USS Montana - Guide 118
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 апр 2019
- The Montana class, the last designed American battleships, are today's subject.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Next on the list:
-Florida class
-Patreon Choice
-USS Salt Lake City
-Storozhevoy
-Flower class
-USS San Juan
-HMS Sheffield
-USS Johnston
-Dido class
-Hunt class
-HMS Vanguard
-Mogami class
-Almirante Grau
-Surcouf
-Von der Tann
-Massena
-HMCS Magnificent
-HMCS Bonaventure
-HMCS Ontario
-HMCS Quebec
-Lion class BC
-USS Wasp
-HMS Blake
-HMS Romala/Ramola
-SMS Emden
-Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen
-Destroyer Velos
-U.S.S. John R. Craig
-C class
-HMS Caroline
-HMS Hermes
-Iron Duke
-Kronprinz Erzerzorg Rudolph.
-HMS Eagle
-Ise class
-18 inch monitor
-Mogami
-De Zeven Provinciën
-Fletcher class
-USS Langley
-Kongo class
-Grom class
-St Louis class
-H class special
-All-big-gun designs
-USS Oregon
-Gascogne
-Alsace
-Lyon and Normandie classes
-Leander class
-HMS Ajax
-Project 1047
-O class
-R class
-Battle class
-Daring class
-USS Indianapolis
-Atago/Takao
-Midway class
-Graf Zeppelin
-Bathurst class
-RHS Queen Olga
-HMS Belfast
-Aurora
-Imperator Nikolai I
-USS Helena
-USS Tennesse
-HMNZS New Zealand
-HMS Queen Mary
-USS Marblehead
-New York class
-L-20e
-Abdiel class
-Panserskib (Armoured ship) Rolf Krake
-HMS Victoria
-USS Galena (1862)
-HMS Charybdis
-Eidsvold class
-IJN “Special” DD's
-SMS Emden
-Ships of Battle of Campeche
-HMS Tiger
-USS England (DE-635)
-Tashkent
-1934A Class
-HMS Plym (K271)
-Siegfried class
Specials:
-Fire Control Systems
-Protected Cruisers
-Scout Cruisers
-Naval Artillery
-Tirpitz (damage history)
-Treaty Battleship comparison
-Warrior to Pre-dreadnought
-British BC Ammo Handling
-Naval AA Special
-Drydocks
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
I mentioned this before, but what would have happened had the IJN technologically kept up with the USN during the war (radar, proximity fuses, etc.), copying the USN-style damage control and seen the necessity of more powerful AA systems, developing their 40mm and 100mm guns fully around 6 months prior to the start of the Pacific war and incorporating them into their to-be built/building ships and retrofits. Furthermore, what if the IJN had improved their shipbuilding capabilities further, including better steel production (starting just as the Yamato-class was laid down) How long would have the war lasted at that point? What major events do you see being greatly influenced by this? I would love to see this either as a question or a theorycrafting special if you wish to do it.
What are your thoughts on the HUGELY flawed "Glorious Nippon Steel" turret face-plate of the Yamato class that was absolutely destroyed by an Iowa Class' 16"/50 caliber gun at a simulated 11,000 to 13,000 yards? Damn super heavy shell maintained enough momentum to be forever lost in the mud of the river that had been behind the armor plate. tisk tisk. The face plates were the thickest armor on the Yamatos, so it would have been interesting to see a faster well armored version of the Montana have a go. Those 18.1 inch guns couldn't hit the board side of an Essex if either ship was moving in a straight line much less maneuvering so I like a Montana's, even an Iowa's, chances.
What type of ship was pushed farthest away from it's original job. I was thinking LCIs harbor tug, mail carrier, fireboat, gunboats, flakboat, radar picket and rocket boat. That just a few.
What role would the Royal Marines had if the war in the Pacific would have continued. Would they have linked up with the US Marines or continue to act a special forces.
I've asked this before and I don't know if it's been listed but I would like to know how a battle between IJN Kirishima and USS South Dakota without USS Washington to pack up go? Would Kirishima be able to sink or cripple USS South Dakota so much is unrecoverable and has to be scuttled. If even more possible I would like to see how this could affect the war.
Also I hope you have a good Easter Day.
One of the ships of this class would have been named Ohio. I've often wondered how the Japanese would have felt about being attacked by a battleship named "Good morning."
Goooood morning vietn... Japannnnn
Michigan means "large water." We should have had more BBs named after our state.
@@kyle857 Hello jack torrance
good morning Japan and say hello to our little friend
My dad was in the first group of occupation troops shipped up from the Philippines after the war ended. They landed and offloaded into trucks and started driving north. All the Japanese civilians were waving and shouting "ohayou, ohayou". My dad said the GIs in the trucks would shout back, "Pennsylvania!", "California!", "Georgia!".
So odd to hear the words “steel shortage” and US WWII industrial capacity in the same sentence considering the truly ridiculous number of ships cranked out during the war.
