WI: Montana Class Battleships Completed?

The Iowas and Montanas are (and were) the wrong choice as were the Yamato and Musashi. Too big an investment for the things they actually did.

After WWII virtually all BBs were decomissioned by all nations that still had some. SO keeping the Iowas and buiding the Hannah Montanas would make no sense...
 
Actually for ship to ship combat, battleships were outdated...

HOWEVER for shore bombardment for amphibious landings...they were and are superb. Needless to say the marines love the battleships.

Also the same missle that sunk ships in the falklands war wouldnt have even penetrated a battleships hull(which is between 2x-5x thickness of the penetration ability of the exocet missle.)

I suspect if Montana class battleships had been completed the Iowa class would probably have been retired much sooner. Also the montana class with its larger size might have been easier to modernize.

One thing that might have made more likely to keep the Montana class was to choose to have it go at the same speeds as the iowa class so it could escort carriers instead of going for heavier armor.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Also the same missle that sunk ships in the falklands war wouldnt have even penetrated a battleships hull(which is between 2x-5x thickness of the penetration ability of the exocet missle.)

What penetration distance are you using?

An Exocet would not bounce off a battleship, but would penetrate in several decks and cause a fire. It would not penetrate the main armor belt, which is deep inside the ship, but it would have exploded inside the ship and cause a small, but intense fire with the rocket fuel. Baring extraordinary bad luck, the BB will easily remain operation, but enough small missiles can make a mission kill, and lucky hit can result in a full kill.
 
What penetration distance are you using?

An Exocet would not bounce off a battleship, but would penetrate in several decks and cause a fire. It would not penetrate the main armor belt, which is deep inside the ship, but it would have exploded inside the ship and cause a small, but intense fire with the rocket fuel. Baring extraordinary bad luck, the BB will easily remain operation, but enough small missiles can make a mission kill, and lucky hit can result in a full kill.

Several decks? Exocets come in from the side, aiming just about the waterline - the spot where, incidentally, the armor on a battleship is thickest. An Iowa, or indeed any WWII-era battleship (Bismarck, KGV, Yamato, Vanguard) is designed to take a helluva lot of hits from a bigger shell than the warhead on an Exocet. The only ways to kill a BB from anti-ship missiles are to hit it many times with smaller missiles or hit it with something that can get through the armor, like a Shipwreck. The latter isn't an option to most nations, so you need to hit the big bastard repeatedly.

Furthermore, you are correct in pointing out the fact that most ships in battle die from fire. A pair of Iraqi Exocets did considerable damage to USS Stark, but the crew managed to make that ship both survive and continue to port under its own power. HMS Sheffield died from fire, and it was discovered that the hit immediately severed the high-pressure fire main - a lucky break to say the least. Neither case is going to effect an Iowa, because a ship designed to take a whole bunch of hits is going to not be easily disabled by such a weapon, and there isn't going to be much that can burn outside of the armor belts - the ship's main and secondary armaments are gonna be designed to be protected, and all of the important stuff is gonna be inside the belt.
 
The Montanas were designed for 28 knots, which is sufficient for most operations, and what might be possible is for the ships to later on get engine upgrades to push that to an even 30 knots. That's faster than any other battleships save the Iowas, and faster than a lot of US escort vessels.

Those last few knots require A LOT of power. I have seen it reported that an Iowa can do 25-26 knots on half her installed power (212,000 SHP) but needs every ounce of her full plant to do 32-33 knots.
 

sharlin

Banned
Aye thats a given, but at flank speed forcing their engines they could and indeed touch did touch 35 knots which is bloody fast for a ship that size.
 
there isn't going to be much that can burn outside of the armor belts
Um... What exactly do you think the boilers run on, and where do you think that fuel is stored?:rolleyes: Fire can also severely weaken steel, which might make the ship's own weight work against it.

