What-If Montana-class BB-67

[janschu]

Hello,

some more photos. I am sorry, but the rest of the photos are showing the ship in total
with an unsatisfactory quality.

When i have completed the Montana there will be more photos of a better quality, especially
the detail shots. One of my bosses is a hobby photographer and has studio level equipment.
He offered to do a photosession then and burn the photos on dvd. The plan is to do that at the
end of this month, so i can post more photos soon after.

Jan

[EJM]

Just a few sample pics of the plaque I added:




In one of the pics, there was an accident. The plaque turned out great, but I still wanted to spice it up a bit. So I took two 16" gun shells (Parts B4 from the 1/350 Tamiya Missouri kit) and added those on the plaque. Unfortuneately, the gun shell on the right side didn't stick too well and you may be able to notice a tiny bit of glue on the left of that shell on the plaque. I'd like to remove that glue, but I don't want to damage the plaque. The mistake is so tiny though, that I'm hoping nobody at the contest will notice too much.

In other news..........I'm still testing water effects in some surplus containers before I fully commit to making the water effects for the base. I just recently bought a model railroad product called "Water Effects" which is a thicker (Almost like toothpaste) solution used for creating rapids, waterfalls, etc. I'm going to test this product for making some ripples or small waves. For more info. on what I'm using, check these links:
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/woo/wooc1211.htm
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/woo/wooc1212.htm
http://www.woodlandscenics.com/

When you go to the Woodland Sceneics website, look on the left side where the contents are for "Landscaping", then click on "Water" in the sub menu. There's even "How-To Demo" videos on how to use these products.

[Sauragnmon]

ok, random question... was there any USN Precedent for having two 40mm positions side by each? I was thinking of how to do my central AA blockhouse, and I was thinking of one similar to Randy's, but with a second 40mm position on the whole extended blockhouse, between the two upper ones, along the lower deck line. I'm just trying to think if it's relatively feasable. Granted I also intend to turn the long straight section into a 20mm gallery, and use South Dakota style turret AA. All in All, I think it should turn out decently, but right now I'm just in conceptualization stage.

[RandyM]

Interesting question, and timely. I've grown so disgusted with the aft house that I'm preparing to do the entire section over from scratch, saving only the aft stack and FCT parts from the original kit. In fact I've got two variations modeled right now, one of which is a seamless extension of the 01/02 levels from the forward deckhouse (much in the way you describe, I think). I hope to have something worthy of "request for opinion" this evening. This doesn't really answer your question, but my B plan currently comprises a total of 12 40mm tubs (total of 16 between the fore and aft houses). I don't put two next to each other: I stagger them vertically, mostly because I think it looks cool. This is probably too many guns, but with this design (a single structure from front to rear on the 01/02 levels) it's pretty easy to move around/delete tubs - at least in the AutoCAD model

Randy

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Jan, your model looks awesome!

[RandyM]

Ok everyone, this is the LAST TIME. I promise. Take a look here and let me know what you think...

http://www.digivision.com/rsm/AftDeckhouse.htm

-Randy

[MartinJQuinn]

here are some photos of my interpretation of the USS Montana (BB-67).

Beautiful work, Jan. Look forward to seeing pictures in the Gallery.

[Sauragnmon]

A nice design, Randy... yeah mine's mostly considering the center block right now, but I'll probably enhance the AA on the aft block as well. The Forward block is good as it stands, in my opinion. I also plan to use the South Dakota style 40 and two 20's on the turrets.

[Avery Boyer]

I would appreciate some opinions... to make things easier I put up a quickie webpage at the following link:

http://www.digivision.com/rsm/BoatDeck.htm

Thanks for any and all comments.

Randy

I like the boat deck, I think it adds alot of interest and makes it stand out. I also think I might add another quad 40mm battery onto the deckhouse, but still leave space for the cranes and not obscure the boats or deck.

[Timmy C]

Probably a bit late now, but I personally think the boat deck would add a lot to distinguishing a Montana from Iowa - as it stands, Montana just seems like an Iowa with a fourth turret.

The AA version does make more sense, though.

[RandyM]

Hi all:

Assume I have the demarkation of hull color/antifouling color at the mean water line. I assume the boot stripe would then "straddle" this line - ie., this line would bisect the boot stripe? Also, does anyone know about how tall the stripe should be?

Thanks,
Randy

[ModelMonkey]

I assume the boot stripe would then "straddle" this line - ie., this line would bisect the boot stripe?

Short answer: generally, that's correct.

Long answer: on USN vessels during WWII, the bottom edge of the black boot stripe marks where the hull rides at "light load" (low fuel level, empty of significant stores, ballast and ammunition, etc.). The top edge marks where the hull rides when fully loaded.

But ship hulls do no not settle evenly along their length. One end is typically a bit more buoyant than the other. So, the height of a boot stripe on a ship can be of a certain height at the bow and a completely different height at the stern depending how the hull settles in the water under load. For example, Iowa class ships' boot stripe was tall at the bow (where the buoyancy of the hull was more susceptible to changes in loading) then tapered noticeably toward the stern to a very thin stripe. You'll have to study photos or plans of the actual ship to know for sure.

Also, does anyone know about how tall the stripe should be?

For Montana, a thick boot stripe similar to that of Iowa or South Dakota seems best. You'll want to study photos of ships of these classes to decide on an appropriate height for Montana.

