The Ship Model Forum

There's an axiom that comes to mind with respect to people who are prone to disturbance of the inner ear that is caused by repeated motion.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Just a note to all present: Please note that the CASF section is meant for the discussion of the actual (or rather, in this case, what-if) vessels, not models (except as necessary to compare for accuracy, etc.). It is perfectly within Seasick's right to bring up discussion and opinions on the actual ship/design in this section - it is not necessary (and indeed, undesirable) to focus discussion solely upon models of the vessels. I also fully recognize that some of the comments made by Seasick has already been addressed by other members in this thread and acknowledge the frustration of the latter in the matter.

Regardless, please keep a civil tone when addressing other members, thank you.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Thanks for the note, Timmy! I did not realize that. That actually means I have violated the Spruance and Arleigh Burke thread a few times! Learn something new every day!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The other thing to note is that these thread are NOT supposed to be WIP threads. If you have a WIP, it should have it's own thread in the Picture Post forum. When you update that thread, it's okay to post a link here that you've updated it, but you should not be posting your photos here.

That helps keep the threads down to manageable sizes and makes them a little easier to navigate. Most people who come to these CASF threads are, as Timmy said, looking for details on the real (or in this case, planned) ship.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Very well... I shan't post again.

If any Mod or Admin wants me to remove all my posts and pictures from this entire thread, then please tell me via PM. Though it'll be sad to see all my information and hard work go "out the window" so to speak.

It's too much work (haha) to cut out and paste all of the existing picture posts into a new thread, so we usually just leave them in place. However, if you want to post updates later on, a new thread in Picture Post would be great. Thanks!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I was wondering if anyone here was working on, or planning, a Montana, ala Design Scheme 8. As noted in NavSource under the Montana itself. I have read the last five pages of this thread and it seems everyone is using one of the short, slow, Montana designs. Here is what NavSource says....

Battleship Design Study, BB-65 - Scheme 8. Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board as part of the process leading to the Montana class (BB-67/71) battleship design.
This plan, dated 15 March 1940, is for a ship of 70,000 tons standard displacement and 82,000 ton trial displacement, with a main battery of twelve 16"/50 guns, a secondary battery of twenty 5"/54 guns and a 320,000 horsepower powerplant for a speed of 33 knots.
Ship's dimensions are: waterline length 1050'; waterline beam 120'; draft 35'.

This ship would have met the speed requirements some have mentioned in this thread. I believe that it would have been the design actually chosen, for a couple of reasons. 1. The Navy wanted fast ships, and by the time these were about to be laid, they wanted them to keep up with the carriers if possible, for AA assistance. Am I right? 2. The other designs for the Montana were going to be too big for Panama anyway, so this one being slightly wider and a lot longer would not have mattered. Where the length would have mattered would be during repairs. There were no drydocks long enough for this design. That brings me to Reason #3. Two drydocks were constructed, one in Norfolk (#8) and one in Pearl Harbor (#6) that were each long, and wide, enough to hold this particular ship. These two drydocks were finished in 1942 and 1943 respectively, just before the Montana was cancelled. Does anyone here know of any other ship that was even being dreamed about in 1941 that would have needed a drydock this long, AND wide? Yes, I know, more than one ship could be put in a large drydock. They were already doing that in PH #s 1 & 2. I think someone in Naval planning thought ahead and decided "If we build this ship, we're gonna need some place to maintain it! If we don't make these ships, we'll still use the drydocks anyway." We already had drydocks, in both locations, big enough for the Iowas and any carrier that was being planned. These two drydocks, and one in Puget Sound finished in the early 60s, are now used primarily by the Nimitz Class. Other ships use them also, of course. There are some nice aerial photos and Bird's Eye Views of these in use on Google Maps and Bing Maps. One of the Bing Maps has three CVNs in port at the same time. Two at dock and one in Norfolk Drydock #8. All lined up in a row! Pretty cool pics.

Anyway, I plan to build a Scheme 8 someday as my interpretation of the Montana, so I was wondering if anyone else was going this route?

Scheme 8 was the one with the extra long bow right?

