The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:26 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 654 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
zadmiral wrote:
Does anyone have an official drawing showing dimentions of the Mk41 gunhouse used in the Montana class' secondary battery(5inch 54)??
Here is some good information behind that. The Iowa-class battleships were to get these gun mounts in 1993-1996 Warfighting Improvement Plan (WIP Upgrade FY1993). The Iowa-class Project Manager was based at Longbeach Naval Shipyard, and I asked him about this. He said NAVSEA sent him drawings of the gun mounts to prepare for re-build of the mounts. He said the drawings were "literally longer versions of the existing mounts, because the 38 caliber gun houses were not long enough for the recoil of the 54 caliber slides".

So, the real versions of these mounts that NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems command which is the current name of BuShips) had showed them to be longer versions of the 38 caliber gunhouses. No big deal. I hope to have some cast for some WIF projects of my own this year. :heh:

I hope that helps! :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:34 am 
Its been awhile.
Montanas construction is coming along , slowly...but surely.
The 40mm and 20mm batteries have been finalized.
Things that were considered were 16 inch , 5inch muzzle blast, and arcs of fire .
Im not so good with the line drawings on the computer, but everything is drawn and designed on tons of paper.
The 40 mm mounts are to be as follows.
Mounts 1 and 2 are fwd of turret 1 nestled up near the anchor capstans.
Mt 3 is on turret 2
Mts 4 and 5 are on the main deck just past the break in the o1 level slightly fwd of the armored conning tower.
They are nestled in against the o1 level blkhd. This leaves them clear of the blast from turrets 1 and 2,
Mts 6 and 7 are on the 03 level just fwd and abreast of the fwd main battery director tower
Mts 8 and 9 are on the 04 level just aft of the prvious.
Mts 10 and 11 are on the 04 level just aft of the fwd stack.
Mts 12 and 13 are 1 tub higher just aft of the previous 2
Mts 14,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 21 cascade downwards and aft on both sides with mts 20 and 21 being on the 02 level.
Mt 22 is on turret 3.
Mts 23 and 24 tub tops are at the 01 level just outboard of being under turret 3s rangefinder hoods.
mts 25 and 26 are on the centerline aft of turret 4.
mts 27 and 28 are on the fantail.
All 50 of the 20mm mounts are twins.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:13 am
Posts: 403
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Guest wrote:
Its been awhile.
Montanas construction is coming along , slowly...but surely.
The 40mm and 20mm batteries have been finalized.
Things that were considered were 16 inch , 5inch muzzle blast, and arcs of fire .
Im not so good with the line drawings on the computer, but everything is drawn and designed on tons of paper.
The 40 mm mounts are to be as follows.
Mounts 1 and 2 are fwd of turret 1 nestled up near the anchor capstans.
Mt 3 is on turret 2
Mts 4 and 5 are on the main deck just past the break in the o1 level slightly fwd of the armored conning tower.
They are nestled in against the o1 level blkhd. This leaves them clear of the blast from turrets 1 and 2,
Mts 6 and 7 are on the 03 level just fwd and abreast of the fwd main battery director tower
Mts 8 and 9 are on the 04 level just aft of the prvious.
Mts 10 and 11 are on the 04 level just aft of the fwd stack.
Mts 12 and 13 are 1 tub higher just aft of the previous 2
Mts 14,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 21 cascade downwards and aft on both sides with mts 20 and 21 being on the 02 level.
Mt 22 is on turret 3.
Mts 23 and 24 tub tops are at the 01 level just outboard of being under turret 3s rangefinder hoods.
mts 25 and 26 are on the centerline aft of turret 4.
mts 27 and 28 are on the fantail.
All 50 of the 20mm mounts are twins.

That would be a awesome amount of AA firepower from a single ship. I presume those 40mm are Quad Mounts. Eight more Quads than an Iowa Class, and double the number of 20mm barrels, plus 2. Looking forward to seeing it in 3D!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Well that's what I figured for the 5 inch gunhouses. I knew they wouldn't use twin versions of the gh mounted on the Midways...those wouldn't work for a BB.
So Ive already drawn up longer versions of the MK 28 gh and they are under construction as we speak.
Does your friend at NavSea know if they would have used the MK 41 gunhouses? And is there an official drawing that I can get dimentions from??
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
zadmiral wrote:
Does your friend at NavSea know if they would have used the MK 41 gunhouses? And is there an official drawing that I can get dimentions from??
Z
What Mk41 gunhouse are you talking about? Do you mean Mk45? He has the drawings NAVSEA had approved for manufacture by Crane Indiana Weapons Depot, but he has never scanned them. The most he has said is that the gun houses would have been elongated enough to allow for the greater recoil. Keep in mind the recoil isn't that much longer. You only need to add a little extra length to the gun house. He described the rear of the mount was going to be cut up just a little to provide more clearance between the deck and the bottom of the gun house. He made the point they were designed that way to keep the spent casing from piling up underneath and behind the mount and possibly binding the mount during high volume fire missions.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 4:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
The Mk 41 was the mk number for Montanas secondary gunhouses.. Ive never heard of the mk45 but that would probably be the new version of the mk41 they were going to install on the Iowas. The one problem would have been the handedness of the 54 cal gun assy.
They made only right hand assemblies(or was it left hand). They cancelled the mirror image gun when the Montanas were cancelled.
Since then there have been only single mounts.
But I have seen several references to the mk 41 gunhouse..just never a drawing. Im assuming there is one if they assigned it a mk number???
At any rate I only added a quarter of an inch(1 foot in 48th) to my gunhouses which are basically mk28s, I should probably not raise the rear floor as that would have been a modern modification not thought of in 1945.
Then again maybe they would have done it that way then too...What do you think???
And where can I get a drawing of the mk41/45. Does it have a drawing number to reference???
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
zadmiral wrote:
The Mk 41 was the mk number for Montanas secondary gunhouses. Ive never heard of the mk45 but that would probably be the new version of the mk41 they were going to install on the Iowas.


