Bluebear
Commander
He who laughs
Posts: 405
|
Post by Bluebear on Mar 18, 2011 13:54:39 GMT -5
Enough with the Montana, Harry . . . now get back to the 19th century, please.
-- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 18, 2011 14:33:16 GMT -5
Here it is! With gun data. . . Let me know when you come up with the point value and I'll add it and send you the updated card. Also, if you need anymore cards edited or data transferred let me know.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 18, 2011 16:12:21 GMT -5
Point total for the Montana is 1452.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Mar 18, 2011 16:50:57 GMT -5
Speak'n of pre-dreads, I wonder how many fleets of them it would take to sink a Montana... They might be able to start enough fires or board her....not sure they would have enough pre-dread style torps to sink her. I suppose the predreads could always ram the Montana if she was sitting still... ;D Still might not be enough...
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 18, 2011 17:36:16 GMT -5
Harry, is 14 correct for the AA?
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 18, 2011 20:04:12 GMT -5
Yes, it is. The problem is that the ship was never built, and didn't go through the years of constant AA upgrades that the other U.S. fast battleships did. If the Montana had been in service it would not doubt have wound up with equal or greater AA armament to an Iowa class.
Plus the 5"/54 was a slightly less effective AA weapon than the 5"/38 due to loader fatigue, which was considered acceptable at the time the Montana was designed. Shows what a difference a few sunken battleships in Pearl Harbor can make.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 21, 2011 12:48:10 GMT -5
Here's the card again with the points value added. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 21, 2011 16:34:28 GMT -5
Thank you, sir.
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Mar 21, 2011 17:35:50 GMT -5
BattleshipOverkill did you ever work out anything for the 20" gunned Yamato?
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 21, 2011 18:14:43 GMT -5
Not yet, sir. If you have recommendations for ranges, penetration and damage on the 20" guns I'll work on putting the info on a card this week.
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Mar 21, 2011 21:32:10 GMT -5
Check at the top of page 2 on the IJN 20.1" gun. Let me know what other info. you need. I have found a reference (Battleships: United States Battleships in WWII by Dulin and Garzke) that gives official and USN empircal data for the following BB guns: French 15"/45 & 13"/52 German 15"/52, 15"/52, & 11.1"/54 Italy 15"/50 IJN 18"/45 UK 14"/45, 15"/42, 16"/45 USN 16"/45 Mk. 5, 16"/50 Mk. 7, 16"/45 Mk.6, 14"/50 Mk. 11, 12"/50 Mk.8, 12"/50 Mk. 7
If need be we can put all the info. in a spreadsheet and probably come pretty close to about any size BB gun we want.
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 22, 2011 9:23:25 GMT -5
For game purposes, do you think the ranges would be comparable to the 18.1" with a higher penetration and damage rating? 18.1"/45 = S 20, M 40, L 60, X80, Pen 15, Dmg 13. 21.1"/45 = S 20, M 40, L 60, X80, Pen 17, Dmg 15.
Main Battery: 6 x 20.1", 2 guns per turret, 3 turrets - 2 forward, 1 aft Secondary Battery: 6.1"/60, 3 guns per turret, 2 turrets - 1 forward, 1 aft 3.9"/65, 2 guns per turret, 12 turrets - 6 port, 6 stb.
Since the info is so sketchy on hull's details it would probably be safest to keep the hull and armor value the same as the Yamato's.
|
|
|
Post by mpc2163 on Mar 22, 2011 15:10:59 GMT -5
It would make sense to just drop the 20.1" guns on a Yamato hull. I have two models in 1/3000 scale and they look virtually identical to my three Yamatos. They are a poorer quality model though, so I can't tell much about the secondaries except that they are there.
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 22, 2011 16:39:38 GMT -5
I agree, sir. Since the turret would only have 2 guns I believe it would negate the need to have a larger/heavier turret. The diameter and weight of the turret would most likely have been close to the triple 18.1" turret's diameter and weight. If so the existing hull design would have been up to par for doing the job.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Mar 22, 2011 17:02:46 GMT -5
Soundz like a good solution to me.
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Mar 22, 2011 17:25:17 GMT -5
Actually, the Shinano and the follow-on pair would have carried less armour in a few areas: Yamato - belt 16.1", decks 9" to 7.8", barbettes 22" Shinano - belt 15.7", deck 7.5", barbettes 20.8" But as it is noted that the follow-ons would have had defensive enhancements (unspecified??) I would keep the all the hull stats the same. We could up the AA factor a bit as the 3.9"/65 was better in the AA role than the 5"/40. Other than that it looks like you have a winner.
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 22, 2011 21:16:13 GMT -5
I will work on adding the data to a card tomorrow and send it to Harry for posting on the forums. I greatly appreciate all the help with research and feedback, Shigure, mpc2163.
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Mar 22, 2011 21:23:41 GMT -5
If you game the Super-Yamato vs. the Montana let us know how it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by BattleshipOverkill on Mar 22, 2011 21:25:42 GMT -5
Absolutely! We've still have a game to finish sometime this week/next week and then the BIG Ladies come out to play. ;D
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Mar 22, 2011 21:27:46 GMT -5
Hopefully, we will get pics too...
|
|