Montana class? Or Iowa class?

[TheM0untaineer]

Lets compare:

 

 

Montana class:

 

Armament:

 

12 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns

20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal Mark 16 guns

10–40 × Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun

56 × Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft cannons

 

Speed:

 

28kn max.

 

Armor:

 

Side belt: 16.1 inches (409 mm) tapering to 10.2 inches (259 mm) on 1-inch (25 mm) STS plate inclined 19°

Lower side belt: 7.2 inches (183 mm) tapered to 1 inch (25 mm) inclined 10°

Bulkheads: 18 inches (457 mm) forward, 15.25 inches (387 mm) aft

Barbettes: 21.3 inches (541 mm), 18 inches (457 mm) (aft)

Turrets: up to 22.5 inches (572 mm)

Decks: up to 6 inches (152 mm)

 

 

 

Iowa class:

 

Armament (WWII, Korea outfit):

 

9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal. Mark 7 guns

20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal. Mark 12 guns

80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors

49 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon

 

Speed:

 

31kn

 

 

Armor:

 

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm),

Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm),

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm),

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm),

Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)

 

 

 

So.....Which is better? In my opinion, the Iowa is better for this game. It has more AA defense, and it's faster. The Montana has more armor, more 16in guns, but it's slower, and bigger. However, a 1 ton shell traveling at 2500ft/sec should have no problem ripping through the Montana's armor, and the fact that it's slower, and larger makes it an easier target, and less AA defense would really hurt it in this game. However, if you prefer firepower and armor over speed and defense, the Montana is the class for you.

[RMS_Gigantic]

According to Wargaming.net, they are both equally good. That's why they're both Tier Xs.

[Windhover118]

Why cant we have both?

 

Seriously though, I like the Iowa but thats only because I have a personal preferance for speed. Thats part of the reason my main focus will be on the Cruiser line.

[VioletZer0]

Iowa is good but that Montana. Surprised they didn't just make the Iowa a tier IX and the Montana a Tier X.

[Carrier_Enterprise]

Both will be tier 10.

VioletZer0, on 27 September 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Iowa is good but that Montana. Surprised they didn't just make the Iowa a tier IX and the Montana a Tier X.

Both will be tier 10.

[VioletZer0]

drybone12, on 27 September 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Both will be tier 10.

Both will be tier 10.

I know?...

[Elouda]

Your speed for the Iowa is off; speed at standard displacement is 33 knots, trail speeds at light displacement were as high as 34.5 knots. Full load is ~32.5 knots.

 

Montana has a superior AA outfit, your choice of numbers just doesn't show that. Montana could have fit more 40mm and 20mm than Iowa could due to large deck space, and the 5in/54 would have been superior to the 5in/38 in AA performance, and MUCH better in anti-surface performance. The only thing the 5in/38 really has going for it over the 5in/54 is a longer barrel life, and marginally better rate of fire.

 

Armours are also a little off, most notably deck protection;

 

Montana: 147mm main deck + 57mm backing plate + 38mm upper deck + 19mm splinter deck. This is equivalent to a single plate of 194mm.

 

Iowa (sides): 178mm main deck + 38mm upper deck + 16mm splinter deck. Equivalent to 197mm single plate.

Iowa (center): 152mm main deck + 38mm upper deck + 16mm splinter deck. Equivalent to 172mm single plate.

[Mermaid_Witch]

NavySnipers, on 27 September 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

So.....Which is better? In my opinion, the Iowa is better for this game. It has more AA defense, and it's faster. The Montana has more armor, more 16in guns, but it's slower, and bigger. However, a 1 ton shell traveling at 2500ft/sec should have no problem ripping through the Montana's armor, and the fact that it's slower, and larger makes it an easier target, and less AA defense would really hurt it in this game. However, if you prefer firepower and armor over speed and defense, the Montana is the class for you.

Wow.  You really don't get how battleship armor is supposed to work, do you?  Not only that, but you severely overestimate the penetrating power of AP rounds.   Here, have a primer on how the Montana's armor actually worked.

[Lemelisk1]

i would go for a lowa mostly because it's faster, I've always liked medium tanks better than heavies in Wot

[Windhover118]

Lemelisk1, on 27 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

i would go for a lowa mostly because it's faster, I've always liked medium tanks better than heavies in Wot

Well the Iowa is going to be a Heavy Tank, its just going to be faster then other Heavy Tanks. While I would prefere the Iowa, the Montana brings alot to the table. It has more armor and a fourth battery of three 16in guns. These extra guns could mean the difference in battle. If I may use another WoT analogy, the Iowa is the E-100 and the Montana is the Muas. There might be better examples then this but thats what I could come up with.

[Mermaid_Witch]

Windhover118, on 27 September 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

Well the Iowa is going to be a Heavy Tank, its just going to be faster then other Heavy Tanks. While I would prefere the Iowa, the Montana brings alot to the table. It has more armor and a fourth battery of three 16in guns. These extra guns could mean the difference in battle. If I may use another WoT analogy, the Iowa is the E-100 and the Montana is the Muas. There might be better examples then this but thats what I could come up with.

