Battleship Montana: What Would We Have Done Differently
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2023
- In this episode we're talking about Battleship Montana.
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/v...
The biggest change I would make to BB67+ would be to move it from a drawing to a 1:1 scale model.
With a working engine system. And maybe nuclear
@@joekaput747 Fusion
@@Waldfuerst114 and Railguns with Plasma warheads. If you're gonna dream, dream big. 😉
@@gregsmall5939 now you’re sounding like the late ‘70’s after school cartoon special Star Blazers that came on around 3:30 pm … 🤔🤷🏻♂️
Star blazers is called space battleship yamato in japan and is really more anime than cartoon they just called it a cartoon to get it to america
For countering the Yamato and Musashi, all you need is DD Johnston, DE Samuel Roberts and the SS Harder.
I would add USS Wahoo and USS Tang
Didn’t hurt that those DD’s were captained by men channeling the wrath of Nelson with giant titanium cahones either!
@@jharvey531972 Indeed. Cahones that dwarfed Musashi and Yamato for sure.
RIP SS-257, All 3 of these ships are fitting company for each other, hard to find a more brave set of fighters.
We are eternally blessed that the men who fought the war were completely and unprecedentedly badass.
Admit it, by the time the battleship boys got done designing their dream boat, it would have been spherical and orbiting the planet.
Change the hull to a fully welded build (you've previously stated 1 tenth of the weight of a battleship is in rivets so getting rid of the rivets and going to a full weld construction should save about 6000 tons of that math holds true). The navy also developed a 1200 psi boiler so more boiler pressure should be able to make more power so that would be installed also. Feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes.
Ask the snipes, but my experience on USS Dewey (DDG-45) was that the 1200 lb plant was prone to breakdowns. Later steam powered ships reverted to 600 psi.
@Greg Siska I wasn't aware of the reliability issues with the 1200 psi plants, thanks for the insight.
Even WWI battleships had bulbous bows, though not as pronounced as Yamato.
I thought the Iowas were fully welded hulls???
I think it took improvements in materials technology for superheated plant like that to be viable. Strangely enough, even in large electricity generation stations where you'd think weight isn't an issue, that sort of pressure wasn't reliably possible until into the mid-1980s.
As a naval architect, a very rough approximation is for every 3 knot increase in speed, required shaft power goes up 50%...
Is it correct that the bulbous bow doesn't increase the maximum speed (which is function of the length/beam), but the amount of power to get there?
@@rabidbigdog I believe so. It generates a wave crest ahead of the bow entry, so there is a trough at he bow entry. So the zip is effectively going downhill which takes less power.
@@johneyton5452 but they are designed to save energy at specific speeds. If you go to fast or slow it can have negative effects on power requirements
How do you figure out how much power you need for a given hull form? I've tried to figure it out but never found anything and could use the help. Thanks!
50% does not sound right - are you sure speed change is a linear function? Sorry, but I have no practice, just theory. Perhaps you have a table. :)
So...basically, Battleship Montana gets the "Simplify and Add Lightness" treatment. Colin Chapman would approve.
One change that Ryan missed was replacing the sea planes with helicopters. The Sikorsky R-4 went into mass production in 1943 and was the first US helicopter to operated from a ships deck. They were used in combat in 1944.
I would just think they would ditch planes or helicopters. With radar don't need it for spotting which I thought is why they had them.
doubt they wouldve replaced the seaplanes with the r4, its range and carry capacity was too small. probably wouldve made provisions to carry both.
Put helicopters on the Montanas? I would argue it's better to have more carriers, which is what the Navy ended up doing anyhow.
@@StarBuck411
Radar still didn't see over the horizon.
@@The_Modeling_Underdog you’re ignoring the horizon / curvature of the earth which is the issue at hand when discussing spotting rounds to adjust fire on the main guns.
It may be able to detect planes in the air at 160 miles but it sure as hell can’t see anything on the surface at 160 miles.
This channel is one of the most, if not the most, interesting battleship channels. Love it.
Being a native Kentuckian, I've always been fascinated with how Kentucky started out life as a Montana, got switched to being an Iowa, and then had plans made up to transition Kentucky into a guided missile battleship by removing the rear 16in gun turret.
I think USS Kentucky, BBG-1, would have been an impressive ship.
That's not true
Don't forget....her bow lives on with USS Wisconsin...aka WIsKY
My home encylopedia (Collier's) published in 1959 (the year of my birth) mentions the Kentucky proposal to become BBG-1.
Hey, at least you have the boomer USS Kentucky SSBN-737 to take it's place. Those missile boats are serious.
@@thatkyledude1093 It won a Navy award some years back for the best food on a US Navy vessel I think.
The guns for _Montana_ and _Ohio_ were ordered, but got repurposed for _Illinois_ and _Kentucky_ instead. There was never any doubt that these ships would have retained the 16”/50 Mk.7 rifles as used on _New Jersey_ .
Especially since their effectiveness was only marginally worse than Yamato's 460mm guns, and at actual combat ranges both could penetrate each other's armor. Yamato only had an advantage at ranges over 24 nautical miles, and good luck pinpointing a moving target at that range. Add in the fact that our 16"/50's were significantly more accurate at all ranges, and you've got your winner.
@@JefferyAClark Spot on. The only shots that matter are the ones that hit the target, and the USN had advantages across the board in gunnery. Better radar, better QC on the powder charges, better tools for calibration of the guns, and better fire control systems. The USN's hit probability at range was significantly better than the IJN.
@@jacksons1010 Great point, and I think perfectly illustrated by Leyte Gulf where, during the Battle of Surigao Strait, Nishimura's "Southern Force" was annihilated by the U.S. Seventh Fleet. The Japanese battleships Yamashiro and Fuso were rougly the same vintage/generation as those of the Seventh Fleet. The Japanese ships were outnumbered, true, but Fuso was sunk by DD's before reaching the battleline. Yamashiro was mauled by radar guided gunfire from the West Virginia and others without ever being able to get into firing position herself.
The last shell developed for the Iowa's I believe had more penetrating power than the Japanese shell. Also, keep in mind diameter is not the end all be all of the rifle. The numbers to look at are Kinetic Energy so more velocity (KE=0.5*M*V*V) can give much higher KE and penetrating power, rate of fire and accuracy also come into play. I am retired O-6 USN.
Yep people forget that the Iowa class would have won a one on one fight against either of those overrated monsters. The Mark 7 would have cracked them like a walnut.
