What-If Montana-class BB-67

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:16 pm

I am most likely doing full hull, I haven't done a single water line ship to date. I re-drew the drawing with the bottom hull, when all is said and done I will have the top view, starboard side full hull with camouflage pattern and port side water line with camouflage pattern. The deck will have a pattern as well. This will help when I go to build/paint my actual model. I'll end up printing out a simple line drawing with no color, than the colorized version.

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:44 pm

I've done some more modifications and I removed the single 20mm guns removed some of the dual 20mm guns and moved others around. Now it looks more like dual mounts were placed on existing single mounts and where the dual mount didn't replace the single mount the whole mount was just removed, but the gun tubs/splinter shielding wasn't changed any. I hope that made sense, you'll be able to see what I mean at a later date.

EJM · Post by **EJM** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:06 pm

Abram, your new bow design looks much better.

I like it.
As far as AA fit, IMO, I'd lose the 20mm singles as I don't think they'd be effective enough. You can keep the dual 20mm if you want. That's up to you. About how many total 40mm emplacements do you think you'll have for the ship?

Post by **ModelMonkey** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:26 pm

Abe! I like the design very much. I wish I had your skill and imagination.

One of my favorite Montana designs is BB-65 Scheme 4, the single-funnel
variant which looks like a Super South Dakota:

Regarding your AA fit, the only advice I could offer you is to carefully
consider the placement of the Oerlikons with respect to muzzle blast from
nearby Bofors and 5-inch mounts.

Having been in the Army for 20 years, I can assure you from personal
experience that muzzle blast (concussion + flash) poses a serious threat
to people nearby. The designers of real warships took this into
consideration.

Look closely at how an Iowa class ship's Oerlikons are positioned from
the point of view of muzzle blast from the Bofors and 5-inch mounts and
you will see that the spacing suggests the effects of muzzle blast were
considered. The spacing does not provide perfect protection to the
Oerlikon crews but you will see good space and even shielding between
guns to give those crews some protection.

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:53 pm

Thanks for the kind words guys.
EJM, there will most likely be more than 20-25 40mm mounts on the ship. I've removed all the single 20mm guns and they have been replaced with dual mounts, or the mount area left empty completely.

Steve, thanks for the advice! I went back and looked at what I have so far, and it looks like all of my 20mm crews would be safe

Drawing updated pic:
New bow, all 20mm guns are dual mounts. All of the 5"/54 mounts are in place, so far no new 40mm mounts. Funnels and armored conning tower in place.

wr · Post by wr » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:38 am

As arranged the AA mounts just aft of 'Y' turret would not last more than FIVE minutes, neither would those positioned port and starboard abreast 'X' turret. Pull the latter in tight against the bulkhead, same for those forward by 'A and B' turrets.
May we see the rest of the layout?

ArizonaBB39 wrote:Thanks for the kind words guys.
EJM, there will most likely be more than 20-25 40mm mounts on the ship. I've removed all the single 20mm guns and they have been replaced with dual mounts, or the mount area left empty completely.

Steve, thanks for the advice! I went back and looked at what I have so far, and it looks like all of my 20mm crews would be safe

Drawing updated pic:
New bow, all 20mm guns are dual mounts. All of the 5"/54 mounts are in place, so far no new 40mm mounts. Funnels and armored conning tower in place.

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:36 am

wr wrote:.
May we see the rest of the layout?

As I mentioned earlier that is all I have at the moment, work has become slow because I can only work on it during the weekends, I have school and my job during the week that keep me from my computer at home.

Thanks for the advice, I'll take all of the things you guys have been suggesting into consideration when I finalize the drawing and start construction on my model.

GrizzlyBear · Post by **GrizzlyBear** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:57 pm

wr wrote:As arranged the AA mounts just aft of 'Y' turret would not last more than FIVE minutes, neither would those positioned port and starboard abreast 'X' turret. Pull the latter in tight against the bulkhead, same for those forward by 'A and B' turrets.
May we see the rest of the layout?

wr, Just wondering as to your reasoning that the AA mounts wouldn't "last more than 5 minutes'. Aside from having some 40mm's mixed in with the 20mm, this is a very similar arrangement to what's on the Iowas, and those lasted considerably more than 5 minutes.

Bill

EJM · Post by **EJM** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:11 pm

Guess I'll throw my 2 cents in the jar also and ask any opinions about the 20 and 40mm arrangement I'm putting on my friend's Montana. Go ahead, gimmie your best shot. I can take a few hits.