Considering that one Montana was easily worth 31 Fletcher class destroyers in displacement alone, it starts to make sense.
Actually the US steel output was larger than combined output of Germany,UK,Soviet Union and Japan between 1942-1945.
Very odd to hear indeed.
Not odd, considering the need for steel for other warship classes, armor, aircraft, Liberty Ships, field guns, small arms. And it was mentioned that the first keel was laid just prior to the U.S. declaring war, so really, war production rates hadn't been ramped up to its fullest at the onset.
Well there was a reason the Pentagon was mostly constructed out of concrete.
Had to make tanks trucks planes guns
Something had to give
The AA guns need AA guns for protection of the AA guns.
Of all things the USS Second Ammendment has taught us, this is the most important lesson.
*MOAR DAKKA! WAAAAGH!!!!*
Yo dawg I heard you like AA guns
yeah tier 10 CV will got you anyway
"You see Frank, when ya put enough AA guns on your ships, they are twice as effective at protecting the ship. One, they shoot down or scare away enemy aircraft. Two, all the recoil keeps shifting the ship back and forth to dodge bombs and torpedoes."
USS Montana: This isn't even my final form...
Was thinking the same thing. Of course in this case the reply would be "Well, hurry up and pick it then.'
Your Montana Class Superbattleship is evolving!
Fatty!
@@Edax_Royeaux *all 12, 16 inch guns pointing at you*
@@merafirewing6591 gun operator
Salvo
Not all was lost with the Montana.. The Midway aircraft carrier classes, built on the design of the Montana hull
Even dead end designs usually turn up some new understandings that help to make the next class of ship better
@@themadhammer3305 Yeah pretty much. I mean they had to strip out a lot of the armor for it but the overall hull design and such led to one of the fastest aircraft carrier classes of the era, all because of the battleship design philosophy.
Midway inherited a similar machinery design and the secondary armament developed for Montana
The Essex Class used the same boilers and turbines as the Iowa Class Battleships.
@@geoguy001 You know what the hilarious thing was about the Iowas? Their SECONDARY battery was a variant on the same turret used on the Atlanta-class cruisers. Their secondary battery was literally a light cruiser's main battery.
Man Montana would’ve been such a beautiful ship. As much as I love the Iowa the 4 turrets just look so balanced.
Not to mention the weight of that broadside.
I would like to have seen Montana.
Et tu, Vassily?
Another movie quote: :"To Monty... A Toast!!!"
I've Always Felt It referred to Montana too
If it makes you feel any better you can still go and see the state of Montana.
Well done
Hang on, six 18 inch in three twin turrets? Well I'll be dipped, so there WAS a design for that USS Georgia premium ship that World of Warships is working on.
The Georgia design is weird hybrid taking on of the early Montana sketches armament but appending it to an Iowa sketch ancestor hull.
@@Drachinifel to be fair it won't be the first ship in world of warships made up as a bastard hybrid of several other designs
@@themadhammer3305 more realistic than stuff like, russian tech trees and stuff
@@tyfighters002verkerk9 yeah Wargamming have gone totally mad with implausible paper ships. I gave up on the game at the start of the year
@@themadhammer3305 smart move, its only getting worse, just wait till subs
Einfach ein wunderschönes Schiff ❤ und so Ausgewogen, schade das nicht wenigstens eines davon gebaut wurde, es war die Spitze der Entwicklung seit 1905 die Dreadnought vom Stapel lief.
Total shame the Montana was never built. Upon retirement it would have been quite something to see it on display in Montana as a museum ship.
As hard it would have been to justify having Montana class battleships. It still would have been wonderful to see one or two of them.
Well, no one can accuse the US Navy of the era of not looking at ALL the options...
Superuser009 the Tillman’s prove that!
To be fair the world was rapidly changing nearly by the hour and old ways where ending. The wrong move we would have seen ww2 draw out into the 50's at best or end in a stalemate at worst.
I would have liked to have seen Montana.
dayum a Red October reference
I remember my dad talking about ships when I was a kid: we’d walk through the Olympia, he loves that ship, and talk about how cool the USS Pennsylvania was, the Iowas and how big and cool they were, then he’d make a dramatic pause, I doubt he even knew he did it, and say “Montana class” while physically gesturing the size of his ship.
The other reason for the delay in laying down the keels for Montanas was due to their construction technique. Unlike the Iowas or other previous ships, they would be launched via dry docks and not slipways. This meant that five dry docks had to be built to accommodate the vessels. The five new dry docks were built at Navy Yards - two in New York; two in Philadelphia and one in Norfolk. While the dry docks were built to a new method and allowed them to be completed in less than two years, the decision was made to use them for new construction, and for enhanced repair capability.
Montana looks like it will finally break its naming drought for a major warship. The Virginia class submarine USS Montana is under construction and due to commision next year. In an ironic twist, this Montana will be many times more powerful than the BB-67 Montana battleship if it had actually been built.
@Russ Gallagher Unless it was making a port visit, how many people ever SAW a battleship either? Of course it's the same. People see ships in port, rarely on the high seas.
