Howdy All,

Please excuse me for the (probably) self-serving thread title. But I thought a Thread with a title like that might draw some new people (like myself) into the wonderful and (I expect) exciting world of Ship modeling!! I have personally had so much support and authoritative information given me by the great members here in the 'Warship Forum' at Armorama, that I just HAD to make the attempt to lure more people over to 'check it out'!!
Hope you more experienced 'swabbies' don't mind!?!

Soooo, to start this whole thing off, I have a question for all of you more learned buggers!
I have been doing some fairly decent research lately to enlighten myself to the 'floaty' side of things, and have been trying to form some 'noob' opinions.......(believe me guys, you're in for it. But you only have yourselve's to blame for welcoming me so warmly...hehe).
Anyway, here it goes.
The 'should-have-been' Montana Class Battleships....should they have been built? Or were we smarter to have instead focused (as we did) on the Carrier Class group of ships since apparently the 'Air' portion of the Seabourne battle was the decisive(?) factor?

Also, as a follow up question. If the Montana was indeed built, and was fortunate/unfortunate enuf to come into direct contact with a ship like the Japanese Yamato...which do you think would come out the Victor in a direct confrontation? The Yamato did indeed have the larger guns, (18-inch)correct? But the Montana Class was supposed to have twelve(12) sixteen inch guns, so who would have been heavier armed??
Want another Q?
How much more protection did 'torpedo buldge's' provide? Meaning, could they take a direct torpedo hit without damage? Or were they designed to limit the damage to the 'thermal'(?) space between the buldge and the inner hull proper?

Is that enough 'noob' questions for now?...........good.
Thx in advance for your continued patience with someone who is trying to embrace 'floaty' things. :-)
And to all you new visitors.......listen to these guys!

Tread.

This isn't an answer, I have to do more research on your question-- but here's my fuel to the fire...Did anybody expect aircraft to be the defining factor in the Pacific? I believe the Japanese might have, but weren't people still in the mind set that battleships ruled the seas? Also how many carriers did the Japanese Empire/US Navy each have? And perhaps this changed as each side saw the importance of aircraft--not to mention the vast size of the Pacific theather. I think that it may have been an even greater challege to the USA if they went with the Montana class instead of carriers, but thats just a knee jerk response

Sean

Ok I too have to do a little more research also but I'll some off the top of my head theories. I hope if I totally off base someone will help me out

ithink that after Pearl Harbor the importance of the Carriers and rebuilding the fleet was the first thing on everyone's mind. If a Carrier was knocked out during a fight all resources were employed to get that thing fixed and back out to sea.

The Japenese had 4 carriers I can think of and three knocked out at Midway. From this they never really recovered from due to the lack of Industrial strength they had at the time.

The Yamato did indeed have 18 inch guns, but from what I have been told wasn't all that accurate. Were as the NC,SD,and Iowa class BB's only had 16 inch guns. Were the most accurate between anyhting that floated. So would you trade braun for accuracy??

Besides I have seen the Big J give a broadside of all 9 16 inchers going off at once. I can't even imagine what 12 would do. Probably knock the fillings out of my teeth, but it would be impreesive to see.

Paul

For my two cents I think we were smart not building the Montanas. By that time the battleship era had really passed. That said I also think the concept of the battleship still isn't dead. As fire support for landing operations, and escorts for carriers, I think they are still viable ships.

As to Montana vrs Yamato I don't think it would have been a contest. Barring a luck hit, ala Hood, Montana would have won. I think even the Iowas would have beaten the Yamato. Even though the Yamato was bigger, larger guns, heavier armor, the Iowa had several advantages. Iowas guns were faster firing, had excellent penetration, and most of all had superior radar fire control. Plus the Iowa was some six knots faster. So you have a smaller, faster target being able to hit a slower, larger, target more often and doing almost as much damage when it hits. I think the greater numbe of hits the Iowa would get on the Yamato would more than make up for the smaller amount of damage each would cause.

Check out a website www.combinedfleet.com They have a side by side comparission between Iowa, Yamato, and the other major battleships of WWII. Iowas win out.

I will have to let Rodger do my talking, well said Rodger, my thoughts also ! your link for the Combined fleet site is exellant material for this quairy. I would like to add that the outcome any battle also comes down to the men who operate these tools of war.

