Fate of the USS Montana

If the Montana class battleships were built during the 1940s, what would have been their ultimate fate? Would the navy have kept and modernized them while scrapping the Iowa class ships instead? Or would it keep both classes of ships? And when would be the last time the Montana would have saw action? The Missouri and Wisconson both saw action during the Gulf War.
 
If the Montana class battleships were built during the 1940s, what would have been their ultimate fate? Would the navy have kept and modernized them while scrapping the Iowa class ships instead? Or would it keep both classes of ships? And when would be the last time the Montana would have saw action? The Missouri and Wisconson both saw action during the Gulf War.

If they get completed late and don't see war service, the Iowa's get scrapped (probably after Korea) as they had seen hard service during the war, and it wouldn't be economical to keep both classes active or even in reserve; assuming even that the Iowa's would then survive Truman's 46-50 budget cuts which in such a situation might be 50/50 or worse
 
My opinion is that the Montanas would probably end up going into reserve shortly after the end of the war, and are disposed of during the early to mid-60s.

Although the Montanas would be better as battleships for fighting other battleships, because of somewhat greater firepower & considerably better armor, assuming that the evolution of naval warfare & geopolitics remain roughly the same post WW2, with the carrier replacing the battleship as the primary capital ship, and the battleship being demoted to a supporting vessel, useful as a heavy escort for the carrier primarily valued because it mounts a lot of AA, and the occasional shore bombardment, then it'd make more sense to retain the Iowas in post-war service.

Compared to the Iowas, the Montanas are slower, thirstier, and require notably more manpower to run (which also makes them more vulnerable to post-war budget cuts) while out of all the battleships it had, the USN considered only the Iowas to be truly compatible with fast carrier task force operations. Furthermore, unless that third set of locks for the Panama Canal get built in that ATL as well, the Iowas would have better strategic mobility, since they don't have to go the long way around to move between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

Also of note is that in the battleship concepts that the USN's designers and planners mulled after the cancellation of the Montanas IOTL (just concepts that didn't even reach the preliminary design study stage), the idea for that hypothetical next battleship design was an improved Iowa, which would be enlarged to allow for better seakeeping and torpedo protection (both considered shortcomings due to the design compromises necessary to get the needed speed and maintain the standards of protection from the prior class while being constrained by the 45,000 ton displacement limit allowed under the escalator clause and being restricted to a 108.25' beam due to the need to fit through the Panama Canal), as well as improved deck armor, a stronger AA battery, & better sustained sea speed under full-load & long time-out-of-dock conditions.

As far as modernization potential goes, they would have had about the same potential as the Iowas, but, again, their higher operating costs would be a strike against them- indeed, during the 1980s modernization, the operating costs of the Iowas were such that the USN seriously considered not reactivating the main battery to save some money, until the absurdity of that was pointed out. (Incidentally, from statements on Navweaps by Dick Landgraff & Bill Jurens, the Iowas were actually more ship than optimal for that modernization, & the Alaskas, had they still existed, would have been 'just right' from the size/operating cost perspective.)

Had any been built, I don't think the Montanas would have been likely to have seen action beyond the end of World War II- perhaps if budgets are more generous TTL, Korea, but really, to have the Montanas stick around after WW2 when they're not as suited to the post-war battleship missions where the carriers are now the center of the fleet, you'd probably need to come up with an ATL where post WW2, there's a hostile nation with a powerful enough surface fleet, including a battleship force, that's enough of a threat that a battleline has to be kept around to deal with it. Of course, such a world would probably be radically different from OTL.
 
Last edited:
Compared to the Iowas, the Montanas are slower, thirstier, and require notably more manpower to run (which also makes them more vulnerable to post-war budget cuts) while out of all the battleships it had, the USN considered only the Iowa's to be truly compatible with fast carrier task force operations.

Exactly.

Montanas make sense for fighting Yamatos and Bismarcks.

They make a lot less sense than Iowas in a carrier-dominated postwar world.
 
In a post war period of time, large crews on warships are a problem, which was one of the primary reasons why large gunnery vessels were decommissioend shortly after WW2. Only aircraft carriers kept their large crews, while supporting vessels were reduced in size and personel, too keep the budget acceptable.

