrangements/systems of the Montana battleship.
I can find no information in the Montana chapter (Pages 329-343) in Norman Friedman's "US Battleships" book where it mentions the Midway hull shape being based on the design of the Montana hull shape.
As for the Montana chapter (Pages 153-179) in Garzke & Dulin's "BATTLESHIPS" book, I only came across the following text (Below) on Page 165 related to the engineering systems of the Montana which were to be similar to those for the Midway.
Quote:
The eight boilers were to be located in individual fire rooms. This added compartmentation reduced possible flooding from underbottom damage. The undesirability from asymmetrical flooding was recognised, but the designers had sufficient confidence in the side protective system and overall stability to revert to longitudinal subdivision of primary engineering spaces amidships. This concept was used in the Midway class carriers.


Is there any information in Friedman's "US Carriers, An Illustrated Design History" book that might shed more light on the Midway class carriers and if their hull shapes were based on those of the Montana class battleships, or is it just the engineering systems?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2994
Interesting. I have heard this as well, but it may be a wive's-tale. I have heard that the hull was directly based upon one of the Montana variants with the more powerful modified Iowa-class plant (230,000shp?), however, I have not seen it more than once.

The most likely thing to me is that lessons learned from the designs were directly adapted to the Midway-class "large deck carriers" vs taking a battleship design and building a carrier super structure upon it.

I look forward to seeing what other readers know! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1732
Just compare the Midway and Montana designs and you will have much of your answer. The bow forms were different, the stern forms were different, and the length to beam ratios were different. Displacement was very different. The Montana side form had inclined external armor with an integrated bulge protruding below. The Midway side form was wall-sided (totally vertical) with multiple internal bulkheads, all of which were also vertical. The power plant layout was about the only thing the designs had in common. The Midway hull form had more in common with the Essex form than with the Montana form. I will let you draw your own conclusions from that.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:00 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
There's basically no discussion in Friedman's aircraft carrier book on the hull design. There is a passing mention on page 219 that "the highly compartmented Montana arrangement was retained" although the Iowa's 212,000 SHP plant was adopted rather than the Monanta's 172,000 SHP. As DickJ observes, there is very little in common between the two hulls other than the enforced physical limitations of beam and draft. Pretty much everything else was different!

The demands on design were quite different too. The Montana designers had to worry a lot about protecting the magazines at precisely the locations where the hull needed to narrow. There was no discussion of analogous problems in the discussion on Midway, partly I presume since the magazines weren't tied to the location of the turrets and could be moved fore-and-aft with somewhat fewer restrictions. For that matter, the hull shapes necessary to support a 33-knot carrier and a 27-knot battleship are quite different, which is more or less what DickJ was saying. The Iowa 212,000 SHP plant only sufficed for 29 knots on the Montana hull, which should tell us a lot about the fineness of the Midway, since that is the plant that drove it at 33 knots.

_________________
... Brian
Laid down: BB-63 Missouri
Clearing the slip: BB-67 Montana


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2994
blw,

Excellent analysis! Thank you for that! :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Chuck Bauer, david angelo, Guchi, janschu and 15 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group