The Ship Model Forum

The bow and stern of the Montana design is nothing like the bow and stern of the North Carolina. Montana was much closer to the Iowa in these features. The North Carolina bow lacked the "clipper" shape of the Montana and flared lower down and then went more vertical above. Montana had the flare of the Iowa. Only the hull side amidships is close on Montana and North Carolina. In plan view, the North Carolina bow was wider - Montana matched the taper of the Iowa bow, but broadened out sooner as you moved aft.

With what Dick put forward, I'm almost of the thought that taking a NC and an Iowa would be the best choice. That way you have the newer stacks, four main turrets (you can get the guns in brass to have twelve of them), the bow shape (splice it onto the NC bow, the bow shape was likely more effective as it was not planned to be as sleek as the Iowas anyways), the externalized belt (though likely it would have been internal and external so as to provide more thickness without a whole lot of drag), and the stern shape of the Iowa (the early almost-a-transom, complete with 40mm positions). That and you'll have spare raised barbettes and extra structure to merge into places where needed, and plenty of stock to expand/alter/reshape as desired.

There's my two cents.

_________________
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/

Here some pics for you... Trumpy North Carolina and Yankee Modelworks Montana





The last photo shows the bow of the NC attop the bow of the Montana. If you notice the yellow line is the resin hull of the Montana...

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

Those are great shots, and I think the second one in particular illustrates precisely what Dick is saying - that Iowa/Montana shared a coke-bottle shape at the bow (with some differences) while NC had a much more abrupt shape.

I'll have to agree with what Dick said. Using the Missouri hull to make a Montana hull would be a lot better than using a NC hull. If you go back to Page 1 of this thread, I had posted the following:




......as well as other numerous reference links.
But if using a Missouri hull, then you'll need to lengthen and widen it. Information about that is found on Page 27 of this thread.

I'm curious about this model... At what point can someone say "this isn't possible" since the ship class never existed? I've seen some discussions on other forums about other categories of subject (aircraft, vehicles, etc) that never really existed as well, and there are often people who say "that's not how it should be" or "that's not right, it would have been X" for a subject that is non-existent! What I'm getting at, is, at what point do detractors and critics have no ground on which to stand? If the thing never really existed, couldn't you make it pretty much whatever you wanted, within reason? Where is that point where it could no longer be what is being modeled, since it is a speculative thing in the first place?

Generally, you are correct that it is difficult to say with certainty that "This could never happen - you are wrong". However, the "critics" that you are referencing have differing levels of "expertise" upon which to base an opinion. Without some knowledge of the individual, it is very tough to sort out whose opinions to follow. To some degree, the builder has the lattitude to do almost anything, since as you pointed out, the ship was never finished.

One area of caution is the reference material upon which the "experts" base their opinions. A case in point is the Lexington class final battlecruiser design. Early commercial renditions of both the Lexington's and the contemporary South Dakota BB's (BB-49 class) show turrets with the basic curves of the Pennsylvania turrets. The most recent drawings of the South Dakota's now show flat-plate construction. The Lexington drawings were never updated. From the New Mexico's on, all US BB turrets have been designed with flat plates to simplify construction and repair. Did this apply to the Lexington's as well? Good question! Both sides can make valid arguements for their side. The real answer would come from locating the Navy's actual construction plans - not the secondary plans from commercial vendors. How many of the "experts" have gone to that length?

That said, some "rules" can be applied. Let me bring this directly back to the Montana's. The plans show a bridge conceptually similar to the North Carolina's, but many have speculated that if built, the Iowa bridge would have been adopted. (Can't prove either way.) However, if you go with the original "North Carolina" bridge, you can't put a quad 40MM on top of turret II - it would block the lines of sight for the conning tower. Likewise, if you go with the "Iowa" bridge, you can put one on turret II unless you are building the one designated as a fleet flagship (Breyer ID's the Maine), in which case the limitations for both the Iowa and South Dakota (individual ships - not the whole class) apply. Those two fleet flagships also never carried the quad 40MM on turret II because of the third conning tower level at the bottom of the conning tower structure. Still some lattitude, but once a choice is made, some consistency is needed.

So, some criticism can be valid, even for a "what if". But ultimately, it is still your model, not theirs!

Of course, most of these "experts" are basing a lot of their perspective and opinions on what was done before. The irony is, you push these people a little outside the bounds of what was proven seven hundred times, you wind up with the silly response of "if it was possible, it would have been done before, but it wasn't, so it isn't possible." I can't help but shake my head when that defense comes up, because it's not very valid in truth.

_________________
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/

Unless other modelers have also done their research about the Montana (or any other non-existant subject), then they have no right to say what's right and what's wrong. Is the Montana design right? Should it have a NC bridge structure or an Iowa bridge structure? Who knows? There's no way to know for sure what the Montana would've looked like since it was never built. Anybody who builds one can build it any way they want. It's your model, therefore the only people you have to please is yourself.
While there are designs for a "preliminary" 1943 version with boat cranes and boats amidships, there is no FINAL design of the Montana. If the Montana had been built, then she would've undergone numerous more changes to armament and other structures and a final late '44 or '45 configuration (or later?) would've looked quite different from the early preliminary '43 design.
I know all too well about detractors and critics saying how my Montana isn't right and that it still looks like an IOWA wannabe. I got a lot of flak during my early research period from 2002-2004. But in the end, the only people I had to please was myself and the best friend that I built the model for........and he enjoyed it very well!
My only final thought is this that someone told me long ago as I was doing my Project Habakkuk model: "If the only person doing the subject is you, and you're the only one with all the information/research, then you've suddenly become the defacto "expert" on the subject."

Gentlemen:

Thanks for the posts.

There's always a supercilious Farb in every group it seems. "Far be it from me to say something but..." And then when you call them on it, they say "Lighten up, it was only a joke". That's when you know for sure that they are a bully. And the people who don't see it were obviously not the kid that was bullied in the 4th grade.

It can be discouraging, it can be disheartening, and it can even be devastating, but the one thing that is true is always this: You are the one doing it, not them. If they don't like it, they can do one of their own or they can shut up."

I now have lots more confidence in what I am working on than I had before, and it is largely the result of the honest opinions I have received here.

Thank you.

Well, while this is a considerable thought, there were plans for the Montanas. There was a fully completed design authorized, so all that's needed are the prints, and they are available.

However, anyone who has noticed is that ships, especially after being around for a little while, get changed and new equipment installed, SHIPALTs are written and the hull or structure is changed, etc. Since the ships were not built, that's the unknown. What you can do with credibility, however, is research what happened with other ships of the type, such as the Iowas, and dictate what would have changed based on that, such as new guns, radars, paint scheme, fittings like an UNREP station, etc. All one needs to do to reasonably figure how the ships' progressions would have gone is to really get to know progression of ships.

Creativity abounds, man! What I would suggest about "widening" the ship is that it was not all that much wider than the Iowas; 112 to 120' instead of 108.at 1:350, that is not much of a difference. That can be done with Evergreen strip plastic. Don't forget one of the coolest features of the Montana, though: the inclined armor belt!

I think this is a cool project and one I enjoy following.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

On the other hand, if one assumes that conditions made it so that the Montanas were built, the same conditions may have led to factors which would have affected the way ships were historically equipped.

For example, if the Montanas were built because air power was not deemed as significant of a problem as enemy BBs, then equipment and modifications that were AA-related on historical vessels might not have been done in this alternate universe.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Has anyone else thought about building a modernized Montana?

There are a couple things I've thought of, either a 1980s modernization as if they had been built earlier, and if they were new-construction.

Are there any thoughts out there about what either would have?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hey guys... I'm BACK! So, who's still working on this monster?

Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

I am.

And your Photobucket account is inactive. You really ought to reactivate it, so your photos will show!

Welcome back...

I am working on two projects... A 1/350 YMW kit and a kitbash modernised version in 1/700 from Two trumpy Iowa kits...

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

Welcome back! If you'll pardon me for asking, but.......What happened to you? Where you been? You got a lot of catching up to do in this thread.

Well... Real life got in my way. A rather crappy real life.

First, I had a long-term relationship come to an end, and realised that it would be impossible to make ends meet on a single income. So, I had to sell my house & property and move somewhere that had a lower cost of living. I did that. Bought a new house, got settled in, went to the local school bus company for a job, got hired and then at the DOT physical, found my blood pressure was thru the roof. WELL into the stroke range.

So, it took 6 months on meds to get my BP down to where I COULD work. But, by that time, I was so far in the hole financially, I just can't get out. So... yep, I'm selling again. Letting go of this bag, fancy house and buying something outright. Something small and cheap which will get me out from under a mortgage I can't handle.

I should be moving again by the end of the month.

Thats why I haven't been here for so long.

As for my model building, and my Montana Project in particular, between a lack of motivation, lack of time (working upto 70 hours a week) and NO money, I haven't touched a model in ages.

I have the basic donor kits I'd need for the Montana, but to do it right I'd need so many aftermarket detail and replacement parts, that the cost makes it impossible for me to do.

But, I still wanted to see what you guys have gotten done.

Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

Well, dang, Bill!

After reading all of your trials and tribulations, the best I have to offer is, you're alive, you're aware of a serious medical issue, and you have the ability to get a handle on everything else! It could have been much worse.

Anyway, if it will help brighten up anyone's day, I ran across a *very* interesting photograph the other day, and I thought I would share it with everyone.

Note: This is NOT my model...

Alright, who parked the ship in detroit... they stripped the rest of the ship, and left just the remaining piece with the indentifying marks up on blocks.

_________________
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/