@ Sar Jim: I disagree, the Virginia class are attack submarines designed to replace the older Los Angeles class and just carry Tomahawks and Torpedoes, they are not nuclear boomers so I would argue that the thousands of 16 and 5 inch rounds carried by the Montana would equate to more power, and if you really want to get in depth its most likely that had the Montana class been built it would have been modernized just like the Iowa's were and also been able to fire Tomahawks.
@@josephkugel5099 Firstly, no battleship could equal the 1,500 mile range of a Tomahawk. Secondly, it's classified how many Mark 48 torpedoes have nuclear warheads and what boats they might be on, but there's no doubt some boats have them. Thirdly, Tomahawks now have a newly developed nuclear warhead. Again, it's classified how many and what boats might carry them, but some will. A Montana, even if firing Tomahawks and Harpoons, would probably have been retired by now, and may have been retired before the Iowas, since they only offered the advantage of three more 16" rifles, but at a much higher operating and manning costs. The Montana will be a platform for Tomahawks and Sub-Harpoon missiles, not to mention torpedoes for fleet and self defense, for at least 30 years in the future.
@@Svenne-man-1880
Even in WWII they were just targets. Very hard-to-kill-targets, but still targets.
Per Johansson
Pretty much. Makes you wonder why everyone built them.
Frieza: "This isn't even my final form."
Montana: "Hold my beer."
Sir Star Adder Hahahaha! This comment made my day! Well done sir!
Tony Montana drinks beer?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
By July 1942, I think that even the biggest fans of the Montana-class in the U.S. Navy would have acknowledged that giving priority to the faster Iowas was the right choice.
Can you do a special on the fatally flawed ABDA command and Battle of the Java Sea?
I second this!
I third this?
I fourth this
I High Ground this!
You underesitmate my power!!
"Whilst" Love that word. I intend to employ it at every opportunity, whilst neglecting to upgrade the rest of my vocabulary.
Try to remember also thats why four out of every three people have trouble with fractions .... :-(
Little know fact: A Navy admiral William Hannah was the biggest proponent of the Montana class. In his honor, the 1st ship was to be called Hannah Montana
LOL!
I was hoping for a Tony Montana.
Later rebuilt as the Miley Cyrus.
The Tony Montanas come with showers
with chainsaws.
@@psikogeek not to mention a lot of his "little friends". LOL
As always , something good from uncle Drach :)
The man loves his work, may his audience continue to grow!
I wish we had built just one before the war ended, and then kept it active as a ceremonial flagship
I’d have loved to drop a “hint” on the drawing board for this class in 1940: “IJN Yamato and Musashi have 18” guns. - Adjust designs accordingly.”
Jim Talbott
The only benefit of the 18.1” over the 16” superheavy is that it makes a bigger boom when the shell explodes. The superheavies punched above their weight, while the 18.1” somewhat underperformed for its size. That said, even accounting for that, the 18.1” would still be able to pen most if not all BB armour. It’s just that so can the Mark 8 16”.
So having another three guns would probably be a bigger advantage than bigger guns, for increased throw weight. (The firing rate on Yamato was actually competitive, but it’s still 9 guns vs. 12 guns).
Of course, the right thing for the USN to do would be to not build the Montanas (or the Iowas for that matter). BBs were obsolete at this point, and if your enemy made the mistake of building obsolete weapons, why make the same mistake yourself?
The USN didn't know the Yamatos had 18" guns in 1940. The Japanese kept them so secret that for the longest time the USN thought they were 45,000-ton, 16"-gun ships.
@@somercet1 That sounds very counterintuitive and counterproductive. By not telling the admiral in charge of the operation the capabilities of his ships, his operational effectiveness was severely reduced.
@@bkjeong4302 yet, the Iowa class served for nearly 50 years. The ships were used in shore bombardments in every war from WWII through Operation Desert Storm. The fact that the last time the ships were brought back was to counter the Russian cruiser which had larger guns than any other warship at the time.
@@NewtypeCommander his effectiveness was compromised so much in the battle it wasn't funny. Knowing the size of the guns was the least of his problems. Lack of radar and communication. I read they believed they were firing on Essex class carriers and Baltimore class heavy cruisers. Just the fact they couldn't catch up to them gave him that idea. The cruisers closer to the battle knew the truth. When he fully understand what was going on, he turned and ran because he didn't want to get caught between two massive task forces.
By this time the Allies were aware for the mighty IJN Battleships but thought the IJN Yamato’s were 16” guns. It wouldn’t be until after the War that the USN realized the Yamato had 18” guns
Alexius Nemo After Battle of Midway, the capital ship was the aircraft carrier. Even other ship was to screen and protect carrier. So it was a good decision to stop work soon enough as the Iowa class Kentucky wasn’t going to be completed before end of war.
Tony Manero
And even then everyone (the US included) spent way too much on battleships (the Iowas should have been cancelled). Especially since carriers had already rendered battleships obsolete by the start of WWII, let alone by Midway.