As for the Montana's, these were likely to become white elephants in service, as they certainly would not arrive in time for warservice, if the timeline would not be altered. (Expect no service prior to 1947, as the ships would need time to be constructed and fitted out, starting in 1943 at its earliest, which is after the priority construction of more important units of the fleet had already kicked in. (CV's, DD's DE's, Landingcraft.) As fighting ships, the Montana's would be too late to see service they were designed for, as carrierwarfare already had made them obsolete. It is very possible their construction would be stopped at VE day, or at its latest VJ day, just as Kentucky and Illinois had been halted, to be scrapped later for more domestic uses of their materials. If one was already about to be launched, it would be launched as a gunnery practice item, as it was certainly a well armored target to test new devices on, giving the USN the oportunity to test some ordonance.
 
Sovietski Soyuz...

If the Sovietski Soyuz (sp?) had been built, then perhaps the Montana's would have been kept for a time...
 
(Incidentally, from statements on Navweaps by Dick Landgraff & Bill Jurens, the Iowas were actually more ship than optimal for that modernization, & the Alaskas, had they still existed, would have been 'just right' from the size/operating cost perspective.

Ooo.... you like living dangerously, dont you? ;)
Alaskas, useful for anything? Just hope CalBear doesnt see this, eh?
 
Ooo.... you like living dangerously, dont you? ;)
Alaskas, useful for anything? Just hope CalBear doesnt see this, eh?

Well pointing out that somebody finally came up for something they might be good for, but it taking nearly 40 years after they were built, 20 years after their conversion into razor blades, and involved weapons & electronics systems that were barely a glint in the eyes of the R&D folks when they were in service is hardly a ringing endorsement of the design.;)

Huh? How come?

CB is known for being rather vocal in his dislike of the Alaskas, because of their many design faults & generally being a waste of money & steel.
 
(Incidentally, from statements on Navweaps by Dick Landgraff & Bill Jurens, the Iowas were actually more ship than optimal for that modernization, & the Alaskas, had they still existed, would have been 'just right' from the size/operating cost perspective.)

Wouldn't that made the Des Moines class CAs a good choice?
 
Wouldn't that made the Des Moines class CAs a good choice?

The USN actually looked into that possibility in the early 1980s, & rejected it because Des Moines would have been too small to incorporate the upgrades the Iowas got without substantial reconstruction that would have been an incredible PITA, made worse by the extensive internal subdivision by unpierced armored bulkheads incorporated into the cruiser design. It was found that in order to put the same package of electronics & missiles the Iowas got on a Des Moines, plus the extra generators needed to provide enough power to run it all, would have required the removal of Turret 3 & it's barbette, as well the aft 3 5" mounts to find enough space. Furthermore, taking out the turrets & barbettes would have introduced major complications in working out hull stress & buoyancy.

Here's a 1984 article from the Naval Engineers' Journal on the subject
 
The USN actually looked into that possibility in the early 1980s, & rejected it because Des Moines would have been too small to incorporate the upgrades the Iowas got without substantial reconstruction that would have been an incredible PITA, made worse by the extensive internal subdivision by unpierced armored bulkheads incorporated into the cruiser design. It was found that in order to put the same package of electronics & missiles the Iowas got on a Des Moines, plus the extra generators needed to provide enough power to run it all, would have required the removal of Turret 3 & it's barbette, as well the aft 3 5" mounts to find enough space. Furthermore, taking out the turrets & barbettes would have introduced major complications in working out hull stress & buoyancy.

Here's a 1984 article from the Naval Engineers' Journal on the subject

I saw a write up in the USN Proceedings magazine on the subject in the mid-late 1980s. It called for a 'less capable' upgrade to the Des Moines to the three surviving Des Moines for "about the cost on two Iowa upgrades". I don't know if it would work.
 
Oh man, I would love to see a Shipbucket of a Montana carrier conversion.
You reminded me of a thing that I did long ago... :D

attachment.php
 
I think the Montana-class is the perfect analogy to the Yamato-class. It was built for a style of warfare that was had become outdated. With the proven effectiveness of carrier aircraft, the Japanese big gun ships were quickly obsolete. The Montanas would not have had the speed or range to keep up with the carriers, so it's unlikely they'd see combat.

Maybe if the war had started a few years later, they might have been built, but we'll never know.
 
Would the United States in the 1950s be willing to fund the widening of the Panama Canal or making another one thru Nicaragua so that ships, military and civilian, with beams of 100 feet and wider can go use them ... ??

Let's say... 120 ft beam? (width)
 
Top