The Ship Model Forum

Why would you want 6" triples to replace 5" duals? The former were not AA capable.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

If he meant the twin 6"/47s...

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47DP_mk16.htm

Now those were AA capable! Just had a few bugs in them though.

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

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

Maybe not AA capable depending on the type of gun system used, but what about ship to ship combat? Remember, the Montana was originaly meant to be a counterpart to Japan's YAMATO Class battleships. If the war had gone differently, I wonder if 6" or 8" triple turrets would've been placed on Montana similar to what Yamato had? If the Montana really had gone up against the Yamato, I wonder how much 20 or 40mm guns would have been kept or removed to make room for 6", 8" or another size triple turrets? If someone were to build a Scheme 8 ship, the possibility of adding them is there given the length of the ship and all that adequate space.

Hmmmm. Talk of Scheme 8 has given me pause to perhaps try something like this. Back on Page 1 of this thread, I made mention of how much longer a 1/350 Missouri hull would need to be to reach the 920+ feet of the Montana original length. But if making a 1,050 foot Scheme 8 Montana, How long would I need to stretch a Missouri hull?

I meant the 6" Triples for ship-to-ship. I would prefer 8", but I don't know how much more space they would require. If the Triples took the place of 4 of the amidships 5" Twins, there would probably still be room on the DS8 to just move these 4 Twins fore and aft of the remaining Twins, one each direction, on each side. Thus, no loss of AA coverage. And the Montana would have been able to engage multiple ships of different sizes simultaneously, i.e. a BB and a couple of CAs or CLs, or more. Especially with 8" Triples. If a Montana had actually faced the Yamato, you know neither one would have been alone. The Triples would have given the Montana immensely more firepower than just the 5"/54s, or 5"/38s.

The move away from armaments of multiple calibre was one of those things which distinguished pre-dreadnought and dreadnought vessels. Putting on medium-calibre anti-surface guns is perhaps not the best use of space and tonnage, in my opinion, as that is what the main 16" are for. The only reason to have 6" or 8" guns would be to fight cruisers - 5" can deal with destroyers, and battleships would require the use of 16" guns. Cruisers can be dealt with using the main guns from a safe distance. 6" and 8" would not be very effective against the Yamato since battleships are meant to be armoured against its own shells.

In such an event, I would think the course of action would be to have Montana's escorts deal with Yamato's escorts and leave Montana to concentrate on dealing with Yamato.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Did not both Bismarck Class and Yamato Class have medium caliber anti-surface ship guns? Did any of the British newer BBs? I am not as familiar with them. It appears maybe only the US went that route, maybe because we had so many of the smaller ships. I don't pretend to know the answer to that. Didn't our fleet pretty much outnumber any other fleet in the world at the start of WWII? If the Montana had been built, and had medium caliber weapons, it would have been that much more effective in a fleet action. It would be assisting the cruisers and destroyers in their attack on the oppositions secondary ships. Yes, the destroyers can take care of the other destroyers, but a single 8" shell hitting solidly on a destroyer pretty much takes it out of the fight, if not cutting it in half. Or it could concentrate on the other BB's superstructure, which was not armored to the level that the turrets and body of the ship were armored. The conning tower was armored heavily, but not the rest of the upperworks. Plus the secondary batteries on the other BB would not be armored against 16" fire. An 8" shell would probably take out a 5" or 6" turret pretty easily. Wouldn't they?

You mention there would be better uses for the space. Other than even more AA, what uses would they be? It would have a small fleet of AA around it, so how much more would it need? I'm not trying to argue. I'm curious!

Bismarck class had 5.9" duals, yes, which were anti-surface only. This meant that Bismarck had to be equipped with basically a "tertiary" weapon system, the 3.46" duals, for AA duties only. As you can see here, have two separate systems is probably not the most efficient.

The Yamatos were born with 6" triple turrets on the "wing" positions on either sides of the superstructure. These were later removed and replaced with more AA guns. In turn, the removed mounts were used on cruisers. These 6" guns were AA capable - however, it appears their performance in this respect left something to be desired: http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_61-60_3ns.htm

In regards to better use of space, there is always more AA, of course. But in addition, a little more armour and a little faster speed (don't know how much, if any) would not be unappreciated.
In truth, I trust the designers of the ships to have already thought about all this before settling down on a 16"-5"-40mm-20mm arrangement.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

You're probably correct. Plus, one other consideration for the DS8 Montana would have been: Would there have actually been room for a couple of 6" or 8" Triples? The extra length was to allow room for the 320,000 HP propulsion system, instead of the smaller system used in the Iowas that would have been used in the chosen design. But I still think it would make for an interesting model!

I am not a model ship fan but while I was inspecting a US Naval Reserve Building in Billings, Montana (1999) and came across an official model of the USS Montana. I was pretty familiar with Navy ships in WWII but had never heard of the USS Montana.

Anyway, the model is probably still in the possession of the Naval Reserve Center, if you ever go through you could at least take some pictures.

LOL I wish I had known that many years ago. I went to Billings, I think it was 2005, for the USBC Open National Bowling Tournament. I would have found time to go see that model. Oh well, thanks for the info. If I ever make it up there again I'll have to see if I can get in to see it!

I have no idea where this is, but someone shot a one minute YouTube video of Montana model at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smcezaIn7_g (and apologies if it's mentioned earlier in the thread, I've looked through some of the pages but not all 29 pages). If anyone can find more information on the model in Montana, I'd love to know about it, as I'd pass it along to the 1:144 scale forums.

Disclosure -- this isn't intended as a commercial post at all (and I was searching for Missouri deck plans when I came across this thread), but I am with Strike Models and a member of our local warship combat club recently made a Montana plug in 1:144 scale, starting off with an Iowa hull. I thought the group might be interested in seeing how a different model came out.

http://www.strikemodels.com/products/ships/uss-montana/

The Montana model in that Youtube vid has to be the poorest excuse for a Montana that I've ever seen. All it is is a Iowa battleship model fitted with a fourth 16" turret, with multiple 40mm guns on either side. It's a piece of crap. That model looks nothing like the Montana at all. If I remember correctly, that model is kept on board the USS New Jersey battleship or in the Visitor Center. If you go back to Page 1 or 2 of this thread, I made several posts with links that show what the Montana really would have looked like.

For anyone that's interested, there's an article on the Montana class battleship in "Sea Classics" magazine. June 2011 issue. Pages 50-55. Vol.44/No.6
Not really any new info. Just a rehashing of the design history and specifications of the class. But still maybe worth a look.

It inside the USS New Jersey. I was just there on 2011/05/27. And also if you are in the military you get in for free

Hey all! I love all the work you've done! I just need your opinion on the best method of building a 1/700 version of the Montana.

Should I get the IHP Montana for $155

OR

Use a Tamyia Missouri and Trumpeter NC as well as several accessory kits.

Ideas? Thoughts?

Thank you for your opinions and help!

Get the IHP kit now because the last three IHP Montanas are now on eBay. Price is $170 wth PE and 16"brass barrels.

After these are sold out, we will be putting all ship production on hiatus while we focus on the transition to our first non-resin project.

Mike Bartel
IHP
http://ihphobby.tripod.com

Wow nice site.
Never thought I would find something like this on the Montana.
I have 2 Montanas under construction.
One is Yankeemodelworks 1/350th..Im using it as a test template to build the 1/48th version out in the shipyard.
I didnt read all of these comments but read enough of them to get the idea.
In building this particular ship, there is a historical reference, and there is, by virtue of it not being built, a variable element.
Even in what if scenarios, Ive always tried to maintain some sort of historical reality.
In the case of the Montanas it was actually fairly easy.
Because of the war, upgrades and design changes were set aside in the interest of rapid completion times.
Based on that.
The main armament would have remained as designed.
While the 18 inch version is a nice fantasy, the ship was not protected against the 18 inch shells, and the 18inch gun itself
was not ready for production. There would have probably been a follow on class using the Montanas hull size and thicker armor
and mounting 8 18inch similar to what was done with the Tennessee/Colorado classes.
The Superstructure would have had the same alterations as the Iowas did with the faired control tower/forward stack arrangement.
And the removal of the boat cranes etc..to facilitate a 40mm cluster.
As for the secondary battery:
While 6 inch and 8 inch ideas were interesting, the reality is that wouldnt happen. There just wasnt enough weight margin to play with.
That also doesnt count magazine space, and heavier armor. not to mention surface action was not the biggest worry.
The 5/54 would have been installed as designed(see next post on this)
THE biggest issue was antiaircraft protection.
It was clear that by 1945 that the 20mm was innefective in stopping a diving aircraft. In fact even the 40mm was marginal.
But those were the guns in production...and thats what they would have used.
The Iowas carried 20 40mm quads and a large amount of 20mm.
The Montanas had space for about 30 40mm quads. which is how Im building the 1/48th scale ship.
The 20mm guns came in single, dual and quadruple mountings.
Manpower was a big issue, and so was weight. It was logical then that 20mm twins could be substituted for the singles on a 1 for 2 basis, effectively reducing manning levels while maintaining antiaircraft pattern saturation. I might play with the idea of installing a quad 20mm or two..

Does anyone have an official drawing showing dimentions of the Mk41 gunhouse used in the Montana class' secondary battery(5inch 54)??
I cannot find one, but since it was assigned a 'mk' number you would think it would have a design drawing somewhere.
I do know it would not have used a wider version of the Midway class single mounts.
Those mounts had a sloped rear roofplate, but were mounted higher off the deck on a pedestal to clear the casing ejection chute
in the rear of the turret.
Pedestal mounts would not work on a BB as they were not low profile enough.
Z

this? http://www.hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0462.htm

That is the Midway's single mounting. He is looking for info on Montana's twins.