@@bkjeong4302 not in the battle of the Atlantic they were doing fine sinking lots of ships and I'm talking about Beginning of war
@@bkjeong4302 lowa class had a lot of AA Carriers crews love them
NK gaming
Even early in the war battleships caused much smaller losses (especially from a cost-benefit perspective) than pretty much everything else, including naval mines.
The USS Montana show is a repeat of the alaska show
William Bryant
And the Iowa show.
Building Carriers, Submarines, Destroyers, Landing Craft, and Liberty Ships was such a better use of shipyard resources
I don't disagree but you have to admit battleships are pretty f****** cool
@@spartanx9293 also ww2 was usa flexing not making logical decisions....
This would have been a fun ship to see during the Korean War, with twelve 16" guns providing fire support out to fifteen miles for the Marines. A lot of Chinese would have never gone home under THAT kind of artillery flail.
Oh boy! Something to listen to whilst doing War Thunder at 4 in the ducking morning
im playing as Clan Skryre in Total Warhammer 2
Ratling guns are good yes-yes!
The first time I am the first viewer on a video on this channel so I will take the opportunity to say I love this channel, it has become my go-to background content while I am gaming.
It has the best value Patreon, period. Check it out.
I read that Montana's planned increase in armor over SD and Iowa was due to the fact that the SD and Iowa, though designed with armor parity given the existing AP shells their guns fired, lacked armor parity after the deployment of the 16" super heavy shells, and that the Montana's increase in armor roughly corresponded to the increase in penetration of the new shells over the old ones. Is that accurate?
I kind of view it as the the Iowas being the extension of the philosophy of the North Carolina, a little light on armor but fast for the class, and the Montanas being the logical extension of the South Dakota philosophy of more protection for the size of the ship, while retaining a lethal punch. Maybe a bit less speed for more protection. Seeing as every warship class is a trade off between speed, offensive and defensive capabilities, the Iowa and NC favored offense, the SoDaks and Montanas defense.
I see USS Montana I click
Full Speed Ahead!
The 5"/54 Rifle is a very good gun. Edit: We did NOT have one on our Knox class ASW Frigate (ours was the standard 5"/38. Sorry, my memory is starting to get old ;-) ).
I agree because the US Navy wanted to use it so much.
Still, the 5"/38 stayed on for a long time. The 54 came with trade offs like a heavier shell that wore out crews faster.
@@psikogeek And greater barrel wear and a new, hands-off high ROF, loading system with troubles of its own. The 5'/38 was fine for its purpose and time (and a great many years after); a real improvement over the 5"/25cal. We had two 5'/38 on the Garcia class frigate I was first assigned to: in A and C positions. The fantail spot, as was often the case, was armed with Sea Sparrow.
My Grandpa served on the Knox Class frigates, specifically the USS Whipple
The gun on a Knox class frigate was a 5in/54
Weed, coffee and Drachinifel on auto-play while I work on my model ship kits, is heaven on earth .
Sounds good, what kit are you working on at the moment?
not even gonna lie that makes me pretty jealous
Thank you for doing this video on a ship that could have been! Its a shame we never got to see her built.
Finally my state gets a ship though! The USN is finally fixing the massive goof they made and are building the Virginia Class Submarine USS Montana. It only took them 77ish years. Im a born n raised Montanan, i hope to be able to see her christening.
We are the only state to not get a modern battle ship... like even Wyoming... i love the USN, but cmon, give us a break!
2:15 "6x18`` in 3x2 turrets" ...so that´s the USS Georgia in Wows?
Yup
Yes, but that's a modification of the *Iowa* class, not the Montana class.
@@5peciesunkn0wn would the variant of the Montana be the USS Ohio then?
@@imightbearacist6613 now weegee putting in Ohio lol
Torpedoes astern.
Torpedoes to starboard.
Enemy destroyer detected.
Enemy aircraft carrier sighted.
Open all the water line we're filling quickly.
Critical engine damage.
Engine boost de activated
Q&A.
Could you do something on the HMS Dasher D37, i had family serving on it when it was lost, was considered Top Secret at the time of her sinking and i have not been able to find much information on it, all i know is it was an Archer Class Escort CV, (was originally a Merchantman (Rio De Janeiro) and Converted at the start of the war.
Sank in Scotland after an internal Explosion.
Love your content! Keep up the very hard work you must put into your video's!!
Mr C Herrington
They Gave Me a Seafire
Book by R. M. Crosley
HMS Dasher is mentioned in the book several times.
Then we heard that she had ‘blown up’ of her own accord without any assistance from the Germans. We believed the last news. We could easily guess why. Much later, I met Lt/Cdr (A) Brian ‘Blinkers’ Paterson, MBE, DFC, RN, the batsman aboard Dasher when she blew up. He said that someone smoking had touched off the petrol vapour in one of her compartments below. He was batting an aircraft in to land at the time, when a great flame shot into the air all round him. He immediately dived 60 feet over the side. As he always wore a Mae West - even in the shower - he floated high out of the water and was picked up.