While battleships are capable of taking considerable damage, the fact is that modern weapons are designed to deal out considerable damage. Case in point: Have a look at the RHS penitration values for a late model RPG-7, and compare it to armour thickness on an Iowa class. In almost every location, an RPG-7 will punch clean through the armour. That's one weapon. Can you imagine what an MLRS salvo would do? Hmm. Now that's a fun image...:D
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Several decks? Exocets come in from the side, aiming just about the waterline - the spot where, incidentally, the armor on a battleship is thickest. An Iowa, or indeed any WWII-era battleship (Bismarck, KGV, Yamato, Vanguard) is designed to take a helluva lot of hits from a bigger shell than the warhead on an Exocet. The only ways to kill a BB from anti-ship missiles are to hit it many times with smaller missiles or hit it with something that can get through the armor, like a Shipwreck. The latter isn't an option to most nations, so you need to hit the big bastard repeatedly.

Furthermore, you are correct in pointing out the fact that most ships in battle die from fire. A pair of Iraqi Exocets did considerable damage to USS Stark, but the crew managed to make that ship both survive and continue to port under its own power. HMS Sheffield died from fire, and it was discovered that the hit immediately severed the high-pressure fire main - a lucky break to say the least. Neither case is going to effect an Iowa, because a ship designed to take a whole bunch of hits is going to not be easily disabled by such a weapon, and there isn't going to be much that can burn outside of the armor belts - the ship's main and secondary armaments are gonna be designed to be protected, and all of the important stuff is gonna be inside the belt.

The main armor belt you are referring to is generally below the waterline. Yes, an Exocet may bounce of off a 16" class A armor belt, but this is not what it is hitting, both because the belt is not at the hull and it is a Class B unhardened belt. It is hitting either a non-armor plate of steel or secondary armor. Momentum alone will penetrate a simple hull wall. The explosive warhead will penetrate secondary armor. Now it will be quickly stopped by the various decks and equipment, and even if that fails the main armor belt. Part of the reason the USA put the main armor belt so low was to give the decks, secondary armor belts, and equipment a chance to destroy the armored tip of the armored piercing warhead.

You are overestimating what is protected by the main armor belt. Yes the main batteries, ammo magazines, and engines are below the belt. Most of the ship is above the belt, and this space is needed for missions. You would have things such as the radar, the electronics, the range finders for the guns, and post WW2 weapons added such as Anti-ship missiles.

The bounce off part is a complete myth. The missile would penetrate the armor into the ship almost 100% of the time. One exocet will not do much damage to a Iowa/Montana, but if hit by 20 exocets, the ships is losing some of its fighting effectiveness, has a good chance of being a mission kill until returned to port (unless this mission is only firing 16" guns under local control), and as hits pile up the possibly of ship loss creeps upward. If the fires get too intense, it will have to be scrapped. After a severe fire, it can literally be quicker and cheaper to build a new ship than to fix the ship. Once the structural strength of the steel is impaired, it can't really be fixed in a practical manner.

Now don't get me wrong. If I had to be on a ship that was hit by 1-4 exocet missiles, I would take the Iowa or Montana over any ship in the USA Navy today, and I would expect to live if not killed in the initial explosion.
 
When comparing WW2 naval projectiles to the Exocet, it's not the weight of the warhead that is decisive: the shell depends on kinetic energy and the strength of the hardened steel body to penetrate the armour and on the delay fuse to detonate the bursting charge once past the armour.

The Exocet uses a shaped charge that is detonated upon contact with the armour and creates a jet of plasma to burn through the plating. It'll easily penetrate any practicable armour thickness, but the amount of damage it'll cause inside will be somewhat less than that of a shell that remains intact to detonate once past the belt.
 

sharlin

Banned
A lot of ASMs used or use just a plain old HE Blast effect not a shaped charge, relying on kinetic impact to punch through the hull before exploding inside. Against a battleships belt or main deck I doubt a HE blast warhead would do little, but you would be able to overwhelm a battleship with repeated hits or as was stated above, one of the big soviet missiles like a shipwreck because they had a warhead in the region of a ton of HE.

The big risk would be hits on the superstructure and fire, you'd either mission kill a battleship or cause so big a fire that it can't be dealt with and then you could have a risk of explosions with ready to use ammo in secondary turrets etc.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
A lot of ASMs used or use just a plain old HE Blast effect not a shaped charge, relying on kinetic impact to punch through the hull before exploding inside. Against a battleships belt or main deck I doubt a HE blast warhead would do little, but you would be able to overwhelm a battleship with repeated hits or as was stated above, one of the big soviet missiles like a shipwreck because they had a warhead in the region of a ton of HE.