Cheers,
Garry

Some extra thougfhts on the USS Montana. This would have been an awesome Battleship! But if it had been completed, it might not have been alone.
Germany and also Japan had there own plans to build super battleships. Germany had there H class Battleships, and even had one in stages of construction. These were designed in the same style as the Bismarck class. H-44 the mamoth would have been 1,133 in length, and with a beam of 169 feet. She would have carried 8 , 20.06 inch (508 mm) guns on this monster !
The Japanies also had plans set down in 1942 for a super Yamoto class of battleship.
Designe A-150 featured 500 mm guns in three twinn turrets. The armor piercing round would have weighed 1,905 kilograms !
Yes the Montana would have been an awesome ship, but just who would come out on top IF these three giants would have went at it ? Yes before pearl Harbour, battleships were to rule the sea.

Regards, Garry

Howdy fellas,

Thx for the input regarding a confrontation of these 'big boys', and I must say I agree with the experts (safe bet, I know ). But I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of even ONE of those i8-inch behemoth's!
In fact, IIRC, those 18-inchers of the Yamato were never fired in anger, were they? How about the Mushashi?

Also, how about the torpedo buldge question? I understand what they are they for, but how were they designed to 'take' the damage. Was it supposed to just slow the torpedo down, or was it supposed to completely contain the damage to the outer shell of the buldge itself?

Another noob query. I've been told that when the Battleship New Jersey for example fired a broadside, that either noone, or very few crewmen were on deck when they fired because of the sheer explosive force of the guns going off? True?

Tread.

Hey Tread:
I too have wondered about the torpedo bulges, but can find any info to lock an answer down to that one yet.

As for the crew on the deck. Yes indeed the cleared the decks of the men down to the barest of personel. To none at all.. Just an FYI for ya I read somewhere and I'll try to lock it down for ya That when any of these Queens of the Seas opened up with those 16 inchers that the recoil moved the Ship about 3 feet as I recall from the recoil..
I included a link of Big J below showing you just how big this dogs bite can be.


http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/photoGallery/?fa=viewPhoto&photoId=45

Hope this anwers some of the questions you have.

Paul

Trident Hobbies do a 1/700 model of the proposed Montana.



See here:
USS Montana

You're right about "clearing the decks" when firing those big guns. If you notice on the Yamato her boats were put in hangers at the stern to protect them from the blast.


Torpedo bulges, and anti torpedo scemes, are a big 'ol can of worms. I've mentioned a friend of mine, Richard Worth, who wrote The Fleets of WWII. Even he admits to not being an expert in this field. From what little I know is the main idea of torpedo bulges is to keep the force of the explosion away from the ship as much as possible. Water tight subdivision is also important. That combined fleet site comaprission has some info about how well the different ships did in this regard.

Warlock, I've met several battleship sailors and they all swear that their ship moved several feet from the recoil. Of course the "experts" say it couldn't happen. They claim that simple math shows that firing even 9 2700 pound projectles couldn't move a mass of 60000 tons. Of course what do the "experts" know.

Halfyank was right on the money, I think, with regards to the carrier-battleship quandry. It's expensive to operate a major surface combatant of any type, and at the close of WWII, I'm sure that the naval design experts sat down and decided that the use of carrier forces during the war was more decisive in determining the outcome. And upon reaching that conclusion, I'm sure they also decided that they would rather spend the money on the carriers than on the BB's. As far as escort duties were concerned, it was cheaper to convert/upgrade the existing tin can fleet for this (destroyers and escorts), and as far as shore bombardment was concerned, the carriers could achieve this using their air wings.

As for the torpedo bulges, I know that early on in the dreadnought days, "torpedo netting" was used. The netting was actually steel mesh (chainmail) that was extended out from the sides of the ship ~20 feet on booms to protect from torpedos (which incidentally at the time were thought to be the only true threat to battleships... besides other battleships!). I wonder if maybe the bulges were just a natural extension of the idea... sort of a built-in, solid torpedo net...

BTW. Thanks for finding that website, Halfyank! I had seen it once before but could never find it after that!

As for the "simple math", it really is the sum total of the FORCE acting on the ship at the time of the guns firing (not just the weight of the shells and the ship): the recoil force, the weight of the ship, the upward normal force of the ocean, the frictional force of the water on the hull opposite to the recoil direction, etc. Not so simple. I'm not sure either. But I like to look at at it like Fermi looked at things... If I stand straight and shoot a .22 caliber handgun, I'll feel it a litle in my hand... if I stand straight and fire a 10g shotgun, I'm gonna get knocked on my keester, even if I weigh nearly 2000 times more than the bullet!

