Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 12 of 23  [ 223 posts ]  Go to page « 110 11 12 13 1423 »
Author Message
BB1987
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 26th, 2014, 9:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
Well, meanwhile here are my guesses on the 5"/54 Mk.41 based on the Mk.39:
[ img ]

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 26th, 2014, 9:52 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Looks good. It's definitely worth checking to see if the French ships really did use the Mark 41 mount - though from some preliminary googling, it doesn't look like it. I think what you've drawn looks fantastic and fits with what I would expect to see as a dual mount 5"/54 built sometime between 1944-1946 using the 5"/54 Mark 16 gun. It feels very "Montana"-ish, if that makes sense.

Re: random features from late-war 5"/38s (as annotated), I see you have barrel bloomers and shell catcher nets on the rear. The shell-catcher nets were (from what I can tell) fitted experimentally aboard the CBs, but discarded by 1945 as they caused issues with training the guns. The same happened to floater net bins mounted on the front face of the mount below the guns. Barrel bloomers are a very reasonable thing to show - they were removable, so some ships fitted them and some did not. Keep in mind that the main reason bloomers exist is to keep water out of the gunhouse - so if the Montanas were expected to be "wet" ships (I'm not sure if they were or not), then it would seem perfectly sensible that the crew would prefer to fit bloomers on the secondary battery.

I think having the mount captain's sight hood present is a nice touch - with the type of battery mounted aboard the Montanas, I imagine gun captains would want some sort of blast protection.

Unrelated, but I would go with the "square back" Mk.38 director for the main battery - it's the most "modern" of the two types and would likely have been fitted aboard these ships if they had existed.

The ship (especially the 1945 version) is looking very good. Once I get back to my photoshop computer I'll start making some more details-oriented suggestions.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 26th, 2014, 10:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
Colosseum wrote:
Looks good. It's definitely worth checking to see if the French ships really did use the Mark 41 mount - though from some preliminary googling, it doesn't look like it. I think what you've drawn looks fantastic and fits with what I would expect to see as a dual mount 5"/54 built sometime between 1944-1946 using the 5"/54 Mark 16 gun. It feels very "Montana"-ish, if that makes sense.
I've made a chek for the French 5"/54 too, and it appears that the mount is not the same, as it was designed in 1948 and entered service only in 1956, it might probably had more commonality with the Mk.42 mounts instead.
Colosseum wrote:
Re: random features from late-war 5"/38s (as annotated), I see you have barrel bloomers and shell catcher nets on the rear. The shell-catcher nets were (from what I can tell) fitted experimentally aboard the CBs, but discarded by 1945 as they caused issues with training the guns. The same happened to floater net bins mounted on the front face of the mount below the guns. Barrel bloomers are a very reasonable thing to show - they were removable, so some ships fitted them and some did not. Keep in mind that the main reason bloomers exist is to keep water out of the gunhouse - so if the Montanas were expected to be "wet" ships (I'm not sure if they were or not), then it would seem perfectly sensible that the crew would prefer to fit bloomers on the secondary battery.
I will discard the shell catchers then, As for the other "issues", the Iowas sported barrel bloomers at some point, and they had their 5"/38 mounted a deck higher than the Montanas, so it might be acceptable for BB-67 to have them too.
Colosseum wrote:
I think having the mount captain's sight hood present is a nice touch - with the type of battery mounted aboard the Montanas, I imagine gun captains would want some sort of blast protection.
That's actually a feature I've retained from the Mk.39 mounts I've redrawn today, on Navweaps there are pictures showing mounts sporting the hood on coral Sea and even on the Japanese Yudachi, so all'I did was leaving it there.
Colosseum wrote:
Unrelated, but I would go with the "square back" Mk.38 director for the main battery - it's the most "modern" of the two types and would likely have been fitted aboard these ships if they had existed.
Will do :) .

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 26th, 2014, 10:56 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Might as well just add the barrel bloomers... it gives a nice effect in my opinion. This is a never-built ship after all so there's quite a bit of latitude involving the details...

I'm interested to see the revised early versions. I think it would be pretty cool to see the ship with 1.1" quads, early radars, etc, and then of course a penultimate "1945" fit as you've drawn. A 1944 version with one of the Measure 32 camouflage patterns would be great too!

It would be cool to see "Montana" as it would appear throughout the entire war - starting with an early version with Measure 12 modified, then a Measure 21 version (all Navy Blue), Measure 32, then finally Measure 22 and so on. You've unfortunately ignited a spark of Aspergers inside me and I can tell this project will end up consuming some of my time as well!

Unfortunately after 1945/6 you're on your own as my expertise drops off phenomenally quickly. But I have to admit this has me considering putting to paper some of my ideas around an alternate history invasion of Japan, where for some reason the war ends up dragging on until 1948 or so, during which time all the Alaskas, Montanas, and Iowas are completed as planned. ;)

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 27th, 2014, 1:20 am
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
heuhen wrote:
BB1987 wrote:
heuhen wrote:
on you'r 1945: look at the main gun barrel... upsi!
You mean the barrels being half blue on their upper side? If that's the case, fear not, because both North Carolina and Washington were painted that way :D
wow..
You're seeing the Deck Blue countershading applied to the gun barrels on the BB-55 class. I've seen this on some photos of the Iowa as well. Measure 22 called for the usual Navy Blue hull (up to the lowest level of sheer), with Deck Blue on the decks and all horizontal surfaces - that includes the tops of the gun barrels. Interestingly this doesn't seem to be done on all ships - if you look at photos of the surrender ceremony aboard the USS Missouri (while it was painted in Measure 22), there's no countershading on the gun barrels. I have a feeling application differed by ship and we can only confirm its presence on certain ships via photographic research (as always).