By late war the US had far superior gunnery and targeting equipment than the Japanese.
Sure the 18 inch guns of the Yamato were big and if they hit they could pack a punch...but kind of like the Schwere Gustav or the Maus tank...they were arguably OVERsized and ultimately impractical.
The Iowa's much faster firing and more accurate guns in my opinion were far superior and more practical than the Yamato.
@@livethefuture2492 Power is NOTHING without CONTROL. When I enlisted in 1983 I went in as a Fire Control Tech - "In God we Trust all others we track."
Below are the immunity zones for each vessel as opposed to the other ship's main armament with a 90- degree target angle. Information courtesy of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordinance.
Immunity zone of the Iowas vs. the 18.1" gun:
Citadel 24,800- 29,800 (5,000 yards);
Turret Faceplates 24,700- 31,600 (6,900 Yards);
Barbettes 26,500- 31,600 (5,100 Yards);
Steering 24,700- 28,800 (4,100 Yards);
Control Tower 26,500- 31,600 (5,100 Yards).
Immunity Zone of the Yamatos vs. the 16" .50 cal. gun:
Citadel 17,000- 34,500 (17,500 Yards);
Turret Faceplates (Impenetrable);
Barbettes 16,600- 36,800 (20,200 Yards);
Steering 19,100- 33,400 (14,300 Yards);
Control Tower 16,600- 33,400 (16,800 Yards).
The better penetration characteristics of the 16" .50 cal. shell over the 16" .45 cal. shell were achieved at the cost of a smaller bursting charge in favor of a heavier shell body. In terms of shell weight, penetrating power, bursting charge, danger space and maximum range, the 16" .50 cal. shell was inferior to the 18.1" .45 cal. shell of the Yamatos.
The sole clear advantage which the Iowa's possessed over the Yamatos was remote power control- the ability of the ship's fire control radar (based on the Mark 8) to maintain the ship's main battery ion target in both range and elevation regardless of weather conditions. This was something which the U.S. Navy made no attempt to develop specific tactics to take advantage of during WW2.
Additionally, the shell dispersion rate of all U.S. fast battleships was half again as large as that of the Yamato class. This more than offset the marginal advantage in range accuracy (approx. 50 yards) of the Mark 8 over Japanese optics and the Type 22 radar system of the Yamato class.
Engineering Duty Officer?
There was a fast Montana designed. BB65 Scheme 8. It would have topped 33 knots. Unfortunately you would have a 70,000+ ton battleship over 1000 feet long powered with 360,000 SHP with 6 props. I think with Wartime modifications a late 1940s Scheme 8 would have reached over 80,000 tons full load.
I’d never heard that before, that would have been a colossal monster!
Holy that's bloody huge might as well call it a floating city
@@thewafflehouse841 America designed bigger ships like the 1917 Tillman Design 4 with 15 x 457mm guns and 24 x 406 mm guns all pushing 80,000 tons. Vermont is the little sister and I think these may become the Tier 11 after Vermont. The largest ship that I'm aware of in terms of firepower was a Japanese proposal after Shikishima or a variant of design A-150. The proposal was for a Satsuma with 12 x 510mm guns and I know of no other paper battleship more scarier than this. Yes it's supposed to be even more powerful than the German H44. No tonnage is specified but an estimate is at least 120,000 tons.
@@legiran9564 German H-44 supposed to be 144.000 tons at its max displacement, and armed with 8x20" Gun.
BB65-8 (with sub designs A, B, C and D at least) was a series of several similar designs that were all around 66,000 tons with a 15.3" belt and a 6.2" deck that ranged from 1,050ft long to 1,100ft long. They had an estimated speed of 33 knots using 293k to 320k shaft horse-power (that would require an engine setup that didn't exist at the time these designs were created). They were the all-in designs that were supposed to dominate both everything on the ocean currently, and that would be built later. Heavy, fast, hard-hitting, well protected and EXTREMELY expensive. They would have required new locks in the Panama canal, new docks and new repair facilities.
I would suggest an all welded structure as well. They were still using a combination and I don't know if they calculated the weight savings for using all welds over rivets.
Illinois and Kentucky were essentially all welded. The Montanas would have been, too. I think Ryan mentioned the weight savings in one of the videos about the Illinois or Kentucky. It's significant.
If I remember correctly Ryan said going to an all welded construction would save about 10 percent of the weight compared to the first four iowa class ships so illinois and Kentucky would have shaved about 5300 tons in rivets.
@Mike Ferris Woo..that's some black Friday savings right there! 😆..or basically a ww2 destroyer!! 😳
@@ThirdHornet The 10% savings is a general rule. You have to discount the weight of the armor when calculating it though. Still a significant savings.
But is it even possible at the time since Yamato had a similar level of armor and weight and Japan was forced the rivet the ship in the larger plates at least
I don't know if you'll see this at all, but I'd love to hear you talk about the Alaska-class cruisers if you would care to do so. I personally adore the design of it, and something about it being one of the last true artillery cruisers, yet none of them being preserved as a museum a la the Iowa-class BBs always seemed tragic to me.
The Alaska class!!!! It sucks it has been mostly forgotten. I have a few,books on the class. It would have been great to have had a couple to visit today.
If he doesn't do one, look up Drachinifel. He is a naval historian and has alot of 5min guides and talks about the Alaska class in depth as well
ruclips.net/video/z8Ga5AHelj8/видео.html
@@GuyFreeman5041 thanks! I’ll take a look at it later. I just genuinely wish we had kept one of the two Alaskas around.
@@Epicness54 Yeah no kidding. They were amazing ships. It would have been nice to have a tour of one of them
@@eac1235 Alaska and Guam two territories (Hawaii was to be number 3!) not as "big" as states but bigger than cities
It's funny you should go with the scenario of the USN finding out about Yamato more accurately and sooner and freaking out somewhat illogically as the 'back story' for the hypothetical exercise as that's sort of what I went with to explain Wargaming's battleship Georgia design in World of Warships in my idea of how such a ship could have existed. Of course that would have had to have happened early in Iowa class development to spit out the more South Dakota-ish hull that Georgia has.
I love my Georgia, but her speed boost often gets me in trouble...
Adding sufficiently wider locks at the Panama, quick enough, is the part that always strikes me as the most unrealistic aspect pertaining to the Montana Class--without major changes. The last canal expansion, in the 21st Century, took 9 years, let alone in war time in the first half of the 20th. Either sufficiently large and capable dry docks would need to be built on both coasts or everything would have to be center around one expanded yard on the West Coast which would have created other logistical problems (e.g. steel production) and would have placed all of those eggs in one basket.