He told us that when he had ‘come to’ in the water astern of the flaming Dasher he could see hundreds of her crew jumping over the side straight into the black smoke and red flames of the burning petrol, where they were swallowed up and burned alive, unable to swim faster than the spread of burning petrol on the water. Very few of her 528 crew survived the horror of 27 March 1943.
I've lived in NY, CA, MO, & currently in IN, so I'm well stocked with battleships. 😃. I'm sure glad that I've never set foot in MT, now that I know. Thanks.
Sexiest Battleship ever, even prettier than the Yamato by a hair in my opinion, unfortunately never build. Can you make a video about the Vermont ship (457mm/18-inch), thank you and cheers.
the hate and discontent that the navy had for the enemy when designing this... damn I love it lol
The barbette test plates for these ships were made at 21" of Thick Chill Class "A" armor (up from 17.3" on IOWA and SD). A plate from Carnegie had a hardness pattern rather like the thinner IOWA plates (ski-slope drop in hardness down to the back level at about 55% of the thickness), but the Midvale plate (no Bethlehem plate was submitted, to my knowledge) was rather unique in having a somewhat jittery hardness level that was more-or-less constant to circa-55% and then abruptly dropped to the back level from there on, which was more like an old Compound armor plate, though of only one kind of steel. Not sure why Midvale did this; perhaps as an experiment. To my knowledge, both plates passed the extrapolated plate test spec, as with thinner Class "A" armor of mid-WWII.
Note also that the 5"/45 guns (later to become the US standard destroyer gun for decades with significantly heavier projectiles than the 5"'/38 used -- only relatively recently replaced by the much-higher-MV 5"/62 with even heavier ammo) was put on the weather deck and one-superstructure-deck higher just like in NORTH CAROLINA, not the one deck higher design of IOWA and SD. This makes these ships look like super-NC designs, not anything like the IOWA and SD. Not sure why this was done, since the reason for the IOWA and SD raise of these side guns was to keep them functioning in bad weather,. after some poor weather results in NC.
That 16"/56 gun mentioned was actually built and tested during the 1920s (no results known to me), being a rebuild of the 18"/45 gun built in the early 1920s but never fired as an 18" gun until early in WWII and at the US Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia, the extra gun length (added by a screw-on tip to the barrel when it was lined down to 16") was sliced off, shortening the 18" gun to only 42 calibers, called the Mark "A" gun, and thoroughly tested with 3300-pound HE-type inert test shells for flight-trajectory tests and, against armor, with 3850-pound Type "B" AP projectiles that were upsized 16" Mark 8 designs (not exactly like the Service 16" AP shapes, but close) with similar scaled-up penetration results against the regular AP projectile 13.5" test plates. The 18"/42 Mark "A" gun was easily a baseline for a new-model 18"/45 gun (50 cal?) with an MV of 2500 ft/sec for its AP rounds, had it been decided to use such on a super-MONTANA.
I am pretty sure that the final nail in MONTANA's coffin was the fact that it could not keep up with the carriers like IOWA Class ships could, since protecting them was considered "JOB 1".
Fascinating as ever....thank you!
A Montana with 18" twin gun turrets would have been cool. Like the Colorado class and Iowa class had a baby. A BIG baby.
Well done and very informative. Thanks for posting.
The legend in the photo "NOT TO BE RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION" made my day
Fantastic video. Pleased that RUclips recommended it to me.
Entertaining and diverting as usual...thank you
It will never cease to amaze me how long those displacement and turret treaties were respected. Seems like every country largely disregarded it but never fully ignored it until basically the age of battleships were over. Design wise anyway those damn treaties killed so many interesting possibilities, however I suppose it’s best nations across the globe didn’t spend ridiculous sums on ever increasingly powerful killing machines that would become antiquated within a decade.
fascinating, as ever. Many thanks
Hello, how about a review of the Mitscher-class destroyers. They were an experimental destroyer class of four ships that were built for the United States Navy shortly after World War II. USS John S. McCain (DL-3) was in the Johnston Atoll during a nuclear test for atmospheric and extremely high-altitude nuclear explosions in outer space. I wonder what you can dig up. During the Cuban Missile crisis the ships were operational. Each ship was different in some way to test designs.
Anyway, Thank you and really appreciate the work to make this forum a success!
Geeze. I'd not heard of these. I went to the Wiki to have a low res look. I like the layout, with 5"/54cal guns fore and aft and 3"/50cal dual gun turrets in B and X positions. The Weapon Alpha turret above B position must've been quite a sight for the bridge crew when fired. One of the pictures shows it replaced with the standard ASROC box (8 tubes).
I'm not sure why they moved away from Hedgehog, though. Russians still use the RBU mortars, which are essentially the same thing.
I was expecting a rant on hows the world of warships one is a mix of most of the final designs, but besides that amazing video as always.
