Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: Shark7
or not.
This is a Montana Class BB. Basically, its even more of a waste of resources than a Yamato. And its gets about 1.5nm per ton of fuel... [X(].
And if you are wondering about it saying Ohio Class, well in my mod, the old Montana is still in service, so I shifted the class name to the second in class (that was actually laid down), Ohio BB-68.
ORIGINAL: JuanG
A few comments from someone else who also did a Montana;
1) The Durability is way off. Unless your completely redesigning ther durability values for all ships, Montana should fall around the same (if you factor Displacement, Age and Design like I do) or a little lower than Yamato (if you go directly from Displacement). My own value is 229.
2) The Displacement is also off. Your is close to the Full Load Displacement, whereas most values quoted in game are somewhere between Normal and Standard displacements. In this case around 60,500 - 62,000 would be good.
3) Deck armour seems wrong - the Iowas are rated at 188mm, which is reasonable for vitals but not for the whole ships. Using a similar rating system Montana would probably be close or a little more. ~195
4) The Montana was intended to use the same 5in/54 as the Midways, but in Dual mounts. This weapon was vastly superior to the 5in/38, so its worth using it.
5) Only 40 barrels of 40mm? This is what was proposed when it was designed - its unlikely this wouldnt be increased by '45. Even the late war Iowa has 52, Montana could probably easily fit around 60-70. Same goes for 20mm.
6) The maneuver value is too low - Iowa is 26, Yamato is 22 (too low IMHO - should be ~24), Montana should around 20/21 (or 22/23 with my changes).
7) Your bunker value seems to high - leading to the bad efficiency. My reckoning is that as Iowa's Full Load - Standard Displacement = ~9,500tons, and she carries ~7,600tons of fuel, Montana with a Full Load - Standard Displacement = ~10,500tons, accounting for the extra ammo for the 4th turret (though I assume ammo per gun would be less than Iowa class), I get around ~8,100tons for Montana bunkerage, maybe ~8,500tons assuming less boiler water due to smaller powerplant, and less ammo per gun. This is more sensible as while the Montana was a lot larger than Iowa, its hullform was probably more efficient at 15knots than Iowas was.
8) As far as I know Montana carried only 3 floatplanes, same as Iowa.
Of course, its your scenario, so do as you wish, this is just my thoughts.
ORIGINAL: Shark7
Different references most likely. I took all the information and plugged it into Springsharp to come up with this.
Durability and manuevre...I've yet to figure out the true formula on these, so I took an educated guess. Probably undervalued the durability. Manuevre I based partly on the fact that Montana would have been huge.
My reference indicated 4 floatplanes.
Ammo, Typo on the main gun rounds, should have been 10 actually. I rated her for 100 rounds per gun, which seems pretty standard for US types. Iowa was also 100 rounds per gun IIRC.
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Considering the amount of resources each country could afford to waste, relatively speaking the Montanas aren't in the Yamato class. It doesn't look too bad. Would have thought a longer ship could have had a bigger aa suite than the Iowas. The radars look like they're from '43 tho.
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Considering the amount of resources each country could afford to waste, relatively speaking the Montanas aren't in the Yamato class. It doesn't look too bad. Would have thought a longer ship could have had a bigger aa suite than the Iowas. The radars look like they're from '43 tho.
given the huge amount of steel needed + the shipyard space, it would have been a huge headache for the US which is a large part of why they were shunted to the side in favor of other construction and uses for the steel.