Oooo! Interesting! Very nice. Thank you for that. I had never come across the Mk-designation of the Montana's 5"/54s. That's great. :thumbs_up_1: The Mk45 is the modern 5" gun that all USN DDGs and CGs use.

zadmiral wrote:
Ive never heard of the mk45 but that would probably be the new version of the mk41 they were going to install on the Iowas. The one problem would have been the handedness of the 54 cal gun assy.
While the modern 5"/54 and 62caliber guns use a ready service loader for a slightly faster rate of fire, they are still hand loaded into the hoists and into the drum. After the 20 round ready service loader has been exhausted (firing for affect), the firing rate drops, and every round fired is directly hand loaded. It's still a pain in the ass with little on-target effect.

zadmiral wrote:
But I have seen several references to the mk 41 gunhouse..just never a drawing. Im assuming there is one if they assigned it a mk number???
Me either. I really wish they would be scanned and posted up on a site like navweaps.

zadmiral wrote:
At any rate I only added a quarter of an inch(1 foot in 48th) to my gunhouses which are basically mk28s...
It's up to you, but I think the mounts would probably have been longer than that. For the 1993 modernizations, NAVSEA and LBNSY were considering moving the base rings on the Iowas' 5" mounts 24" out toward the rail to provide the enough if not the same room between the gun house and the super structure. That leads me to believe that the houses would have been at least 24" longer than the Mk28s. Your call, of course :big_grin:

zadmiral wrote:
Then again maybe they would have done it that way then too...What do you think???
Good question! In a stylistic point of view, the modification would look great. In practicality, it makes perfect sense. In 1945? I don't know. It was a lesson learned from the war, and the Montanas' guns were going to be a new design. I think it would be possible that they would have made that change. However, again, it's up to you :heh:

zadmiral wrote:
And where can I get a drawing of the mk41/45. Does it have a drawing number to reference???
The Mk45 can be found anywhere on the net, especially http://www.navweaps.com. I have very limited internet access right now so I can't really post pictures. :-(

I think we would all love to see pictures of your build! :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 8:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Yes Ive been to that site and noticed that the 5/54s that were slated for the Montanas were designated Mk16 for the guns, and Mk41 for the gunhouses. It also states that all subsequent 5" were designated by the whole mount. I didn't find any reference of the Mk 45 mounting. I agree that I should add another foot after thinking about ot. But I wont use the sloping floor. Although I do believe they used that in the Alaskas Mk 32 gunhouses.
I want to post pics of my beast but they are all too large.
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
ok yeah I found the mk45 in the modern weapons. That would certainly not do for the 1945 Montanas.
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Make a correction on that. The mk38 gunhouse had the raised floor and was WW2 era. thus it wouldn't be out of time period.
In addition, both the mk32 and the mk38 houses had 6 inches more length out back. But they had a larger sloped faceplate than the mk28. I don't know why that would be.
It would be my guess that the Navy would want to change as little as possible as was the practice at the time.
Lengthening the mk 28 would be the easiest as most of the armor plates would be nearly identical to the Iowas, thus easy to manufacture, or so it would seem. But a raised floor would also be easily incorporated.
Then there is turret balance. extra weight will have to be added to the front, thicker faceplates??probably, to compensate for the extra rear overhang???
I like the lengthened mk28 with the raised floor...It will look good...
100 people will never agree on what these ships woulda looked like...that's the fun of it.
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
All links and pics in the majority of my posts from Pages 1-17 have been fixed to the best of my ability. I will continue to fix further posts in the next several days.

The majority of Randy's Montana pics from all his posts are gone. Luckily, I saved a lot of them to my comp for "reference purposes". If the MW staff and/or Randy gives me permission, I could re-post most of his Montana pics back in this thread on his behalf.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
All links and pics from all my posts in this entire thread have finally been fixed to the best of my ability.
A member by the name of Randy used to have pics of his Montana build in this thread. To the best of my knowledge, his pics can be found here:
http://www.nulspace.com/index.aspx

Other usefull Montana references are the following:

Image

Image

Image

Image


Model of a Montana (?) inside the USS New Jersey battleship.
Image
Image
Image

And......?
http://sdmodelmakers.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ntana.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:07 am
Posts: 106
Looks like there is a new tool 1/700 and 1/350 Montana coming to us from a company called Blue Ridge Models. Part of me is all angsty because I still have the YMW 1/350 kit and I spent a bucket load of money on it. Part of me also realizes why I haven't built it yet and what the new barrels, AA guns, and Missouri kits to stripmine will cost and hopes that the new one is a vastly better kit.