I hate that WoW did that. I really wanted an accurate depiction of Montana class based on the BB67-4 design, which is probably the design that would have been used had they been built. Instead, we got another imaginary “what-if” hybrid abomination that I couldn’t give two shits about. And don’t get me started on the Ohio.
@Drachnifel 7:40 One little inaccuracy the immune zone you listed was at 18,000 yards was for the 16 Inch 45 Caliber Mark 6 Guns with the Super Heavy Shell the immune zone for the 16 Inch 50 Caliber Guns Mark 7 Guns would have been 20,500 yards to 30,000 Yards With the super heavy shells
Interesting article. Thanks
The Battleship equivalent of a case saying "In Case of Yamato Swarm Break Glass"
Hey Drachinfel,
Have you ever considered covering the Kirov class of cruisers or the Gangut class of battleships?
Ps. New subscriber but loving your work!
Gangut has I think been covered but in robo-voice so is in line for revoicing
@@Drachinifel awesome thanks mate will have a look!
Great review!
I have recently started watching you and I absolutely love the content!
I have a small proposition: maybe I can provide some help with Russian language pronunciation? I'm a native speaker, so if you ever will be doing a video on Imperial Russian Navy again, or have any hard-to-pronounce Russian name in other video, I can explain how it's pronounced in Russia, and maybe provide audio example, if you are interested:)
You can find me as Radiosterne in The Drydock discord, if my help would be needed :)
Russia is one of my ancestral homelands on my father's side the other being Ukraine and despite being a Yank I actually prefer foreign tech (mainly military) over American tech which includes Russia.
Montana still doesn't have a ship named after it and it won't until a Virginia class sub is finished in 2020. I bet something happens to change that name too
That's interesting when you realize that Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska, the last 47th-50th states, have all been honored by a ship.
@Russ Gallagher - Of course, the first Hawaii and Alaska were cruisers, as they were territories then, and thus deemed to not warrant the honor of a battleship. Also, the first USS Hawaii was never commissioned.
Today, USS Alaska is an Ohio Class SSBN and USS Hawaii is a Virginia Class SSN.
I love you drach!
That is one hell of a model in the first slide
I know that the "caliber" of the gun is a length, but how is it calculated? Could you mention this occasionally in your FANTASTIC videos. Great work here. Two thumbs up!!!
I believe it is the multiple of the diameter of the barrel
always great video with great information I've also like to know your opinion on which ship you would have chosen to be the best ship in the Montana
"Official photo, not for publication" Appears in a RUclips video at 3:13
Thank you!
Worth the wait!
Building a 1/350 Montana as I watch this ^^
There's a gorgeous large scale model of a Montana design study aboard USS New Jersey.
Write your congressman and let's get those ships built. It's not too late.
US Battleship design was SO beautiful.......
Handsome ships.
☮
Nice
I can se the design teams had lots and lots of fun churning out different designs for the Montana class.
Maybe there should be another design where every space inch of deck space is covered by AA guns.
I can almost see the ultimate design, deleting all main armament guns for a solid wall of 40 and 20mm AA weapons lol.
I think the Iowa class are the best looking battleships ever built.
That ship would have been a beast!
chippledon1 White elephants are beasts, I guess, lol.
Pretty ships.
HOLY CRAP! My suggestion was made into a video!
THANKS MATE!
I do like these videos!!!
Thanks. Would hospital ships be within your mission?
Before Montana and Yamato class, there were the Tillman BB's.
The Montana class BBs were designed as the ultimate battleship the US was capable of building under the restrictions of US yards, harbors and seaways. It and the Midway class carriers were going to use the new locks authorized and funded by Congress in 1938-39. In 1936, the USN's cryptology sections finally decrypted and translated a radio communication dated from 1922. This had been a routine communication and with the limited resources provided by Congress between 1921 and 1939, it had been set aside for later decoding and translation when assets were available. It turned out to have a major impact on the USN's war plans and building programs. The report was from the trials of the IJNS Mutsu, a Nagato class battleship completed in 1922. The IJN ran trials at a displacement slightly less than combat displacement. The IJNS Mutsu had exceeded 26 knots. That meant that the IJN had been lying about the speed of its warships. The publicly admitted speed for the Japanese battleships was 22.5 knots. The standard nominal speed of the US battleline was 21 kts, though in actuality, USS Oklahoma could make just under 20 kts, and she and the New York class battleships would shake their reciprocating engine machinery apart if they maintained that speed for more than 4 hours. This why the USN specified 23 knots for the first "South Dakota" class battleships, which it considered was fast. Now as of 1936, the entire US battle line was obsolete. The best ships, the three recently rebuilt New Mexico class could make 22 knots. So instead of a 3.5 knot difference in battle line speeds, the USN was facing over 5 knots. The USN had practiced battleline tactics to offset the superior speed of the Japanese battleline. These tactics were now ineffective. Where the USN had specified 23 knots for its newest Treaty battleships in their original design, now the specified 27 knots. You can't have everything on 35,000 tons standard displacement. When