KES Nariana

[Karle94]

If you want to do the Montana, maybe this will help you: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 2&start=30
I will warn you, it is not without it´s faults. It was the first ship I ever made for SB.

[KES Paige captain]

OK, i experimented and I seem successful. Better?=

[KES Paige captain]

I scaled it sot that it is just smaller than then the Yamato now.

[Karle94]

The Yamato was 263 meters long and 39 meters wide. The Montana would have been 280 meters long and 37 meters wide. There is a distinguishable size difference. The Montana would have been longer, but thinner. The Montana would have had a heavier broadside than the Yamato. Add that to the completely superior fire control and the Montana would have ripped the Yamato a new one. At least from a distance.

[Erusia Force]

because it's stupid. Yamato was as big you can get a battleship. Montana was at the limit and thus was one of the many reason they was not build. (and also they will come to late to be useful)

Off of what principle? The Montana could be no larger than designed due to the size of the Panama Canal and was dropped due to the importance of carriers and their slow speed. As of Yamato, the design could have been much larger, and the Japanese navy had commissioned such drawings yet suspended the project due to their carrier losses. A battleship can be as large as needed under the conditions of a suitable roll, funding, materials to construct, and the size of the construction way.

[Erusia Force]

Questions:
What is the planned gun caliber/number?
Planned beam?
Armor protection?

I can't help but notice that this design looks like the combination of the South Dakota and Montana Designs.

[Karle94]

4x3 16"/50 Mark 7. 37 meters wide. 16,1 inches thick STS armor belt.

[KES Paige captain]

just experimenting, but this would not work, right?

[Zephyr]

Probably not, no.

[KES Paige captain]

OK.