Comments: 11
108e8e99e8 [2021-04-16 10:50:04 +0000 UTC]
π: 0 β©: 1
115USMValor [2018-10-04 17:59:05 +0000 UTC]
In my opinion, This ship looks like it doesn't have enough secondaries and also doesn't have enough Anti Air batteries on it.
π: 0 β©: 2
leovictor In reply to 115USMValor [2018-10-04 23:51:50 +0000 UTC]
Sources vary but the secondaries are either 20 x 6 inch or the 20 X 5 inch in twin mounts.
www.secretprojects.co.uk/forumβ¦
As for AA batteries.
Name me one ship in 1934 that had "enough" AA batteries.
π: 0 β©: 1
115USMValor In reply to leovictor [2018-10-05 17:45:00 +0000 UTC]
Is the Montana an option in this case for this argument of having βEnoughβ AA Batteries by any chance?
π: 0 β©: 1
leovictor In reply to 115USMValor [2018-10-05 23:01:39 +0000 UTC]
This 76,000 ton Max battleship was designed when the majority of Naval aviation craft
had two wings stacked on top of another and the body consisted of canvas.
When this ship was penned down they thought 16 x 1.1 inch cannons were sufficient.
Now seeing how Bismarck fared with shooting down Swordfish biplanes we can say that
the AA guns of this ship were horrendously inadequate even for the day.
As for Montana.
When the design was finalized in early 1942 she had an AA battery of 40 X 40mm Bofors cannons.
Which by 1942 standards is inadequate for a ship that size.
Had Montana been completed as planned by late 1945 she would have carried at least 96 Bofors cannons
with the remaining empty deck space reserved for 20mm Oerlikons.
.
π: 0 β©: 1
115USMValor In reply to leovictor [2018-10-06 00:06:35 +0000 UTC]
I get of what your saying, The Chicago Piano as it was called was more of a hog to even fire it without it jamming. I could see this Maximum design wielding both the Bofors and Oerlikons had it been built.
π: 0 β©: 0