They're both big, sluggish damage sponges with huge, easy to pen weak points and a gun that can't dish out the pain due to crap penetration?

Well, that settles it.  I'm going Japanese cruisers.  They'll be like the T-62A.  Immensely powerful yet driven by so many idiots that it never gets nerfed.

[Windhover118]

Mini_Bolo, on 27 September 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

They're both big, sluggish damage sponges with huge, easy to pen weak points and a gun that can't dish out the pain due to crap penetration?

Well, that settles it.  I'm going Japanese cruisers.  They'll be like the T-62A.  Immensely powerful yet driven by so many idiots that it never gets nerfed.

That about sums it up lol. Seriously though, the Iowa was fast for a battleship. A better example might be comparing the the Iowa and Montana to the M4A3E8 and M4A3E2. Still not good examples but my point is, they both bring something to the table and which battleship a player chooses really depends on personal preferences.

[Destroyer_Atlanta]

im more interested in the CVs personally but if i had a choice between the 2 i would prolly pick the Montana as from what i understand the optics work differently in this than in WoT,the more salvos u fire the more accurate your shots get.could use those extra 3 guns and the armor might help for long range sniping,but there is in no way that an Iowa will outrun a skilled player leading them as a target.i learned that from WoT but i picked the opposite, i went E100 instead of maus when the E100 came out,it may be slightly harder to hit with arty but any skilled player will negate the factor of speed.

 

Edit: i think another decent analogy would be the KT/VK4502A

[Mathayus]

I would probably choose the Iowa because of its superior AA power and its slightly better speed.

[JeeWeeJ]

I'd go for the montana. Because there is this ancient wisdom which states that more guns = better! Speed and armor are highly overrated anyway.. :Smile_trollface:

[Capcon]

Try it this way, percentages:

 

Montana is ~35% bigger at full load [~70,000 vs. ~52,000 tons]

Montana's main battery is 33% larger [12 versus 9, same gun]

Montana's main belt is ~32% thicker [16.1 vs 12.1 inches both angled]

Iowa is 18% faster at full speed [33 vs. 28 knots]

Deck armor is approximately equal.

 

Iowa's sole significant advantage is 5 knots or so in speed.

 

the ships meet - let's say at 20 knots each

spot each other - and work up to full speed

open fire - say 25,000 yards to begin with, the gun advantage for Montana is lost as they meet head on, 6 vs. 6

Iowa turns to run - as it should being out gunned and out weighed, turning broadside gives Iowa a short window of superior gun numbers, 9 vs. 6

Iowa completes her turn away - Montana closes range, something like 2,000 yards plus any time they close before Iowa turns. range now 21,000 yards

stern chase phase - gun advantage Montana 6 vs. 3, shell time of flight is greater than firing cycle rate, call it 1 round per minute

Iowa starts to pull away - a knot = 2000 yards, Iowa is 5 knots faster so she will extend the range to 31,000 yards in . . .

AN HOUR!

 

Montana clobbers Iowa every time, all day long, no question. She's bigger, hits more often, is better protected, and is fast enough.

[RobertCole]

Capcon, on 27 September 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Try it this way, percentages:

Montana is ~35% bigger at full load [~70,000 vs. ~52,000 tons]
Montana's main battery is 33% larger [12 versus 9, same gun]
Montana's main belt is ~32% thicker [16.1 vs 12.1 inches both angled]
Iowa is 18% faster at full speed [33 vs. 28 knots]
Deck armor is approximately equal.

Iowa's sole significant advantage is 5 knots or so in speed.

the ships meet - let's say at 20 knots each
spot each other - and work up to full speed
open fire - say 25,000 yards to begin with, the gun advantage for Montana is lost as they meet head on, 6 vs. 6
Iowa turns to run - as it should being out gunned and out weighed, turning broadside gives Iowa a short window of superior gun numbers, 9 vs. 6
Iowa completes her turn away - Montana closes range, something like 2,000 yards plus any time they close before Iowa turns. range now 21,000 yards
stern chase phase - gun advantage Montana 6 vs. 3, shell time of flight is greater than firing cycle rate, call it 1 round per minute
Iowa starts to pull away - a knot = 2000 yards, Iowa is 5 knots faster so she will extend the range to 31,000 yards in . . .
AN HOUR!

Montana clobbers Iowa every time, all day long, no question. She's bigger, hits more often, is better protected, and is fast enough.

^ This. Unless they make it unrealistic, and have like 20 knots over the monty... It just won't matter. I'm going monty.

[Sonoskay]

Iowa... If i get around to playing american ships. I will be a hard core IJN player. however if i get chosen as an Beta/alpha tester i will play it all.

[Stick]

Which data are you using for the Montana? The final sketches from 1942, indicated 3 types of armament to be fit:

a) 12 x 16in/50, with 1) 16 x 5in/54, 8 x twin Boffors, 24 x 20 mm;  2) 12 x 5in/54, 8 x twin Boffors, 24 x 20 mm;  3) 0 x 5in/54, 16 x twin Boffors, 24+ x 20 mm

b) 9 x 16in/50, with same secondary

c) 9 x 16in/50, higher speed

a and b options were for a 27 knt speed.

