USS Montana - The Last of the Battlewagons
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 ноя 2023
- The Montana class of US fast battleships were planned as the successors to the Iowa class by the United States Navy. Similar in speed to the smaller North Carolina and South Dakota classes, but larger, better armored, and with superior firepower. The US Navy intended on building five Montana class battleships.
They wouold have been armed with twelve 16 inch, 50 caliber Mark 7 guns in four 3-gun turrets. Unlike the three preceding classes of battleships, the Montana class was designed without any restrictions from treaty limitations. With an increased anti-aircraft capability and substantially thicker armor in all areas, the Montanas would have been the largest, best-protected, and most heavily armed US battleships ever. They also would have been the only class to rival the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships in terms of displacement.
Preliminary design work for the Montana class began before the US entry into World War II. The first two vessels were approved by Congress in 1939 following the passage of the Naval Act of 1938. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor delayed the construction of the Montana class. The success of carrier combat at the Battle of the Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway, diminished the perceived value of the battleship. Consequently, the US Navy chose to cancel the Montana class in favor of more urgently needed aircraft carriers as well as amphibious and anti-submarine vessels.
Because the Iowa class had already been started and urgently needed to operate alongside the new Essex class aircraft carriers, their orders were retained, making them the last US Navy battleships to be commissioned.
#unitedstatesnavy #pacificwar #worldwar2 #navalhistory #battleship #montana #usnavy #ww2
My favourite “What If” battleship
I wish at least one example had been completed...just for the awe inspiring view it would have presented. But...even at the time she was conceived, the day of the battleship was done and gone. Still..it would have been a sight to see.
The USS Montana deserved to have been at least started, if not completed. Momtana is the only state that never had any battleship built in honor of it, as Alaska and Hawaii werent states until after BBs were extinct but they did have large cruisers built or started in honor of them (Alaska and Guam completed, Hawaii halfway done). One can only imagine a US Navy with 4 Iowas and the Montana
One of my teachers in high school had been a helmsman on an Iowa Class. He said she could do 35 knots.
Lies
Had these five vessels been built, they would have been beautiful to behold. I’ve been on three of the Iowas, the Iowa alludes me. They are beautiful to see.
The Montana would have been a magnificent ship. It's too bad that at least one could have been built. However it would have been finished to late for action in WWII. Thank you for sharing. Have a great day and stay safe.🙂🙂
Yamato vs Montana on a sunny day at 16000 would have been a sight to see🍿Iowa vs Bismarck too
Wouldn't the Iowa seriously outclass the Bismarck? Just asking.
@@thenaturalmidsouth9536Iowa would have blown Bismark out of the water like Bismarck blew hood out except she would have done it before Bismark had a chance to fire back. I don't want anyone to think I'm being biased so I'll say not only do I honestly believe that I also honestly believe Yamato would have taken on three Iowas and returned to port afterwards. Saying that about Yamato upsets a lot of people and they always come back with well Iowas are all top side and Yamatos are all at the bottom so before anyone throws that at me I'll say no battleship sunk or even helped sink a Yamato. Yamatos were all sunk by bombs and torpedoes from aircraft submarines and destroyers NOT shells fired from cannons. Yamato wins on paper and in the actions of each navy and the confidence they shown with their ships. Iowas always ran from Yamatos ALWAYS! But the navy sent the South Dakota class after a Bismark class ship. That tells anyone all they'll ever need to know.
@youreatowel9705 I don't disagree about Yamato, IF an Iowa captain were foolish enough to get in a heavyweight brawl one on one with Yamato. But Yamato could never have caught and cornered an Iowa class ship, and a Yamato would be foolish to get lured into chasing an Iowa unto a task force trap.
16000 is nearly point blank range for these ships, it would be who CC would train their turrets and shoot first.
I would've liked to have seen . . . Montana.
Nice Hunt for Red October quote!
Indeed…
An excellent and best video on the Montana class. Thank You.
I’m here for the Yamato comments😎.
Battle Wagon Montana class would have been a monster!
Yes it would have been unfortunately did not get built wish one had been completed to
Nice video. I believe there was even a proposal to mount 20" guns in four dual turrets!
Even if the Montana had been built, by the time she was ready for battle the war would've been over and all of the Japanese and German ships already on the bottom. She would've had nobody to fight.
The Montana's would have been an enormous waste of steel and money that would have been better spent on more Midway Class carriers and air groups.
If the money is spent of the Navy anyway. After Bismark, Taranto, Prince of Wales and Repulse it was clear that the battle ship's day as Queen of the sea was rapidly drawing to a close.