a treaty is signed by the President or his representative and "advised and consented" to by the Senate, under the Constitution, it becomes US law. For the USN to exceed Washington, London 1930 and London 1936 treaty limits was to break the law. So the new battleships had to displace 35,000 tons at standard displacement. So, to get 27 knots, they introduced the new high pressure and high temperature (800 F and 650psi) machinery. While it was lighter, it took up more space, especially when installed as units, so that not all the boilers and turbines were lost with a single torpedo hit. Since maximum firepower under the Treaties, twelve 14" guns were sought, protection had to be cut back. The North Carolina class could make 27 knots at intended battle displacement, carry twelve 14" guns (these were replaced at the last minute with nine 16" guns) and was protected against the 1,500 lbs 14" shell (which was more or less equivalent to what the IJN's Kongo class "fast battleships" and the Fuso and Ise class battleships carried) and a 700lbs torpedo warhead. Unknown to the USN, the IJN had introduced oxygen powered torpedoes, the Type 95 21" sub torpedo had an 880lbs warhead and the 24" Type 93 had a 1,088lbs TNT warhead. The next four ships, the second South Dakota class, were designed for 27 knots and carried nine 16" guns and were protected against the 2,250lbs 16" shell, pretty much what the Nagato class carried. The US was allowed under the 1930 London Treaty fifteen capital ships. This treaty was not repealed until June 1940 with the other treaties. In the meantime, the US, France and the British, the signatories of the 1936 London Treaty demanded in 1938 that Japan sign the Treaty and/or reveal their plans for capital ship construction. They refused and the US, France and Britain exercised the "escalator" clause increasing the limit from 14" to 16" guns. Which is why the North Carolina class was armed at the last minute with the 16" L/45 Mk.6 guns, the gunhouses and barbettes for a three mounting being very close in size to a four-gun 14" gun turret. The also negotiated a codicil increasing standard displacement limits to 45,000 tons. Originally, four more "South Dakota" class BBs were going to be built. With the increase, they looked at a twelve gun "South Dakota". Instead, the USN decided to use the extra 10,000 tons to get a "South Dakota" that could go over 30 knots. These Iowa class BBs would be able to run down and destroy the three 26 knot Japanese battlecruisers (the USN was unaware that the Kongos had been rebuilt a second time and could now make at least 29 knots and that IJNS Hiei had been rebuilt from a training ship to the same standards as the other Kongos). These ships would also be the equivalent of a "South Dakota" in the new 27 knot battleline, not battlecruisers. That would give the US ten 27 knot capital ships by 1943. To complete the battleline, the USN would order five more capital ships. If France had not fallen in June 1940, they might have been the twelve gun Iowas. Instead, Congress abandoned all the naval treaties in June 1940 and authorized five ~60,000 ton armed with 16" guns and capable of making 27 knots.
With the rise of the fleet aircraft carriers, the Montanas were a questionable use of resources. Certainly, the carriers needed capital ship support for AA defense and for surface combat during night or bad weather. But the fleet carriers could sustain over 30 knots. During carrier battles in 1942-43, the carriers would accelerate to 30 knots and leave the North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships behind, sometimes miles behind. The only way to make the Montana class relevant would have been to get the maximum sustained sea speed at battle displacement over 30 knots. After the war, the USN looked at what it would take to get the North Carolina and South Dakota classes up to 30 knots and found it prohibitively expensive. The largest machinery plant the USN had was the 220,000 shp plant in the Iowa class battleships and Midway class battle carriers. Until the USN adopted the 1200F, 900 psi boilers in the late 1950s for the three later Forrestal class "supercarriers", the best they could do was around 240,000 shp and that was pushing the machinery and might have caused reliability issues. This would be a 41% increase in shp. Experience meant that empirically, a 41% increase in shp could lead to a less than 10% increase in sustained speed or just over 30 knots, but more likely somewhere between 29-30 knots. This would have required larger machinery spaces and some weight trade-offs with protection, firepower or both. By 1945, both prospective opponents had been sunk by massive air attacks and the Iowas could handle anything left on the seas. So, given there were a lot of other things the US could do with ~300,000 tons of steel. Cancelling the Montanas was economically and strategically the thing to do. Keep in mind, the Montanas were NOT designed as responses, or at least direct responses, to the Yamato class as the USN did not know the characteristics of the future Japanese capital ships at the time the Montana design was completed and prepared for construction around 1941.
Well those bofors had pretty good coverage. They could clear the deck of Battle Android Troopers when the nefarious terrorist organization Cobra hijacked the Montana. In the alternate history that is G.I. Joe, the Montana was built.
9:00 The Montana got cancelled in July 1943, before anybody had had a good look at Yamato/Musashi.
Would have liked to see this video get the (NB) designation in the title. Was a bit turned around to find out it wasn't.
However they might have ended up looking, I think we can agree the description would have included the adjective "large".
