Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
turbo07

Montana — American Tier X battleship.

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Community Department
2,346 posts
597 battles

Montana — American Tier X battleship.

One of the largest battleships in the world. She was slightly inferior to Iowa-class ships in terms of speed, but had more main guns and significantly stronger torpedo protection. Montana's armor was conventionally arranged and considerably reinforced.
Montana_wows_main.jpg
WGWiki

This topic is the starting point for discussing this type of battleships.
When a full-fledged guide appears, this topic will be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,515 posts
7,728 battles
22 hours ago, Carlos_Rivas_13 said:

I have the IOWA so i am right next to this!!!

Same, just got the iowa today, free xp'd all the upgrades except gun range. I dont shoot past 20km anyway. Montana here we come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[MARE]
Members
42 posts
5,348 battles

I worked my way up to Montana and find it is an expensive ship to play. I'll be the first to admit that I may be a very good BB Captain, but have learned much. The biggest fault I see with USN BBs is the poor performance of the secondary battery. They use the same 5" guns used by destroyers and some cruisers yet they don't inflict the same amount of damage or have the same range as the game uses on other USN cruisers and destroyers. This got me to doing some research. I don't proclaim to being an expert or all knowing. This is what I learned.

The 5" 127MM Mark 28 or 38 gun, same as used on the USN DD Gearing, has a range of 8.6 km at a 10 degree elevation and a range of 15.9 km at 45 degree elevation. USN BBs have a range of about 8 km and no further. Armor penetration with a 55 lb. shell is 5" at 4000 yds. (3.6 km) and 1" at 13800 yds. (12.6 km).

Montana was to have the next generation 5" gun which was to have a range of 13000 yds (11.8 km) with a 10 degree  elevation, and 25909 yds. (23.6 km) with a 45 degree elevation. I didn't find the armor penetration specs but believe it would be better than the earlier 5" gun because3 the shell weight increased to 70lbs. and muzzle velocity also increased.

I really like my Montana and am getting better with it. Seems to be a slow learning curve, and again an expensive ship to learn how to properly use. If only the secondary battery was better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[FTH]
Members
721 posts
12,408 battles

It's better compared to the Iowa/NC secondaries at least...still not as good as it SHOULD be, but then again seems like some ships have to be nerfed so others don't get hammered, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
152 posts
9,591 battles

Love this ship, my favorite.   With permanent camo on her, she is not expensive to use, easily pays her own way and build up credits.  I am a terrible captain, first to admit that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[Y0L0]
[Y0L0]
Beta Testers
16 posts
5,424 battles

I know that the Montana BB was never built. I think that some keels were laid down and converted to CV. However the question I have is in regards to the deck armor of the Montana in game. Why if the planned armor for the Monty was 57 mm, did you decide to implement 38mm deck armor in game?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ONAVY]
Members
986 posts
7,228 battles

 

On 11/12/2018 at 12:13 PM, Captain_Cubby said:

I worked my way up to Montana and find it is an expensive ship to play. I'll be the first to admit that I may be a very good BB Captain, but have learned much. The biggest fault I see with USN BBs is the poor performance of the secondary battery. They use the same 5" guns used by destroyers and some cruisers yet they don't inflict the same amount of damage or have the same range as the game uses on other USN cruisers and destroyers. This got me to doing some research. I don't proclaim to being an expert or all knowing. This is what I learned.

The 5" 127MM Mark 28 or 38 gun, same as used on the USN DD Gearing, has a range of 8.6 km at a 10 degree elevation and a range of 15.9 km at 45 degree elevation. USN BBs have a range of about 8 km and no further. Armor penetration with a 55 lb. shell is 5" at 4000 yds. (3.6 km) and 1" at 13800 yds. (12.6 km).

Montana was to have the next generation 5" gun which was to have a range of 13000 yds (11.8 km) with a 10 degree  elevation, and 25909 yds. (23.6 km) with a 45 degree elevation. I didn't find the armor penetration specs but believe it would be better than the earlier 5" gun because3 the shell weight increased to 70lbs. and muzzle velocity also increased.