People talk about an Iowa vs Yamato one on one. Never mind an Iowa would never be out hunting all on her own with just a few destroyers and cruisers. There would be at least two of them. Plus one or two Essex Class carriers (or more) providing air cover, patrol flights and strike capability. By the time the Iowa's got to engagement range the Yamato or Musashi would be be on the bottom or or mission killed.
And yet ... the Iowas had quite long and eventful careers.
@@mpetersen6
Not to mention that Iowa was herself a massive waste of resources, for the same reason as Yamato: being a battleship built in the carrier era.
But just imagine if she had been modernized like the Iowa's were. Might of even had space for VLS.
The round the Iowa's carried were very special and had more penetrating power than the larger diameter guns of the IJN battleships - I would have to look into it further but I believe the Iowa's also had longer range. Bigger bore does not mean better - Sigmund I think would have a great deal to say about that line of reasoning.
The 2,700 lb Mark 8 armor piercing round was carried by all US fast battleships, not just the Iowa class. The Yamato had a 3,200 lb armor piercing shell that they could fire about 26 miles (compared to 24 miles for the Iowa's 16in/50 cal Mark 7) but, due to the advantages the US had in radar & fire control, the shell size and distance differences were really nullified. I think had an Iowa got to go head to head with Yamato or Musashi, radar and fire control would have prevailed, because as Adm. Lee & Washington showed in November '42, in a big gun naval battle it's all about landing a salvo as quickly as possible and the side that does it first usually prevails. US battleships would have hit them multiple times by the time they found the range with their inferior and outdated fire control equipment. Washington hit Kirishima pretty early on and she was on her heels for the rest of the fight and West Virginia lit Yamashiro up with her 1st salvo at Surigao Strait and she never recovered.
A lot of misconceptions here.
First of all, only the Yamatos had larger guns than the Iowas among IJN battleships (and the Yamatos were also the only modern Japanese battleships: the rest were WWI/1920s vintage, not ships they build for WWII as often assumed).
Second, the idea the superheavy shell on the Iowas had better penetration than the 18” shell of the Yamatos is false according to sources like NavWeaps. They do have better penetration FOR THEIR SIZE, but not in absolute terms (they’re about even there).
Third, the 16”/50 gun didn’t have a better range than the 18”. What you heard is the idea the Iowas had better EFFECTIVE range due to their superior fire control and radar (but see below).
Fourth, and this is an important one; the accuracy advantage of Iowa has been overstated in most discussions due to poor research in regards to primary sources and ignorance of certain specific variables. If you go to the NavWeaps page for the 16”/50 gun, you will find a table called “Accuracy in World War II” showing data from a 1944 live-fire test cited on the page itself (against a stationary Iowa-sizes target); what the results indicate is that while Iowa’s gunnery at ranges up to 25,000 yards is indeed quite accurate, beyond that their accuracy is actually quite poor, even with their fire control and radar. This isn’t down to any problems with Iowa herself but rather with the intrinsic limitations of naval gunnery (any other battleship would do just as badly or even worse), but it does mean that the whole idea of Iowa being able to hit Axis vessels with impunity at very long range without worrying about being hit herself are in fact unfounded. It also rather nullifies the entire point of the 16” superheavy shell, since the superheavy was designed for deck penetration, but the 16”/50 gun had too great a muzzle velocity to land plunging hits at ranges below 30,000 yards (as in, the ranges where Iowa could actually hit things at). This isn’t as much of a problem as the drop in accuracy, as the 16” superheavy can still punch through any belt armour ever put on a ship, but it’s something to consider.
On Yamato’s end, the idea the Japanese had far worse fire control (or even no fire control as some sources claim) compared to the Americans is also up for debate. Aside from the fact the Japanese did actually have mechanical fire control in WWII (every navy did by that point), their lack of radar isn’t QUITE as much of a disadvantage as assumed since, as covered above, radar fire control wasn’t as accurate as often assumed and could be matched by optics under good visibility (it’s still a disadvantage, but that’s due to the fact optical systems don’t work in poor visibility while radar works at any time, not due to optical fire control being inherently less accurate). Indeed, Yamato’s gunnery at Samar wasn’t nearly as bad as previously assumed (there are also a lot of other long-held beliefs about Samar that have been brought into question in the past decade, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion).
Second Guadalcanal or Surigao Strait are somewhat disingenuous comparisons here, because the fire control systems on the Yamatos were significantly more advanced than those on other (much older) Japanese capital ships and much more akin to 1941/1942 American fire control computers in terms of performance; not quite as good as those on the Iowas, but much better than usually assumed, and several generations ahead of what was installed on Kirishima let alone Yamashiro (which was so old that the Japanese had basically dismissed her as completely useless by WWII, only using her out of desperation at Leyte Gulf). Not to mention that Washington’s execution of Kirishima happened at point-blank range and was highly dependent on crew quality (Adm. Lee was a superb marksman and drilled his crew accordingly; his ships always were far more accurate than other vessels even if they had the exact same fire control, radar and guns), both of which massively increased her accuracy during that engagement. Even WV’s hit on Yamashiro during Surigao Strait happened at below 25,000 yards and was aided by the fact Yamashiro was unable to maneuver due to the terrain. During a hypothetical night engagement between Yamato and Iowa, I’d still back Iowa (since, as mentioned above, radar does have the upper hand in poor visibility), but it’s going to be much less one-sided than Surigao Strait or Second Guadalcanal due to Yamato being not only bigger but also much more accurate than either Kirishima or Yamashiro, plus Iowa’s accuracy not quite being as good as often assumed and the fact the other non-equipment-related variables mentioned above might not be in play. During daytime, things become much dicier for Iowa.
@@bkjeong4302LONG but devastatingly accurate, my compliments.... Without looking into the actual specs and engineering data, I agree,, the American weapons capabilities are always overstated in the American version of History and the Japanese understated... the Iowa's were impressive ships but if an Iowa had been attacked by 350 Japanese planes, the equivalent of the entire Pearl harbor strike Force which was the size of the swarms attacking both musashi and yamato, they would have had a pretty short life too.... Regarding the guns,, both 16-in 50 and the 18 in 45 were devastating weapons and it's a matter of conjecture, specific aims of the tests and opinion as to which was better... And isn't it funny how American pundits, even today with the historical knowledge of the situation under their belts, sometimes call the yamato's "oversized tubs", but call the Montana's "the Pinnacle of battleship design?"
@@bkjeong4302 WAIT A MINUTE -- I RECOGNIZE your name from Drachinifel's channel,, NOW your long post of minutely accurate data makes sense.... 👍👍👍
In the areas of range, effective range, shell weight, bursting charge, and danger space, the 18.1" gun and shell held a clear advantage over the U.S. 16" .50 cal. gun and shell.
The better range accuracy of the U.S. Navy Mark 8 radar range keeper over the Model 2 foretop rangefinder aboard Yamato was marginal (approximately 45- 50 yards. Over the Japanese Type 22 Mod 4 radar (Yamato used radar- assisted gunnery off Samar), the advantage was approximately 65 yards. This was more than offset by the markedly greater shell dispersion of the Iowas (half again as large as the Yamatos).
Historical performance bears this out. Yamato registered 4 first- salvo hits off Samar at over 20,000 yards- one of which was aimed solely by the ship's Type 22 radar because she lacked a visual to Gambier Bay. She also damaged White Plains from a very near miss at just over 34,000 yards which took the carrier out of front- line service for the remainder of the war. By comparison, none of the Iowas ever registered a confirmed main battery hit on any vessel of destroyer size or larger during WW2. In fact, Iowa's main battery gunnery during Operation Hailstone was dismal. She engaged in a clear visibility daylight action at an average range of less than 14,500 yards at an already sinking effectively stationary target which was not firing back, The ship's after- action report claimed no hits, stating that all eight salvos (46 rounds) were straddles. To be sure, I'm not digging on the Iowas, but that's history.
ahhhh 3 gun turret! nice detail vs other creators!
I honestly think this is the most detailed video I've ever seen about these ships. True monsters they would've been. Though is one correction, I think the hull of the Kentucky was laid down, but by the end of the war it was converted into the hull for a carrier, don't know which one though.
The Kentucky's hull was scrapped, the engines going to the SS United States Ocean liner making her the fastest in the world.
Remember that the USA had a 2 Ocean Navy and all of the Warships they had had to be narrow enough to fit through the Panama Canal !
There was plans to widen the canal as the ships were being designed to accommodate them.
@@bacon81
The recent Panama Canal project has run up against the limiting factor of for the Canal. The available water held in the Canal's reserviors. Even with pumping water back up hill there is not enough water in the system to cover the traffic demand.
The Japanese knew all about the narrowest locks in the Panama Canal as well as how long the shortest lock was. Using those factors they then designed the most powerful battleship that would fit through those locks. The came up with something very much like an Iowa Class Battleship. They promptly began designing a battleship that could defeat the Japanese Designed Iowa and came up with the Yamato Class. But they couldn’t plan for technological advances or growth, thus by the time the United States laid down the Iowa Class Battleship it was faster, better armed and though the armor was thinner than what the Japanese came up with, advances in metallurgy, forging and casting meant that the Iowas were better protected than what the Japanese could possibly have planned for.
@@williampaz2092 Japan:Builds ships that they believe can only be properly countered by US Battleships that have a serious strategic flaw:The Panama Canal
US:Generally builds ships so they can fit the Panama Canal
UK:Builds ships that should not be longer than Hood
Germany:Designs ships that could not even be build on german Shipyards,ignores the Wilhelmshaven locks and the fact that the north sea isnt exactly deep around germany,and that the Kaiser WIlhem Kanal is also not exactly the deepest :D
Or simpler:Main US Limitation was Beam,the british one length(and than beam) and the german had to consider draught
The heavy ships of the line as opposed to the fast ships of the Iowa class.
WE need these battle wagons. Bring back all 4 Iowa class back until the Montana class can be built.
It must have been amazing to have been on any of these new large ships
Actually, thanks to radar fire control and the 2,700lb AP shells all of the NC, SD, and Iowa class battleships were more than a match for Yamato. - less weight of explosives than a single 9 gun broadside from the US 16/45 or 16/50 guns using 2,700lb shells sank Yamato.
The advantage of the Iowa class' fire control system was almost entirely visibility- related due to their remote power control- something which the U.S. Navy never developed specific tactics to take advantage of during WW2. The better range accuracy of the U.S. Navy Mark 8 Radar Range- keeper over Yamato's foretop range- finder and her Type 22 radar was marginal (approximately 45 yards and 65 yards respectively at 25,000 yards) and was more than offset by the more significant shell dispersion of the Iowas (half again as large as that of the Yamatos for a nine- gun salvo).
Historical performance bears this out. Yamato registered 4 first- salvo hits off Samar at over 20,000 yards- one of which was aimed solely by the ship's Type 22 radar because she lacked a visual to Gambier Bay. She also damaged White Plains from a very near miss at just over 34,000 yards which took the carrier out of front- line service for the remainder of the war. By comparison, none of the Iowas ever registered a confirmed main battery hit on any vessel of destroyer size or larger during WW2.
Penetration properties of the 16" .50 cal. shell over the 16" .45 cal. shell came at the cost of a reduced bursting charge. That, and the danger space of the 18.1" shell were half again as large as that of the Iowas. Their immunity zone against the 18.1" gun were less than half that of Yamato class' immunity zone against the 16" .50 cal. gun.
The Iowas were slightly up-gunned versions of the South Dakotas- with a five- knot speed advantage over them and slightly more armor distributed over a longer hull. They were designed to escort fleet carriers and to catch and destroy the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships; they were not a reasonable match for a Yamato class BB on anything like even terms.
@@manilajohn0182The near miss on White plains was a lucky shot. Only 4 hits at 10 nautical miles? That's impressively poor gunnery seeing as how the USS Massachusetts landed 2 potentially fatal hits, 2 non-fatal hits and 2 very near misses in 2 salvos from over 13 miles (26,000 yards) on Jean Bart, and USS Washington landed almost 90% of her shells into Kirishima at 8,000 yards at night. I don't know why people keep going to the Iowa's, the North Carolina class and South Dakota class ships were more of a danger to Yamato. Their 16"/45 guns would not be impacting Yamato's main belt armor, but the much thinner deck plate. Bursting charge doesn't matter when a plunging shell detonates in your main magazine, Jean Bart only survived because her magazine was empty. - see USS Arizona, HMS Hood and others. Besides, not all of the added weight of the 2,700 lb shell came from reduced charge, some was from added length, which was why the older 16"/45 guns of the Colorado class ships couldn't fire them. Their handling equipment and breech weren't designed for the longer shell. So, the point remains, outside of an extremely lucky hit, any of the fast battleships of the United States could stay outside of the effective range of Yamato's guns and pummel her with impunity.
It’s just to be a fanboy, but the Iowas were a better ship in almost every way. I don’t care to write a dissertation either.
@@manilajohn0182 You need to check your hits - Yamato scored 1 hit at 10 nautical miles, all of her other hits were at much closer range. A near miss lucky shot at 34,000 yards. Meanwhile the USS Massachusetts scored 2 would be fatal hits, 2 non-fatal hits, and 2 near misses (within 50 feet) at a range of 36,200 yards and did so in just 2 broadsides. (an empty magazine and a dud shell saved the Jean Bart)
Let's not forget about the Washington. She hit Kirishima with 90% of her main battery shots at a range of between 4 and 5 miles and did it at night.
The effective range of Yamato's main guns was 17 miles, compared to 21.5miles for the NC and SD class ships and 23 miles for the Iowa's.
@@erichammond9308 See "The World Wonder'd" What Really Happened Off Samar" by Lundgren for a highly detailed analysis of Yamato's hits on Johnston and Gambier Bay, as well as her near misses on White Plains. First- salvo hits on the first two vessels were traced back to Yamato and all took place at from over 20,000 to just under 22,000 yards. The near misses on White Plains were from just over 34,000 yards.
Massachusetts' target- Jean Bart- was a stationary target. This greatly simplified Massachusetts' gunnery. The range of the engagement varied from 23,000 to 32,000 yards. The U.S. battleship obtained 5 hits from well over 100 rounds fired in multiple salvos (in which not all of her guns fired) in an action which lasted over an hour and a half- and not in just two broadsides.
Washington's 'estimated' number of main battery hits on Kirishima (the exact number of hits is unknown) varies from 8+% ("about nine", per Admiral Lee, who commanded the U.S. force) to approximately 22%, or twenty- out of 75 rounds fired, at a range which, even for a night action went from short down to point blank range.
Lastly- naval warships have no "effective range". They have a maximum range- in which the probable number of hits decreases as the range increases, primarily because of shell dispersion.
Great video thanks
Don't worry, it hull is now being converted to aircraft carrier, USS Midway which saw action during Korean War and a Vietnam war
Good show solid info and graphics. Most do not know but we did complete the ALASKA CLASS BATTLECRUISERS. I believe 3 were finished, Alaska Guam and Hawaii. Good looking ships. Sadly all were scrapped along with most of the Heavy Cruisers.
The Montana class gets more coverage then what they deserved. There was no way the United States was going to build those ships.
#156 1943 Sinking of RN Roma of the Italian Navy by German FX-1400 Glider Bombs spelled the end of the Battleship. Expensive Battleship(s) sunk so easy and quickly by aircraft weapons eliminated the future construction of this warship type. The "Big Guns" replaced by Ballastic Nuclear Warhead Missiles launched by Submarines---armoured by stealth under the sea. I Love The Battleship, Too! Very Impressive, but not practable in today's world.
Great video. Here is the problem. I'm a battleship geek and would have loved to have seen the Montana Class built. But there are some factual problems with this video. The 2700 AP round in the Mark VII gun was a beast. The armor needed to stop such rounds were projections that were never actually tested. Also, these projections were calculated on plunging fire, meaning that they took into account shells falling at a certain angle and striking the main belt above the waterline. Also there were some factual inaccuracies in the video. The Iowa Class had a maximum main belt of 13.x inches of armor and the turrets and conning tower had a maximum armor of 17.x inches. Not sure where you are getting the 20x inches from. Anyways, the Iowa class was not perfect but was also an ideal and cost saving design that served well from WW2 to the Persian Gulf, because it was fast enough to keep up with the nuclear carriers. If the US were to keep building battleships, the "ideal" would have been to keep the IOWA Class design but take out the conning tower to save weight and exchange the internal armor belt for the external armor belt. The reduced speed of the Montana class would have been useless because they could not keep up with carriers. If you wanted to tinker and slightly increase the length and width of the Iowa to keep the optimum length to beam ratio for speed and give it some more armor that would be fine. Also I am almost certain that photo you showed of the blown out armor was Japanese armor similar in construction from the Yamato which just shows you really cannot make armor thick enough for a 2700 AP round anyways.
Actually the HMS Vanguard was the last battleship built
you are correct, but we are talking about American battleships. These would have been the last US battleships built.
World’s most heavily armed and armored Royal Yacht. 😂. Obsolete upon completion.
Vanguard was the last battleship commissioned (May 1946), but the last one fully completed was actually France's Jean Bart (May 1955)
@@CorePathway Should´ve kept her for exactly that reason :D
"Oh,the Misters Presidents of country XY...those are some pretty,little planes you have"
*Rule Britannia intensifies on the horizon
@@NashmanNash Warspite, my friend. That was the loss. I’d trade 2, maybe even 3 US capital museum ships to have Warspite to tour.
The USA should have ditched the treaties.
AMEN!!!
It’s a shame, as a US Navy veteran I was privy to see our once proud surface combatant Navy dismantled as it was taken over by the Naval Air interest. To see what our has become is truly a crying shame. What an embarrassment to a once proud nation, when the most fire power we can bring to bear is a destroyer is absolutely pathetic.
If the destroyers were armed with modern strike missiles they would be more fearsome. The U.S. Navy and military in general let that slide for decades and especially since the War on Terror. Just stopped focusing on near peer adversaries.
Our strike capability is heavily slanted towards aircraft. The Soviets and now Russians have a much more balanced approach and have some truly vicious naval surface to surface missiles.
Als deutscher kann ich Ihnen Nachfühlen, wie Sie sich Fühlen! So ist das leider wenn Krämer und Geizhälze über die Ausstattung der Flotte bestimmen, einst hatten wir die 2. Größte Flotte der Welt, die kaiserliche Reichsmarine, und später wenn auch viel kleiner, aber sehr Schlagkräftige Kriegsmarine. Jedoch heute mit der Deutschen Marine nur ein paar Süßwasser Schiffe, kein Vergleich zu der großen und Ruhmreichen U.S. Navy, die nach wie vor die Weltmeere beherrscht!
Wish we could’ve seen them built.
Excellent presentation !
Though all he is doing here is reading the wikipedia page for the Montana class battleships - word for word 😒
I thought the ILLUSTRATIONS & photographs were interesting, especially seeing a fourth turret added to a SoDak (my personal favorite WW2 battleship design).....@@jim2lane
@@blusnuby2 oh, I wholeheartedly agree that the illustrations definitely add tremendous depth to what you find on wikipedia. However, most viewers will watch this clip and assume that the author has done independent research here. You can see that in the rest of the comments.
I also appreciate the human narration---not an AI robot. This gent happens to have a nice speaking voice and his cadence is just right for me.@@jim2lane
@@blusnuby2this is an AI narrator, not a human
Update: Musashi and Yamato are no longer the largest battleships ever. They are now the largest man made coral reefs ever produced
Probably too deep for coral. Yamato's death pyre was visible from Kyushu.
😢😢 I think they know that Doctor.
Shitty Submarines. You mean Shitty Submarines
Actually no, the two largest are the USS America and USS Oriskany, and we made them reefs
YEAH right,, and with the scrapping of the USS enterprise, America has created the biggest radioactive hulk ever seen.....
I wonder what would’ve happened if they would’ve squeezed the Iowa power plant into the Montana? 212,000 hp versus 170,000 hp. Would it have been a 30 kn ship? The SS United States, which was longer in narrow had 240,000 and was a 38 kn plus ship, the John F Kennedy was much bigger had 280,000 oil boiler horsepower and would go 34 kn. Montana was a 28 not ship. Yamato was a 27 not ship with 150,000 hp.
You said (@13:08) the maximum ceiling range, for the 5"-38's of the anti-aircraft armament, was 51,600ft?? That's almost, 10 miles, and against gravity, also🤔. You must mean 5,160ft.
@rogerrendzak8055, nope. Range of the 5” guns was 9 miles or so per Wikipedia.
Damn the London Treaties too
While I enjoy the visuals presented, you've done zero research for this clip. All you're doing here is a simple recitation of the wikipedia page for the Montana class battleships - word for word
A push-button "recitation."
The lines of the u s s montana class battlefield was a beautiful ship. I'm like the few that mentioned I wish we would have made one examples of that class
ship, would strike fear of her foes. I know by the time of the end of the World War 2 the battleship was obsolete.
Actually, in WWII, the first showdown between a battleship and an aircraft carrier occurred during the Norway campaign. A British carrier was cruising along the coast and a German battle cruiser suddenly appeared out of a Norwegian Fjord, and at point blank range for 11 inch guns, and blew the carrier to pieces.
Damn the Washington Treaty
I wonder if we still have the hulls of any of these battleships that were never completed because the war came to an end. If so, then maybe we can turn one of them into an arsenal ship that carries about 400 tomahawks and hundreds of air defense missiles. We could attach the ship to a carrier battle group as a force multiplier in time of crisis. My theory of war is that we should weaken the enemy in every way possible before committing extensive ground troops. And then, once they are there, provide those ground forces with at least two forms of support: air support and artillery support anywhere and everywhere it is needed. Also, I would have a rapid reaction element ready to assist those under heavy fire.
Very informative. A question. How would the Montanas fared against the Yamatos with their 18in guns?
I believe these ships would have been the favorite to win that contest. The heavier Mark 8 AP projectile made the Montana's guns nearly equal in terms of penetration power to the 18.1 inch guns of the Yamato class battleships, but when you also consider the US's superior radar guided fire control, the extra 3 barrels the Montana's would have had over the Yamatos and that this class would have had proper armor protection, I strongly believe they would have prevailed in most conditions and scenarios.
@@TheValorVault Interesting. Thanks. I find other thoughtful posts in the comments. Amazing the resources devoted to 'Yamato' and 'Musacchi' -- all for basically nothing.
They should build two of these today, with 16"/72 Caliber guns and at least 2 nuclear reactors for Railguns and Lasers. Panamax, or no Panamax, that is the question. It would be nice to be able to get them through at the same time as the Ford classes are using the newer lock system.
Anti-ship missiles would fuck up the comms and radar, but would bounce right off otherwise.
72 caliber guns eh? 😂
The US Navy shortfall is in destroyer and frigate types. The navy wasted decades on the two LCS classes. Sea control requires presence. A battleship can’t be there for that. A hundred destroyers and frigates could. Not that I expect it will happen
God damn i hate these generic tiktok text to speech videos. How does anyone tolerate that.
Especially when all that is being done here in this clip is a recitation of the wikipedia page for the Montana class battleships - word for word
@@jim2lane no kidding, I had to go pull the wikipedia page up, because I was having some major Deja Vu.
Worst thing we ever agreed to was allowing other countries have a say in what size ships and how many ships we built when you consider that your enemy will be happy if you build smaller ships according to treaties that they don't worry about.
If Hitler had followed his Original War Plans/Strategy and gone to War in 1945 the Kriegsmarine was Planned on having at least two Battleships with 20 Inch Guns. Hitler was a Fanatic about Big Guns.
How did you come up with 17 new battleships? 2 N. Carolinas, 4 So. Dakotas, and 4 Iowas equal 10 "Fast" battle ships, Add 5 Montanas makes 15.
Hi,there were 2 additional Iowa class authorized. BB.65 Illinois laid down at Philadelphia Navy Yard,and cancelled
8/12/45. BB.66 Kentucky laid down at Norfolk Navy Yard. Suspended 2/17/47 and scrapped at Baltimore 11/58. As an aside the Kentucky contributed the engineering plant for AOE 1 Sacramento & AOE 2 Camden. And also the Kentucky's forward bow was transplanted to BB.64 Missouri, after a collision. Sources: US Warships of WW2 by Paul Sliverstone and Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet 11th edition by Norman Polmar.
Would have been interesting to see a Montana class built, but even the Iowa class was never completed, there were two that were never finished.
The Montana class should have had a little more naval rifle, perhaps a 16" 55 caliber, or even a 16" 60 caliber.
Had the government not been its usual blundering indecisive self, we might have had a few more battleships.
While they no longer commanded the sea on their own, with the advent of the aircraft carrier, they could have been more than they are, with more capabilities. A Montana class would have more room for more modern weapons and defense systems in the modern era. Not only could battleships carry a massive amount of offensive missiles, they could be equipped with more missile defense systems. Just as they provided anti aircraft defense of carriers in World War II, they could do so now. And being a hardened target, it would force the enemy to expend an impossible amount of ordnance in an attempt to get the battleships out of the way in order to get to the carriers.
MONTANA would have been awesome with the 18"/48 cal Mark 2 type guns
The two last Iowa's were partially built. That is part of why Wisconsin is known as big " Whisky". A collision with a smaller ship left. BB64's bow so damaged it would have taken extensive work, or been impossible to repair. So they cut the bow off of the cancelled BB65, Kentucky, and replaced BB 64's damaged bow. Thus Wisconsin became Wisc-Ky. Whisky in phonetic code. The rest of Kentucky was scrapped. One of the many sailor tales told, about the last 4 BB's.
@@stevengrant8668 Neat. Ty for sharing.
I.ve read that the keel of the Montana had been laid and was a few yards long when the cancellation order came in.
All the machinery for the Montana's were used in the three Midway class.
I also understand that as much of the hull structural members were used in the Midway class as possible to save time and material.
Memory serves correctly all Midway class aircraft carriers when they were laid down were intended to be aircraft carriers I think it would be more fair to say that the Midway class inherited their hull geometry.
But other than that I don't believe they were gathering materials for battleships they're bits and pieces were long lead time items once the Illinois and the Kentucky superseded the whole numbers of bb65 and bb66 I think it was pretty for certain there wouldn't be any fabrication of any other battleships passed that it's one of the reasons why the Iowa class had such an extensive array of spare parts because two ships of the member class were canceled and thus there was a surplus of gun barrels brackets and other components
Even USS Wisconsin inherited, specifically USS Kentucky's forward Bow machinery and other accessories were all utilized one of the reasons why Wisconsin's nickname WisKy stuck Wisconsin and Kentucky
The name Montana was assigned to BB-67 on 28 December 1940, but construction of the lead ship of the Montana (BB 67) class, slated to be constructed at the Philadelphia (Pa.) Navy Yard, was suspended on 20 May 1942, then canceled altogether on 21 July 1943, prior to her keel being laid down. The engine and machinery design and layout were carried to the Midway class carrier designs.
@psycocavr yeah, originally, they were supposed to sign bb65 and 66. The first two vessels of the Montana class, USS Montana, were supposed to be BB 65, and then it got bumped up when they ordered two more Iowa-class battleships
Carry over you can say that they didn't let the design language go to waste machinery and construction blueprints so when they needed a carrier that was of the same scope and scale of the Montana it just simply made sense to repurpose that hull geometry for the Midway class ships but I will still contend on my original point that I don't believe the Coral Sea the Midway herself or the USS Franklin I don't believe they were a battleships initially I'm pretty certain that they were all aircraft carriers from the very moment their Keels were laid with the intention that they be flat tops instead of battle wagons
@@TheDogGeneral Correct, all three Midway class were designed from the outset as CVs. While the main engineering space layout and geometry of the class was "borrowed" from the Montana, the machinery was on par with the Iowa in power, rated at about 212,000 hp vs 172,000 hp for Montana and giving Midway a top speed rated as 33 knots.
Part of the hull was used to fix the Wisconsin that was damaged during a crash
And with all due respect couldn't keep up with a Nimitz class
So you're saying it should've been nuclear powered? Cus that would be pretty awesome. Badass Nuclear Battleship... cruising around the oceans at like +60 knots... crew waterskiing behind it...
Was not ordered! never got off the prints!
They 100% were ordered by Congress under the Vinson-Walsh Act of 1940, better known as the 2 Ocean Navy Act, that was signed into law on 19 July 1940. It was a congressional act so its pretty well documented and several official sources confirmed this. Efforts were suspended in May 1942 and they were officially canceled in July 1943. Yes their keels were never laid, but they were very much ordered and fully designed.
❤️🇺🇸🇹🇭🕊️⚡🔥🤘🙏🤗
The armor had to be awesome to survive 16/50 shells . Much better than the Yamato.
Right-click. "Don't Recommend This 'Channel'" Click.
Hmmmm.... I wonder if we will see Montana as a PR ship in Azur Lane.
50 caliber guns ?
That's tiny.
I KNOW! A Hellcat rocked 6 of them, flying battleship?!?
Edit: I know, I know, just a joke. The recoil of a 16”/L50 would launch the tube backwards and mangle the airframe of the only aircraft large enough to mount one: the fabled C-5 Galaxy ground attack. 🤣
16 inches times 50 = 800 inches about 66.6 feet. That is the length of the barrel for 16/50 that was used on the Iowa Class. The South Dakota Class main battery was 16/45 which works out to 720 inches or 60 feet. This also works for the main gun of a tank. For example the M4A3 had a 75/40. 75 mm x 40 = 3000 mm or 3 meters. The M4E8 had a 76/53 main gun. that is a bit over 4 meters. Basically, the longer the barrel the higher the velocity. The higher the velocity means an increase in range and force. F = mv/t. If it helps you can think of it as, how many calibers long is the barrel.
Pity the US didn't kick over the traces five years earlier so building program didn't start with the first fast ships. Yeah, I know . . . carriers gonna rule the waves, blah, blah, blah . . . but, oh, those bee-yoo-tee-ful Bee Bees! Sigh . . . . . . . . . .
A.I. narraration is lazy.
Especially when all that is being done here in this clip is a recitation of the wikipedia page for the Montana class battleships - word for word
HMS Vanguard was the last battleship. "What ifs" vs "reality." Troll titles suck.
12 16 inch 50 caliber guns????? Stopped the video right there.
16 inches times 50 = 800 inches about 66.6 feet. That is the length of the barrel for 16/50 that was used on the Iowa Class. The South Dakota Class main battery was 16/45 which works out to 720 inches or 60 feet. This also works for the main gun of a tank. For example the M4A3 had a 75/40. 75 mm x 40 = 3000 mm or 3 meters. The M4E8 had a 76/53 main gun. that is a bit over 4 meters. Basically, the longer the barrel the higher the velocity. The higher the velocity means an increase in range and force. F = mv/t. If it helps you can think of it as, how many calibers long is the barrel.