Montana Class Battleship

[El3m3nttt]

The Montana-class battleships of the United States Navy were planned as successors to the Iowa class, being slower but larger, better armored, and having superior firepower. Five were approved for construction during World War II, but changes in wartime building priorities resulted in their cancellation in favor of the Essex-class aircraft carriers before any Montana-class keels were laid.

 

With an intended armament of 12 16-inch (406 mm) guns and a greater anti-aircraft capability than the preceding Iowa-class, as well as a thicker armor belt, the Montanas would have been the largest, the best-protected, and the most heavily-armed battleships put to sea by the United States. They would have been the only US Navy battleship class to have rivaled the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships in terms of armor, weaponry, and displacement.

 

Preliminary design work for the Montanas began before the US entry into World War II. The first two vessels were approved by Congress in 1939 following the passage of the Second Vinson Act. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor delayed construction of the Montana class. The success of carrier combat at the Battle of Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway, diminished the value of the battleship. Consequently, the US Navy chose to cancel the Montana-class in favor of more urgently needed aircraft carriers, amphibious and anti-submarine vessels; though orders for the Iowas were retained as they were fast enough to escort the new Essex-class aircraft carriers. The Montana class was the last US Navy battleship to be designed but their keels were never laid; the four completed Iowa-class battleships were the last to be commissioned.

 

The primary armament of a Montana-class battleship would have been 12 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, which were to be housed in four three-gun turrets: two forward and two aft. The guns, the same used to arm the Iowa-class battleships, were 66 ft (20 m) long – 50 times their 16-inch (406 mm) bore, or 50 calibers, from breechface to muzzle. Each gun weighed about 239,000 lb (108,000 kg) without the breech, or 267,900 lb (121,500 kg) with the breech. They fired projectiles weighing up to 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) at a maximum speed of 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s) with a range of up to 24 nmi (28 mi; 44 km). At maximum range the projectile would have spent almost 1½ minutes in flight. The addition of the No. 4 turret would have allowed Montana to overtake the Yamato as the battleship having heaviest broadside overall; Montana and her sisters would have had a broadside of 32,400 lb (14,700 kg) vs. 28,800 lb (13,100 kg) for Yamato. Each gun would have rested within an armored barbette, but only the top of the barbette would have protruded above the main deck. The barbettes would have extended either four decks (turrets 1 and 4) or five decks (turrets 2 and 3) down. The lower spaces would have contained rooms for handling the projectiles and storing the powder bags used to fire them. Each turret would have required a crew of 94 men to operate. The turrets would not have been attached to the ship, but would have rested on rollers, which meant that had any of the Montana-class ships capsized, the turrets would have fallen out. Each turret would have cost US$1.4 million, but this figure did not take into account the cost of the guns themselves.

The turrets would have been "three-gun", not "triple", because each barrel would have elevated and fired independently. The ships could fire any combination of their guns, including a broadside of all 12. Contrary to popular belief, the ships would not have moved sideways noticeably when a broadside was fired.

The guns would have been elevated from −5° to +45°, moving at up to 12° per second. The turrets would have rotated about 300° at about 4° per second and could even be fired back beyond the beam, which is sometimes called "over the shoulder". Within each turret, a red stripe on the wall of the turret, just inches from the railing, would have marked the boundary of the gun's recoil, providing the crew of each gun turret with a visual reference for the minimum safe distance range.

Like most battleships in World War II, the Montana class would have been equipped with a fire control computer, in this case the Ford Mk 1A Ballistic Computer, a 3,150 lb (1,430 kg) rangekeeper designed to direct gunfire on land, sea, and in the air. This analog computer would have been used to direct the fire from the battleship's big guns, taking into account several factors such as the speed of the targeted ship, the time it takes for a projectile to travel, and air resistance to the shells fired at a target. At the time the Montana class was set to begin construction, the rangekeepers had gained the ability to use radar data to help target enemy ships and land-based targets. The results of this advance were telling: the rangekeeper was able to track and fire at targets at a greater range and with increased accuracy, as was demonstrated in November 1942 when the battleship Washington engaged the Imperial Japanese Navy battleship Kirishima at a range of 18,500 yd (16.9 km) at night; the Washington scored at least nine heavy caliber hits that critically damaged the Kirishima and led to her scuttling. This gave the US Navy a major advantage in World War II, as the Japanese did not develop radar or automated fire control to the level of the US Navy.

"When you're penetrating armor, there is a thing called frontal density – it's not just the weight of the shell, it's the weight of the shell trying to punch a hole through [the armor]. Well, the 16"/50 heavy shell was almost as good an armor penetrator as the Japanese 18.1" shell."

Philip Simms, naval architect

The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (406 mm) shells: an armor piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment.

The Mk. 8 APC (Armor-Piercing, Capped) shell weighed in at 2,700 lb (1,200 kg), and was designed to penetrate the hardened steel armor carried by foreign battleships. At 20,000 yd (18.3 km), the Mk. 8 could penetrate 20 inches (508 mm) of steel armor plate. At the same range, the Mk. 8 could penetrate 21 ft (6.4 m) of reinforced concrete. For unarmored targets and shore bombardment, the 1,900 lb (860 kg) Mk. 13 HC (High-Capacity—referring to the large bursting charge) shell was available. The Mk. 13 shell could create a crater 50 ft (15 m) wide and 20 ft (6.1 m) deep upon impact and detonation, and could defoliate trees 400 yd (370 m) from the point of impact.

The final type of ammunition developed for the 16-inch guns were W23 "Katie" shells. These shells were born from the nuclear deterrence that had begun to shape the US armed forces at the start of the Cold War. To compete with the Air Force and the Army, which had developed nuclear bombs and nuclear shells for use on the battlefield, the Navy began a top-secret program to develop Mk. 23 nuclear naval shells with an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons. The shells entered development around 1953, and were reportedly ready by 1956; however, the cancellation of the Montana class meant that only the Iowa-class battleships, armed as they were with the same type of gun, could use the shells if the need had arisen.

 

Secondary battery

The secondary armament for Montana and her sisters was to be 20 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal guns housed in 10 turrets along the island of the battleship; five on the starboard side and five on the port. These guns, designed specifically for the Montanas, were to be the replacement for the 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal secondary gun batteries then in widespread use with the US Navy.[43]

The 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal gun turrets were similar to the 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal gun mounts in that they were equally adept in an anti-aircraft role and for damaging smaller ships, but differed in that they weighed more, fired heavier rounds of ammunition, and resulted in faster crew fatigue than the 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal guns.[43][44] The ammunition storage for the 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal gun was 500 rounds per turret, and the guns could fire at targets nearly 26,000 yd (24 km) away at a 45° angle. At an 85° angle, the guns could hit an aerial target at over 50,000 ft (15,000 m).[43]

The cancellation of the Montana-class battleships in 1943 pushed back the combat debut of the 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal guns to 1945, when they were used aboard the US Navy's Midway-class aircraft carriers. The guns proved adequate for the carrier's air defense, but were gradually phased out of use by the carrier fleet because of their weight.[43] (Rather than having the carrier defend itself by gunnery this would be assigned to other surrounding ships within a carrier battle group.)

 

Anti-aircraft batteries

For the first time since the construction of the Iowa-class, the US Navy was not building a fast battleship class solely for the purpose of escorting Pacific-based aircraft carriers, and thus the Montana-class would not be designed principally for escorting the fast carrier task forces; nonetheless they would have been equipped with a wide array of anti-aircraft guns to protect themselves and other ships (principally the US aircraft carriers) from Japanese fighters and dive bombers.

Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft guns

 

An Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft cannon aboard the battleship Iowa.

The Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft cannon was one of the most heavily produced anti-aircraft guns of World War II; the US alone manufactured a total of 124,735 of these guns. When activated in 1941, these guns replaced the .50 in (12.7 mm)/90 cal M2 Browning MG on a one-for-one basis. The Oerlikon 20 mm AA gun remained the primary anti-aircraft weapon of the United States Navy until the introduction of the 40 mm Bofors AA gun in 1943.

These guns are air-cooled and use a gas blow-back recoil system. Unlike other automatic guns employed during World War II, the barrel of the 20 mm Oerlikon gun does not recoil; the breechblock is never locked against the breech and is actually moving forward when the gun fires. This weapon lacks a counter-recoil brake, as the force of the counter-recoil is checked by recoil from the firing of the next round of ammunition.

Between December 1941 and September 1944, 32% of all Japanese aircraft downed were credited to this weapon, with the high point being 48.3% for the second half of 1942. In 1943, the revolutionary Mark 14 gunsight was introduced, which made these guns even more effective. The 20 mm guns, however, were found to be ineffective against the Japanese kamikaze attacks used during the latter half of World War II. They were subsequently phased out in favor of the heavier 40 mm Bofors AA guns.

Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns

 

Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns on a MK 12 quadruple mount fire from the deck of the USS Hornet in World War II.