The only thing you forgot was a second video of how your updated Montana’s would have been further updated in the 80s.
Just like the Iowas, I suspect, but with more of everything. Would be cool to discuss though!
probably with sams added on too
I wish that the Montana had been built. It would have been an impressive sight!
Ryan i thank you for your love of these amazing ships and your appreciation for what they stand for and mean to our history. They pick the right man for New Jersey your an amazing spokesperson for the ole girl.
I’ve always found it to be an interesting “what if”, our intelligence services had acquired info on the Yamato class, during the design phase of the Iowas.
One of the more popular speculations has been that the Montanas might have been lengthened to give them a bigger speed advantage.
Had there been any foreknowledge of the Yamato’s and there being equipped with 18 inch guns, by default I think the USN would have had to seriously consider the 18 inch/48 caliber gun for the Montana’s.
I think the USN would had to create a 20i inch gun
@@michaeldelucci4379 probably not. The USN had created and tested an 18" shell and found it lacking. A Super Heavy 16" shell has nearly the same punch as an 18" but you can pack more 16" shells into a hull.
I agree also the 18 inch gun can be seen at the Washington Navy Yard which is now a museum
I can't get enough of this channel.
I wish the Navy Completed Illinois and Kentucky and all 5 Montanas bc then they could have sent 2 Iowas or 2 Montanas to deal with Yamato and her Escorts.
While it would have been interesting I don't know if it would have been a good use of resources. By the time they would have all been complete the Yamato was a paper tiger largely because Japan was already afraid to put her in harm's way and lose a figurehead.
Battleships encountering each other wound up being exceedingly rare in WWII.
But why dedicate all those resources when all it took was a few squadrons of naval aircraft to handle Yamato and her escorts? And they probably did so with a lot less American casualties that would have been incurred if battleships had duked it out with the Yamato.
Wouldn’t that have meant not attacking Yamato until after the war was over?
Well the US navy had 11 BBs standing by if the Yamato somehow survived the air attacks. Then British had 4BB and 6 CV standing by if she manage to survive the encounter with the US ships lol
@@glenchapman3899 yep. Yamato's chance of making it to Okinawa ended the moment the formation was spotted. The only way they were ever making it to the beach was if they got close enough that the US Fleet couldn't get in position in time
Nice video. I've always love the BB's served on a CV-carrier myself. Though If I were to build a Montana class. It might be a BBN ( Battleship Nuclear ), have a 45+ knot speed, maybe a 100 ft. longer the Iowa class, have missal placements, phalanx and other advanced air defense methods, Better armor for anti- ship rocket/ missal protection, and electronic warfare abilities.
Focus armor protection for torpedoes and plunging fire/bombs, and save some weight at hull plating. Arguing engagements will be at distance, submarine torpedo or air. Set it up for night ops and train for it. Thanks Ryan.
Excellent discussion, Ryan. The Montana class has always fascinated me as a "what if" even knowing the Iowa class never fired on an enemy battleship. However, they did yeoman service as antiaircraft protection for the fast carriers and shore bombardment even of the home islands. The updated antiaircraft complement would be first essential and I think getting rid of the aircraft complement would be another load lightener. Radar and accompanying aircraft carriers would be sufficient for spotting. Thanks, again, excellent channel.
Didn't the New Jersey sink a destroyer and trawler?
@@okisoba He said it never fired on another battleship, not that it never fired on another warship. As long as you can get within range, a destroyer is toast against virtually any battleship, but especially an Iowa. A battleship is another story.
Not only a load lightener, but it would reduce the fire hazard and free up valuable deck space for more anti-aircraft weapons.
@@mahbriggs
Or supplies for various needs.
@@okisoba ,NJ and Iowa shared credit for a small Japanese training cruiser if I remember correctly.
The reason the Iowa’s were built in the first place was the need to afford the carriers some protection and that wasn’t going to change as the hoards of Essex’s rolled out. Ryan’s mods were all sound but tbh if the war had continued they’d of just built the last two Iowa’s. I mean their shore bombardment game was as strong in the 90s as it was in the 40s so I don’t think 2 inches make them worth it…. I know… that’s not what she said
... Is that 2in in reference to the gun size? If so, the Montana Class was designed to use the same guns as the Iowas, just with three more of them.
The Iowa's were built as fast battleships to counter the Kongos. When they were laid down (1940), aircraft carriers were still considered auxiliaries useful for scouting and harassing the enemy.
The last two Iowas, Kentucky and Illinois, were initially to also have been Montanas at first.
Iowa's 16-inch guns with later WWII radar were capable of engaging the Yamato well beyond the effective range of her 18-inch guns. (Reading a bio of Adm. Lee)
I like your reasoning to remove the single 20 mm guns because they're "No More Good" 👍 Perfect!! Good Vid Ryan ✌️
With the superstructure redesign and the space it creates, you could almost pull turret 3 and stick a pair of MK 16 8" turrets from the salem. that would give you the same number of 16's as an Iowa, but you get 6 guns with high rates of fire that can even be used for long range AA to break up formations at the horizon. more complexity, but if memory serves, by the time the 16's have fired twice, the 8's can throw as much mass downrange in the same time because of the rate of fire.
Do you happen to have a reference for the 8in guns being dual purpose?
The 8"/55 Mk 16 guns were not dual purpose. They were autoloading, but did not perform AA duties. Now, that's not saying you couldn't develop an AA shell for them... but we didn't have one during the war or after.
It's an interesting idea, but it's notable how intermediate cannons on battleships fell out of favor once dreadnoughts came about. Generally it's better to have a consolidated main battery that can use the same fire direction system and can all reach the same range. The 8-inchers would need their own director and wouldn't have the reach of the 16's.
There were 6" automatic guns that were intended to be used on the battleships after the Montana
as someone who is acttually gonna write a story involving the montana being finished around '44-45 (due to a few things that happened.). this is the holy grail of information i can use. thank you kind sir
If I remember things right, the designers and people working the Montana class design were transitioned into building the Midway class carrier when the Montana class was cancelled.
It’s amazing to see how much you’ve grown this channel! Thank you for the great content!
Thank you for your 4k videos. Very sharp and clear. Thank you, thank you.