Battleships typically had very thick boot stripes for a variety of reasons, one of which is that battleships were often designed to take on additional water as ballast before a gun duel lowering the hull in the water to present a smaller target to the enemy. Conversely, aircraft carriers were designed to ride with the flight deck at a stable height above the water in order to better support flight ops therefore typically have a very thin boot stripe.

For Montana purists, we'll never know exactly how tall her boot stripe would be since the ships were never built. However, Montana's plans were completed and calculations were made estimating with reasonable engineering certainty how the hull would sit in the water at light and heavy loads, a model was built and tested in a tank to confirm the calculations, and these levels were marked on the plans. Copies of the plans are available from suppliers like Floating Drydock. If you want to avoid the expense of buying a set of plans just to determine the height of the boot stripe, it seems logical to assume that Montana's narrow bow was a bit less buoyant than her chubby stern and therefore the boot stripe at the bow should be taller than at the stern.

[RandyM]

Thanks as always, Steve. Another question (two, really, but one is philosophical).

1. Are you saying that the actual stripe was painted in a wedge - ie., taller at one end than the other? Or did the stripe *appear* that way with the ship in the water. I'm modeling a full hull (may "sink" it in a diorama, don't know yet) so this makes a difference.

2. One of my pet peeves (I know, I know, I probably have too many pet peeves) regards the manner in which ships are referred. Based on my experience in USCG and speaking with numerous naval officers, it seems to be technically correct to refer to ships as "Montana," eg., "They never built Montana..." (the way you do it in your posts) as opposed to "They never built THE Montana...". However, in many acknowledged publications (eg., Sumrall, Iowa Class Battleships, Bonner, USS Iowa at War), the author "does it wrong." Any comments?

[James M]

As Steve said:
Long answer: on USN vessels during WWII, the bottom edge of the black boot stripe marks where the hull rides at "light load" (low fuel level, empty of significant stores, ballast and ammunition, etc.). The top edge marks where the hull rides when fully loaded.

Also think about the purpose of the boot topping. It�s to mask the all the crude that builds up on the hull while the ship is sitting in a harbor.

The Iowa's have a tapered boot top.
It is 7'6" at the bow and 3' at the stern.
The bottom edge is parallel with the bottom of the ship and the top is at an angle.
The 0� mark on the waterline marks would be the light load of the ship as designed.
I don�t have that info but it should be about a foot above the bottom edge of the boot topping.

I would think the Montana�s would be similar as they would have had a similar bow.

I hope this is of some help

James

[Anonymous]

[

[ModelMonkey]

Thanks as always, Steve. Another question (two, really, but one is philosophical).

1. Are you saying that the actual stripe was painted in a wedge - ie., taller at one end than the other? Or did the stripe *appear* that way with the ship in the water.

Totally agree with James and glad he had the specific dimensions of Iowa's boot stripe for you.

2. One of my pet peeves (I know, I know, I probably have too many pet peeves) regards the manner in which ships are referred. Based on my experience in USCG and speaking with numerous naval officers, it seems to be technically correct to refer to ships as "Montana," eg., "They never built Montana..." (the way you do it in your posts) as opposed to "They never built THE Montana...". However, in many acknowledged publications (eg., Sumrall, Iowa Class Battleships, Bonner, USS Iowa at War), the author "does it wrong." Any comments?

Yes, I'm deliberate about not saying "The Montana". Although I am certainly no authority, my dad was in the Navy and my grandfather was a merchant mariner and they were very insistent that when calling a ship by its name it is correct to omit "The".

[Timmy C]

I would like to chime in about the use of "the" when the ship being referred to includes its prefix:

When saying something involving "USS Whatever", I think it would be correct to say "the USS Whatever", since USS stands for "United States Ship".

If one were to spell out USS in a sentence, it would be "I was on board the United States Ship Whatever". It makes less sense to say "I was on board United States Ship Whatever".

However, if we are talking about the Royal Navy and its prefix, HMS, the converse should be true.

"I was on board Her Majesty's Ship Surprise" makes more sense than "I was on board the Her Majesty's Ship Surprise".


Of course, these syntax-based guidelines don't refer to ships when not addressing them with their prefix.

[RandyM]

I think you are probably correct, from a strictly grammatical standpoint. However, it's been my experience that only very rarely will "nautical types" use the origin country's identifier when discussing a ship or ships. ie., "During the last REFTRA we worked with Enterprise (USS) and Huron (HMCS)." But when the identifiers are used, I've even heard government types (eg., the President, SoD, etc.) during news releases use "The missle was fired from USS Spruance..."

Perhaps it comes down to how you view a ship: people who have never been on one / served on one likely think of them as things ("the Montana") while those who have lived on them come to think of them as people (feminine in the US, masculine in what was USSR(?)) ("Montana").

Would be interesting to hear this discussion take place between an english professor and an admiral.

[RandyM]

Here is the current state of my shipyard...

I rebuilt the aft house a couple weeks ago, here:
http://www.digivision.com/rsm/AftDeckhouse.htm

which made the forward structure look a little shabby, so I rebuilt that here:
http://www.digivision.com/rsm/ForeDeckhouse.htm

which brings us up to date

[MartinJQuinn]

Here is the current state of my shipyard...

Outstanding work, Randy! Very, very impressive.