Arguably the best light anti-aircraft weapon of World War II, the Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun was used on almost every major warship in the US and UK fleet from about 1943 to 1945. Although a descendant of German, Dutch, and Swedish designs, the Bofors mounts used by the US Navy during World War II had been heavily "Americanized" to bring the guns up to the standards placed on them by the Navy. This resulted in a guns system set to British standards (now known as the Standard System) with interchangeable ammunition, which simplified the logistics situation for World War II. When coupled with hydraulic couple drives to reduce salt contamination and the Mark 51 director for improved accuracy, the Bofors 40 mm gun became a fearsome adversary, accounting for roughly half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945.

 

Armor

Aside from its firepower, a battleship's defining feature is its armor. The exact design and placement of the armor, inextricably linked with the ship's stability and performance, is a complex science honed over decades.

A battleship is usually armored to withstand an attack from guns the size of its own, but the armor scheme of the preceding North Carolina class was only proof against 14-inch (356 mm) shells (which they had originally been intended to carry), while the South Dakota and Iowa classes were designed only to resist their original complement of Mark V 2,240 lb (1,020 kg) shells, not the new "super-heavy" 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) APC (Armor Piercing, Capped) Mark7 VIII shells they actually used. The Montanas were the only US battleships designed to resist the Mark VIII.

Until the authorization of the Montana class all US battleships were built within the size limits for the Panama Canal. The main reason for this was logistical: the largest US shipyards were located on the East Coast of the United States, while the United States had territorial interests in both oceans. Requiring the battleships to fit within the Panama Canal took days off the transition time from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean by allowing ships to move through the canal instead of sailing around South America. By the time of the Two Ocean Navy bill, the Navy realized that ship designs could no longer be limited by the Panama Canal and thus approved the Montana class knowing that the ships would be unable to clear the locks. This shift in policy meant that the Montana class would have been the only World War II–era US battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own.

Name: Montana class battleship

Builders: New York Naval Shipyard

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Operators:  United States Navy

Preceded by: Iowa class battleship

Succeeded by: N/A, last battleship class authorized

Planned: 5

Completed: 0

Cancelled: Montana

Ohio

Maine

New Hampshire

Louisiana

General characteristics

Displacement: 65,000 long tons (66,040 t) (standard);

70,965 long tons (72,104 t) (full load)

Length: 920 ft 6 in (280.57 m)

Beam: 121 ft 0 in (36.88 m)

Draft: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)

Propulsion: 8 × Babcock & Wilcox 2-drum express type boilers powering 4 sets of Westinghouse geared steam turbines 4 × 43,000 hp (32 MW)[2] – 172,000 shp (128 MW) total power

Speed: 28 kn (32 mph; 52 km/h) maximum

Range: 15,000 nmi (17,000 mi; 28,000 km) at 15 kn (17 mph; 28 km/h)

Complement: Standard: 2,355

Flagship: 2,789

Armament: 12 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns

20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal Mark 16 guns

10–40 × Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun

56 × Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft cannons

Armor: Side belt: 16.1 inches (409 mm) tapering to 10.2 inches (259 mm) on 1-inch (25 mm) STS plate inclined 19°

Lower side belt: 7.2 inches (183 mm) tapered to 1 inch (25 mm) inclined 10°

Bulkheads: 18 inches (457 mm) forward, 15.25 inches (387 mm) aft

Barbettes: 21.3 inches (541 mm), 18 inches (457 mm) (aft)

Turrets: up to 22.5 inches (572 mm)

Decks: up to 6 inches (152 mm)

Aircraft carried: 3–4 × Vought OS2U Kingfisher/Curtiss SC Seahawk floatplanes

Aviation facilities: 2 × aft catapults for launch of seaplanes

Notes: This was the last battleship class designed for the United States Navy; the class was cancelled before any of the ships' keels were laid.

[KB9813]

ya the Montana class was a beast it could easily take on the Yamato and the Montana would of had better computer system= better accuracy so most likely that the Montana would win

[Wunderwaffen1945]

It will be interesting to see it versus yamato and other awesome ships inside the game

[NagatoroHayase]

Good read

+1

[Zamolxet]

It is awsome in battlestations pacific...

[Zamolxet]

[alphakaynine]

nice copy paste bro

[El3m3nttt]

alphakaynine, on 22 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

nice copy paste bro

I didn't have time to do it like others, I was about to go to sleep and then go to work, in 20 Degree weather, WALKING.

[Jracule]

Good Read, +1

[HaradaTaro]

Don't forget that Montana were designed in 1941-1942 after three generations of new battleship construction for the USN.  The Yamato design date 1935 and was the first post WWI japan battleship.  That makes a huge difference.