"Super battleship that's 100,000 tons"
YES! :-)
I researched all these battleships years ago and to me they are the wickedest warships ever placed upon God's own seas. Their sheer impressiveness and the power of the country that built them is overwhelming. I was also surprised and saddened to see that the last of the Montana class ships would have been the BB-71 U.S.S. Louisiana, my home state. (Oh, well, we have two nuclear subs, the Louisiana and the Alexandria we share with Va.) there are models you can buy of the Iowas but when you look at the artists renderings there are differences in appearances between the Iowas and the Montanas, notably at the bow. The Montanas had a far more forward leaning prow.. Man I love these ships. I must have built over 30 models of them as a kid and young man in all manner of sizes. Some small, some 2-3 feet long. Keep a-floatin' NJ!!
I looked up some numbers I ran almost 2-decades ago for a US 18/50 gun firing a 3,850lbs Super Heavy projectile at 2,500 fps. This would taken the Yamato's immunity zone of about 10,000 yards versus the 16/50's on the Iowa's and shrink it down to under 2,000 yards. Would have been a interesting concept to swap out the triple turrets to twin 18" guns on the Montana. Kind of similar to the Colorado class BB's. A 18/50 gun would have been way overkill for engaging any other battleship except for the Yamato's. Another interesting thought exercise what two other Axis battleships besides the Yamato and Musashi would have had a decent chance in a 2 against 1 Montana BB equipped with late war US FC? To make it fair we will assume good daylight visibility.
H-class battleship proposals.
Are you searching for: USS Ohio
Well we can all agree that Montana would have still been in mothballs today if she was built
No broken up for scrap metal more likely
Honestly either she gets broken up shortly after the war or she takes the place of at least one Iowa and not all the iowas make it into the 90s to be museum converted
@@revengencer_alf I think Ryan was wrong about the Iowas not being retained if the Montanas were built. Look at how long the Navy kept the 3 Des Moines class cruisers. All three of them were kept until the early 1990s. When the Iowas were brought back in the 1980s, the Navy looked at doing similar conversions to the Des Moines, but the ships weren't large enough to hold all of the equipment. Had there been Montanas and Iowas in mothballs in the 1980s, some or all of both classes would have been refit.
While I agree that the King-Nimitz redesign was the best option for the Montanas at the time, I think it would have made them sub-optimal for the 1980s refit the Iowas received. The Navy was able to place a massive amount of missiles on the Iowas because they had all of that space available between the two funnels. A single funnel Montana wouldn't have that space, so it would be harder to fit the Harpoon launchers as well as the Tomahawk armored box launchers.
The Montanas would have been scrapped after the war due to their speed or lack there of
@@zoopercoolguy I agree that the Iowas would have been retained. By the time the Pacific theater was heating up, the writing on the wall was clear that aircraft carriers were the way forward. The Montanas would have been slow enough that they wouldn't really be able to run in a fleet with the carriers.
While I get why they weren't built, man they would have been fun Ships
That is a ton of guns. Also feel like that rear anti-aircraft battery on the main deck would be gone the first time they shot the main guns
One obvious change: put the Iowa powerplant on the Montana. This is one of the biggest headscratchers I've had when reading up on this class. Why did they move from a 212k shp powerplant on the Iowa to the 172k shp on the Montana? Those 40000 shp, along with the weight saving measures Ryan mentioned in the video could've helped Montana reach something like 30 knots, which I think is acceptable for Montanas to qualify as a carrier escort, and would help the class find a spot in the post war navy as flagships, land bombardment ordinance deliverers and again, carrier escorts, performing better in the first 2 roles than the Iowas
Here are my five suggestions :
1) Copy the transom stern and raised Atlantic bow of HMS Vanguard.
2) Put all heavy guns forward as per HMS Nelson/Rodney to shorten the citadel, save weight and allow all guns to fire forward for battles similar to HMS Duke of York chasing down and sinking the Scharnhorst.
3) Use autoloaders to reduce the number of guns and turrets whilst maintaining the ship's rate of fire.
4) Removal all aviation facilities because we expect these ships will operate with other ships capable of flying aircraft.
5) Move the Captain to an information centre under the armoured deck, so should the bridge be destroyed, as HMS Rodney destroyed Bismarck's bridge, the Captain is not lost.
A few minor issues with using auto-loaders to reduce barrel count.
1. The more shells you have in a single salvo the more accurately you can determine its mean point of aim; and thus the better you can direct that onto the target. (Still, even dropping to, say, 6 rounds per salvo gives you fair enough info - and some battleships would drop to 4 shell half salvos so they could fire a ladder of ranges more quickly)
2. With more frequent firing, when going to rapid fire, you're going to be able to fire fewer total shells before your barrels overheat.
3. Autoloaders drive up the weight of a turret -- the Des Moines with their autoloaders had a turret that was about 50% heavier then the proceeding Oregon City class; so you might not get as much weight savings as one might first assume.
4. Heavy ships rarely fired their turrets at max rate anyway, since you'd usually want to wait to spot the fall of shot from each salvo, and then correct; before firing again; and time of flight for a salvo might be 30-50 seconds at the ranges (20k - 30k yards) the US wanted to fight at. The existing non-autoloading turrets could already sustain 2 rounds per minute needed for corrected long range fire (but with autoloaders you could potentially adopt a shoot-shoot-look strategy firing quickly twice with the same computed aim point and then wait for both to splash before correcting).
Still, none of those issues is necessarily deal breaking - and if an autoloader for a 16" super-heavy shell could have been developed you probably could have dropped one turret while gaining some weight savings and keeping up firepower.
Great Vedic.Rayan you are the best👍
A thousand hours long? Do a series and I'll watch every single one.
You should make a video where you design a battleship!
Fascinatiing discussion. Thanks so much!
I loved this video. Your ship evolution and modifications change my perception of her defensive capabilities.😮
One thing they could have done that would as I understand improve the hydrodynamic performance of the ship would have an actual transom stern. This improvement wouldn't cause any delays in armor.
The Transom stern helped the Vanguard substantially.
Aircraft strikes on HMS Prince Of Wales and IJN Yamaho probably sealed the fate of any drawing board battleship, showing the future was carriers with numerous support vessels.
I think the issue of Air Attack would have resolved if Anti Aircraft had kept pace. I think the Battleships may have been around today.
1. Remove the floatplanes, catapults and crane
2. Provide larger CIC and radio spaces
3. Investigate every reasonable manpower saving measure - e.g., the 16" turrets have a pointer and trainer on each side of the turret. Could the ship do with just one pointer on the left side and one trainer on the right side? Were auto loader 5"/54s available? Were automatic boiler controls available?