Image

Matt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
I also have the YMW Montana. It is an "as built" version...or should I say "as last designed"
version..and while pricey, It is a fine model. The extra cost is soley up to the builder.
Although the secondary 5 inch mounts DEFINATELY need replacing. And the included brass etchings are
excellent. Fill in the billboard anchor slope and its all good.
But I also look fwd to seeing the 1/350 version coming out. I currently have a 1/48th version nearing completion.
However the 18inch and 20 inch gun versions are unrealistic as the basic protection given the hull design would not protect against those caliber guns. As the class was not treaty bound, the US Navy would not have built a ship without adequate protection. USN practice was firepower and protection as a priority over speed. Even if they do look cool.
Z


Last edited by zadmiral on Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
1/350 Montana from Blue Ridge, eh? I'll look forward to seeing pics of that when it comes out as well as in-progress build threads whenever people buy it and build it. ;) As for me, my money is going toward paying medical bills, so no new big fancy kits for me for awhile. :( I want to build another Montana for myself since my first one (Which is fully documented in this large thread) was built for my best friend. I've got at least 2 extra Tamiya Missouri kits and 1 North Carolina kit to rob parts from. Not sure when I'll start or what configuration/time frame my second Montana would be in.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 1:29 pm
Posts: 1
Hello,

I am working on the second novel of a trilogy dealing with, to make it simple, an "alternative history". That isn't quite an accurate description, but the topic will fill three books, so "alternative history" will have to work here.

My story will be using a Montana class battleship as part of the plot-line. Book one did not require many details as the contact was via radio, but for book II and probably book III, I will need more details. Since the ship(s) was never actually built, there isn't much out there. For me this is both good and bad as I can fill in the details myself.

Can any of you folks suggest a good reference point besides this thread for information on this class of ship? I will review the thread this evening, but any other reference you can suggest would be most welcome. I do plan some "upgrades" for what is, for her captain, initially a rusted hulk abandoned for three hundred years and needing much work. That said, I'd like a baseline so I might know what is and is not feasible with this vessel.

For those curious:
The ship, "Montana" (what else?!) will be commanded by Captain Hans Langsdorff, formerly of the Graf Spee. I always thought that man's suicide was a major tragedy, even if he did work for Hitler, so I "rescued" him.
The first book, "The Wives of Jacob, Book I, In the Beginning", is available as an ebook and at least a portion of it can be read free of charge online at Amazon, Google Books, Barnes & Noble, or most other online sellers.

Thank you for this forum. I've always been impressed by model makers. I myself do not have the time or the skill set for this kind of work.

Dale


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
The best reference material available for the Montana class is US BATTLESHIPS , An illustrated design history by Norman Friedman.
ISBN 0-87021-715-1 Naval institute Press.
Anything you want to know about the ship if you cant find that book you can ask me.
It had a much different arrangement than the model shown above. but was similar in appearance..
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Montana was 30 ft longer(waterline) than the Iowas and roughly 11 feet wider in the beam. It was the first US battleship to be protected against the BuOrd 2700lb shell. Its scheduled completion date was mid to late 1945. Had it been built, it would likely have been modified during construction the same way that the Iowas were. That is it would have had the forward stack faired into the forward director tower. The boats would have been removed to make room for quad 40mm gun mounts. The Iowas carried 20 of these mounts(except for the Iowa herself, which had 19).
There was enough deck space on a Montana for 30 of these mounts. All of the 20mm mounts would likely have been twins. My ship has locations for 50 twin 20mm mounts.
The 5inch twin gun mounts were arranged 1 deck lower than the Iowas with three turrets on the main deck near the deck edge and two on the 01 level per side, and had longer barrels as they were 54 caliber vice 38 caliber. The gun houses would be slightly longer versions than the 38 cal houses, but otherwise identical. Her electronics suite would likely be identical to that of the Missouri with the big round SK-2 radar forward and The mk-13 fire control radars on the gun directors. plus all the smaller antennas.
If your alternative history includes a Montana class ship, then the last two Iowas, Illinois and Kentucky would also likely have been completed as well. Food for thought
Would like to read those when your done.
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:43 pm
Posts: 50
Does anyone know of a possible release date for the Blue Ridge Models MONTANA class battleships?

_________________
Planned projects
1/700 USS Macon CA-132
1/350 USS Wasp CV-18
1/350 USS Alabama BB-60


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
Everyone, the USN changed gun designation systems at the end of ww2. There were separate designations for the actual gun and the gunhouse / turret.

The 5"/54 for the Midway and Montana classes was the Mk16. The turrets had different designations.

The single mount of the Mk16 gun was the Mk39 gun house.
The twin mount for the Mk16 gun was the Mk41 gun house.

The next weapon was the Mk42 127mm/54 automatic introduced after the war. different gun house configurations would be the Mk42 mod*

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 654 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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