;-p
Phrase Of The Day: "vaguely sane"
Ill take 16" belt at 19 degrees, 9 16" 50 guns, 20 5" 54 secondaries. Im sure it can still do about 30 knots....
it is interesting that Fletcher class destroyers were capable of 36 to 38 knots or almost 43.7 mph.
On paper, at one point, the USN intended to build a fantasy fleet with four Montanas and eight Iowas. There was a problem: the cost and time of construction was in orbit -- and there'd be no remotely equivalent opposing navy to thwart. In retrospect, one imagines that such a fleet was intended to counter Germany, France and Britain -- and Italy -- all at the same time. The supposition being that Hitler had conquered France AND Britain. In early 1942, this was not deemed excessive speculation. Remember that virtually everyone expected Hitler to conquer the the Soviet Union during the Autumn of 1941. Once it became obvious that carriers were the new capital ships, this paper fantasy went into the circular file. The Coral Sea and Midway ended all battleship fantasizing... as if prior events weren't enough. The Iowas were saved because of their carrier equivalent speed. During Halsey's venture north, his BBs attained 35 KNOTS in full battle readiness, something the British noted at the time -- and included in wartime media releases. Subsequent USN media never claimed that the Iowas could obtain more than 32 knots. Cute.
All during the Cold War, the USN always under-claimed the statistics for is ships. Ditto for the USAF and USA. For example, the M1 tank, all variants, is the highest horse-power tank in the world. To obtain fuel economy -- stop the boys from sporting around -- a throat restrictor is in front of its turbine. US jets also fly with throat restrictors. These were removed for 1991 combat over Iraq. The gap in engineering and performance between the US and its NATO allies is great. It's why US military gear costs so much and seems to deliver such modest performance. Yet look at how long some US gear stays in service... starting with the Iowas -- deemed effective -- after upgrades -- into the 1990s -- and the end of the Cold War. (!!!) The Iraqi Campaign is what destroyed the USSR, BTW. The Red system of government turned on itself as the KGB, CP, GRU, and Red Army began the blame game -- something so predictable that I forecast the end of the USSR for mid-August of 1991. I got that one on the nose. (Gorby had to be in Sochi -- on vacation -- for the Revolution to begin. Pretty obvious, when you think about it.)
The sheer amount of AA-guns on that thing....
"a variant with three quad turrets"
The French would be proud.
cool Montana
The Big E please aka super carrier enterprise
Probably to modern for this channel, seem that ships built before 1950 is about the limit. I'd like to see it though
The Battelle Institute played a critical role in developing the armored plate. I was “forced” read that whole ungodly article 1983 while, taking a materials class at the University of Cincinnati. It was a declassified document. I believe, this would answer the displacement difference.
Edward Cofer I work for a Battelle-administered National Lab - we have a radiological “in vivo” testing facility with 3 rooms with walls made from Battleship hull steel - all cast BEFORE the first atomic detonations, to ensure they’re free of all but true background radiation. The doors are about 8-11” thick.
Jim Talbott that explains the radiation detectors that are located at the entrances where scrap steel enter foundries. PS I worked for Battelle as a contractor at Blazer.
Could you explore the pre-dreadnought USS Montana? It was renamed USS Missoula to free up the name and hen scrapped in the WNT.
Nice quick summary of the "Last Battleships" designed by the US. What a monster, and to what purpose, one wonders? What did Montana bring that the Iowas did not already provide?
The Iowa's deviated from the US preference to have an extensive immune zone against your own armament, and given that at the time they suspected Yamato might be roughly similar to Iowa, they wanted something superior. :)
Review the Kaiser-Class Battleships?
Die Montana Klasse, mit 4 Drillings Türme schwere Artellerie war die Nachfolge Klasse nach der Iowa Klasse mit 3 Drillings Türme schwere Artellerie. Wurde zwar auf Kiel gelegt, aber durch das ende des 2.Weltkriegs wieder abgebrochen, um Kosten zu sparen, eigentlich Schade das diese Schweren Schnellen Schlachtschiffe nie durch die Wellen pflügten, aber es gab halt sehr viele andere Aufgaben zu erledigen.
I REALLY want to find someone who has modeled this with 4x quad turret 18in/48cal guns as a "what if" I lack the skills, time and funds to do it myself.
This ship did appear in the TV series GI Joe: A Real American Hero, in the episode Sink the Montana. No points for guessing the plot. USS Constitution also plays a key role in that episode.
Just have a proposition for a video idea, or two rather. At some point would you consider looking into the steam frigate USS Minnesota? The other was about US battleship or rather, pre-dreadnought battleship development from the Indiana class all the way up to the Mississippi class. Don't know if you have plans for either just throwing a couple ideas out if they catch your fancy.
The never built ships are always fascinating. I guess people have an inordinate love for hypotheticals because imagination is more fun than dreary reality. It's like joining the Navy hoping to captain a "fighting ship" or submarine, and being assigned an oiler or repair vessel. "Uh, yeah. Thanks." My father's last tour was on a supply ship; however, he was the sort who was happy to stay far from the alarms of war.