4. Investigate the advantages/disadvantages of replacing the wooden decks with non-skid covered steel decks
If you had a bulbous bow like Yamato you could go faster with the same weight and engine(s). Add more space for electronics/radar. Definitely need heavy power driven AA capability for late war.
The Iowas did have bulbous bows...
3x3 turret layout seems to be the ideal solution.
Then I would ask, why not just make more Iowa class battleships? Also, I just think a 2 forward, 2 aft design is cooler than a 2 forward, 1 aft.
I thought about this for awhile and I suppose by a 1980s refit that would have happened. For late-war 1945 and for her bombardment roles in Korea and Vietnam, a 12-gun MONTANA still has its uses.
@@carrier-buff Coolness doesn't win battles.
@@jchrystsheigh Is there any evidence that being able to shoot a third faster would have made a difference in any shore bombardment?
@@michaelsommers2356 Your initial salvo that hits without warning would be larger which might be helpful not sure if it would be significant though.
Do a part 2 with additional modifications…..I could listen to you talk for a couple of hours. Brilliant.
The what if fleet discussion always fascinates! Though the existing fleets of the time did the job it will always be open to speculation! Good job!
The last design for the Montana class had 172,000 hp as opposed to 212,000 hp for the Iowa class
I would if possible depending on when the ships were beginning construction. Add an auto loader or semi auto loader for the 16inch guns. Basically find some way to get the rate of fire up from 2 rounds a minute. Also if possible swap the 5"/38's with the 5"/54's as they had greater range and flatter trajectory while still being duel purpose guns
Auto loaders are heavy, the Des Moines class is ⅓ larger than the Baltimore class, with the main difference being the auto loading main guns. Going from 8 in to 16 in would probably make it even heavier.
Replacing the secondary battery with an auto loading 5 inch is far more practical
I believe that the Montana Class was already planned to have 5"/54
@@revan12009 they were to be outfitted with the 5in/54 mk 16, which is still manually loaded. The mk 42 was autoloader, but only debuted in 1953
Beyong 2-3 RPM, higher rates of fire aren't terribly useful on 16 inch guns anyway. Your shell will take almost a minute to get to the target, and you want spot their fall before firing your next salvo. Higher ROF makes sense only if you're using the guns as AAA (why?), you're caught up in a close range brawl with 6 cruisers for some reason, or it's the 1990s, you finally have access to to laser and GPS guided shells and no longer need to spot before firing the next salvo.
Outstanding video, thanks.
Thank for the video mate. Form over the pond. 😊
Ryan, the beard is looking pretty dope. Your changes are very, very good. My first thought was C4ISR and you covered that. What about a modernized design that made her more efficient, meaning upgrades to ammo-handling? I know this is a newer concept and might require the use of a Delorian) but to not install the 2nd aft turret and leave that space for a "modular growth area". Meaning to provide the ship with modernization. You don't need x12 16" guns, x9 16" guns are all you need (just ask all the dead guys that have been shot at by them). But you might need a helo pad and hanger...or an antenna farm for C2.
Man can you imagine a Montana in the 80s and 90s with like 6 Phalanx CWIS going off together?
If that was so I would just add the CWIS radar to the thunder mounts he mentioned it would be about the same difference or better yet have both.
CWIS has some serious problems with sloooow reloading and lack of protection for loaders. Online war games show up the effects of ordnance properties and how range, accuracy, and ability for the longest lasting, continuous fires affect outcomes!
@@tobyw9573 Install Goalkeepers instead and load ammo from the bottom?
There's a much larger model of the Montana Class on the Quarterdeck of Building 3 at Great Lakes Naval Training Facility.
Outstanding- you really know your capital ships. Keep up the great work 👍
I would love a follow up, what would you do with the Montana design if it was to be updated to 2023 tech and built today.
If you were to build a battleship today, you'd end up with something that looks a lot different than an Iowa or Montana. Keep in mind those designs date back to 1938 when the call first went out. You just might end up with something looking more like a Zumwalt than an Iowa.
If you wanted guns instead of missles, you are probably going with railguns. Railgun main battery, railgun secondary battery, missles for long range AA defense, and maybe lasers for point defense. CIWS for the "we're doomed' scenaro that incoming enemy missles have managed to get past everything else.
I also think that you would have to go with nuclear power and a lot of it to power your propulsion and weapons. I don't know how much power a massive railgun would require, but I bet it's a lot.
The Yamato may have exceeded the Iowas in armor, displacement, and firepower, but there are no Iowas at the bottom of the Pacific or playing instant submarine. I rest my case.
So what you are saying is that the Yamato is not only a better battleship but also a better submarine? got it.
@@gabrielandradeferraz386 yep, because it sank. Underwater. Like submarines are designed to do and battleships are not, bc when battleships do it it's kinda permanent. Also if someone has to explain a joke it loses something.
Thank you. I learn a lot in your videos.
insightful, ryan. thank you
Great video Ryan and crew! I'd love to see you do a video on the hypothetical of "if they Navy showed up tomorrow because the crap hit the fan and took the USS New Jersey back, what would they dump, modify, and completely change on the ship. I visited the ship and its sister the Wisconsin and thought those gun battery computers would be dumped if they were reactivated. A single laptop or desktop computer with a gunnery officer could do what they do and do it faster and maybe more accurate.
Surprisingly, updating the first control computer wouldn't do that much. The fire control system is already more accurate than the guns at anything past point blank range, at least in battleship terms, and the systems for it are so deeply built into the ship that replacing them is more trouble than it's worth. To get anything more out of the guns would require modern stabilization systems, which would in turn require rebuilding the gun mountings and traverse systems to keep up. Only then would updating the fire control computer actually do anything.
Heck, a Raspberry Pi could out-compute those things. Easily. Maybe even an Arduino.
@@michaelsommers2356 A Rasberry PI could out-compute every 1960s mainframe in the USA. But you would need to automate every step of the operation to get real benefit from it. Not much sense having a modern computer spit out a firing solution in a millisecond only for it to be manually read out over an intercom for the gun crew to set up.
@@GaryCameron Late-war US fire control was, in fact, capable of fully automatic gun laying. Half the reason US destroyers were able to do the damage they did at Samar was the excellent Mk. 37 fire control system, which could take input from the fire control radar and use it to continuously generate target solutions and automatically train the guns to the correct elevation and bearing. At that point, all the fire control team had to do was hold the fire lever on continuous automatic, and the guns would aim and fire as fast as the gun crews could load them.