Todd

Man, you guys are sharp! I gotta start using a sharper pencil.
Thx for the 'torpedo buldge' input Halfyank. You touched on why I was kinda asking the question (devil's advocate is fun role sometimes, you learn a lot from the experience). Regarding torpedo buldge's, the general consensus seems to be that the upgrade was simply meant to soften, or cushion the blow of an inbound torpedo. SO! (again playing that darned 'devils advocate'). If a torpedo breached that outer 'buldge' wall, on say the Portside, but did not breach the ship itself, would that mean that the 'thermal' space between the buldge wall and the inner Ship wall would immediately fill with sea water?? How would that traumatic imbalance affect issues like locomotion, steering, list,etc?

Count on me guys....I'll keep'em coming!

Tread.

Yes the torpedo damage that causes any of the hull s interior to open to the sea will be flooded. But with the water tight doors closed, the water will remain in the damaged section.
Most have seen pictures of the Bismarck or the Yamoto and other ships after sivier battle damage, they will be down in that area that was hit and flooded. Making it difficult to make any speed and slower to manuver.
There is a picture of a german warship, one of the Hipper class heavy cruisers I think, that shows a 30 foot hole out of the bow from a torpedo hit. In the picture it shows a motor boat cruising thru the hole! And the ship was rideing level! Amazing.
In another photo I have, it shows the heavy cruiser Minniapples with its bow blown off, and it could still make headway! So the designe of these warships was so that it took alot of punishment to actualy sink them.

Just my $ worth.

Garry

Way over my head Tread. I would think that if the bulge filled with water, but didn't penetrate the inner skin, the ship's speed would be reduced and she might have a list. This is minor compared to the loss of the ship.

This might interest you. The Italians developed a anti torpedo sytem, I believe it was something like Pugliasi, that had a bulge that had a hollow tube filled with water in it. The idea was the torpedos blast would be taken up by crushing the tube and none of the blast would get into the ship. OI don't think it worked very well since several Italian ships with this sytem, I think, were sunk at Taranto.

Just what I thought. I love this stuff, I'm learning more and more. If I keep this up maybe someday I'll actually be able to pronoun the word 'forecastle' properly!

O.K. Got another one for you. And this one I've always been more than curious about.
It pertains to the Bismark (recently mentioned ).
The Bismark, after being hounded by almost the entire British Fleet, was 'crippled' by a torpedo (there goes that pesky subject again) to the main rudder, correct? So she proceeded to simply steam in big lazy circles...correct?
Now here's where I get myself in trouble.
I don't remember which direction she was locked in, so for example's sake let's say she was turning to the left, or counter-clockwise. To maintain some degree of directional control, why couldn't she have increased power to her Port side engines/screws while simultaneously applying reverse power to her Starboard engine/screw to compensate for her turning to Port? I mean, you couldn't win any horse races or anything, but at least she could advance in the general direction of safe haven...couldn't she?

Tread.

My 2 clams on the rudder thingy. I think* I remember reading that it was just like you were saying about reversing thrust to compensate for steering, they tried all of this, but it was just to late. Even the slow old Rodney cought up with her.

Cheers,
Garry

You don't know how much an ego boost this is. I get to show off a little bit.

Bismarck was a triple screw design. One thing that she shared in common with many German warships is weakness in the rudders and screws. This was found durring here sea trials in the baltic. One great irony of the whole store is she got hit just where it could do the worst. When her rudders were damaged they acted like a sea anchor, they kept steering her into the wind. So basically she was at the mercy of the wind and tide, which happened to send her right towards the RN. Much as they would have liked she, or He, if you go along that the Germans always referred to their ships as He, couldn't use her screws to steel with the way twin screw or four screw ships might have been able to.

Dang good points Rodger ! That makes a lot more sents, thanks!

Garry

There are some great websites that offer a glimpse into the last moments of Bismarck... including recreations of her deck logs! They talk about all of this rudder stuff that you guys have mentioned. Check them out... I spent hours one day sifting through them. I've even started a Tamiya 1:350 Bismarck as a result!

http://www.kbismarck.com/
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/

Todd

Sorry, I must be dense. I still don't understand. Maybe I'll check with the links so gratiously supplied by foxroe and get back to ya on this later.........

Tread.

NEXT!

This is not a Battleship question.
I saw a photo (sorry, can't remember the bow # or anything) of a PT boat that was painted in what looked like a harsh geometric zebra pattern. I even think I remember (bad synapse's coming into play here) that it was pink and white? Or some such odd colour configuration. I believe it was part of some 'camoflage' experimentation exercise.
Anyway, do any of you know of this ship? And if so, WHAT"S UP WITH THAT?
Seems to me (an 'unworthy' landlubber) that they could have painted a big red and white bullseye on the hull and been done with it.

Tread.