Based on some of the plans I linked to on Page 1 of this thread, my friend and I wanted to build the Montana as if she had been approved, constructed, and entered the war in either '44 or '45 as normal (If possible.). We are also taking a GUESS that she would have entered late in the war during the height of the kamikaze attacks, thus we decided to add as much 20 and 40mm emplacements as possible. All total, we currently have 70 20mm and 26 40mm figured for the ship.
Abram, both you and me seem to be in the same boat, so to speak concerning 40mm emplacements at the bow and at the aft area. I want to add 40mm emplacements on either side of #2 turret, but I'm not sure what arrangment to use.

Here are some more detailed pics showing armament placement. If you look carefully, you'll be able to see all the 20 and 40mm tubs and galleries. If anyone is wondering why there are so many 20mm galleries near the bridge area, check the Garzke & Dulin plan links that I posted on Page 1 of this thread. I was also thinking of adding two more 40mm emplacements near the 10 gun 20mm gallery that is aft of #4 turret, but I'm not sure if my friend will like that. I haven't asked him yet.
(Additional links not available. See above links which might help explain what I want.)

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:20 pm

Well guys, here's my progress so far, getting close to finishing the initial drawing stages of my design. That being said here it is:

EJM · Post by **EJM** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Not too bad, Abram.

Just one small suggestion though: Perhaps add 2 (One on each side.) more 40mm emplacements on the Second deck level on either side of the bridge area. This area IMO, needs a bit more protection.

As for myself, I was hoping to post some new in-progress pics of my Montana at the end of January, but I got sidetracked with other things. I'll try to get some stuff posted in February since this will be the time that I'll be doing some preliminary painting of some structures/parts.

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:24 pm

I added the 02 deck 40mm guns, been debating my self whether or not to add them and finally decided I should. Any ideas or opinions on how I should go about doing the citadel? BTW, she will be painted in a glorious Ms32 camouflage scheme (I love doing those)

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:52 pm

Alright, finished the design tonight, and finsihed my dazzle scheme. I figured out how to do a citadel, and I'm pleased. I can't wait to start working on this baby, this is going to be a huge ship! I'll post a comparison in a minute or two

ModelWarships Gallery Page · Post by **ArizonaBB39** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:12 pm

Ok, here is the comparison drawing, now you can get an idea of the sheer size of this behemoth:
USS Montana, USS Missouri comparison Starboard side
USS Montana, USS Missouri comparison Top plan

JimRusell · Post by **JimRusell** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:12 pm

One feature puzzles me about all the plans for Montana, the number of 5" guns. The Midway was completed with 18 single 5"-54, I would think that a 1944 Montana would have at least 12 twins and maybe even 14. The ship certainly had the space and displacement to handle this load and the 5" gun was loved by the USN at this time.

Jim

ninjrk · Post by **ninjrk** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:47 pm

She is here.

Dead image links removed by moderator

Matt

Avery Boyer · Post by **Avery Boyer** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:05 pm

So, is it worth the $500+ it cost?

If I had $$ to spend, I'd have bought one already. Looks fine to me.

ninjrk · Post by **ninjrk** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:13 pm

Avery Boyer wrote:So, is it worth the $500+ it cost?

If I had $$ to spend, I'd have bought one already. Looks fine to me.

Tough call. I really like the ship and got it for the lower preorder price, so I'm happy. The casting is as good as I've seen and this thing is a huge hunk o' resin, so the $500 certainly isn't gouging.

Matt

Avery Boyer · Post by **Avery Boyer** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Tough call. I really like the ship and got it for the lower preorder price, so I'm happy. The casting is as good as I've seen and this thing is a huge hunk o' resin, so the $500 certainly isn't gouging.

Plus, it comes with a nice and complete photoetch set. Other then the fact that I can't afford it, I would have trouble building the thing. I've never built resin before, not for finacial reasons, but because I just don't have the experience yet. I'm out to change that though

EJM · Post by **EJM** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:49 pm

That's a pretty sweet looking kit, especially with the photoetch included!

How long and how wide is that Montana hull? The resin hull that I've got and am building into the Montana (Which is described on Page 1 of this thread.) is 32" long and 4" wide. If I had saved my tax refund money this year, then I would've bought me a kit from YMW. But instead, I blew my money on something else which I wanted pretty badly.