The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:06 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 654 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
The Montana class would be modified during construction and probably commission with AA guns in a configuration dictated by the anti-kamikaze program:
Most of the quad 40mm would be replaced by twin 3"/55 and on upper decks by single 3"/55. The 20mm would mostly be gone replaced with twin or quad 40mm. In places where 3" or 40mm don't fit 20mm twin would be fit.

The twin 6"/47 semi-automatic is a bit large compared to the 5"/54. A redesign would be needed. Don't forget that the the Mk16 was semi-automatic and could fire faster than the 5"/38 Mk12. The 6"/47 semi-automatic had some problems with the loading mechanism. The problem was with the capability to switch between anti-ship rounds and anti-air rounds while the guns were elevated. If you decide to use it for AA only or use the AA round against surface targets then you can eliminate the problem. The 6 inch did perform well against piston engined aircraft but the 127mm/54 Mk42 after the war performed just as well.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
I searched for several years for the line drawings of the mk41 twin gunhouse.. I even contacted Mr. Friedman. My thought was that since it had been assigned a mark number there must be a drawing somewhere. I can tell you that they would not have been wider versions of the mk 39 as used on the Midway class ships.and as supplied with the YMW version. The mk 39 was a pedestal type gunhouse with the case ejection chute on the gunhouse floor. Battleships used base ring type gunhouses to keep the profile low. Thus more than likely the Montanas would have used slightly longer versions of the mk 28 gunhouses as on the Iowa's. I have designed mine with a half inch longer length (2 ft in 1/48). They look just fine. Robbed the secondary turrets from a ww2 Missouri for my YMW Montana.
I don't believe the Montanas would have mounted the 3inch guns as these weapons were not quite ready in 1945.They were still in development.
Even tho the 20mm was deemed inadequate to stop/destroy a diving aircraft, they still had a positive psychological effect on the crew and did help saturate the AA envelope.
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
During ww2 the US warship construction programs emphasized speed and major changes in layout of the AA suite would have delayed construction.
3 inch twins were considered for the Illinois and Kentucky as they would have been completed after the first few Montanas and would not have been so time critical.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Mocksville, NC
I'll throw out another scenario which might be interesting along the "what if" line of thinking:

MONTANA was built, commissioned, and saw service POST-WWII until the later 40's as did all the U.S. BBs with exception of BIG MO, which saw continuous duty due to Pres. Truman. As the carrier brass had their way in the mid-50's, all BBs were decomm'ed, MONTANA included. Enter the 1960's, Vietnam and USA/USMC need for massive fire support.

Which ship would have seen the green light under this scenario? Given the limited funds allotted by Congress, would BIG JAY still have been the chosen ship? I would venture that she would not have been - a scaled back MONTANA would likely have been the service vehicle picked for duty for a few obvious reasons - more firepower, lower total sea mileage/service life in commission, and more than likely newer electronics and communications suites.

I would venture a guess that she would have been recomm'ed very similar to NEW JERSEY in the type of electronic updates she would have been given - perhaps even her own helo detachment, something we did not have. I would also think that she WOULD have received the 3"-50 dual mounts that were intended to replace the 40mm mounts on all the IOWAs in the '50s (but never were) and these would have been retained for Vietnam service. A MONTANA modified to this time period would be interesting to envision.

With my present project underway, I can only imagine what a sight she would have been! But, that might be an interesting follow-on project...

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
To give an idea a guy on shipbucket made some interesting BB-67 drawings from the original designs (including the single funnel ones) through WWII, dazzle and all, and post war.

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3517&start=210

They also have a thread with a bunch of BBG conversions (all 3 Ts and 1980s).

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4037

Should provide some ideas/food for thought.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Mocksville, NC
Cliffy B,

Those are some really good renditions - I would have to say that the 1945/48 versions would be fairly accurate along the lines I was thinking in respect to how the IOWAs were modernized thru the years until their mid-50s decommissioning.

Thanks for the links - that is some good artwork, IMHO.

Personally, I don't think the single stack design would have seen the light of day - too big a ship with the steam plants envisioned to route thru one stack, although I could be wrong. I think the two stack design would have been carried out as would the enclosed IOWA style bridge and even the forward stack being all one with the conning tower (ala IOWAs). I also don't believe the midship cranes would have survived in actual construction as MONTANA would have been completed with more of the late/post WWII AAA batteries in line with the onset of jet aviation as it was coming into reality in '44-'45.

But what do I know :whistle:

Now, looking at the updated versions (80's/90s) I can say that the one version retaining all (4) 16" turrets (BB67- 1985) might have been a real possibility since much of the politics in recommissioning the IOWAs in the '80s was pressure from the USMC and they were after gunfire support, not missiles.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
One of the issues facing the Montanas would have been speed. 28kts wasnt fast enough postwar. On the other hand she or one of her sisters would have made a more powerful Vietnam platform.
The 3inch mk 27 twins would not have been ready in time for Pacific deployment. Given that they would have prepared her for heavy AA use for immediate deployment.
The mk27 twins were not ready for production until 1947-48.
That being said my ship will be completed with 12 quad 40s between the stacks. (6 per side). but those gun sections are removable. And Im going to make a second set of sections with 8-3inch twins(4 per side) to be interchangeable with the 40mm. Just to see what it would look like
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Mocksville, NC
Z,

I don't think speed would have been an issue in recomming MONTANA for Vietnam service. We had no carrier duty while on Westpac in 68-69, only providing gunfire support.