The black and white zebra pattern was a dazzle pattern camo experiment. These patterns were designed to break up the outlines and features of the ship so as to make them difficult to identify, rather than to hide them. Or at least that's what I thought...

Todd

By 1945, carrier airpower had proven beyond much doubt that the day of the battleline had passed. The Battleships served to pulverise fixed gun positions and interdict enemy units trying to change positions on or behind the battlefield. They also served as highly effective fly-swatters, with their massive anti-aircraft weapons fits for the carriers.
The American 16" rifles had the best overall performance af any gun put to sea, but with a range of about 20 miles, they could only support the Marines for so long after they broke out from their landing beachheads. Carrier Air didn't suffer this problem. In a face to face go with battleships armed with the Japanese 18.1" rifles, the weight of fire between a Montana and a Yamato would be nearly equal. The next item to consider is the comparative fire-control systems. The Yamato had an optical rangefinder with a 20 meter baselength---the largest put to sea. The Americans used second generation ranging radar and the most modern analog fire-control computer system available.
The end results probably would come down to who drew blood first. Shock from hits did bad things to vacuume tube electronics---ask an Abrams gunner who received a large caliber non-penetrating hit how often he has to bang on his fire-control to get it to work properly. Without the added assist of the radar, things would be pretty much an even match---until a few hundred Helldivers, Avengers, Hellcats and Dauntlesses came swarming onto the scene with the added loose wolfpack lurking around just to make things interesting.

Very well put Bluebear ! You said the words I could not.
My mind just could not go into tech mode!

Thanks,
Garry

Well said, Blue, well said!

Here's some food for thought (something relatively insignificant and sort of off topic...). It's always bothered me that the USS Massachusetts was the first and last battleship to fire her main guns in anger during WWII (and she sank a French battleship at the pier, too!), and yet there is only a crappy Revell 1:720 model and a really expensive 1:350 resin version available. What gives?

Todd

TH - For a treadhead (like me) you have some excellent questions concerning the world of the squids

Let a grunt/dumb-ass tanker take a shot at answering your questions>

Montana Class BBs - As stated before they were basically stretched Iowas, adding one more turrent and lots of length. The long length relative to width is what gave the American fast battleships their great speed. It is not necessarily the diameter of the gun that determines the effectiveness of a naval gun - As mentioned above, superior propellants, fire control and metallurgy are more important than weight of a broadside, especially important when shooting at ranges like 20-30,000 yards I believe the Montanas would have been better - they were designed based on lessons learned during the war, while the Yamato-class was pre-war technology. Plus it is highly unlikely that the gun-duel would have happened as the American fast battleships were always accompanying fast carriers and air cover would have probably precluded the Yamatos getting in gun range. As far as need to build the Montanas - it was neither cost-effective nor necessary. The US had more than enough battleships for AAA-defense of carrier groups and for shore bombardment. They could build a lot more carriers for the steel required to build more BBs. Plus there was no need to build more BBs as the US lost none after December 7, 41, while they lost all the original carriers, minus Saratoga and Ranger.

Torpedo buldges - from what I have read, they were to absorb and distribute the power of the blast and provide standoff from two inner skins of the hull. Dreadnoughts were double hulled, unlike the older BBs (like USS Maine) which were single hulled. The double hulls were not spaced far apart enough to protect from modern torpedos so more stand-off was required, and in some cases fuel oil was carried in the space, helping to absorb the energy from the blast. Ships were able to counterflood compartments on opposite side of a hull penetration to even the ship on its keel. All the extra water of course slowed down the ship, but it could keep it on an even keel and in the fight. I understand that the torpedo nets were used while at anchor, they created too much drag while at sea. (I could be wrong, but I have never seen a photo or painting of a ship underway with the nets deployed, but have seen them deployed while at anchor.)

Camoflauge paint for ships - The British did have a color of pink (I think it used early in the war). Camoflage had to differnt purposes - against surface detection by other ships and subs; and that used to hinder observation from the air (why US aircraft carriers had blue decks). Differnt paint schemes had differnt purposes - dazzle paint - common in WW1 and early mid-WWII was designed to make it hard for teh opponeent to determine type of enemy vessel and hard to determine range and direction of movement. Other camo patterns hid the identity of the target - look at patterns, where you can see a false bow wave and false stern painted on the ship. Camo can also hide speed and direction of movement, angle of attack, etc. The Japanese painted some carrier decks to make the ships look like a cruiser of batleship when viewed from an aircraft. For suface camo - naval gunnery can be extremely accurate when computing for lead, but due to a number of factors, they are poor on range (rolling of firing ship and difficuly to get accurate range and requirement to hit a narrow target at often long range)

Hope I was on target