What-If Montana-class BB-67

[Sauragnmon]

Lancer,

I know the feeling, the wish for time, budget and space - I'd have a whiffed Soar Art Yamato and Soar Art Bismarck if I had those three - seriously, that's my dream, to whif and whif Big. One day, Maybe. Right now, even budgeting for just the IHP Iowa can be a pain really.

[EJM]

Here's some pics of pages from that Garzeke and Dulin book that another modeler sent to me long ago:

And let me be clear. That is NOT my model. That's a photo that a former classmate sent me of another model, believed to be the Navy's demonstration model built in 41. I don't know where that model is today, nor do I know where that photo originated, but I do know this. The thing is almost 25 feet long. It's 1/48 scale. Huge beast.

That model in that pic looks strikingly similar to the Montana model down in the Kentwood Historical Musenum in Louisiana. O.O
http://kentwoodmuseum.tripod.com/id4.html

[lancer525]

That model in that pic looks strikingly similar to the Montana model down in the Kentwood Historical Musenum in Louisiana. O.O
http://kentwoodmuseum.tripod.com/id4.html

I'm not so sure. I did a little guesstimating, and I think the one in Louisiana is closer to 1/96 or 1/100 rather than 1/48.

I think that is an interesting model though. I know that my puny little 1/200 is going to be a bear to build.

Thanks for the photos!

[EJM]

Anybody know where I can get 1/350 scale 5"/54 cal. mounts/guns that the Montana was originally to have? I still have plans to build another Montana late this year, but I don't want to use 5"/38 cals. if I can help it.

[lancer525]

Anybody know where I can get 1/350 scale 5"/54 cal. mounts/guns that the Montana was originally to have? I still have plans to build another Montana late this year, but I don't want to use 5"/38 cals. if I can help it.

I've been looking for sources for small parts like this myself, but in 1/200. All I've run across were 1/192. If I find any sources for 1/350 stuff, I'll post links.

[Timmy C]

EJM, the Yankee Modelworks kit includes 5"/54 duals - perhaps you can get in touch with them and see if they're willing to part with some of those separately?

[lancer525]

EJM, the Yankee Modelworks kit includes 5"/54 duals - perhaps you can get in touch with them and see if they're willing to part with some of those separately?

Timmy: Unless I miss my guess, Montana would have had twin 5"/54 mounts. So duals would be the right configuration.

[Cliffy B]

Lancer, here's a shot of completed 1/350 Yankee Montana. The builder is on here I think but his name escapes me.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5627/dsc0356a.jpg

The turrets look ok but the extent at which the barrel sleeves are cut back on the top of them is way too extreme. The guns would be firing at OVER 90 degrees. If you can get some of those I'd fill the sleeves in some closer towards the front. Just my two cents.

[Sauragnmon]

That's Jan's Montana that is - I remember he discussed the enhanced AA Battery he put in there.

[Timmy C]

EJM, the Yankee Modelworks kit includes 5"/54 duals - perhaps you can get in touch with them and see if they're willing to part with some of those separately?

Timmy: Unless I miss my guess, Montana would have had twin 5"/54 mounts. So duals would be the right configuration.

I'm not sure what you're contesting - I was merely addressing EJM's request for a possible source of twin/dual 5"/54 mounts.

[lancer525]

Timmy:

I'm not "contesting" anything. You said to EJM that he might check to see if Yankee Modelworks would sell separate barrels, and I merely pointed out that he wouldn't need separate barrels. He'd need twins. I don't quite understand why you're being so antagonistic about it.

Cliffy:

I totally agree that the way those mounts are shown is a little too open. I remember reading it somewhere (but exactly where escapes me at the moment, it's early in the AM) that the vertical travel of the guns was somewhere in the area of 55 degrees above horizontal. That sounds like a reasonable angle to me, but I wish I could remember where I read that.

[Timmy C]

I'm not sure why you think I'm being antagonistic about anything =/ I was talking about the Mounts, not the barrels.

[EJM]

Let's not argue, ok guys? I really don't want to see this thread get locked.