In fight, yes the Montana would have been equiped with better radar and a primitive but for that time top of the art fire-control computer.

 

Speaking about:

 

-side armor.  They both had similar one but the yamato had a defective joint between armor plate which would have been corrected in the following generation of japanese battleship.  correcting it on the existing one was to add some 5-6K tons of plating. The defective joint made it weak to underwater explosion like striking torpedoes or near hit bombs.  It was the one linking the main side belt to the lower side belt.  Shell would not have been a trouble.

-Deck armor.  Even if the montana had in all thickest one around 265mm it was weaker than the Yamato with only 240mm because the montana had many thinner layers the thickest was 153mm while the japanese focused on one thick 200mm layer + several thinner ones.  and it is known several layers is weaker than one layer of the same global thickness.

-Speed.  Same for each but a much more fuel efficient one for the Montana.

-Guns.  At point blank range the yamato wins.  At realistic battle distance same penetrative power for each one.  Secondary guns?  a slight advantage to the Yamato but none had sufficient armor on their secondary battery to endure a fire exchange.

-Crew abilities. Sorry to say it but Japanese crew for Yamato and Musashi were of a better training than any USN battleship crew.  They were drilled and ready to endure far more;  while the USN sailors were good but too heavily relying on technology and quite easy to lose moral.  This has been proved in the night engagement (november 1942) of the South Dakota when she only lost her electric power to fire control and search radar for 3 minutes yes only 3 'THREE' small minutes but the commanding officer quoted : "The thrust and faith in search radar equipment is amazing.  After this ship had lost both her SG and SC equipment, the psychological impact on the officers and crew was most depressing.  The absence of this gear for the short time it lasted gave all hands a feeling of being blindfolded."

 

Who would have win.  in comparative quality?  You can't say.  Once more it would have relied on who would have the luck to score a striking blow in the other one's vitals first... and that only luck decides it.

 

 

Zamolxet, on 22 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

It is awsome in battlestations pacific...

What's that video out of an arcade game is supposed to show... False turret with a training speed of 30-40 ° / sec when in reality they only had 2-3°/sec training rate?  Firing of 5/6/min when it would have been 2 at best a minute?  Don't rely on video games to depict reality.

[Iceman42]

The stats given in the thread starting post are for the Montana as concieved in 1943. Had the Montana class actually been built, there would have been many more changes, most notably the AA armament. Any Montanas completed would have entered late in 1945 or thereabouts. The AA armament would have been increased to 22-26  40mm quads, and as much as 72 20mm.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Here's a bit more on the Montana:

 

http://forum.worldof...3874#entry23874

[mgmythteller9]

If the Montana BB class ships were completely finished before VJ Day, those grand ladies would have seen action along with the Iowa BB :) Class in the postwar years before the end of the Cold War.

[GipsyDanger34]

the iowa could beat the yamato in a battle, so the montana could easly cut through yamatos armor.

[Windhover118]

GipsyDanger34, on 25 July 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

the iowa could beat the yamato in a battle,

I would love to hear your evidence for that.

[NGTM_1R]

Windhover118, on 26 July 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

I would love to hear your evidence for that.

Montana was intended to have an improved gun. As the two major proposed weapons for the class were never formally tested or prototyped, though...

[xS_DEADLY_Sx]

NGTM_1R, on 26 July 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

Montana was intended to have an improved gun. As the two major proposed weapons for the class were never formally tested or prototyped, though...

I think the question was asking where the evidence was for Iowa beating Yamato

[admarillstonewall]

Zamolxet, on 22 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Awesome video.

[NGTM_1R]

xS_DEADLY_Sx, on 26 July 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

I think the question was asking where the evidence was for Iowa beating Yamato

Every thread on this board gives it a shot better than 1 in 5 (he doesn't say would, and his statement can be interpreted as could) and notes the major problem holding it back from an easy victory is a lack of immunity. Montana solves that problem.

[xS_DEADLY_Sx]

NGTM_1R, on 26 July 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

Every thread on this board gives it a shot better than 1 in 5 (he doesn't say would, and his statement can be interpreted as could) and notes the major problem holding it back from an easy victory is a lack of immunity. Montana solves that problem.

Yes, the Montana could defeat Yamato. I don't doubt that. But, every number and bit of confirmed information we have would suggest that the Yamato has a better chance of winning than the Iowa. A much better chance at that (please note, that isn't saying the Yamato would easily win. Just that it would win a much larger percentage of the time