@@GaryCameron I don’t know about the Navy, but an Army Field Artillery crew reads off the fire commands out loud so every member can start to do their tasks. While the gunner and #1 sets traverse and elevation, powder crew cuts changes, fuse setter installs and sets it, etc. Also, section members need their hands free to do their thing, and what do you do with your display? The section chief can hold onto the display, refer to it as needed, and supervise his crew one handed.
Although, not available in 1942, I would love to see a Montana class with nuclear propulsion. Just think of the weight and space savings in fuel alone. It would also provide more power for electronic systems.
I want to see how the Montana would be built today using modern tech. Assume the navy also built the infrastructure needed and had a big budget to modernize WW2 tech or current "off the shelf" stuff to work on a battleship without breaking. I can even see a use for retaining some AA guns for taking out drone swarms, ocean skimming missiles, or pirate style boats like speedboats.
@@rathael1428 one question is whether modern SAM (and other) missiles are any more shock resistant than the ones from the 80s when the Iowas were modernized. As I understand it one reason the only missiles they got were the Tomahawks in their armored box launchers was concern that shock and overpressure from firing the main guns would disable things like SAMs. (Though I suspect that VLS cells are less vulnerable to overpressure than the old swing arm launchers) Still I'd think the design would be quite different depending on whether or not they thought they could mix missiles (at least for self-defense) with heavy guns. (Also, if it's mostly doing fire support or maybe surface action against today's warships there probably isn't any need to put anything bigger than an 8" on it. So that alone might help guns and missiles coexist)
Thank You Ryan, you always have awesome videos and I am a DONATOR, keep doing these awesome videos. I never thought about the size of the ships, e.g. Panama Canal and the weight, etc. LESSON LEARNED. Thank you for your PATRIOTISM, Bobby Estey (USS Constellation CV64)
I made the VeryFire 1/350 USS Montana model. Such an incredible ship.
The Midway class carriers have basically the same hull as the Montana class would have without the heavy armor belt but instead with the 212,000 Iowa's powerplant. I think the larger 212,000 powerplant and nine 18 inch guns in three triple turrets instead of 12 16 inch in four triple turrets would have been a better design.
Correct. The lower hull form and power plant of the Montana class was to have been essentially identical to the Midway class carriers.
Wie Tests nach dem Krieg der U.S.Navy mit einer 18,1 inch Kanone der japanischen Yamato Klasse auf deren Schießanlage gezeigt haben, waren die 16 Inch Granaten der Mk.7 Kanonen der Iowa Klasse in fast allen Punkten überlegen, besonders in der Durchschlagskraft,und Zerstörung am Ziel, nur im Punkt Reichweite war ein Gleichstand. Was vorallen Dingen in der hochwertigeren Stahllegirung und Verarbeitung der Geschosse, und deren Füllung mit Hochbrisanten Sprengstoff (Torpex) lag. Die japanischen waren nur mit TNT pur gefüllt. So wie das auch immer zwischen GB.und Deutschen Reich war,deswegen konnte Deutschland auch kleinere Geschosse verwenden als die Briten, um die gleiche Wirkung zu erzielen, oder Bessere.
problem is Yamato only ever fired its guns a couple of times, Montana would have been expected to use its guns constantly
Along with the suggested changes, the earlier large power plant could be reintroduced at the expense of the additional subdivision in the final Montana class design. That along with some weight savings could have possibly pushed the ships past 29 knots.
My concern is about speed. I like the four turrets and other changes you suggested. I want our capital ships to be able to keep up with each other.
Hello Ryan great video, I got a quick question where if they could be 100% accurate with the 16 inch guns where are they trying to hit first,second, third and so on is there a order they try to eliminate first?
Guaranteed 100% accuracy? I'd posit the idea of loading HC-Mk13 shells, shoot at the opposing battleship's turrets. Sure, you might not penetrate the turrets, but the enemy asset is going to have a problem in regards to returning fire when their barrels get wrecked. After that, move onto pummeling the secondary battery, AA positions, key points of the superstructure, etc.
If we go all in on concept of "100% accuracy", this would likely result in a paradigm shift where the objective is no longer to *sink* an enemy capital ship, but to pummel them into submission before either forcing _them_ to scuttle the ship, or throw a few tow ropes onto it before hauling the ship to the nearest friendly port to be interned/besieged, then the ship either scrapped for material or recommissioned under new ownership.
Do you think they would have ever considered a Nuclear powerplant for something like a Montana-class? Are the weight-savings from fuel deletions offset by the immense size of the powerplant and all its shielding? And would those former fueltanks be replaced with other spaces or trimmed entirely?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9)
The biggest thing i would change would be to expand to a transom stern- extra deck space, extra torpedo defense near the rudders, simpler construction, and better efficiency at all but low speeds. Add in all welding construction & removing aircraft facilities because they will be operating with cruisers/carriers that have planes & we know radar works excellently.
Love this guy. I'm thinking of having a battleship built, if I do I'll certainly get in touch for advice.
Well for 1 take the lessons the British would show with Vanguard but as I said before really the Americans should consider themselves lucky that you can look at the Montana Class whereas with the British, we have no idea what the British might have been planning after the lions but a stretched Lion with a 4th turret would be a possibility
World of Warship's Conqueror does put things to mind.
There were a number of Montana designs considered as well as better armed Iowa designs. BB1938(I) from April 1938 is an Iowa with 9x18"/48 and a 14.75" belt. It has a South Dakota power plant to keep displacement at 45,495T and 27.5 knots. (Friedman p.308) Compress the superstructure to place a 2x5" mount forward and aft to improve the arcs of fire (King/Nimitz Board of Class Improvement Program (CIP)). It has the advantage of being able to transit the Panama Canal.
Later Iowa designs in 1938 with lengths up to 960 feet included 12x16" and 12x6"DP guns as mounted in the Worcester class. It was rated for 32.5 knots (Friedman p. 310)
I would build the Montana with a compressed superstructure with 12x6"/47 mounted as in US cruisers. I would eliminate the control tower and mount sixteen 2x3"/50DP with two at the stern, two abreast each raised turret on the 01 level, two abreast those same turrets on the weather deck, two in the forward superstructure, two on the after superstructure and four between the funnels. You cannot have mounts on the turret tops due to the placement of the 6"/47. 3" mounts on the bow are eliminated due to wetness. Eliminating the 20mm reduces crew size. Reduce the side armor thickness to increase the deck armor. Make all bulkheads between the barbettes our of 60lb STS to limit underwater damage.