I remember reading it somewhere (but exactly where escapes me at the moment, it's early in the AM) that the vertical travel of the guns was somewhere in the area of 55 degrees above horizontal. That sounds like a reasonable angle to me, but I wish I could remember where I read that.

Was it this link perhaps?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk16.htm

[lancer525]

Let's not argue, ok guys? I really don't want to see this thread get locked.

I remember reading it somewhere (but exactly where escapes me at the moment, it's early in the AM) that the vertical travel of the guns was somewhere in the area of 55 degrees above horizontal. That sounds like a reasonable angle to me, but I wish I could remember where I read that.

Was it this link perhaps?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk16.htm

Interesting link. I'd seen that before, but not related to this gun.

Where I'd seen it was in a book, some years ago. When I had to give up my first build of the Montana about 4 years ago, I had a pretty good sized library. All those books are now in storage in another state. Thanks for the link! Good to be reminded about the NavWeaps site... It's a good one.

[EJM]

My Montana is up in the gallery if anybody wants to take a peek. If anybody has questions, then just let me know.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

[navydavesof]

Does anyone have an idea as to IF the Montanas were built and mothballed how they would have been fitted when reactivated in the 1980s? I figure they would be equipped much like if not exactly the same as the Iowas. However, if there were to be any differeances in the modifications (NSSM in Mk-29 launchers perhaps) what and where would they have been?

[Sr. Gopher]

It probably wouldn't have happened, as the Montanas were supposed to be "slow BBs"(under 28 knots max. speed). The Iowas would have been a better choice, mostly because they could keep up with carrier battle groups.

[lancer525]

Not that I am trying to be disagreeable here...

Given that the Montanas were intended to be slower, and that the role of the battlewagon was considerably altered in post-war years, and acknowledging the role of the Iowas in those post-war refit/reactivations, it is entirely possible that the Montanas would have been refit for shore bombardment roles, as long-range naval artillery. There would have had to have been a significant increase in anti-aircraft capability as well. I think using the Iowas as they were in the 1980s would be a good starting point, but I would also consider that deck space being used up for Tomahawks, and other similar types of missiles, as well as a possible CIWS mounts.

Just my $0.03...

[navydavesof]

Not that I am trying to be disagreeable here...

Given that the Montanas were intended to be slower, and that the role of the battlewagon was considerably altered in post-war years, and acknowledging the role of the Iowas in those post-war refit/reactivations, it is entirely possible that the Montanas would have been refit for shore bombardment roles, as long-range naval artillery. There would have had to have been a significant increase in anti-aircraft capability as well. I think using the Iowas as they were in the 1980s would be a good starting point, but I would also consider that deck space being used up for Tomahawks, and other similar types of missiles, as well as a possible CIWS mounts.

Just my $0.03...

Someone understands the roles of the battleships! You make a great point, sir. The roles of battleships from WWII on shifted to shore bombardment and would be the best at ordnance delivery in its range today...if they were still around. I don't know where people get the idea that the Iowas were 33+knot ships so they could keep up with carriers. That was not the idea at all...the time line does not even line up. The 27 knots of the North Carolinas, South Dakotas,and Montanas placed them in the category of "fast battleship". Normal battleships drove around at 24 knots. At 33+ knots the Iowas were ridiculously fast because they were specifically designed to be predators. They were designed to go and run down other ships, groups of ships, and sink them. If they got into too much trouble, they could get out fast. The Iowa-class battleships were never meant to be subservient to anything in their design.

Thought I wouls share that.

[Dick J]

The basic problem with that theory is that the 27 knot BB's didn't survive the major scrapping event of 1959-1961. All were either scrapped or farmed out as museum ships. The Montana's would most likely NOT have been in the navy's inventory in the 1980's timeframe, and therefore would not have seen the opportunity to be upgraded. The Alaska's had a significant upgrade potential as well as the speed, but they also succumbed to the "big scrapping" of '59-'61.

BTW, the slow BB speed was 21 knots rather than 24. The 22-23 knot modernized New Mexico's were an exception rather than the rule in the USN.