I really like my Montana and am getting better with it. Seems to be a slow learning curve, and again an expensive ship to learn how to properly use. If only the secondary battery was better.

You have to buy the permanent camo for it. It is my money maker and I beg to differ with you on the secondaries I have mine pushed out to about 9.1km or so it is a killer when they are specialized. With over 800 games in it, it is the most lethal and durable ship in my arsenal. It is the "goto" to ship....it's all in how you have your captain trained in it and what flags you fly. No other BB can take 4 or more torpedo hits broadside and survive like this ship does. I have about three modules in use which reduce fire and flooding so this thing is spec'd for close combat...fires go out almost before I have to hit the consumable to put them out.

Enjoy this ship...

Capture.JPG.f900704d02274d27b9506e8472617de3.JPG

 

bb.thumb.JPG.8768819730ea5bfe1cc1927536a0afac.JPG

Edited by C_D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[TIRP]
Members
26 posts
2,821 battles

I to worked up to my Montana, Luv Her. How ever like most know the secondary weapons have been designed in this game to bee bee guns. When you have ship like the Montana that has 10x5" guns on port & starboard. A DD lives when in range of em. Well part of this game. Not right tho. A DD should never in open sea be able to sneak up on any BB. The best Torps of the time range was 15,000 yards. The 5"/38 gun 18,000 yards. I hope that at some time WOW addresses this. Right now BB's are floating EASY TARGETS for DD Torps..... Another aspect is How many over penetrations & deflections of the 16" (405mm) main guns. Wow !!! There needs to be some Game related upgrades to allow BB drivers to compete in a dominate manor. Just mt thoughts tho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[-TBP-]
Members
35 posts
3,823 battles

If they put Monty in game more closely as in the plans she would then be on equal footing with all the other T10 BBs so WG cant have that. Every other BB has longer range secondaries plus good accuracy from main guns except german BB so i dont understand why they limit USN secondaries so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ONAVY]
Members
986 posts
7,228 battles
On 12/8/2018 at 7:35 AM, linusboy2118 said:

If they put Monty in game more closely as in the plans she would then be on equal footing with all the other T10 BBs so WG cant have that. Every other BB has longer range secondaries plus good accuracy from main guns except german BB so i dont understand why they limit USN secondaries so much.

I think it is bias since it is a "Russian" game although I do not feel handicapped in her at all...its is a tank of a BB.  In clan battles especially from all my reading and what I have seen from my 4 seasons now Montana is the best all around at taking punishment and dealing it out...but I am biased too towards the US line...Midway, Des Moines, Gearing, and Montana...GO USA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
29 posts
14,018 battles

I HAVE THE MONTANNA, GREAT SHIP BUT AS YOU KNOW CAN'T TURN WELL.  CAN USE THE FLAG THAT BOOSTS SPEED AND MANUVERABILITY HELPS, THE CAMOFLAGE IS A MUST. CUTS THE COST OF THE SHIP AND HELPS MAKE IT AFFORDABLE. THAT GOES FOR ALL LEVEL 10 SHIPS, THE CAMO MAKES THEM AFFORDABLE WITH GIVING EXTRA CREDITS, HELPING WITH COSTS, AND GIVING YOU ADDED XP.  CAMO'S ARE A MUST FOR THE LEVEL 10'S

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[SHWBT]
Members
20 posts
2,108 battles
On 10/6/2018 at 11:45 PM, Starfleet1701 said:

personally one of my favorite tier 10s

 

Same. She's a beast of a ship. Caught a full health Minotaur broadsiding at less then 8.5km, poor Mino had zero chance of survival.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[ALL41]
Members
150 posts
5,013 battles

The Montana's, Iowa's, and Mo's 2nd's can get out to 9.1km, and the Mass can get to 11.3km.    I love them all.     Montana is my first T10 ship, and I find with the permanent camo (a must have, to offset the service costs!) she's a good money-maker.    A big, long tank of a ship...just don't expect her to turn or accelerate quickly.    Putting multiple citadels on a Musashi from my Montana with one salvo is quite rewarding.   

 

I wish the Alabama and NC had the same long-distance 2nd capabilities (5.0km base is a sin!) as those others.       