I think the 3"-50 dual mounts would have been in place on her in mid-50s prior to her decomming with the IOWAs as they were entering the fleet in mid/late-50s. The Mk. 56 directors were already there. My only real question as to her armament would have been whether or not her 5"-54 cal. dual mounts would have been the same as her preliminary drawings indicate or a possible further modification in the design of the mount itself. I'm pretty sure the discone antenna forward would have been carried, as well as ULQ-6 ECM array as we had on NEW JERSEY.

This is all quite an interesting theory to conjecture about.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
I agree that speed would not be an issue for NGFS role. But she wouldnt have operated with the carriers.
The secondary battery would likely have been modified as the Iowas were. The 5/54 gunhouses were nearly identicle to the 5/38 gunhouses.
Slightly longer .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
zadmiral wrote:
I agree that speed would not be an issue for NGFS role. But she wouldnt have operated with the carriers.
The secondary battery would likely have been modified as the Iowas were. The 5/54 gunhouses were nearly identicle to the 5/38 gunhouses.
Slightly longer .

Honestly, come along the 1980s and beyond, the speed "issue" was no longer an issue. "Fleet speed" was too keep up with aircraft carriers. There was and is no need for another capital ship to "keep up" with an aircraft carrier.

In PRACTICALITY, the CGs and DDGs that accompany carriers CANNOT keep up with carriers. They can only "sprint" at 30+ knots; they cannot sustain it in greater than sea state 2 nor for long periods of time.

The Montanas, being able to achieve 28 knots would ACTUALLY be more appropriate for their modern CG/DDG escorts. Being able to sprint at 28 knots is fine, they would be able to do that for 96+ hours, and everyone in the group would be able to do it, even though most steaming would be done between 15 and 25 knots.

So, let's please put this myth to bed as well. For as cool as it is to break the 30 knot barrier, another capital ship does not need to be able to match the speed of an aircraft carrier.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Well thats one of the reasons the NC class and SD classes were not active very long after WW2 was the speed.
But as far as the 80s are concerned your assessment is probably correct. Wnen in company with our carrier we usually plodded along at 14 kts
Interstingly my Montana will do about 4 kts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Colorado
I see our Shipbucket drawings were found... ;)

I wouldn't necessarily treat anything other than the drawings made from the actual designs as gospel... most of the stuff after the original designs were just made with our "ideas" of what BB-67 would look like were it actually built.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
True but they're about the only ones out there that show an intelligent progression through the years, IE were done by someone who knows what they're drawing.

Ever consider top down views even for just a few of them?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Colorado
I've always "somewhat" wanted to, but it's rare for me to even find time to do an elevation view anyway... I think BB1987 (the guy who drew most of the Montanas) has done a few, but he specializes in the IJN oddly enough. I keep telling myself I will produce an "all views" drawing of each Alaska iteration, but who knows whether or not that will actually happen!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Mocksville, NC
Cliffy B/Colosseum:

A plan view of the MONTANAs would be nice - if I had the time (I don't!) I would attempt it. Those renderings are really nice - a lot of work went into those drawings.

Between the '80s versions and the 1948 I think a few of the modifications would have been incorporated had MONTANA actually existed and been around during Vietnam (as I've previously stated).

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late '40 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Yes Ive studied all the views I could find on the Montana. And pics of the models Ive seen. I had to envision a "how would the navy have done it" scenario. There were plenty of hints and obvious choices.
1st I had to pick a completion date...which I chose as Sept 1945.
From that point it was a matter of duplicating what the Navy had done with the Iowa's. Which of course meant slathering 40mm quads and sprinkeling in 20mm mounts. Even though the 20mm was deemed as ineffective at this point in the war. They did have a great morale effect on the crew with the ability to "throw ordnance" at the enemy. They were however very effective at downing low flying(non kamikaze) close in crossing targets. So I included them for that reason...but made them all twins. to reduce manpower per barrel.
Placement of all those 40mm and 20mm mounts was then determined by main battery muzzle blast and arcs of fire.
For the record I equipped her with 30 quad 40mm mounts, and 50 20mm twins
So my version isnt any more "correct" than anybody elses. But I did try to use logic in the design.
Im going to attempt a top down drawing, but mind you my skills at that arent as good as some of what Ive seen. And my personal construction plans that Ive already drawn are far too large and "scribbled on" to present here. So Ill have to start from scratch
Z


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Something you may want to consider is one of the runner up designs for the final Montana design. If memory serves, the final "approved" design operated with a South Dakota plant to achieve 27-28 knots. The variant with an Iowa plant was the same length but instead could achieve 31.5 knots. So my question is: why not?

As construction began in the later years of the war, the benefits of 30+ knots were being observed and appreciated. The General Board was appreciating that 27 knot capital ships wasn't really worth the effort, but they could take these 27 knot Montana's under construction and increase their speed without changing their dimensions; all they had to do was add power. They could do that by simply ordering more Iowa plants.

So, with the hull going down, the triple bottoms and armored inner bottom going down, what would stop the Navy from installing an Iowa plant instead of the original South Dakota plant enabling the ship to achieve 31.5 knots?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Yes than certainly could have been a possibility. 30 to 31 kts would have been an easy upgrade...or so it would seem.
The Montanas keel was supposed to be laid in July 41, with a completion date in late 45.


Last edited by zadmiral on Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
It might have had something to do with machinery space size or weight?, Although I would think the Montanas would at least have as much room/margin as an Iowa.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
zadmiral wrote:
It might have had something to do with machinery space size or weight?, Although I would think the Montanas would at least have as much room/margin as an Iowa.

Indeed. As per Friedman, the Montana's would have had more than enough weight margin. The dimensions of the hul would have supported up to 10,000 more tones empty weight without problem. An Iowa propulsion plant would have been a small increase below the waterline.

_________________
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 ... 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 12 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