My understanding is that the reason the Navy didn't go with the 18"/48 is because they could only fit six onto an Iowa.
@@itsmezed If you reduce the power plant to a South Dakota, the ship is 60 feet shorter. You also gain the weight needed for 9x18" guns and heavier armor. See Friedman, p.308.
@@waynesmith4584 Thanks for the info, I'll check it out. I'll take a look at my source as well. I think it wasn't as much the weight of the guns as it was fitting them into the barbettes.
In 1942 we would have been able to move more of the C&C below the deck level without effecting efficacy. The Flag Bridge especially. Reduce the superstructure size even more by keeping only your eyes up high, and a backup plot sure, but transition to a more modern integrated control center. This probably requires some "backup" periscopes borrowed from the submarine supply chain to give the LTs something to do since they no longer have windows to peek. With the better automation and the delivery of the tracking radars you can pull those critical control spaces below your armor belt to minimize the distance between other critical systems and damage control, and improve survivability. Frees up superstructure for more AA and radar too.
I don't know enough about ship design etc to really comment on fine details I'd change, but maybe for a future video, I would be REALLY interested to see what a modern battleship would look like. In previous videos you've talked about the advantages they have, such as being able to be put into an enemy harbor, etc. In my mind, I envision a Montana class, much like you've described here, but with probably 6-8 Phalanx CIWS mounted in place of the 20mm/40mm/5" etc anti air guns. Additionally probably some aurface to air missile batteries but maintain the .50 caliber machine guns around the deck for small craft defense. The biggest change for modern warfare armament that I'd make, would be removing the two gun turrets closest to the superstructure in favor of surface to surface missile tubes. This would be designed from the ground up this way, so it would be a pretty seamless design I think, and 6 of the 16" guns woul be plenty of firepower I would think. Being modern day, I would think the weight and armor of a battleship would call for it being nuclear powered, and I think that would definitely be the right move. Given the nuclear power allows our super carriers to achieve incredible speeds for their size and weight, it would make sense for the battleships to be the same. Would make them excellent escorts for the super carriers and a great additon to each fleet. I would probably add 1 per fleet. This would be a nuclear powered design from the beginning, since I know you've stated how difficult/impossible it would be to retrofit the Iowa's for nuclear reactors. I know many of you in the comments on this channel know far more than me, and I'd be curious to hear other opinions as well.
Are carriers becoming the same as the battleship in world war ii? It takes a lot of ships to keep them safe
It's always taken a lot of ships to keep CVs safe, that doesn't diminish their value as mobile airfields.
Personally, I think they’ve been that way for 30 plus years now, but hasn’t been recognized by the brass yet. My belief is that the resources being put into the current carriers, should instead be put into subs that don’t need the large escort force. But that’s just me. My opinion & 5 bucks may get you a cup of coffee.
How do you think it would be modernized? I think there’s potential to remove C turret in favor of a vls, and some other things that we saw on the Iowas.
Awesome!
Ice cream machine? Definitely need one of those. Maybe a backup one too.
I had always thought that the conning tower was not really meant to protect against a direct hit by an opponent's main battery guns, but from the shower of splinters from nearby hits. If the Montanas are meant to engage with Yamatos, I'd be nervous about entirely deleting the conning tower, after reading accounts of the naval battle of Yalu River and of course Tsushima.
Was there ever consideration about making a triple-gun turret for the 5"/38 or 5"/54? If that could be done, then reducing the number of secondary battery turrets could save some weight, and it would fit in with the compact superstructure scheme.
The issue is honestly one of logistics. The 5" turrets were lifted, more or less directly, off Atlanta class cruisers. There were some minor differences, but they were essentially the exact same turret and this substantially reduced the resources needed. The battleship's _secondary_ armament on a given side was nearly equivalent to the total armament of a light cruiser.
@WardenWolf the 5"/38s on the BBs were different than those used in CV, DD, CA and CL mounts. They weighed more than the other mounts (slightly more armored I think) but otherwise would have been similar. The 5"/54 mounts as designed for the BB-67s would have been slightly deeper than the planned versions for CA/CL/DD ships.
@@TheKentucky777 ye they had 51mm compared to 32-25mm on Cruisers and 9-6mm on DD's
Point to note re armoured conning towers: While _PoW_ didn't suffer (comparatively) from ditching the conning tower, the next engagement for _Bismarck_ was indeed fought from her conning tower, for all that KM command staff didn't normally bother to use the thing (it restricted the command staff's ability to interpret the battlefield) - and _KGV_ and _Rodney_ didn't seem to suffer huge difficulties in smashing it to bits. Overall it does seem to have been a waste of limited tonnage.
Excellent point, Bismarck basically had it's entire superstructure shot off before rolling over. A suggestion I'd make would be to make the main area of the armored conning tower short, closer to the rest of the citadel and have an equally armored but much narrower tall section so someone (two) up top can still see around and holler back down to the CO and all. An armored crow's nest of sorts with a ladder back into the conn.
@@aland7236 While I see the utility, that's expending a _lot_ of weight for two guys. Bear in mind that every space protected to conning tower standards at this point is lugging around 440mm of armour ... so let's say you give your two lookouts one square meter of space each, call it 2m decks to account for pipes and whatnot in the overhead. So you've got a volume of four cubic metres. Let's be efficient and assume we've got these two chaps crammed into a 1.6-metre circle. Putting a 440mm skin on that 1.6 metre circle bumps it up to 2.48m, and your two chaps using 2 square metres are using almost _three_ square metres of armour. At a two metre deck height, that's six cubic metres, roughly _fifty tonnes_ of steel for those two guys.
@@AdamSmith-kq6ys Solid estimations on the volume and mass of materials, it would be larger and heavier to meet needs for bodies, comms., etc. I didn't take equipment into consideration. My proposal also makes a nice chimney flue too, so yeah don't give me carte blanche at a design bureau. I dunno, I'm thinking there has to be a way to a) Reduce weight overall or lower the center of gravity a bit b) still have better visibility from higher up to retreat bravely in the event ass is in hand c) still provide something so that sailors are less vaporized by incoming pills. I could only guess the original designers may have had similar thoughts and figured "In for a penny, in for a pound" and got where we are anyway.
