Montana Review - Parity with Yamato a After 5.9?

[NoZoupForYou]

No... Not yet.  But it's getting there.  I review Montana and provide some of my preferred load outs.  Honestly, I enjoy the Montana more than Yamato and I explain why throughout some gameplay.

[Amogussy]

The big problem with the Montana is (I believe) that it is the design from 1939, which means that it is a ship from 1939 going against a ship from 1945 (Yamato), Montana needs to be given changes to make it be like what it could have been in 1945.

[YamatoA150]

The big problem with the Montana is (I believe) that it is the design from 1939, which means that it is a ship from 1939 going against a ship from 1945 (Yamato), Montana needs to be given changes to make it be like what it could have been in 1945.

 

So more AA and secondaries given that she was kind of scaled back from Iowa to be more of an escort battleship rather than a fast battleship, trading speed for firepower and sticking with CVs and holding off enemy ships.

[Nachoo31]

Montana rocked me in my DD this weekend.  And then again on my Baltimore going straight away from him.  It just can't handle the 1 vs 1 on a Yamato? right. 

[Suzunami]

In before it gets nerfed again in 0.5.10.

[reaper_swpz]

Montana rocked me in my DD this weekend.  And then again on my Baltimore going straight away from him.  It just can't handle the 1 vs 1 on a Yamato? right. 

 

Yamato can lolpen it at any angle and score cits, Montana needs Yamato to broadside to deal any form of significant damage in turn.

 

Your DD losing is your fault. Baltimore losing is normal, you're a CA, BB are supposed to kill you.

[VTAdmiral]

Weirdly, Montana and Yamato are far closer in performance on the other servers. I think on RU Montana's even got better server-wide performance stats.

 

I think Montana's problem is the way NA players use it.

[Citrusss]

reviews may be good in terms on how you try to explain ship's strengths and weaknesses, but seriously you need to work on how to entertain your audience. it's dead boring to watch them. not trying to offend but propose you do what you do a bit differently. 

[MrDeaf]

The big problem with the Montana is (I believe) that it is the design from 1939, which means that it is a ship from 1939 going against a ship from 1945 (Yamato), Montana needs to be given changes to make it be like what it could have been in 1945.

 

Yamato was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1940.

 

Montana would have been laid down in 1941 or 1942, because that's when the budget for it was approved.

[Combined_Fleet_HQ]

Honestly I prefer the Iowa over the Yamato but thats just me (yes i own a Yammy)....

[Dutch_81]

The big problem with the Montana is (I believe) that it is the design from 1939, which means that it is a ship from 1939 going against a ship from 1945 (Yamato), Montana needs to be given changes to make it be like what it could have been in 1945.

 

Yamato was designed in 1936-37, granted she received upgrades in '44.

[1Sherman]

No... Not yet.  But it's getting there.  I review Montana and provide some of my preferred load outs.  Honestly, I enjoy the Montana more than Yamato and I explain why throughout some gameplay.

 

I stopped watching after I saw you didn't have premium consumables equipped. It's a pet peeve of mine. Also, you wanting to extol the virtues of HE in BBs is nothing I want to hear. My BBs will only ever fire AP because AP is what gets citadels. 

[VTAdmiral]

 

Yamato was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1940.

 

Montana would have been laid down in 1941 or 1942, because that's when the budget for it was approved.

 

What we have in-game is 1944 post-refit Yamato. Pre-refit would have 2 more 15.5cm triple secondary turrets and less 12.7cm DP guns and 25mm AA.

 

The assumption is the Montana we have in-game is as-designed with no potential wartime refits.

[MrDeaf]

 

What we have in-game is 1944 post-refit Yamato. Pre-refit would have 2 more 15.5cm triple secondary turrets and less 12.7cm DP guns and 25mm AA.

 

The assumption is the Montana we have in-game is as-designed with no potential wartime refits.

 

And I'm sure Montana would have been kitted out like Iowa and DM...

tons of 40mm quad Bofors and 76mm AA guns

 

rather than increasing hull armor thickness to 35mm (1-3/8in)

[PelicanHazard]

The assumption is the Montana we have in-game is as-designed with no potential wartime refits.

 

I mean, given that the Montana wasn't approved until 1942, and it takes a long time to build a battleship, wouldn't it be like the Gearing in that it would have arrived at the very end of the war and thus not been refit at all? I can see some changes occurring as its being built, namely more AA as the US finds out how valuable it is, but not the sort of overhaul ships commissioned before/earlier in the war (like the Benson-class or Standard BBs) would have received.

[Aiser50]

"No... Not yet.  But it's getting there."

 

Why is it so hard for people to understand that no BB is suppose to be equal or better then Yamato?

[Fiero85]

The big problem with the Montana is (I believe) that it is the design from 1939, which means that it is a ship from 1939 going against a ship from 1945 (Yamato), Montana needs to be given changes to make it be like what it could have been in 1945.

 

Yamato was designed in 1936-37, granted she received upgrades in '44.

 

Actually if you look up the history of the two ships, the Yamato design study actually began back in 1934 shortly after Japan withdrew from the failed League of Nations, and as a final "F You", renounced all treaties that it had previously signed, thus allowing them to build ships far larger and far more powerful than any other nation at the time would have been allowed to.