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

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

I don't know about an extra long bow, but the entire ship appears to be more stretched out. To me, that would make more sense than just stretching out the bow (thus moving the center-of-gravity slightly forward). The layout of the secondary batteries on the Starboard side of the Design Scheme 8 plans appears to be identical to what is on the 1941 Plan shown below Design Scheme 8 in NavSource. The 1941 Plan and Design Scheme 8 both show more space between each secondary battery than do the other Design Schemes for the shorter Montanas. On the shorter Montanas the secondary batteries are almost next to each other, maybe a half mount apart, or 3/4. On Design Scheme 8 and the 1941 Plan, it looks like you could almost fit two complete mounts in between each of the existing mounts, or at least 1-1/2. I noticed the 1941 Plan has no measurements on it. But it looks very much like Design Scheme 8. Is there anywhere on the net that shows what plan was about to be used when the Class was cancelled? NavSource looks to show the 1941 Plan as the latest.

In comparing the length of the bows of Design Schemes 1, 3, 4, & 8, it appears that both the bow and the stern of DS8 is considerably longer. As well as amidships being stretched out longer also. I think I read on another thread or forum that this longer length, plus the 320,000 HP turbines were what would allow this behemoth to reach 33 knots.

Yes, sir! I am part of the "Gunna Montana" club. When I finish up my project builds I will jump in the pool with you guys!
What time frame? 2011
What configuration? Modern
What scale? 1/350
What kits will you use? As of now, I think the Tamiya USS New Jersey kits is a good place to start. Veteran Models Products: Phalanx CIWS, SH-60 Seahawks, and RHIBs, GMM Nimitz-class brass, WEM battleship anchors, and I am sure a few more things. A lot will be fabrication, that's for sure! I will be building up the stacks like those of the DDG-51 class, a forward fire control tower similar to the one planned for the real ships, and consideration of an aft tower similar to the aft tower on the Virginia CGNs. She will have a below-deck hanger for 2-4 helicopters (likely just 2). It's going to be a "for fun" build but I am going to try to make it as believable as I can.

Does anyone know who this build belongs to?It looks like a very painstakingly modified and careful build. I would love to see some additional pictures.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

@navydavesof: That Montana shown in that pic belongs to a guy by the name of Randy M. if I remember correctly. He used to post in this thread long ago, but I haven't seen him recently. He used to have maybe 1-2 different websites documenting his work, but I think they're gone now.

EJM,

Thanks so much for the response. Also, great job on your Montana build! It was really exciting to read. I really like how Randy M did his Montana build up as well. The forward firecontrol tower built upon a slightly moved back superstructure really adds a whole lot of realism to the model. The Navy always modifies things from their original configuration.

It sure is! Thanks so much, Matt! His biuld up is pretty impressive. I appreciate the link.

With mine, a project down the road, I will add the armor belt planned for the Montanas and the bow buldge used on large ships today. Keep up the good work, guys! I hope to see more of your builds.

navydave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As far as Scheme 8 goes, Here's what I wrote in a post on Page 4 of this thread:

This would have been ONE AWESOME SHIP! And able to keep up with the Iowa's also! Too bad aircraft were so effective. If I ever get around to making a Montana, it will be this one. Come to think of it, this Montana, an Iowa Class, and an Alaska Class would make an impressive display together.

I wonder how much further than an Iowa it would have taken this ship to stop from full speed. It would have been almost twice the mass of an Iowa Class, but it would have had a much more powerful propulsion system to brake with.

I do plan on making another Montana for myself, since the first one I built was for a friend. I probably won't start on it though till late next year. The only problem I'm having is whether to make it in the original configuration with the boat cranes and boats amidships, or to do another late war version with more armament. I like ships with lots of firepower, but I really want to do a Montana in her original configuration too. *sigh* Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Just as a reference, here is a drawing I made of the USN Scheme 8 Montana class design. Sadly I think this is before I started drawing all my ships to a scale. Enjoy:

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc18 ... 1286037725

_________________
-Abram

Your drawing is really good, Abram. Thanks for sharing that again. I always wondered about something though: Since a Scheme 8 Montana would've been 1,000+ feet long, I wonder if 2-4 more 5" gun turrets could've been added? After viewing your drawing, I think another two would be possible. Maybe one on either side of the bridge structure area. Just change around some 20 and 40mm locations.

While looking at the deck layout in NavSource for Design Scheme 8, I was wondering the same thing! Two to Four more 5" Twins would have easily fit. I wonder if the planners just considered 5 on each side to be optimum, without really looking at the possibilities.

This thing is so big they could have probably found space for a couple of 6" Triples, Instead of, say, four of the 5" amidships. Has anyone looked into this possibility?