@@aland7236 Hmm. I wonder if in my attempt to err on the generous side - get the volume and weight needed to a reasonable minimum - I've in fact skewed the _ratio_ the other way. That first chap needs something like thirty-five tonnes of armour all to himself, person number two adds about another ten tonnes of armour, person number _three_ only adds another eight tonnes. By the time you've got an eight-man team up there that eighth crewman "only" costs you four-and-a-half tonnes. Regards the design considerations ... all true, though I wonder if the late-era battleships, with their capability for delivering firepower at range, had simply moved beyond the requirement for that heavy armoured conning tower. Bear in mind that at 2nd Guadalcanal _South Dakota_ took an absolute pummeling - although nothing breached her armour - and while the ship wasn't in danger of sinking from the shellfire she _was_ rendered completely combat ineffective as every last bit of her fire control was shot away, to the point that if _Washington_ hadn't been around to remind the IJN why one does _not_ want to be on the receiving end of battleship gunfire it's unlikely _South Dakota_ would have survived the massed waves of torpedoes the IJN had at their disposal. _South Dakota_ and her 16-inch-armoured conning tower may have postponed the deaths of her command team but without Lee and _Washington_ they would not have saved the ship.
Memorial Day 1962 ? ; I was on this U.S.S. N.J . at the Bayonne, N.J. Naval base ; I was very impressed !
I built the Louisana the 2nd of the Montana class. Such a gorgeous model and ship!
This change might be a bit ridiculous, but I would drop the aft super firing turret of the Montana's and use the added space below decks for more engine spaces, hopefully turning the design into a "65,000 ton Iowa class, with substantially more protection," and using the additional space above decks for a heavier and more efficiently placed 5"/54 battery (perhaps two centerline 5" mounts aft).
I thought about dropping the fourth turret, too. But, I did it in order to save weight/room for larger magazines and 16in autoloaders ala' Des Moines. I think getting 4-5 rounds per gun per minute would make them the ultimate BB...
"More room for these large fleet admirals."
Was there an obesity problem with USN flag officers in those days?
Great video. I was thinking of 4 screws instead of two and two rudders rather than one.
in 1961 I served on the USS Northampton CLC1 and it had some twin 3" guns in an armored turret. They were designed as rapid fire but would jam or stop working after just a handful of rounds. I think later they were removed.
If the Montanas are built there would be no Midway class CVBs. There was a extreme steel shortage in 1942. When the Montana was stopped her steel was used to start the Midway.
Take out the aircraft. Saves weight, crew, aviation gas storage and space for cranes, catapults and hangers. Also reduces the damage from hits to the aircraft (or accidents). Carriers and radar can direct fire and scout.
You can't though. Even the modern refit needed drones or other spotters for the guns.
I can't think of anything different that I would do, and you proposed a few things that I hadn't thought of.
But, I would love to see a scale model of the Montana as designed with a scale model of one with all of your proposed changes included.
Now that would be something to see.
12 changes that are a summary of what I'm seeing in the comments and what you had in the video. All of these are for displacement savings. With these changes, I believe it's enough to get between 10,000-14,000 tons of savings to get a 29.5-31.5kt top speed depending upon if engine power is increased as well.
1. Fully welded construction saves 5000-6500 tons.
2. Getting rid of the conning tower 600-700 tons.
3. Get rid of aviation facilities and equipment, and make sure radars fill the capability.
4. Move to the 1200 PSI boilers. Possibly an increase in power combined with less engine mass.
5. Update the AA equipment to 3", some 40mm, and the quad 20mm.
6. Redo the super structure and funnels to be smaller.
7. Go to 2 centerline 5" guns and reduce the beam ones to the 3 lower mounts giving a 10 gun broadside with the more effective 5" 54 gun and saving the weight of 2 mounts for about 110 to 150 tons in just the mounts. Probably additional weight in below deck support, and since it's the higher mounts, remove the armored barbetts the turrets sit on.
8. A lot of this weight reduced is up high combined with the hull, and engine savings should keep stability constant.
9. With the AA, engine, secondary battery, aviation removal, and structural changes should hopefully reduce crew and its displacement needed and give room for crew growth.
10. Adding a bulbous bow this should reduce engine power at desired speed.
11. Possibly adding some of the saved displacement back into minor length add on (maybe 50 to 100 feet) outside the citadel area so as to not lengthen the armor belt and give additional deck space for future helicopter installs.
12. All this saved displacement and bulbous bow should increase efficiency so that less fuel needs to be carried for the same range. I would still put in the tank spaces but not typically carry the fuel.
I wonder if speed can be increased by hydrodynamic improvements, like adding the bulbous bow a-la Yamatos?
Adding a transom stern would be more effective. Vanguard was a 30+ knot ship with far less SHP than the Iowas. All US fast battleships, and even the alter standard battleships and bulbous bows, just not as pronounced as Yamato. The shape is dependent upon your targeted max speed.
it's amazing that five knots is enough of a difference to class one Battleship as fast.
I can do five knots in my kayak.
I know it makes a difference over a long distance, it's just funny.
Tsushima proved that 4 or 5 knots was the difference between victory and defeat. Speed can dictate the battle.
Your ideas, especially the AA upgrades, are sound.
A 1,000 hours long video on battleships? Sounds good!!
I have a "What if" scenario for Ryan.... What if the USN stopped building battleships before the Iowa's were designed? Probably we would have built more large carriers instead. How do you think WWII might have changed overall?
More countries would’ve also had a larger carrier development most likely. The G15 design of the Japanese would’ve more than likely entered production. Germany would’ve tried building both zeppelins along with the Elbe and Seydlitz. The British probably making an Implacable version of the essex design. Italy… would’ve still been italy.
At best we would have lost 1000's or more men during the various island landings. While it's not highly celebrated the job of the surface fleet in many instances was to soften up enemy bunkers and nests to allow our guys to come ashore as easily as possible.
At worst we would not have been able to secure an unconditional surrender of Japan and we would have made concessions to Japan in order to stop the fighting.
Well, they were designed in 1939, so that means we stop building the NCs and SoDaks too. Not good news for the Guadalcanal campaign from either a surface engagement or anti-aircraft perspective. I imagine the USN would have also been a good bit more cautious later in the war if it didn’t have heavy escort for the carriers. It’s not always guaranteed you’ll spot an enemy battleship or cruiser squadron with recon flights from carriers, and either one of them could ruin a carrier’s day if it caught them by surprise.