You are missing a key concept. The main armor belt on the Iowa or Montana is not at outside of the ship, but very deep within the hull, near the water line. Almost any standard missile if not modified for use against BB will detonate long before reaching the main armor belt. A delayed fuse designed to make it to the main armor belt would simply pass through a lesser ship. So unless the missile is designed to attack from a high angle attack, it path will never intersect the main armor belt. What happens on a HE Blast is that it penetrates and perform roughly the same as it would hitting an aircraft carrier. Any missile capable of penetrating the armor deck on an aircraft carrier can penetrate the secondary armor of a BB. So for example, a Shipwreck missile designed to penetrate into a carrier and explode will penetrate roughly 30 feet into a battleship and explode and do similar damage. The big difference on a carrier the missile is exploding within an bomb/fuel rich environment, where on a BB, the the ammunition is below the main armor belt, protected from the explosion.

When comparing WW2 naval projectiles to the Exocet, it's not the weight of the warhead that is decisive: the shell depends on kinetic energy and the strength of the hardened steel body to penetrate the armour and on the delay fuse to detonate the bursting charge once past the armour.

The Exocet uses a shaped charge that is detonated upon contact with the armour and creates a jet of plasma to burn through the plating. It'll easily penetrate any practicable armour thickness, but the amount of damage it'll cause inside will be somewhat less than that of a shell that remains intact to detonate once past the belt.

True, the problem will be the unused rocket fuel will be coming through the hole made by the warhead. The rocket fuel fire will be the issue. One will be easy to put out. A battleship hit with 20 at the same time will have a much greater threat. And there are things such as fuel, secondary battery ammunition, Anti-ship missiles near the outside of the ship. It is when one of these is hit the ship can be lost. My understanding is that the plasma jet alone will pass through many decks. If one of the plasma streams hits something explosive, then a catastrophic secondary explosion can occur. A lot would depend on exactly how the ship had been modified post WW2.
 
anti ship missiles wouldn't develop on the same curve if there where still battlewagons on active service to be sunk

exocets and tomahawks would be developed with larger warheads like the soviet shaddock missile which could blow the shit out of any warship
 
How well would one or two Montanas and its own escort do against the Yamato and her escorts in the battle in the Philippine Straits in 1944? when the Yamato in OTL went after Taffy 1, 2 and 3 and her Destroyers and DEs??
 
How well would one or two Montanas and its own escort do against the Yamato and her escorts in the battle in the Philippine Straits in 1944? when the Yamato in OTL went after Taffy 1, 2 and 3 and her Destroyers and DEs??
The Yamato would be outmatched

The Montana would be more accurate and firing more shells from longer range, the Yamato likely would get one or two hits in but still be sunk before getting near its optimum range
 

sharlin

Banned
Aye the Montana's could fire using radar to fire over the horizon and plunging fires a monster from those kind of ranges even with something as well protected as the Yamato. Also bare in mind that the USN developed the super heavy 16 inch shell to allow their ships to deal with heavily armoured targets.
They didn't know how tough the Yamato was but they knew she would be a tough nut to crack and the super heavy shells give them the best advantage to do so.
 
My understanding is that the plasma jet alone will pass through many decks. If one of the plasma streams hits something explosive, then a catastrophic secondary explosion can occur. A lot would depend on exactly how the ship had been modified post WW2.

I'm afraid the plasma disperses rapidly once it hits a void behind the armour - it's more suitable for compact targets such as tanks. It wouldn't quite need a 'Golden Twinkie' sort of hit, but it's rather unlikely to score a really critical hit. As you said - you'd have more luck by overloading damage control with multiple simultaneous strikes.

With an external armoured belt, you wouldn't get much rocket fuel inside the ship: I've seen a piece of armour used in HEAT testing, about 50cm thick, cut open in the plane of penetration. The plasma jet had burned clean through but only left a hole of 1-2cm diameter. (Either a HOT or a TOW missile, I guess.)
 
Top