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[RNG]
Members
277 posts
4,398 battles
On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 1:46 PM, Eebujeebu said:

I know that the Montana BB was never built. I think that some keels were laid down and converted to CV. However the question I have is in regards to the deck armor of the Montana in game. Why if the planned armor for the Monty was 57 mm, did you decide to implement 38mm deck armor in game?

Game Balance, if they did that she would be impervious to HE from Cruisers.  They gave it to GK but she has bad aim and has to get close, Monty is accurate.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
152 posts
9,591 battles

As I stated before, my favorite ship.  Between the Musashi and Montana you can earn all the credits and XP you need and have fun doing it.  I got the enhanced damage control system for her which includes a rudder shift time of -30%, I find her turning pretty darn good for a T10 and her secondary guns are good IMO.  Can't tell you how many times you'll get an extra sink off a DD or CL/CA while fighting another BB with main guns.  I also have a 19 pt John Doe commanding her, that helps too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[PQUOD]
Members
1,074 posts
7,693 battles

I love my Monty. It is a sniper with it's high velocity heavy 16" AP. It can snipe DD's with it's main guns. The grouping is that good.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[MOH]
Members
441 posts
1,716 battles
On 12/8/2018 at 9:35 AM, linusboy2118 said:

If they put Monty in game more closely as in the plans she would then be on equal footing with all the other T10 BBs so WG cant have that. Every other BB has longer range secondaries plus good accuracy from main guns except german BB so i dont understand why they limit USN secondaries so much.

The Montana would be overpowered with 11.5km secondaries.  Even with just 9.1km secondaries she can do some damage.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
186 posts
8,295 battles
On 2/19/2019 at 8:05 PM, Ranari said:

The Montana would be overpowered with 11.5km secondaries.  Even with just 9.1km secondaries she can do some damage.

Agreed. They could extend them, but only if they increased the reload time to 6 or 7 seconds. 
Incidentally, this would be more historically accurate, as gun crews switching from 5"/38 Mk 12s to the 5"/54 mounts on the Midway class carriers noted their arms fatiguing more rapidly due to the heavier shells.

That being said, Montana is in an excellent state of balance if you ask me. The days of the skyscraper citadel are long gone, and she can go toe-to-toe with any other T10 BB apart from Conqueror and come out on top. Once Conqueror finally gets an appropriately soft citadel, I'd go so far as to say MT will be just about perfect. 

If she needs rebalance somewhere it's against DDs. When AP pens were removed the MT's ability to defend itself from a full HP T10 destroyer went from good to almost nil. Damage saturation reduces the HE alpha effectiveness, and the minuscule recharge time for DD damage control makes fire damage insignificant. The dispersion of the secondaries needs to be improved under 5km to give a full HP MT a chance against a DD with 20K+ HP.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ONAVY]
Members
986 posts
7,228 battles
On 2/19/2019 at 6:05 PM, Ranari said:

The Montana would be overpowered with 11.5km secondaries.  Even with just 9.1km secondaries she can do some damage.

I recently went over 200+ secondary kills...all of them are from my Battleships secondaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[ONAVY]
Members
986 posts
7,228 battles
On 2/21/2019 at 9:33 AM, rapier_ape said:

 she can go toe-to-toe with any other T10 BB apart from Conqueror and come out on top. Once Conqueror finally gets an appropriately soft citadel, I'd go so far as to say MT will be just about perfect. 

Yea...here's what I think of Conqueror vs Montana lol... 

 

Edited by C_D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,369
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
17,376 posts
15,868 battles

I'm apprehensive about any calls to buff the secondaries on Montana.  Would it be nice?  Yes.  But my concern is that getting great secondaries opens up other aspects of the ship for a nerfing balance pass.

 

1.  Montana has a great set of guns that can be boosted by APRM2 in Slot 6 for almost double the dispersion buff of ASM1 that other ships get.

2.  Montana can already slot SBM1 in a different slot than APRM2.

 

Mega Secondaries Montana being able to slot SBM1 and APRM2 simultaneously because they're in different slots is begging for a massive nerf.  GK, Republique for instance have to give up ASM1 to buff main battery accuracy if they wanted SBM1.  Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×