> why dont they build it on west coast save time???

because the point is that you want a ship that can go back and forth without having
to go around south america.

but more to the point, the number of shipyards that COULD produce a ship that big
was limited.

well maby im not sure about the panamal canal thing but i think its just a longer
iowa and why dont they build it on west coast save time??? i gusse but to the in
game thing OVER POOOOOWERD the montana is a amazing ship dosent need to get
better your USN players are very lucky for that

The montana would have been designed to withstand salvos from it's own guns.
However, the ship was so large it would not have been able to fit through the
Panama Canal

i know it would have been pretty sick to have the montana in real life but like i think
helms said it would only have iowa guns the 16inche trips but they stopped the
monty class cause they wanted to build more essex carriers for pacific theter


the only strenght it would have was the extra turret and im not sure but a stronger
engine to keep up with carrier battle groups

25 pages.. shame it wasn't a pop up book, now that'd of been fun

BB-67 MONTANA, U.S. Navy Battleship: Why She Matters Today

Uh... you know that book is only 24 pages long, right? And 15 of those are nothing but
pictures. The stuff this guy publishes is pretty far from what you would call "academic",
"historically accurate", or, dare I say, "credible".

Heck, the military channel's "Top Ten" shows have more factual content. And that's saying
something.

Because books and reference means nothing, when it does not apply in the game.

Same thing goes to a scientific, you can be the smartest guy ever, but you mean nothing to
the people if you can`t put in application or explain to commoners.


In this situation, books and reference mean nothing. SDE the unique NF game developper
and head, does not put it in the game.

well helms you seem so smart?? why dont you do some reading. they designers
actually toiled with the idea of 18" guns before their knowledge of the yamato. their
other thought was on the punching power of quad 16" guns that could defeat
anyone. what im trying to say is they were planning for the future in cASE they had
to stop way bigger ships.

"Both books said they wanted 18" guns to keep up with the Yamatos."

They didn't even know the Yamatos had 18" guns until after the war.... after the Montanas
had already been canceled because it was obvious by that point that they wouldn't see
service in the war and would have been born into a world of naval warfare that had
surpassed them before they were even launched.

What you have read is speculation, and nothing more. You said yourself that those other
gun configurations were thrown out due to the limitations of the design, but then you go
and say that they were "possibilities." So, which is it?

And, all realism and physics aside.... WHY DO YOU NEED THOSE GUNS? Montana is perfectly
fine as it is. It already has the hardest-hitting broadside in the entire game, matched
only (maybe) by the Amagi.

--Helms

My sources are the books "Janes Battleships" and "USS Montana: why she maters
today". Both books said they wanted 18" guns to keep up with the Yamatos. the
other option was for 4 quad turrets of 16". Either of these options would have given
them killer broadsides. they decided not to use the options only because of the
weight of the ship and the beaum would be to great. they would have needed a
bigger powerplant to move the ship. so since these two gun configurations were
possibilities i was hoping they would be reallity in the game itself.

I like that United states class carrier by the way haha that would be sick to have
and launch bombers off of.