 

The Yamato design study ended in 1936, with the absolute final design being approved in 1937. Meanwhile, the US Navy's Montana class design didn't start until 1939, before the US even learned of the existence of the Yamato/Musashi in 1942. So while the Yamato might have been designed and laid down first, she was actually an older design by the time the Montana class would have been laid down in 1942/1943.

 

Now, if you look at the stats in game, and then compare them to the stats listed on wikipedia... Yes I know wikipedia isn't the best source, but its one of the easier sources to use... The Montana class we actually have in game is not the same that was planned to be produced back in the 40s.

 

The biggest difference being the Montana in game goes 30 knots, while the real one would have only gone 28. Now I know what you're gonna say, 2 knots isn't a big difference, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll find out why. The question was whether to make the Montana as fast as the Iowa class, in order to provide more escort power for the Essex class carriers, or make it a slightly slower, more heavily armored, more heavily gunned full on battleship... To fight the Yamato of all things.

 

Once more, delving into the in-game stats, we see that the Montana is once again not the same as was to be built to combat the Yamato. The armor stats are wrong. What we have in the game is more lightly armored than what would have been built. Going by the games overmatch mechanics, the Yamato's shells are easily able to penetrate the Montana's 32mm deck armor, where as the stats given on wikipedia reveal that the 32mm armor is actually the secondary deck armor, instead of the 38mm armor of the primary deck.

 

If I'm not mistaken the Yamato can't pen 38mm of armor as per the games overmatch mechanics.

 

These two quotes from the Montana class wikipedia page in particular stand out to me.

 

"At the time, the design board issued a basic outline for the Montana class that called for it to be free of beam restrictions imposed by the Panama Canal, be 25% stronger offensively and defensively than any other battleship completed or under construction, and be capable of withstanding the "super heavy" 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) shells used by US battleships equipped with either the 16-inch/45 caliber guns or 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns."

 

And...

 

"By returning the Montana class to the slower 28 kn (32 mph; 52 km/h) maximum speed of the North Carolina- and South Dakota- class ships, naval architects were able to increase armor protection for the Montanas, enabling the ships to withstand enemy fire equivalent to their own guns' ammunition."

 

So, if that were the case in game, the Montana could for all intents and purposes shrug off anything up to 16 inches, and likely take only light to middling damage from anything above 16 inches, including the Yamato's big ol' 18.1 inchers. As it is though, supposedly the Montana can be penned by even 16 inch guns from other US BBs.

 

So, either I'm reading this all wrong, which I don't think is the case, or WG got something wrong in the Montana's design, which seems more likely after comparing the in game stats with the real world stats.

 

Now I know "don't get all hung up on the historical stats, this is a game sunshine", but there has to be a middle ground somewhere to balance these ships, and right now I don't think that's the case. The Montana was designed with fighting the Yamato in mind, yet she can't do that effectively in the game, not without the Yamato presenting a full-on broadside, which anyone knows you're not supposed to do.

 

Now I'm not saying the Yamato is OP AF, it can be destroyed, all I'm saying is right now the Yamato just has too many advantages under her belt, so to speak, and the balance between her and Montana could be improved a bit.

[Adm_Nate_Ellis937]

Well, guess it's time to rebuy Monty. Her armor enhancement on the PT was spectacular.

[Skramjet]

Good review! Definitely excited, because I got my North Carolina recently. Thanks for the review!

[Shatara422]

The big problem with the Montana is (I believe) that it is the design from 1939, which means that it is a ship from 1939 going against a ship from 1945 (Yamato), Montana needs to be given changes to make it be like what it could have been in 1945.

 

Quick! Name a warship that received a refit between 1939 and 1945 that didn't involve pulling off surface combat equipment to make room for AA guns, Radar, and/or ASW equipment!

[4bRbyHSSzZ6pk]

Just played a game on mine and I can confirm, it does seem somewhat more durable, even if just a slight little bit

[Nachoo31]

 

Yamato can lolpen it at any angle and score cits, Montana needs Yamato to broadside to deal any form of significant damage in turn.

 

Your DD losing is your fault. Baltimore losing is normal, you're a CA, BB are supposed to kill you.

 

Montana didn't kill my DD.. I finished the match with 1 hp.  It hits and I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

[KommandantPerry]

Good parity between the monty and yamato is only healthy for the game. Be interesting to see how the great elector stacks up.

 

Granted i won't know because for now im shelving my zao. I dont enjoy high tier gameplay(that 15 point captain is now sailing around in a myoko!)

[Pope_Shizzle]

 

I stopped watching after I saw you didn't have premium consumables equipped. It's a pet peeve of mine. Also, you wanting to extol the virtues of HE in BBs is nothing I want to hear. My BBs will only ever fire AP because AP is what gets citadels. 

 

I'm going to jot your name down and add it to my list of BB drivers from whom I have nothing to fear.

[VTAdmiral]

 

I stopped watching after I saw you didn't have premium consumables equipped. It's a pet peeve of mine. Also, you wanting to extol the virtues of HE in BBs is nothing I want to hear. My BBs will only ever fire AP because AP is what gets citadels. 

 

Wanna know why my Yamato isn't afraid of destroyers?

 

46cm HE makes them change their minds real quick.