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 27th, 2014, 4:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
Colosseum wrote:
I'm interested to see the revised early versions. I think it would be pretty cool to see the ship with 1.1" quads, early radars, etc, and then of course a penultimate "1945" fit as you've drawn. A 1944 version with one of the Measure 32 camouflage patterns would be great too!
For what's worth the first drawing, the one based on the 1940-1941 model and plan (which I wanted to link, but cannot, since Navsource is down) sports CXAM-1, Mk.3 Mod.2 radar on main gun director (with plan showing it only on top of the fore director, so I might remove the one aft) and Mk.4 for the 5-inch. Plus there is an unidentified radar mounted above the n°2 funnell which I've failed to identify, but appeared, according to the model and the plan, to be planar like the CXAM and have around the same dimensions of the Mk.4 or Mk.12 ones for the DP guns.
Colosseum wrote:
It would be cool to see "Montana" as it would appear throughout the entire war - starting with an early version with Measure 12 modified, then a Measure 21 version (all Navy Blue), Measure 32, then finally Measure 22 and so on. You've unfortunately ignited a spark of Aspergers inside me and I can tell this project will end up consuming some of my time as well!
Strictly speaking, the Montanas would have started beign commissioned at best by the first half of 1945, so that might have been too late even for Measure 32 scheme. Yet this eventually not forbid us to "go overboard" :lol: . For now I'll focus on the 1941/42/43 models and the 1945-1948 fits, but this does not negate the possibility of adding extra drawings later.
Colosseum wrote:
Unfortunately after 1945/6 you're on your own as my expertise drops off phenomenally quickly. But I have to admit this has me considering putting to paper some of my ideas around an alternate history invasion of Japan, where for some reason the war ends up dragging on until 1948 or so, during which time all the Alaskas, Montanas, and Iowas are completed as planned. ;)
No problem Colo, I have no particular versions of the Montana planned after the 1948 one, and I already did some "forget-about-the-budget" missile conversions posted in another thread featured in the "personal designs" section (crowned by an Iowa-ish 1985 refit).

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 27th, 2014, 5:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
I'll wait to see the versions you come up with (very busy and can't spend a lot of time "figuring out" each version myself) - then I'll give some feedback. ;)

The radar you are having trouble identifying is likely the SC air search set - a small, early "mattress" antenna, fitted to most of the smaller units.

From Naval Radar:
Quote:
SC, SC-1 (XAR, CXBD)

As in the case of SA, this was an attempt to reduce the bulk of CXAM, in this instance by using a new smaller antenna, 8ft 6in x 7ft 6in, with six (3x2) dipoles. Although gain remained at 40, and power increased sharply to the 100kW level of SA, the beam, at 30° x 40°, was far more diffuse, and range fell dramatically to 30nm on a bomber, 25 on a fighter, 10 on a battleship and 3 on a destroyer.

Installation began late in 1941, and the operating forces objected strongly to the reduced capabilities of the new set. In January 1942 a new version, SC-1, appeared, with twice the power, approximately double the range, and other improvements, and all SCs were soon converted. SC used 5-microsecond pulses as compared to 2-6 in SC-1 (both had a PRF of 60) and scanned at 5rpm. SC-1 accuracy was 100yds and 5 degrees and resolution 500yds and 10 degrees. 400 were produced. General Electric.
Here are some more links:

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/S/c/SC_search_radar.htm
http://www.screanews.us/LongIsland/JpgU ... stHead.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... n40932.jpg

The SC exists already but I haven't redrawn it with correct dimensions and style - have a crack at it, if you'd like. I'd recommend using the current set of radars in the USN components sheet as a guide for how to depict it. If you don't want to bother I can give it a shot later today after work.

As always, no two sources agree on the dimensions: St. Norman writes "8'6" x 7'6"", and the "Pacific War Encyclopedia" linked above (which uses Naval Radar as a reference...) quotes a different set of dimensions. We will likely never know unless we are somehow able to find original source material (likely from the US National Archives), and the differences will resolve down to about a pixel either way in the SB scale... so it really doesn't matter. When in doubt I always use Naval Radar as the "Bible" for USN radar information. You can't go wrong using St. Norman as reference.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 27th, 2014, 6:55 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1359
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
deleted (to save space/visibility thread)


Last edited by Colombamike on May 29th, 2014, 6:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 27th, 2014, 7:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
The linedrawing matches the appearnce of the late official model, showing the appearance of BB-67 as she was canceled in 1943, and at a first glance it seems to match the features of my 1943 drawing as well.
The model, judging by most of it features, seems more like the kitbash of an USS Iowa model, modified accordingly in order to add the fourth 16-inch gun mount aft. The FC tower has the distinctive shape of the BB-61 class, it's easy to spot the original 5-inch gun tubs before the secondary battery was rearranged in the Montana setup

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: USA - Montana Class BattleshipPosted: May 27th, 2014, 7:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Yeah don't be using bad models for reference...

Again, as always, I'd be looking for official documentation or line drawings from established, well-known illustrators (stuff like Friedman's Battleships, Sumrall publications, Floating Drydock, etc).

Certainly not Iowa kitbashes and stuff like that...

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 12 of 23  [ 223 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 110 11 12 13 1423 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]