What-If Montana-class BB-67

[zadmiral]

Ive always wondered why they didnt choose the 212k powerplant in the first place....to me it would have been a no brainer...

[BB62vet]

I received my TFD plans for MONTANA last weekend. Without doing any scaling, etc. I think these are the early '40s plans of the ship as originally designed WITHOUT the extended bow (925' LOA).

The plans are fair - one of the sheets (1 of 5) is pretty messed up due to age, deterioration, etc. of the original (my guess). There is NO main deck plan of the ship in the same scale/detail as the outboard profile of the ship.

[Cliffy B]

Ive always wondered why they didn't choose the 212k power plant in the first place....to me it would have been a no brainer...

The opted for the less powerful plant in the end because the weight and cost of using the BB-61 plant would only net them a speed gain of half a knot to one knot so it wasn't deemed worthwhile. If they couldn't hit 33 knots on the hull then 29 didn't do them any good. Going with 28 saved money and weight with the only downside being a loss of one knot or so. Not very much in the grand scheme of things.

[lexington1709]

I've just got the Montana-class bug myself and thought I'd give it a try. After quite a few false starts, I finally got a CG model that I'm happy with. And after reading about how this would be pretty much all conjecture, I feel quite comfortable in sharing my results as I've got them right now.

After doing some research, I took the path of that the Montanas were basically upgunned and upgraded Iowas. I even used the Iowa's superstructure and 5" mount placements but I added a lot more 20mm & 40mm emplacements, though I may add more a little later one. I feel that as the war progressed, the planners and builders would have wanted those ships out faster, so used the Iowa as a base and built on from there so they could be in commission prior to the war's end.

I've made up textures for all 5 of the planned Montanas so I could use any one of them. I'm attaching a couple of renders of the Louisiana and Ohio.

C&C welcome!

[navydavesof]

The Blue Ridge Montana is quite nice. I am going to build her up as a late 1990s/mid 2000s/and 2015 fit as the USS New Hampsire. The only differences will be in defensive armament, small craft, and sensor configuration.

What kind of a bow gun tub should a Montana have, the original Iowa-class type or the modest, later modified shield of New Jersey and Missouri? Below is a picture of the differences, New Jersey in the middle flanked by Wisconsin and Iowa.

The stern would also be dug out, eliminating the CPO's mess and a now unnecessary berthing with a hangar for 2-4 SH-60 helicopters similar to those used by CA's and CL's.

[EJM]

My 1990s-2000s Montana will reflect a 31.5+ knot ship with 12 x16"/50 caliber guns, 8x5"/54ciber duel mounts, 160 Mk41 VLS, 4x Phalanx CIWS, 2xSea Sparrow, 4xMk38 Mod1 38Mod1, and other Iowa modernization capabilities.

Why have 2x Sea Sparrow when there is already anti-air ESSM in the VLS?

[navydavesof]

Why have 2x Sea Sparrow when there is already anti-air ESSM in the VLS?

ESSM was not implemented into the fleet until 2008 and did not work until 2011. So, go LHD/CVN and keep Mk29s.

[BB62vet]

I have been keeping up with this thread as well as PetolGater's 1/700 MONTAN build. I've got a problem - Chris posted a photo of his 1/700 MISSOURI with the 1/700 MONTANA and it appears there's 1-1/2" - 3" (just guessing) difference in length between the two models.

OK, if the known hull of THE IOWAs was 887' - at 1/700 scale that would be 15 3/16" long. The longest written length I've seen for MONTANA was 925' (overall, not waterline). That gives a 1/700 scale length of 15 3/8" - hardly a difference. So, is the 925' a waterline length and if so, what would the overall length be? I know there was a "clipper bow" envisioned for MONTANA - possibly giving her overall dimension as 975' - can anyone substantiate this or ???

The widths of the two models pictured is also a bit deceiving - IOWA 110' (1 7/8" @ 1/700); MONTANA 121' (2 1/16" @ 1/700). it would appear that the overall length is greater than 925', so if someone knows what the latest dimensions were that perhaps Blue Ridge based their model on, please post.

Thanks!

[ninjrk]

Are there any pictures released of the parts or detail of the new 1/350 kit? I'll probably end up eBaying my Yankee Model Works kit to help pay for it but I'd like to see what I'll be getting before I sell off a kit I will never, ever find again. . .

[Fritz]

Hi BB62vet

Sorry for the delayed reply. Only just noticed this post.

so if someone knows what the latest dimensions were that perhaps Blue Ridge based their model on, please post.

Thanks!

To answer your question, The BRM 1/700 model was designed to the dimensions shown in The BuShips drawings #305819, and another hulldrawing (# I don't recall off the top of my head, bout could find if pressed). and the armor drawings Bu # 305818 The Dimensions used to make the master are as follows:

LPP=LWL = 890 ft
LOA= 921ft 3 inch
Bmax over armor belt= 120 ft 6.5 inch
Bmax at Main deck= 119 ft 8 inch

However, keep in mind, that the master is then scaled up 3% to take into account for resin shrinkage. So the finished scaled 1/700 dimensions of the finished model should be close, but may not be exact, depending on whether the actual shrinkage came in at 2.5% or 3.5% etc..

HTH

Edit: So at 1/700 scale the kit dimensions should be

LPP=LWL= 15.257"
LOA=15.793"
Bmax Armor belt=2.066"
Bmax @MD=2.051"

[BB62vet]

Fritz,

Just saw your reply. Thanks!! That's the info I was looking for. A while back someone posted (among other views of the ship) a drawing comparison of MONTANA and IOWA - I simply can't accept that drawing as fact. The proportions based on actual figures would show something much different. Can't recall the specifics, but it simply wasn't correct. For one, the 16" turrets would have been the same size, not larger. Same thing with other common equipment between the two ships.

Anyhow, I appreciate your information - put into the vault for future potential use!!

Hank

[BB62vet]

I received my 1/192 scale plans from Windjammer - well, the quality is less than expected - rather than crisp linear renditions of lines it's rather "fuzzy" - not what I expected for the amount paid. And mailed folded - you NEVER fold plans, Period!!!

Well, I'll roll them at the shop and store them with the FDD plans for future reference.

[BirchMontana]

Here is my current progress on my 1/700 IHP Montana. I've primed everything and am currently mulling over a Measure 32 or 22 scheme. Any thoughts?

The AA emplacements are glued down yet, I'm merely mulling over where they should go. If anyone has any suggestions or concerns on their placement, let me know!

http://imgur.com/Otfk8tk

[BB62vet]

BirchM -

Sorry for the long delay in a reply. I'm probably not the one to ask about painting. If I were to build a MONTANA it would probably be post war, say early-mid '50s. I really have very little knowledge of the WWII camo that was used for USN BB's and the AA batteries would more than likely have been placed similar to the IOWAs locations. Just a guess.

Hank

[RaceFuel]

Since we're in what-if land already with a Montana..

If you're up to doing Post-War..

You might consider either finding or scratch building the proposed 3"/50's in Mk 33 dual mount that was supposed to supplant the 40mm quad bofors on Iowa class ships in the late 40's/early 50's.

They were supposed to replace the quad's on a 1:1 basis.

Ms 22 would have been the standard camo for any capital ship from Sept/Oct 44 towards the end of the war. After about October 45 the hull was overall 5-N without any 5-H at all.

Depending on when you're doing it...

Sept 44'-Sept 45 would be Ms 22, October 45-Oct 46 would be solid 5-N. Starting in 47 the camo had gone and was overall haze grey.

[BirchMontana]

http://imgur.com/a/zte9C

So I started painting before y'all chipped in! So this is what we have. I have to paint the 5 inch and 16 inch barrels, place them, and then do some weathering.

[EJM]

I found the following link on Facebook. I figured anybody who is a Montana BB fan might be interested in reading it. It talks about some "myths" and "truths" about the Montana class battleship.
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-b ... ships.html

[Betelguese90]

I am currently looking into the IHP 1/700 uss Montana. Is it worth the 100 USD price tag? I already have a Tamiya Missouri kit as well, and probably might invest in a missiouri/Iowa PE set for radar and such. Also I did some searching and a company I have never heard of, Very Fire, is taking pre-orders of a 1/700 Montana for 50 USD. Anyone heard of the company and if so, how's their quality?

[Cliffy B]

Has anyone seen anything about the Very Fire kit? Any test shots, a release date, or anything?

[Betelguese90]

Has anyone seen anything about the Very Fire kit? Any test shots, a release date, or anything?

I was curious on that to cliffs. I don't think it's out yet as most places have it for preorder