What-If Montana-class BB-67

[ModelMonkey]

Tony Bunch would know. I remember him doing some calculations for scale chain for his 1/350 Missouri.

[GrizzlyBear]

Well guys, I had intended to start work on my Montana today, but I ran into a few slight problems and I'll be delayed a week or 2.

Problem #1: Workdesk not finished. I'd planned on going to Home Depot for some pegboard and stuff to do the backboard/shelves on the desk today. But, a Post-Christmas lack of money put a stop to that. With the Christmas Break, I end up with 1 short paycheck, then no paycheck, then another short paycheck. Even I'm not obsessed enough to put modelling before eating.

Problem #2: I was going to go ahead and start cutting down the hulls even tho the desk wasn't done, but I found out that my miterbox is a half-inch too narrow to hold the wider hull. So, I'll have to take some pine board and make a miterbox that's big enough.

Problem #3: Light. One of my 2 gooseneck lamps decided to sizzle a bit and then go out. I think I need a new one.

Problem #4: Space. All the empty boxes from the Christmas tree & decorations got tossed into my workroom. Bah... HUMBUG!!!!

Don't ya just hate it when life gets in the way of modelling?

Anyways, here's a pic of the new workdesk:


BTW, that square section with the tape-measure sitting on it is removeable.

As you can see, I've got work to do. I have to add a backboard, shelves, move the lights to a better location, add more lights and get all my tool/materials out of the box and onto the desk. I'd also like a new chair. Last, I need TUNES!!! I can't do my best work without music.

I've got a pair of decent speakers in my shed, so I'll probably mount them on the backboard and tie them into the computer to play MP3's while I work. For Montana, it'll likely be alot of Glenn Miller!

I'd also love to get an old computer, and keep the monitor on the desk, just to display ship/model pics that I can look at while I work.

Great dreams, huh?

Well, that's about it for now. The delay isn't that big a deal since I still need to print out a few deck templates from the puter and then cut them out.

Bill

.

[EJM]

Those hulls that you have on the workdesk, Will you be using those for your Montana or are those for/from something else?

[GrizzlyBear]

Hi Eric,

Yep, the 2 hulls in the pic are destined to become Montana. At least parts of them are. The front 10" of one hull and the rear 4" of the other one will be used. The middle 20 something inches will be made from sheet plastic.


Bill

[EJM]

Toward late January, I hope to start on some preliminary painting of the Montana. For those who don't know, I plan on painting her in a Measure 22 scheme. I'm doing this for a few reasons:

1. I'm not skilled enough to do a dazzle (or however you call it) camouflage scheme.
2. I want to keep the paint scheme simple.
3. The ship will be as if she had been commissioned and operational in late '44 or early/mid '45 and will have the same paint scheme as some of the other IOWA class ships that had Measure 22.

Since I mostly prefer to use Testor or Tamiya paints for all types of modeling projects that I do, I remember someone saying that I could possibly use the following Testor Model Master Marine paints for MS22:
#5-H Haze Gray for all vertical surfaces.
#20B Deck Blue for all decks.
#5-N Navy Blue for the side of the hull.

I've got enough bottles of the blue colors to use, but I can't get a hold of the gray that I need. I've tried three hobby stores right now and they're all sold out and they can't keep enough in stock. It sells out too fast. Is there a different gray either in the Model Master Marine line, the Testor Acryl line, or possibly the TAMIYA line that I could use for a substitution? Is the TAMIYA Sky Gray color close enough to Haze Gray to use?

Oh, and BTW, more pics of the progress on the Montana will be posted before the end of January. Just be patient.

[grim reaper]

Go to this: http://www.testors.com/brand_category.asp?brandNbr=6


ITEM #
F505330 Haze Gray 5-H
F505334 Navy Blue 5-N
F505338 Deck Blue 20-B

[ArizonaBB39]

Just got my Host Missouri kit for my 1/350 Montana project. I'm using the basic hull shape and making major modifications. The only thing I'll really use from the kit are parts of the hull, main 16" gun turrets, and the running gear.

[EJM]

Hey Abram, are you using the TAMIYA kit? If so, check on Page 1 of this thread where I posted underneath a long list of links about how to lengthen and widen a TAMIYA hull. Hope that helps you out if you need that info.

BTW, what timeframe will you be building your Montana in: mid WWII, late WWII, or other? And what configuration will she be in? Will it be like anything similiar to the plans I posted in the links on Page 1 of this thread?

[ArizonaBB39]

I'm building her in her "Late War" Fit and I'm kind of making my own design which is larger than the USN Scheme-8 design for the class, but not by much. Let's just say she's going to be a HUGE ship. I'll be painting her in a Ms32 Dazzle scheme, I'm tossing around the idea of using sets of dual 20mm mounts instead of singles to lighten and clear up space on the ship for heavier weapons and other fittings. I'm doing a line drawing as well, so I'll be able to provide some "plans" and a comparison to the Iowa class and the USN Scheme-8 design.

[EJM]

Just as a side note, I thought I'd take some time and post about Scheme 8 which is what GrizzlyBear and Abram have been mentioning in a few posts and can be found in Norman Friedman's "US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" book on Page 337. This is one of the designs proposed in early 1940. If anyone has more info. they want to add or discuss, please go ahead and do so. If any of the figures are wrong, sorry. I'm only copying what's mentioned in the book.

Main Battery (16 inch/50): 12
Sec. Battery: 20 - 5"/54
Displacement: 67,000 tons
Trial Displacement: 82,000 tons
Length: 1,050 feet
Beam (Waterline): 120 feet
Beam Below Waterline: 125 feet
Draft: 35 feet
Depth of hull: 58 feet
Power: 320,000shp
Speed: 33 knots
Armor Belt: 15.75 inches
Deck: 6.2 inches
Immune Zone: 18-32,000 yards
Weight of hull: 37,448 tons
Fittings: 1,984 tons
Protection: 16,200 tons
Engineering: 5,700
Battery(?): 4,046
Ammunition: 1,903
Equipment & Outfitting: 606
Stores: 565
Aero: 54

[ArizonaBB39]

I also have a line drawing of the Scheme-8 design, I'll post later.

[KYamato]

Toward late January, I hope to start on some preliminary painting of the Montana. For those who don't know, I plan on painting her in a Measure 22 scheme. I'm doing this for a few reasons:

1. I'm not skilled enough to do a dazzle (or however you call it) camouflage scheme.
2. I want to keep the paint scheme simple.
3. The ship will be as if she had been commissioned and operational in late '44 or early/mid '45 and will have the same paint scheme as some of the other IOWA class ships that had Measure 22.

Heh, I had no skill at all in painting ship models, and Measure 32/22d was the first one I did....all the fun of trying to paint a completed model...

But good luck with the Montana project, hope it comes out nicely..

[ArizonaBB39]

Ok gents, here's a little teaser for y'all:


Thats the beginnings of my USS Montana design.

so far she ships:
13 quad 40mm bofors mounts
28 dual 20mm mounts
8 single 20mm mounts
4 triple turret 16"/50 mounts
4 dual 5"/54 mounts

She'll carry 6 more 5"/54 mounts and several more 40mm and 20mm mounts. What do you guys think so far? Any suggestions for the bridge/superstructure? I could provide a USS Iowa vs USS Montana comparison drawing if anyone wants.

[wr]

Get rid of ALL AA aft of 'Y' mounting, except those at the stern.
Get rid of ALL single 20mm.
Pull in tight against the bulkheads, those 40mm mounts that are appropriate.
May we see the rest of the layout?

[JWintjes]

Looking interesting.

If I may make one suggestion - take out all the 20mm. Too man-power intensive and not very useful when you have 40mm at hand.

Looking forward to the rest of the design.

Jorit

[ArizonaBB39]

Get rid of ALL AA aft of 'Y' mounting, except those at the stern.
Get rid of ALL single 20mm.
Pull in tight against the bulkheads, those 40mm mounts that are appropriate.
May we see the rest of the layout?

That's as far as I am at the moment. A few questions if I may though,

Why get rid of the AA aft of "Y" turret?

I can understand getting rid of the single 20mm

Now, about pulling in the 40mm mounts tight against the bulkheads, wouldn't that limit their firing arc? I would think that having them out in a more open space such as this would provide a better arc giving a better AA protection.

[GrizzlyBear]

Abram,

She's lookin good!

Now, you asked, so, here's the comments:

1. Hull Contours. Your front end is very long and very narrow. That would get you a higher speed, but you'd only be able to use it in fair weather and calm seas. The Iowa class was strongly criticized for being so wet up front due to the forward section being so slender. Your design looks proportionally even longer and narrower than the Iowas, which, combined with being longer and heavier, would lead to some majorly serious problems with even moderate seas. She'd have to slow down to avoid driving the bow clean under, and probably everything back to and including A turret would be unservicable and possibly damaged. The other weapons would suffer from reduced accuracy due to the amount of pitching the ship would do.

2. Beam (lack thereof). This is an inherent design flaw with the Scheme 8 design. They are just too narrow for their length, and will roll easily. Bismarck & Tirpitz were noted for being exceptionally stable firing platforms with regards to rolling and had length to beam factor of 6.97. (length divided by beam) The Iowas were somewhat stable with a factor of 8.21. Fletcher class DD's routinely rolled thru 40 degrees with a L/W factor of 9.64. The numbers you listed for your MT give you a factor of 8.4. The lower the number, the less rolling. So, while you're not as bad as a DD, you'll still roll more than an Iowa.

3. AA. Personally, I see no reason to delete any of the AA mounts on your plans. The only suggestion that I can make is this: If you're going to make twin 20's, then go with all twins and don't bother with any singles at all.

That's about it.

Bill

[ArizonaBB39]

With Bill's suggestions in mind here is a little something I came up with:


New bow on top old on bottom, the beam and everything else has stayed the same, just reshaped the bow. What do you think?

[GrizzlyBear]

Looks much better!!!

[GrizzlyBear]

Abram,

Are you doing full hull or waterline?

Bill