Extremely Silly Montana Design

[anonym_s4TCbLNuhWyC]

Is this is Possible?

Montana follow-on design. 12x18" 50 cal guns, with twin 6" automatic secondaries. 115,000 tons displacement, 18" belt, 12" deck.

link- http://wolfsshipyard...eres/united.htm

near bottom of page

[Windhover118]

Besides doubling the deck armor it doesnt seem that silly. The Montana had belt armor planned to be 16 inches so adding two more inches doesnt seem to be too far outside the realm of reality. Would probably lose some speed though. Upgrading to 6" secondarys seems a little unneccesary but alright. What I dont fully understand is why adding a few inches of armor almost doubles the ships displacement.

[Azumazi]

Windhover118, on 14 March 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Besides doubling the deck armor it doesnt seem that silly. The Montana had belt armor planned to be 16 inches so adding two more inches doesnt seem to be too far outside the realm of reality. Would probably lose some speed though. Upgrading to 6" secondarys seems a little unneccesary but alright. What I dont fully understand is why adding a few inches of armor almost doubles the ships displacement.

Because along with that armor, they would have to increase the thickness of the bulkheads to handle the weight, those original bulkheads were designed for 16 inches in mind, once they added that extra tonnage, they would have to add in additional reinforcing for the heavier armor. The deck armor is what really takes up the weight, as that means a lot of reinforcing and deck usually takes up more weight than belt due to the much larger surface area than the belt needs to cover.

[Windhover118]

Azumazi, on 14 March 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Because along with that armor, they would have to increase the thickness of the bulkheads to handle the weight, those original bulkheads were designed for 16 inches in mind, once they added that extra tonnage, they would have to add in additional reinforcing for the heavier armor. The deck armor is what really takes up the weight, as that means a lot of reinforcing and deck usually takes up more weight than belt due to the much larger surface area than the belt needs to cover.

True, forgot about that, ship needs to be able to support the weight of its own armor.

[Azumazi]

Yeah, a lot of times when I look over on spring designs I nearly forget about how bad deck armor really is in the weight category, its evil.

[Coldt]

That would have been one hell of a Montana.  This kind of reminds me of the Tillman 5, it's very similar, except the Tillman ships would have been made in the 1920's.  However, that Montana design is pure fantasy, it's a dream of the page owner, not a real ship.

 

However, this IS a real design: http://www.history.n...ile/s584110.jpg

and this: http://www.history.n...ile/s584116.jpg

and this: http://www.history.n...ile/s584117.jpg

 

If we didn't have the Washington and London naval treaties those ships might be floating today.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Indeed, it will be more fun to play that way

[Azumazi]

To be honest Coldt, the last 2 are the only ones I felt of his that could have possibly seen the light of day. The 6x and 5x gun turrets were just insane. We see with history how many issues the French and British both had with their quads and the French had to solve it by basically taking two twin turrets and putting them together.

 

The last two designs actually seems possible with the weight and armament. The last design though even though it had 16 inches of belt, it is low into the hull, exposing the vast majority of the top decks, but that isn't that far fetched considering it was a 1916-17 design. I honestly see them going with scheme two with the 13 18'' guns setup, as it fits with the design style the US was going with for a period of time. It also means later on when they went to modernize it, they could strip off the two middle turrets for weight and put on more armor and reducing the guns to 8x 18'' guns.

[Sampsonite]

I saw some of these before and the ones for Montana were in some cases just massive!!!

[anonym_s4TCbLNuhWyC]

Alrighty then look at this design official plans for using the hull of an Iowa Class Battleship for a carrier conversion. same Link but near to the top of the page

[triptyx]

Meh.  Seems they have enough real world blueprints that were possible given the limitations of changing a ship's armor scheme, etc. for the US already.  I don't see why they'd go off into the world of "silly" as you put it.  :eyesup: