The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:27 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 654 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 33  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:53 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
For the bridge, I would assume it depends on when exactly your Montana was to be built - if it was to be built alongside the first 2 Iowas to be completed, then she would likely get the open bridge, whereas if she was to be built alongside or after the last two Iowas, then she would have received the square bridge.

Or a more radical idea - if her bridge was being built at the same that as New Jersey received her round enclosed bridge, then Montana might have gotten that instead!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
Update!

I finished the tweaks to the bow section, and went hunting for errors in the stern section, since both of those have the most curvatures and higher levels of difficulty. Here's what I've come up with:

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:15 am
Posts: 1204
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Nice work Lancer.... Is that 1/200 scale?

EJM- the late war configuration would resemble very much to that of a late war Iowa. Take note the 3"/50 cal. dual mounts instead of the 40mm quad, and perhaps some single 40mm instead of the twin and single 20mm mounts.

As far as the bridge shape is concerned: Why did the Navy change form open to square bridges at first place? Perhaps we can find the basis for the hypothesis of the bridge shape answering that question.

And as far as modernisation is concerned: What modern weapon (except nukes) would be able to penetrate/damage the armour of a Montana? I can only think of modern torpedos, especially the ones that burst beneath the ship...

_________________
NIKOS (NICK)
ΜΕΓΑ ΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ
(GREAT IS THE NATION THAT MASTERS THE SEAS)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
GTDEATH13 wrote:
And as far as modernisation is concerned: What modern weapon (except nukes) would be able to penetrate/damage the armour of a Montana? I can only think of modern torpedos, especially the ones that burst beneath the ship...
Let me ask: where are the missiles impacting? The deck has a different armor arrangement than the sides.
SS-N-19 Shipwreck would have the best chance. The Shipwreck was the only one that actually threatened the Iowas in the 1980s, and even though the SS-N-22 is really, really fast, it is delivers less of a punch with either kenetic impact or explosive. The SS-N-19 is a real monster. It was designed to blow chunks off carriers. With a Montana's arrangement, I would give only that one a serious chance. The Iowas were rated to be able to wistand 6 simultaneous broadside Mk48 heavy or six Mk48 ADCAP under the keel impacts before the ship were placed in danger. Their side and turret armor are very, very hard to penetrate. Only her deck armor would see much of a threat but it would have to be greater than a Harpoon...even then it would not likely penetrate the second deck. The main deck would either detonate or destroy the weapon, and the fragments would not penetrate the actual armored 2nd deck.

Seeing how the Montana had a significantly superior armor (an additional 10,000 tons!) and anti-torpedo arrangement, the Montana would fare pretty well. As they are, Iowas or Nimitz-class would take significant work to sink with either missiles or torpedoes.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
Yes, 1/200 scale.

I did the bow and stern first, so that I could find the places where there were errors and discrepancies in the fit of the hull skins, (as you all can see) but I think that the second iteration will be much cleaner with much better fit.

I also bit the bullet and altered the hull waist to show the armor belt. The way I did it is somewhat different than shown on the Navy's demonstration model, but the basic idea is there. More to come!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
So any progress?

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
How nice of you to ask! There is indeed progress...

I reworked the bow skins, to allow for the slight bulge of the forward below-the-waterline that I designed in, and I think I got better fit. I also have been skinning back toward the stern, and have the full forward and amidships sections skinned and standing by to be mated. I have stopped work on skinning the after section, because I have a big bunch of things going on at work, and just haven't felt peppy enough to work on the ship. I have some time off coming next week, and will be out of town, but I'll get started back in a few days.

Here are some photos of the design/build progress so far...

Image Image
Image Image
Image Image
Image Image
Image Image

There will be more to come when the after section is skinned, and also again when the forward, amidships, and aft sections are mated together. Then, I start on the superstructure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:37 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Six Lakes, MI
Don't know if this thread is dead but was wondering if there has been any progress on your Montana?

_________________
On the drawing board: 1/72 Iowa Class Battleship
On the slip ways: Tamiya 1/350 Missouri BB63
In the hanger: 1/144 Tu-26 Backfire B And a F-105F


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
MichiganBB27 wrote:
Don't know if this thread is dead but was wondering if there has been any progress on your Montana?


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...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
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).

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
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...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
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.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
lancer525 wrote:
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...
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 few vulnerabilities battleships share with any other ships and how few vulnerabilities battleships actually have...not very objective is it?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
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.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
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.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:27 am
Posts: 47
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 884
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:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Seasick wrote:
The Iowas and the Montanas would be very vulnerable torpedo attack.
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.

Seasick wrote:
The Iowas and the Montanas would be very vulnerable torpedo attack.


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, Iowa Class Battleships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin (Weapons and Warfare) 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:
BBarmor.jpg
BBarmor.jpg [ 22.5 KiB | Viewed 2052 times ]


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:
BBarmorarrangement2.jpg
BBarmorarrangement2.jpg [ 23.98 KiB | Viewed 2052 times ]


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:
BBsternprotection.jpg
BBsternprotection.jpg [ 46.62 KiB | Viewed 2052 times ]


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:
Montanaframes.jpg
Montanaframes.jpg [ 49.86 KiB | Viewed 2048 times ]


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.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 654 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 33  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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

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