[Chiyeko]

Montana will have trouble keeping up with the main force, the Iowa can even lead a DD pack though a long way to strike in the rear because of it's speed.

 

If you want a slugger get the Montana if you want more flexibility Iowa.

 

Think about it carrier spots dome DD as expected and with an escort can deal with them and than suddenly also a Iowa shows up and the carrier likely has his planes in the main battle. At least I would have the DD confirm the planes are not around before moving into range with the Iowa.

 

It is why I like medium tanks in WOT flexibility.

[Capcon]

Chiyeko, on 28 September 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Montana will have trouble keeping up with the main force, the Iowa can even lead a DD pack though a long way to strike in the rear because of it's speed.

If you want a slugger get the Montana if you want more flexibility Iowa.

Think about it carrier spots dome DD as expected and with an escort can deal with them and than suddenly also a Iowa shows up and the carrier likely has his planes in the main battle. At least I would have the DD confirm the planes are not around before moving into range with the Iowa.

It is why I like medium tanks in WOT flexibility.

I think you miss the point, if you have a Montana it IS the main force.

Say you get a brace of Mahan class DDs that can get to nearly 40 knots clean and fresh. Should they run out alone and leave the main body just because
they can?

Say your two BBs are a Montana and a Yamoto and your carriers are Zuikaku and Lexington. Should the carriers leave the battleships behind just because they can?

Say your force is a little heavy with older US BBs like West Virginia and Tennessee with top speeds of 20 knots or so. What then?
Destroyer screen leaves?
Carriers run off?
Cruisers go hunting?
Result?
Defeat in detail.

Same as World of Tanks.

Concentration of forces is key. The schwerpunkt of the blitzkrieg

Or Star Wars "Stay in Attack Formation"! :Smile_teethhappy:

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

I'm looking forward to playing the Montana.  Much like WoT, when I finally got my T110E5, a prototype that was never built but is OP in game, you can't go wrong with the Montana--if Wargaming designs it!  :Smile_playing:

[Sturmflieger]

NavySnipers, on 27 September 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Lets compare:


Montana class:

Armament:

12 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal Mark 16 guns
10–40 × Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun
56 × Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft cannons

Speed:

28kn max.

Armor:

Side belt: 16.1 inches (409 mm) tapering to 10.2 inches (259 mm) on 1-inch (25 mm) STS plate inclined 19°
Lower side belt: 7.2 inches (183 mm) tapered to 1 inch (25 mm) inclined 10°
Bulkheads: 18 inches (457 mm) forward, 15.25 inches (387 mm) aft
Barbettes: 21.3 inches (541 mm), 18 inches (457 mm) (aft)
Turrets: up to 22.5 inches (572 mm)
Decks: up to 6 inches (152 mm)



Iowa class:

Armament (WWII, Korea outfit):

9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal. Mark 7 guns
20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors
49 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon

Speed:

31kn


Armor:

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm),
Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm),
Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm),
Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm),
Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)



So.....Which is better? In my opinion, the Iowa is better for this game. It has more AA defense, and it's faster. The Montana has more armor, more 16in guns, but it's slower, and bigger. However, a 1 ton shell traveling at 2500ft/sec should have no problem ripping through the Montana's armor, and the fact that it's slower, and larger makes it an easier target, and less AA defense would really hurt it in this game. However, if you prefer firepower and armor over speed and defense, the Montana is the class for you.

Iowa class: http://en.wikipedia....lass_battleship
Montana class: http://en.wikipedia....lass_battleship
Pretty much saying that the Montana class armor is designed to protect it against projectiles fired from it's own caliber guns. However, the Iowa class is not completely protected against same caliber all around (main armor belt) like the Montana (due to the need to keep the Iowa classes speed up to allow it to keep up with the fast fleet carriers). Reading both articles is informative and even goes into the specifics (in the Iowa Class) about the differences of angle of descent of the shells due to flight speeds etc.

[Haguro]

The Iowa is probably more like a battlecruiser with its speed and less armor thickness in its design.  I believe I read somewhere that they were designed with the rebuilt IJN BC Kongos in mind and their 30 knot speed and any possible follow-on designs that our heavy cruisers would have problems defending our carriers against.  One possible design flaw that I've seen mentioned is the lack of beam in the bow of the ship that was needed to acquire the high top speed.  It was never tested in combat, but it was a worry that a hit forward would cause extreme damage to the bow.

 

The Montana class with more displacement and armor should be able to absorb more hits vs. an Iowa class.  In addition, the Montana's 5"/54 outranges the 5"/38 and fires a heavier round, but reportedly the gun crews fatigued faster due to the heavier shell weight.

 

Both classes are certainly worthy of being Tier Xs.  Depending upon the opposition, I would probably keep an Iowa close to the carriers and use a Montana search our their main battle line.

[KingCamper]

here is your answer. Get the one with: 12 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns