Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/41WjAkE Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the promo code WARSHIPS to receive a huge starter pack including a bunch of Doubloons, Credits, Premium Account time, and a ship! The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming portal.
Isn't it because of the demise of the British Empire battleship HMS Prince of Wales and British Empire Battlecruiser HMS Repulse and the IJN disaster the Battle of Midway
Are the Essex-class ships back in the game? Because from what I know, they were removed a long time ago and still haven't returned. EDIT: I can confirm that the Essex-class is not in the game. Ryan, your statement was in error.
The US wartime economy was astonishing but it was not infinite. The Admirals in charge could have built the Essex class carriers or the Montana class battleships. The Admirals chose wisely.
Some of the long lead-time items for the Kentucky and Illinois were constructed ... 16"/50cal gun barrels. These were warehoused along with the spares for the other four Iowa class ships.
I mean I concur I mean the war had broke out in 1941 for the United States and at that time industry was catching up with war efforts and demands and simply put as mr. Szymanski as stated that priorities were four different vessels and those battleships were obsolete in the strictest sense
It was the CVBs (Midway class) that the Montana's were canceled for. They began to collect steel to build Montana but their wasn't enough steel or slip ways/ building docks to go around.
Japanese has already perfected their naval aviation. they were even the first nation on Earth to design Aircraft Carriers ground up rather than converting existing ships.
@@rohanthandi4903 The USS Nevada would like a word with two of your bombs. Bikini atoll, Operation Crossroads. The Nevada survive both detonations. A 23Kt air burst and a 27Kt subsurface burst about 90 feet below the lagoon surface.
@@garygrant91 large caliber guns are insignificant compared to the ability to destroy nations and cities, thought that was obvious. Also sure the hull survived the initial blast but any crew would’ve suffered 100 % mortality lol
@@rohanthandi4903 I wont argue against that, but we cannot use nuclear and thermonuclear weapons for everything. If we could, no nuclear nation would need anything but those weapons. Battleships were created with a primary purpose of fleet actions and a secondary purpose of shore bombardment. At the time they were developed nothing could do either job better. By the time of WWII carrier air wings had become the best for fleet actions. The battleship is still the best at shore bombardment, there are other options that are almost as good but also more versatile. While the age of battleships is over, that does not mean James Leyda's is false. They are truely one of the most awesome and beautiful ships to ever exist.
Because by the time they would be finished the war would be over and aircraft carriers had already surpassed battleships as the center peice of naval power. Pitty, i always always wondered a 1980s refit Montana would look like. 🤔
I've made speculative lego models in the past. What I came up with was basically a bigger Iowa Refit. Depending on how many 5" gut turrets you delete and what year of technology you install, there may be room for more Tomahawk boxes or perhaps VLS. I think 4 phalanxes would be plenty. There may be room for Sea Sparrow to be far enough from the 16" guns to survive shockwaves. The reduced crew space requirement and reduced 5" magazine requirement also allows lots of possibilities for internal updates/changes.
We can resurrect the Montana class for the 3rd world war. 😂 make it nuclear powered with EMP shielding and 20 inch main guns that can shoot hypersonic rockets
@@Ahnenerbe1944 Most US military hardware has been EMP shielded for 50 years. But otherwise, sounds cool. You could easily fit a couple hundred VLS cells on a Montana if you lose Turret 3 or 4 and redesign the superstructure. Then throw in some of the launchers for the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile that’s replacing the guns on the Zumwalts. The problem would be getting the AEGIS radars enough electric power and making them stand up to the gun blast.
Had the pleasure of writing about shipbuilding economics for a class a while back. it's really exciting hearing those concepts I've read about be discussed here.
It’s always been my understanding that the main thing with the Montana’s was available build space and the anticipated speed of the build. They estimated that they could build the first 2 Midways substantially faster than they could build the first 2 Montana’s. So they wanted those 2 Midways done before they tied up the big docks with the longer build Montana’s. Anticipated speed of build was really the big thing. The big slipways were too precious a resource to tie up for too many years.
Yeah, the other thing was the looming end of hostilities. The montanas were not going to complete until 47, 48 at the latest. The Midways could have been completed by the time of operation Downfall(~5 months after the end of the war, the spring of 46). The fact of the matter was that the montanas were never going to see a lick of combat, and the US navy went "Why are we building a ship that isn't going to war, when we can build a ship that can go to war?"
@@novatopaz9880 True. The Midway herself was days away from service when the war ended. She was a a functional warship by ‘45. I forget how far from service the FDR was at that point.
@@andrewtaylor940 The FDR was commissioned in October so while it would had missed Operation Olympic it could have been available for Operation Coronet in the spring.
I had lunch on Saturday looking out at a coastline that was filled with liberty ships being constructed in the 40’s. Completing one every few days. The instant growth of the shipbuilding industry to support wwii must have been amazing to see, but as stated that ability wasn’t infinite.
The improvements of the torpedo bombers, and of the torpedoes in themselves, doomed the big gun warship. As Drach has said: bombs and shells can tear a ship apart, they can burn it to the waterline. But ships only *sink* if you poke holes below the waterline and the water comes in. Armor steel, drydock slots, gun barrels *delayed* the Montanas. But torpedoes *cancelled* them.
@@alexwood5425 no exact idea but engines, armor and guns were built before any hulls. I mean the USN had several spare 16in 50cal Mk.2 guns from the planned South Dakota 1920 class Battleships and Lexington class battlecruisers. Yet only like the Lexington class battlecruisers had any hulls built by the time the WNT was signed
I disagree that the torpedoe bomber was the deathknell of the battleship. Quite frankly, blowing them to bits with dive bombers proved quite adequate. Mission kill a ship, and that pretty much ruins it's utility. Submarines were getting better, and guided missiles were being developed! Guided missiles are what really killed the battleship. Much smaller, cheaper ships could now carry armament equal to, or more deadly than a battleship's big guns.
@@mahbriggs My reasoning is as follows: ship launched missiles were not operational until the 50s The Montanas were cancelled years before surface ship launched anti-ship missiles became operational or proven. Operational missiles during ww2 were launched from aircraft. They were flying torpedoes and depended on aircraft/carrier development. Had mission kill been adequate in the 40s, many more ships would have been captured. But both Yamatos were bombed first, no quarter was given, and then hit by torpedoes UNTIL they floundered. Respectfully, we disagree. 👍
@ricardokowalski1579 Yes, at the end of WWII, torpedo bombers were still viable, but only barely. Look how fast they faded away after the war. We disagree only to an extent. Yes, effective ship launched missiles only were developed in the 1950s, but effective air launched missiles were available sooner. Destroy the upper works of a modern battleship, and it is mission killed. It can neither effectively defend itself nor attack other ships. There was little need for a new battleship after the war, and Ryan explains why it wasn't built during the war. After the war, the US, the British, and the French were the only nations with modern battleships, and they were allies. And while they proved useful for shore bombardment, there just wasn't much other use for them. Carrier air power and submarines, especially after the development of nuclear powered submarines, now ruled the sea! The resources spent on a new battleship, even one as capable as the Montana, would have been better spent on upgrading the many carriers we already had, or building newer and bigger carriers, and nuclear-powered submarines, which is what we did.
Another reason was probably that the BB was dangerously obsolete by 1944. Only one or two BB vs BB actions happened in 1944. Except for shore bombardment and AA defense, BBs were virtually useless. And no enemy navy had anything close to the number of BBs needed to take on the BBs of the USN.
Or, for that matter. the allies in general. They started the war with a massive hull number advantage over the axis, one that was only maintained, then further widened once the united states joined.
@@Destroyer_V0 The Axis could and did gain local naval superiority as the Japanese did for the first 6 months of the war in the Eastern Pacific and the Indian ocean. Two entire fleets, one Allied and one Japanese went down in the Solomon's by the end of 1943. To win the Allies had to make sure the Axis powers could not get naval superiority anywhere. Hence the enormous naval expansion. The US built 10 BBs. No other nation built that many. The US also built over 100 aircraft carriers, more than all of the other nations combined. By 1945 the USN and RN had naval supremacy virtually everywhere on the planet.
And really, the way they bombarded was flawed, anyway. They fired in close, fuzed for impact detonations. The rounds should've been lobbed in from high angles delay-fuzed to penetrate more deeply, because the bursts on the surface had very little effect on the Japanese fortifications, all told.
I've always thought the battleship had become somewhat obsolete by 1945, and instead of the once-anticipated battleship v. battleship duels, they were relegated to escorting the fast carrier groups. This role was performed admirably, as well as shore bombardment of Japan, and later 'Nam. They are magnificent machines of great beauty, speed, grace, and power. I'm glad that a number of them are preserved today for us to admire. I do wish, though, that at least one Montana class had been built.
Depends on what is meant by "obsolete." The ones in service were still useful enough to continue to maintain and upgrade them, but the cost of building more new hulls was no longer the best way to use manpower and material that could be spent on carriers.
Thank you, Ryan, for a great summary on the long-delayed MONTANAs. Heinrich's book on Warship Building is a must read for every student of warship design, building and gaming. I think their final cancellation in July, 1943 is intriguing because of the timing. The U.S. had not yet taken a Japanese held island (Tarawa was four months in the future), North Africa had just been secured, the next carrier battle would not be for another year, the Battle of the Atlantic was still raging, and the invasion of Europe was postponed until 1944 due to a lack of landing craft. Could anyone in the Navy convince the air-minded president that larger battleships should be built when destroyers, aircraft carriers and landing craft are needed for the planned assaults in 1943 and 1944?
Currently playing the New Orleans and the Helena, American cruisers. Both are super fun boats. The Helena is more of a sneaky, set 'em on fire from cover type and the New Orleans is a beast mode type cruiser that can pick on battleships if it wants to. The Helena has 152mm main guns, while the New Orleans has 203mm. Helena is lightly armored but has an interesting turret setup with three of them out front. Good for poking a nose out and hitting other ships that have only two guns they can fire back. The New Orleans has bigger guns and better armor. It's not a BB, but it can take one on the chin and not go down
Hi Ryan, I drove up 2 summers ago to donate a large model of the battleship U.S.S. California BB-44 that I had built in the early 2000's. Including the plexiglass cover over the model. Were you ever able to use it in any exhibit? Our city Jacksonville, FL just got the USS Orleck a few months ago & they will be having their grand opening I believe on Memorial Day weekend. I have driven past where she had been anchored & I am looking forward to visiting the Orleck when she opens. Hopefully you can visit our memorial ship like you have done so for so many other memorial ships. PJ
I am playing the North Carolina at the moment. Naval doctrine changed that is why we did not build more battleships. That said I think they are still very important for shore bombardment. We have not had to invade a country yet, from the sea, with out battleships providing shore bombardment.
I tend to agree. There is STILL a need for shore bombardment as well as acting as both an anti-air platform as well as fleet coordination, particularly with regards to airspace. Let the carriers focus on the immediate airspace like airports do and once the planes have taken off, hand them over to Air Traffic Control on the Battleship.
Also force projection. Aircraft Carriers are great. I'm an old carrier sailor. But nothing says power like parking 9 16 in guns off the coast. We gave up on them too soon.
I think that if the US Navy had not of wasted the time, effort, material, and money on the ALASKA class battlecruisers they could have completed at least the MONTANA and MAINE. The steel the Navy wasted on those four, useless battlecruisers, which were built in response to the SCHARNHORST class (both gone by 1943) was more than enough for two MONTANAS.
Fyi the last two Iowa class battleship hulls ended up being built as u.s.s Sacramento AOE - 1 and u.s.s. Camden AOE -2 that's why they have all of the machinery from the Iowa class battleship still in them👌
I see to recall hearing that the most restrictive bottleneck in (fast) large ship construction was the reduction gear. Much of the authorization was in the two Navy acts of 1940, not to be confused with the purpose being to have sufficient ships to operate two navies. 3 Essex's were order in Jul 40, and eight more in Sep of 40. Large ships are normally 3 years from keel lay (which is several months after order) to commission. Compressing this to 19 months was incredible. Even then, several more months are necessary for shake down and training before combat operations. So, it's really two years plus a few months for keel to combat. Furthermore, the initial combat ops were raids. Really offensive operations do not commence until several carriers are trained up (including the 9 Independence's) After Pearl Harbor, we are at Jan 42. The US has 2 Lexington, 3 Yorktown (Hornet just getting ready) and Wasp (really a light carrier). At this point the thinking is defense, including counter-attacks (but not counter offensive) due to great Japanese carrier + battleship force. After Midway a limited offensive was possible, but with the loss of 2 more carriers in Guadalcanal and Saratoga a torpedo magnet, offensive was only possible up the Solomons making use of land bases. So, the thinking in Jan 43 was the main offensive would not begin until late 43. Given the probably 3-year gap between prioritization of ship build to actual combat use, the actual situation changes considerably. It's not until the Marianas campaign that just as US Navy airpower is cresting, an assessment can be made that Japanese airpower is in decline, not from number of aircraft, but rather loss of skilled aviators, and ability to match US planes with 2000 hp engines. Even so, the thinking in mid-44 must be that the invasion of Japan would not start until late 45, and early 46. So, ships started in late 43, even early 44 could see action, Another factor is that ship building needs to accommodate both sufficient striking force plus losses. Four carrier were lost in 42, but no big carriers were lost after that, (1 or 2 heavily damaged, + 1 independence?)
I worked at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PNSY) as a Lt. (j.g.) "Ship Superintendent" in 1974 and had oversight responsibility for the completion of the modernization of USS Macdonough (DLG-8) for the last two months before she was re-commissioned. If you want to learn more about the day-to-day operations of the Yard and how the work got done, I'd be happy the chat with you. I also have a good reference book on the Yard's history.
I have long thought that the reason for these decisions, related to the reason Ryan listed, is that the type of warfare that was being seen on the oceans around the world did not call for battleships if they came at the expense of the various other ships like carriers and cruisers, let alone the LST variants that had to be built somewhere. It comes down to making hard choices.
In addition to the ten new builds....many of the standard class battleships were repaired and upgraded at the same time also tying up drydocks and resources
just a little correction. Italy completed 5 BBs before the was, not 3. You forgot Doria and Duilio, which were almost completely reconstructed fron scratch. They were smaller than littorio and roma class, but had sistema pugliese and 10 320 guns. they were probably better, for example of scharnhost. They did not had the possibility to shine, of course, not even like cesare and cavour (old renoved BBs) in 1940 a capo teulada, but they not only survived the war and served in italian navy long years after that.
Bottom line, there were only a limited number of graving docks large enough to build Ticonderoga, Iowas and Midways. It would have taken many months and much manpower to build even more 1200' long graving docks during a shooting war. You could build 2 or 3 Atlanta AA cursors in space for one Montana, and the Navy needed more AA resources.
Just a clarification, you currently can't play Essex-class carriers in WOWS... yet. They were removed during carrier rebalance and are planned to reappear, but gameplay concept of those ships is being adjusted...
There's a simple answer. They were no longer needed. The world moved on, and that's not a bad thing. I mean it would be awesome to see the full potential of a US Battleship with no treaty restrictions or Panama Canal restrictions, and maybe if the war dragged on into 1946, 1947, and we started seeing losses, maybe they would be needed. Of course we lost more carriers than Battleships and never actually lost a Battleship in war. Course we face a similar problem now in that we only have 1 drydock that can build a nuclear carrier. Technical 2 but 1 will be used to refuel
If I remember right wasn't the Panama Canal a concern? The Iowas barely fit in the Canal with not even a foot of space on each side and the Montanas were supposed to have a much wider beam. The Canal has since been widened and that wouldn't be an issue anymore but not being able to use it would be a massive liability. Either the Montanas only operate on the side of the country they were built or they'd have to navigate the Northwest Passage or the Drake Passage. Being so expensive I doubt they'd make those voyages alone so there's also escort vessels wasting time on a longer trip just because 1 ship in the task force can't traverse the Panama Canal. That's supplies and time that the Navy probably couldn't afford to waste.
Ive been playing WOWS since 2015, and ill say that my favorite line is the IJN BB and currently the best line that fit the meta especially with the super Yamato ship Satsuma with 8×510mm guns.
So we have a World of Warships advertisement disguised as a military documentary. The Aircraft carrier became the dominant naval vessel of WW2 and is still to this day. The Battleships are long retired.
Bethlehem, Carnegie-Illinois, and Midvale made some 21" Class "A" barbette test plates for the MONTANAs, each one having the same 55% face thickness as the thinner plates made for all of the other new WWII battleships ("Thick Chill"), but the hardness pattern of the face layer was very different for each plate. Interestingly, Midvale's plate had a fixed maximum hardness for the entire 55% depth. This hardness was also the maximum for earlier, thinner plates, but for them it was that hard only near the surface, being about 550 Brinell Hardness Number -- we are ignoring the thin 1-1.5" surface ~650 BHN "Cemented" or "Harveyized" (carburized) layer. Then the Midvale plate hardness dropped suddenly to the constant backing layer hardness (below ~250 Brinell Hardness Number). The other companies' plates had a more normal slow dropping of the face hardness from the 550 BHN near the surface to the ~250 BHN backing layer. All plates passed the spec ballistic tests, though.
If I recall correctly, the Montana Class was designed to be more of a return to the "standard type" battleship in terms of speed. This would have made it considerably slower when compared to the previous three classes of fast battleships. Even if completed, the Montanas wouldn't have been able to escort the carriers and couldn't keep up with the speed the Navy liked about the Iowas. If completed, they probably would have had a service life similar to the Alaska Class, while the Navy would have still retained the and used the Iowas just as it did, simply because it was easier to rapidly deploy the Iowas.
By 1944 it was pretty obvious that battleships were obsolete as a weapon system. It was so obvious to the Japanese that they transformed a half built Yamato into an aircraft carrier.
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned speed. Not speed of construction but ship performance. By 1944 it was becoming obvious that a slow battleship didn't have much utility. To keep station on aircraft carriers or perform routine tactical operations, a battleship needed 30-knot speed and the Montana's didn't have that.
I would add that, by this point, it had been shown that the BS was no long queen of the seas as aircraft carriers had more or less made them obsolete for their original role.
A lot of very valid comments here. To me, the primary reason for not building the Montanas was the cost to crew them. The aircraft carrier became the dominant warship due, in no small part, to its ability to attack with force from a distance. Battleships became too labor intensive for their limited scope of operation. The same number of crew aboard an aircraft carrier is much more cost effective.
In world of warships I use mostly Montana, Iowa,(All US Hybrid Battleships) Yamato, Musashi, kawachi, Ishizuchi, ISE, Atlantico, Rio De Janeiro, Agincourt, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Konig, Derflinger, Moltke, Von Der Tann, Viribus Unitas, and Sun Yat Sen
Tactically, they (MONTANA’s in particular and BB’s in general) we’re not nearly as important in 1945 as they had been in 1940. The shift to carrier air power was that swift.
Its actually quite simple. Aircraft could take out a ship or disable. The battle of Midway showed this. The US did not use a single battle ship because they were still in repair after thr bombing of pearl harbor. The Japanese new the effectiveness of aircraft carriers especially before 1941. Britian sent a battle group to defend territory. A heavy crusier, battleship and aircraft carrier. The carrier was behind and the battle group was sent without air support. All ships were disabled or sunk i.e. the heavy crusier and battleship. It wasnt because of armor surplus or dock space. It was the navy looked and saw more use of aircraft carriers vs battleships, as the battle of miday was the first battle where both fleets never saw each other and and was fought exclusively by aircraft.
So was the steel for tanks manufactured differently ? Or different steel allocations for them and manufacturing methods, or different type of steel all together
When the dust from Battle of Midway settled, it was clear, the age of the battleship was over. A Montana in WW2 or after would simply be a huge target that would be expensive to operate and of limited value. Everything important that a Montana could do in the future, could be done effectively by an Iowo-class. In World of Warships, I'm in the process of earning the XP to graduate to the Iowa class. I wish there were a New Jersey in the game but there isn't.
I would think that after Coral Sea and Midway the role of battleships changed in Navy doctrine. Naval battles were conducted by combatants out of sight at one another. Battleships became more important prior to landing troops in the Pacific theater than in possible surface engagements.
Also, even by the 1930's an aircraft carrier could do everything the Battleship could do, but the aircraft carrier does it better and the aircraft carrier can do much more than the battleship can do. The point of any warship is to put ordinance on target. The battleship does this with guns which have a limited range. The aircraft carrier does it with airplanes that have a range of hundreds and hundreds of miles. Plus the airplanes have much greater accuracy.
The short answer is the Montanas were not built because the start of construction was delayed. The long answer is construction of the Montanas were delayed for many reasons, until they were seen as not part of the Naval doctrine at the time. The decision to incrementally improve US battleship design delayed larger more radical designs. The Montanas were delayed and barred under the Second London Naval Treaty. When the admiralty considered what was needed to counter the Kongō class batttlecruisers and Yamato class battleships as understood, they prioritized the Iowas. When the time construction of the Iowas began, the Montanas were doomed to never be built. If the admirals wanted more battleships for an extended 1946 war, they would of focused on completing the Iowas under construction and might not of commissioned another in favor of aircraft carriers and large cruisers.
How big/what a differences in shapes of the armor plating parts, so they can steal it between ships? Is it unified shapes? Or did it ship as rectangular pieces and finally shaped in the shipyard?
Norman Friedman argued the Iowas were not good bargains compared to the South Dakota’s; 10,000 tones, 200 feet and double the shp for 5 knots more speed were not worth it even if the South Dakota’s were cramp. The Montanas adding 3 more 16” guns and reverting to the South Dakota speed were also not good exchange.
How much armour steel plates were allocated to the Alaska Class CB (Battlecruisers) during their tenure run on the slipways... Since two were completed... was a third CB even had steel available to laid down her keel??
The simple reason that they were never built, airplanes could destroy and sink battleships, the attack on Pearl damaged every battle ship and heavy cruisers sinking several or cap sizing several, only the Arizona was completely destroyed, killing everyone below deck. Because of that day, the Navy saw the superiority of aircraft carriers and halted the Iowas at four, though there was one hull that was about 40 percent completed, and the keel for another already built. The partial hull was completed but the ships top was changed to an aircraft carrier which was christened the USS Midway. It entered service just after the war ended in 1946. It was the longest serving aircraft carrier because it was unique, it is the only carrier with an Iowa class armored hull. The keel that was laid also became a carrier and was the second of the Midway class carriers but it did not have the armored hull. Two more were built but only the Midway was kept in service long after her sister carriers were decommissioned. The Midway survived as the navy was building and fielding the Nimitz class nuclear supercarriers. She was known for being wobbly because of her narrow battleship hull as were her sister ships but was kept in service until the late 90’s because she alone could survive torpedo or other attacks upon the hull.
since you have covered how you think how the us navy would upgrade the iowa-class for today with modern standards, could you do the same thing with the montana-class or even other battleships like bismarck, yamato or better jean bart and vanguard?
They were obsolete when it was realized that aircraft with bombs and torpedoes ruled the seas. So Carriers were the new big stick on the water with their aircraft. The reach of the carrier was far greater with its planes then a battleship could fire it's shells with its guns... battleships were done with the invention of a bomb carrying airplane. The top brass knew this early on.
WW2 demonstrated clearly that Air Power was the deciding factor of any Naval Engagement. the early war loss of Repulse and King George V Battleships to Aircraft alone, at Sea under Battle Readiness Zed. underscored just how deadly planes really were. only reinforced when Yamato was sunk also by Air power alone in 45. BB Guns had a finite effective Range for their big guns around 24 miles with Radar Fire Direction. a Plane armed with 500lb AP Bombs can fly more than 500 miles round trip and deal more damage per ton of delivery system than any BB could dream. the Carrier was the defacto King of the Seas as WW2 kicked off and the USA had to play Catch up to Japan's large and effective Carrier force. technically, Kentucky could have been converted into a Carrier since she had already been completed to launching to clear the slipway. Illinois was barely started and simply broken up in situ. material resource limitations aside, Manpower and funding to operate a Battleship throughout it's lifetime adds up. by the time the Montana's were considered, it was well known that the War was won. with 10 BB's in operation or soon to be. there was just no justifiable reason to add 5 more slower ships to the fleet that could not rapidly relocate in time of need as the Montana's were too big to fit through the Panama Canal and had to take the long route to switch Oceans if it was deemed necessary. Essex, Midway's and the Iowa's were made to fit through the Canal Locks so they could rapidly reposition as needed.
Question: are the new hybrid battleships in world of warships realistic? The tier X version has 10 16inch guns and an armored flightdeck on a montana class hull this seems to my like it would be very overweight.
As impressive as they were, the Montanas would have just been extremely expensive burdens. They could not go through the Panama Canal and were too slow to keep up with the carrier groups. Two SDs or NCs could easily do the same job as one Montana.
Frankly I have said this before but no one is clearly listening The Americans should frankly consider themselves lucky to know what they had planned next whereas France and the British Empire we have no idea of what they would have done heck we have no idea what Alsace was actually going to be When it comes to the British Empire, we have only what they considered and we frankly no idea what the Lion Class successor was going to be I am sorry for going off in the comments
They also werent built because there just wasn't a need after the war with noone left to compete with the Iowas. Also, the navy had it's budget cut significantly.
Good information on the evolution from Battleships to other warships. Were there any plans to increase the main gun battery caliber from 16" 50 cal? Or was that going to be the stopping point in that particular arms race. (Yes, I know there's an example of a Yamato class battleship armor, but that was under ideal conditions and near point blank range.)
My understanding is that the 16 inch was the sweet spot with main guns. The 18 inch while a larger shell, didn't get the muzzle velocity the 16-inch achieved. And that is a significant factor.
Five Montana class BB -- Ordered May 1942, suspended June 1942, canceled July 1943 Montana BB-67 Ohio BB-68 Maine BB-69 New Hampshire BB-70 Louisiana BB-71 So the decision to cancel came right after the Battle of Midway.
They already had 10 battleships and they chose to keep them in service and upgrade them with new technology keeping them in service far longer than expected
Had the doctrinal shift towards air based attack not taken place by the time of the Montanas? Orthodox history has the shift away from battleships occurring thanks to the rise of air power.
I assume they where expecting the Iowa class to escort carriers while the montana class where for 'hunting' near pier opponents. But what opponents? Bismark was sunk, so was her sister ship.... the yamato was over powered with aircraft as was her sister and shanano met USS archerfish.... with how much more the iowa class proved tbey could do why go bigger?
Another reason…the number of sailors needed to staff battleships. I had read that the Alaska Class big cruisers required almost as many sailors as a battleship. This was among the several reasons why the 2 barely used Alaska class ships were placed in reserve so quickly after the War ended. Montana class BB would have required huge crews.
Especially given that by 1944-45 the US Army was pretty hungry for manpower. It makes a lot of sense to not spend manpower crewing a battleship you don't really need to begin with.
Additionally, they used almost as much fuel, and you could get 2½ broadsides from an Iowa for less than a single broadside from an Alaska. Maybe even 3. Additionally, the Alaskas, with 4 screws and a single rudder handled like pigs. The Iowas and Midway-class carriers could out-turn them.
Surpringly, only about a hundred more crew, in Flagship configuration, as planned. Remember, the 4th gun itself only required 80 men, the WWII complement for an Iowa was 2,700 men. The Montana was planned to have half the 40mm guns of an Iowa.
Something else that has to be considered is the manpower drawdown that begins to loom as the outcome of the war becomes apparent. The Navy begins to rapidly decommission the battleship fleet right after the war's end. As Japan entered the final stages of the war, with her navy all-but-eliminated and airpower dissipated, even the oldest battleships like Arkansas and New York get shifted over the Pacific. The Navy just doesn't NEED that many battleships...especially new ones. After "Operation Magic Carpet" gets finished, all the old battleships start getting disposed of (Arkansas, Nevada, New York to Operation Crossroads), the others get sent to either the scrapper or mothballs...even the "new" ones like the 2 North Carolinas and the 4 South Dakotas get taken out of service due to manpower shortages. So, in addition to the material shortages and the slipway shortages, the Navy knew that the manpower was going to be limited and the BB's were too manpower intensive to keep going. (Even the carriers got hit with this, many being taken out of service at war's end as well...)
The US had built ten fast battleships by the end of the war, the British five (six if you include HMS Vanguard completed in 1946), add the Richelieu and the Allies had a vast overmatch of modern battleships over the Axis. No need for Montanas, Lions or Alsaces.
I think something that's also overlooked is the labor and skill of the Craftsman involved there just weren't as many qualified workers either to build such an extensive dedication of resources at that point in time at least battleships required greater degrees of engineering and tooling than an aircraft carrier by comparison and it just didn't work out in how many hands they had to hold the Hammers
@@alanstevens1296 oh without a doubt had the United States rolled around into 1946 with everything else staying the same no atomic bombs for would have going on for at least one more year Illinois and Kentucky would have been completed and I still believe the Montana's demise was assured after the Battle of Midway Profoundly really the only way The Montanas get built if the war doesn't break out for the United States initially and the Battle of Midway does not occur in some timeline continuity if possible but really for them to have seen any service whatsoever Ryan has said this multiple times on his channel they would have had to have their kills lady immediately after Pearl Harbor and Terriers we nowhere More instrumental and I can only imagine if we had actually constructed them and I would have liked to have seen them constructed that would have been fewer aircraft carriers by as much as maybe 10 or 12
I think modern historians sometimes underestimate the effect of seeing Musashi and Yamato sunk by aircraft with relative ease. The Navy's Big Gun Mafia was ebbing in popularity and prestige, while the Brown Shoes waxed in influence. There is a good chance any Montana's that had been started on the ways in late 1943 or '44 would have been scrapped before completion anyway, even if the armor plates had been available earlier. The concept of the super battleship having been discredited by the proofs of their vulnerability.
Yup. After the British lost the Prince of Wales and Repulse early on in the war, and then the US taking out the two Jappinise BB's we saw the carriers where the wave of the future.
100% agree. Even if you allow a wide interpretation of "relative ease", sending 70k tons of anything to the bottom (twice!) is an undisputable success.
The Battleship in WW2, by the end, was not a ship killing weapon so much. They can deliver more ordinance than 20 squadrons of aircraft in the first hour of an assault. Its naval artillery. Given that 80% of the worlds population lives with in 100 miles from the coast having a mobile artillery piece that can sit off shore and pummel your port is still a valuable weapon. We have nothing that can compare today. Shells are cheap by comparison to smart weapons. With radar and lidar acquisition you could build a ballistic weapon that is just as accurate as a smart bomb but it could deliver continuous bombardment, for days, to a region for a half the price. Every smart missile costs us 10's of millions of dollars. Even manned to 2500 people a battleship would just cost us about $400,000 a day. If we really get into it with a force like China or Russia we will be looking at putting a battleship-ish type warship in the theater just to save money on missiles.
If Halsey left TF 34 to guard the San Bernadino Strait we would have at least finished Illinois and Kentucky because the largest naval battle in history would have been primarily a surface engagement and we would looked at battleships differently then we do now.
The possible battle of San Bernardino strait would have matched the battleship numbers of Sarigao strait (8 battleships total) but the numbers would have been more even (6 US and to Jap in Sarigao, 4 ea at San Bernardino). Assuming a lot of "ifs": What would have really been impressive, and would match your point at looking at battleships differently, is if Halsey had taken the bait and headed north, left TF 34 behind, and the Japanese center force was undetected until spotted by TF 34. If adm Lee decided to seek support with the 7th fleet, and if the Japanese center and southern forces had merged prior to a huge surface fleet fight there would have been 7 Japanese and 10 US battleships engaged with each other. It would have been the biggest BB duel since Jutland, although not anywhere close to the numbers of Jutland, and would have fulfilled the wet dreams of all the Admirals involved in all four fleets. After the war the survivors - Lee, Obendorf, Kurita, and the Jap dude who ran the southern force, would all be sitting in a bar reliving the glory days of the last major battleship duel in history while Halsey would be siting in the corner eating his heart out.
@@richardthomas5362 Drachinifel did a what if, but I think he it left as Lee v Kurita for balance. If it really happened Lee would have coordinated with the Senior Sprague and would have hit Kurita with an anti shipping strike from the three TAFFYs before the surface engagement.
@@johnshepherd9676 I saw Drach's video on that, but I am not sure the TAFFY air strikes would do much good. They were armed with ground support weapons rather than anti-ship weapons, so, other than confusion and making life hell for anyone on deck on the cruisers and battleships, the only ships which could have been threatened would be the destroyers.
@@richardthomas5362 The air groups had a limited supply of anti-shipping weapons. The historical action off Samar was a haphazard affair and the aircraft flew with what they had available in the hanger. They still launched several torpedo attacks. Aircraft would have been set up with whatever anti-ship weapons were available if given a mission. By Lee
My recollection of history indicates that there was a view the US was winning the war in 1944-45 and there was a realization that the BB was no longer 'Queen of the Seas'. Also, BBs were expensive to build but somewhat dependent on the sale of war bonds. With the end of the war, most warships that were started were canceled outright, including KENTUCKY and ILLINOIS. As you mentioned, in 1945 only about 7,000 tons of armor were designated for BB construction, the same as pre-war. I imagine most of this armor plate went to KENTUCKY as not much had been done on the ILLINOIS. The USN budget after September 2 was seriously reduced to the point it was hard to properly maintain the 'mothball fleet' due to paucity of funding.
@@HoldenOversoul The hull for the New Jersey was laid down in 1940 and was launched in 1942. The hull for the Kentucky was laid down in 1942 and was not launched (uncompleted) until 1950. It is obvious that the construction of the Kentucky was a very low priority.
@@chac65 Ok, what's your point? The post I was replying to stated that Illinois and Kentucky were cancelled outright. All in caps, ILLINOIS and KENTUCKY cancelled outright. Cancelled outright and low priority are the same thing?
@@HoldenOversoul My overall point is that the USA and the rest of the world stopped building battleships (the Montana, etc.) because the raid on Taranto, Pearl Harbour, the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales, and early naval battles between the US and Japan demonstrated their obsolescence.
You see similar issues with German tank production resulted in over hardened (brittle) steel going on the front and mild steel being used on the rear because that is what they had. Can you imagine haw many tanks could have been produced with the steel used on Bismarck and Tirpitz at 55,000 tones each?
Bismark and Tirpitz had already been completely years before the German tank industry started making "real" tanks. When Tirpitz was launched a Pz.Fpfw. II was state of the art and the PzKfw III was just getting approval for production.
Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/41WjAkE
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the promo code WARSHIPS to receive a huge starter pack including a bunch of Doubloons, Credits, Premium Account time, and a ship!
The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming portal.
Isn't it because of the demise of the British Empire battleship HMS Prince of Wales and British Empire Battlecruiser HMS Repulse and the IJN disaster the Battle of Midway
i quit world of warships a few years ago. they have screwed the game up so bad, its not enjoyable to play!
Currently playing as USS New Jersey in World Of Warships PS5, I believe that's the only actual way to play as New Jersey.
@@leftyo9589 I'm still playing and I'm still having a blast. It's my favorite video game. My favorite ship is the battleship USS Massachusetts.
Are the Essex-class ships back in the game? Because from what I know, they were removed a long time ago and still haven't returned.
EDIT: I can confirm that the Essex-class is not in the game. Ryan, your statement was in error.
The US wartime economy was astonishing but it was not infinite. The Admirals in charge could have built the Essex class carriers or the Montana class battleships. The Admirals chose wisely.
Some of the long lead-time items for the Kentucky and Illinois were constructed ... 16"/50cal gun barrels. These were warehoused along with the spares for the other four Iowa class ships.
I mean I concur I mean the war had broke out in 1941 for the United States and at that time industry was catching up with war efforts and demands and simply put as mr. Szymanski as stated that priorities were four different vessels and those battleships were obsolete in the strictest sense
Well, true, but also true is they finished the war, with a glut of carriers.
Let's face it, they could not get all the Essex class that they wanted, because they ended up building more transports, and more escorts
It was the CVBs (Midway class) that the Montana's were canceled for. They began to collect steel to build Montana but their wasn't enough steel or slip ways/ building docks to go around.
“Can you think of any other reasons the Montana class wasn’t built?” Yeah. Airplanes.
Nuclear weapons.
@@nmccw3245 no torpedos and aerial bombs can sink battleships. Pearl Harbor Prince of Wales Repulse Yamato and Mushashi prove this.
@@nmccw3245 Project Katie
Japanese has already perfected their naval aviation. they were even the first nation on Earth to design Aircraft Carriers ground up rather than converting existing ships.
battleship traitors
The battleship is by far the most awesome war machine ever built, so so intimidating and yet so beautiful
The nuclear bomb would like a word
@@rohanthandi4903 sadly, we'll hopefully never be able to judge the beauty of nukes ourselves.
@@rohanthandi4903 The USS Nevada would like a word with two of your bombs.
Bikini atoll, Operation Crossroads. The Nevada survive both detonations. A 23Kt air burst and a 27Kt subsurface burst about 90 feet below the lagoon surface.
@@garygrant91 large caliber guns are insignificant compared to the ability to destroy nations and cities, thought that was obvious. Also sure the hull survived the initial blast but any crew would’ve suffered 100 % mortality lol
@@rohanthandi4903 I wont argue against that, but we cannot use nuclear and thermonuclear weapons for everything. If we could, no nuclear nation would need anything but those weapons.
Battleships were created with a primary purpose of fleet actions and a secondary purpose of shore bombardment. At the time they were developed nothing could do either job better. By the time of WWII carrier air wings had become the best for fleet actions. The battleship is still the best at shore bombardment, there are other options that are almost as good but also more versatile.
While the age of battleships is over, that does not mean James Leyda's is false. They are truely one of the most awesome and beautiful ships to ever exist.
Because by the time they would be finished the war would be over and aircraft carriers had already surpassed battleships as the center peice of naval power.
Pitty, i always always wondered a 1980s refit Montana would look like. 🤔
I've made speculative lego models in the past. What I came up with was basically a bigger Iowa Refit. Depending on how many 5" gut turrets you delete and what year of technology you install, there may be room for more Tomahawk boxes or perhaps VLS. I think 4 phalanxes would be plenty. There may be room for Sea Sparrow to be far enough from the 16" guns to survive shockwaves. The reduced crew space requirement and reduced 5" magazine requirement also allows lots of possibilities for internal updates/changes.
We can resurrect the Montana class for the 3rd world war. 😂 make it nuclear powered with EMP shielding and 20 inch main guns that can shoot hypersonic rockets
@@Ahnenerbe1944 might as well add a wave motion cannon while your at it.
@@Cholin3947 you beat me by 24 mins with that comment...... Kenpai!
@@Ahnenerbe1944 Most US military hardware has been EMP shielded for 50 years. But otherwise, sounds cool. You could easily fit a couple hundred VLS cells on a Montana if you lose Turret 3 or 4 and redesign the superstructure. Then throw in some of the launchers for the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile that’s replacing the guns on the Zumwalts. The problem would be getting the AEGIS radars enough electric power and making them stand up to the gun blast.
Had the pleasure of writing about shipbuilding economics for a class a while back. it's really exciting hearing those concepts I've read about be discussed here.
It’s always been my understanding that the main thing with the Montana’s was available build space and the anticipated speed of the build. They estimated that they could build the first 2 Midways substantially faster than they could build the first 2 Montana’s. So they wanted those 2 Midways done before they tied up the big docks with the longer build Montana’s. Anticipated speed of build was really the big thing. The big slipways were too precious a resource to tie up for too many years.
Yeah, the other thing was the looming end of hostilities. The montanas were not going to complete until 47, 48 at the latest. The Midways could have been completed by the time of operation Downfall(~5 months after the end of the war, the spring of 46). The fact of the matter was that the montanas were never going to see a lick of combat, and the US navy went "Why are we building a ship that isn't going to war, when we can build a ship that can go to war?"
@@novatopaz9880 True. The Midway herself was days away from service when the war ended. She was a a functional warship by ‘45. I forget how far from service the FDR was at that point.
@@andrewtaylor940 The FDR was commissioned in October so while it would had missed Operation Olympic it could have been available for Operation Coronet in the spring.
the Montanas
You could almost build another 2 Iowas to one Montana. If anything that's a better option because the Iowas could keep up with the rest of the fleet.
I had lunch on Saturday looking out at a coastline that was filled with liberty ships being constructed in the 40’s. Completing one every few days. The instant growth of the shipbuilding industry to support wwii must have been amazing to see, but as stated that ability wasn’t infinite.
The improvements of the torpedo bombers, and of the torpedoes in themselves, doomed the big gun warship.
As Drach has said: bombs and shells can tear a ship apart, they can burn it to the waterline. But ships only *sink* if you poke holes below the waterline and the water comes in.
Armor steel, drydock slots, gun barrels *delayed* the Montanas. But torpedoes *cancelled* them.
How long would it have taken to make the guns?
@@alexwood5425 no exact idea but engines, armor and guns were built before any hulls. I mean the USN had several spare 16in 50cal Mk.2 guns from the planned South Dakota 1920 class Battleships and Lexington class battlecruisers. Yet only like the Lexington class battlecruisers had any hulls built by the time the WNT was signed
I disagree that the torpedoe bomber was the deathknell of the battleship.
Quite frankly, blowing them to bits with dive bombers proved quite adequate. Mission kill a ship, and that pretty much ruins it's utility. Submarines were getting better, and guided missiles were being developed!
Guided missiles are what really killed the battleship. Much smaller, cheaper ships could now carry armament equal to, or more deadly than a battleship's big guns.
@@mahbriggs My reasoning is as follows: ship launched missiles were not operational until the 50s
The Montanas were cancelled years before surface ship launched anti-ship missiles became operational or proven.
Operational missiles during ww2 were launched from aircraft. They were flying torpedoes and depended on aircraft/carrier development.
Had mission kill been adequate in the 40s, many more ships would have been captured. But both Yamatos were bombed first, no quarter was given, and then hit by torpedoes UNTIL they floundered.
Respectfully, we disagree. 👍
@ricardokowalski1579
Yes, at the end of WWII, torpedo bombers were still viable, but only barely. Look how fast they faded away after the war.
We disagree only to an extent.
Yes, effective ship launched missiles only were developed in the 1950s, but effective air launched missiles were available sooner. Destroy the upper works of a modern battleship, and it is mission killed. It can neither effectively defend itself nor attack other ships.
There was little need for a new battleship after the war, and Ryan explains why it wasn't built during the war. After the war, the US, the British, and the French were the only nations with modern battleships, and they were allies. And while they proved useful for shore bombardment, there just wasn't much other use for them. Carrier air power and submarines, especially after the development of nuclear powered submarines, now ruled the sea!
The resources spent on a new battleship, even one as capable as the Montana, would have been better spent on upgrading the many carriers we already had, or building newer and bigger carriers, and nuclear-powered submarines, which is what we did.
Another reason was probably that the BB was dangerously obsolete by 1944. Only one or two BB vs BB actions happened in 1944. Except for shore bombardment and AA defense, BBs were virtually useless. And no enemy navy had anything close to the number of BBs needed to take on the BBs of the USN.
Or, for that matter. the allies in general. They started the war with a massive hull number advantage over the axis, one that was only maintained, then further widened once the united states joined.
@@Destroyer_V0 The Axis could and did gain local naval superiority as the Japanese did for the first 6 months of the war in the Eastern Pacific and the Indian ocean. Two entire fleets, one Allied and one Japanese went down in the Solomon's by the end of 1943.
To win the Allies had to make sure the Axis powers could not get naval superiority anywhere. Hence the enormous naval expansion. The US built 10 BBs. No other nation built that many. The US also built over 100 aircraft carriers, more than all of the other nations combined. By 1945 the USN and RN had naval supremacy virtually everywhere on the planet.
And really, the way they bombarded was flawed, anyway. They fired in close, fuzed for impact detonations. The rounds should've been lobbed in from high angles delay-fuzed to penetrate more deeply, because the bursts on the surface had very little effect on the Japanese fortifications, all told.
I've always thought the battleship had become somewhat obsolete by 1945, and instead of the once-anticipated battleship v. battleship duels, they were relegated to escorting the fast carrier groups. This role was performed admirably, as well as shore bombardment of Japan, and later 'Nam. They are magnificent machines of great beauty, speed, grace, and power. I'm glad that a number of them are preserved today for us to admire. I do wish, though, that at least one Montana class had been built.
Depends on what is meant by "obsolete." The ones in service were still useful enough to continue to maintain and upgrade them, but the cost of building more new hulls was no longer the best way to use manpower and material that could be spent on carriers.
Thank you, Ryan, for a great summary on the long-delayed MONTANAs. Heinrich's book on Warship Building is a must read for every student of warship design, building and gaming. I think their final cancellation in July, 1943 is intriguing because of the timing. The U.S. had not yet taken a Japanese held island (Tarawa was four months in the future), North Africa had just been secured, the next carrier battle would not be for another year, the Battle of the Atlantic was still raging, and the invasion of Europe was postponed until 1944 due to a lack of landing craft. Could anyone in the Navy convince the air-minded president that larger battleships should be built when destroyers, aircraft carriers and landing craft are needed for the planned assaults in 1943 and 1944?
Currently playing the New Orleans and the Helena, American cruisers. Both are super fun boats. The Helena is more of a sneaky, set 'em on fire from cover type and the New Orleans is a beast mode type cruiser that can pick on battleships if it wants to. The Helena has 152mm main guns, while the New Orleans has 203mm. Helena is lightly armored but has an interesting turret setup with three of them out front. Good for poking a nose out and hitting other ships that have only two guns they can fire back. The New Orleans has bigger guns and better armor. It's not a BB, but it can take one on the chin and not go down
Aircraft carriers had superseded battle ships as well as far as Navy doctrine goes. They were deemed unnecessary, and resources were stressed.
Hi Ryan, I drove up 2 summers ago to donate a large model of the battleship U.S.S. California BB-44 that I had built in the early 2000's. Including the plexiglass cover over the model. Were you ever able to use it in any exhibit? Our city Jacksonville, FL just got the USS Orleck a few months ago & they will be having their grand opening I believe on Memorial Day weekend. I have driven past where she had been anchored & I am looking forward to visiting the Orleck when she opens. Hopefully you can visit our memorial ship like you have done so for so many other memorial ships. PJ
I am playing the North Carolina at the moment. Naval doctrine changed that is why we did not build more battleships. That said I think they are still very important for shore bombardment. We have not had to invade a country yet, from the sea, with out battleships providing shore bombardment.
I tend to agree. There is STILL a need for shore bombardment as well as acting as both an anti-air platform as well as fleet coordination, particularly with regards to airspace. Let the carriers focus on the immediate airspace like airports do and once the planes have taken off, hand them over to Air Traffic Control on the Battleship.
Also force projection. Aircraft Carriers are great. I'm an old carrier sailor. But nothing says power like parking 9 16 in guns off the coast. We gave up on them too soon.
I think that if the US Navy had not of wasted the time, effort, material, and money on the ALASKA class battlecruisers they could have completed at least the MONTANA and MAINE. The steel the Navy wasted on those four, useless battlecruisers, which were built in response to the SCHARNHORST class (both gone by 1943) was more than enough for two MONTANAS.
Very interested in knowing about the authorized two battleships a year.
The engines for the BB-66 USS Kentucky ended up on my ship the USS Sacramento AOE-1.
Fyi the last two Iowa class battleship hulls ended up being built as u.s.s Sacramento AOE - 1 and u.s.s. Camden AOE -2 that's why they have all of the machinery from the Iowa class battleship still in them👌
I see to recall hearing that the most restrictive bottleneck in (fast) large ship construction was the reduction gear. Much of the authorization was in the two Navy acts of 1940, not to be confused with the purpose being to have sufficient ships to operate two navies. 3 Essex's were order in Jul 40, and eight more in Sep of 40. Large ships are normally 3 years from keel lay (which is several months after order) to commission. Compressing this to 19 months was incredible. Even then, several more months are necessary for shake down and training before combat operations. So, it's really two years plus a few months for keel to combat. Furthermore, the initial combat ops were raids. Really offensive operations do not commence until several carriers are trained up (including the 9 Independence's)
After Pearl Harbor, we are at Jan 42. The US has 2 Lexington, 3 Yorktown (Hornet just getting ready) and Wasp (really a light carrier). At this point the thinking is defense, including counter-attacks (but not counter offensive) due to great Japanese carrier + battleship force. After Midway a limited offensive was possible, but with the loss of 2 more carriers in Guadalcanal and Saratoga a torpedo magnet, offensive was only possible up the Solomons making use of land bases. So, the thinking in Jan 43 was the main offensive would not begin until late 43.
Given the probably 3-year gap between prioritization of ship build to actual combat use, the actual situation changes considerably.
It's not until the Marianas campaign that just as US Navy airpower is cresting, an assessment can be made that Japanese airpower is in decline, not from number of aircraft, but rather loss of skilled aviators, and ability to match US planes with 2000 hp engines.
Even so, the thinking in mid-44 must be that the invasion of Japan would not start until late 45, and early 46. So, ships started in late 43, even early 44 could see action,
Another factor is that ship building needs to accommodate both sufficient striking force plus losses. Four carrier were lost in 42, but no big carriers were lost after that, (1 or 2 heavily damaged, + 1 independence?)
What about the 16" turret construction requirements for the Montana Class would that have impacted construction timelines.
I worked at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PNSY) as a Lt. (j.g.) "Ship Superintendent" in 1974 and had oversight responsibility for the completion of the modernization of USS Macdonough (DLG-8) for the last two months before she was re-commissioned. If you want to learn more about the day-to-day operations of the Yard and how the work got done, I'd be happy the chat with you. I also have a good reference book on the Yard's history.
I have long thought that the reason for these decisions, related to the reason Ryan listed, is that the type of warfare that was being seen on the oceans around the world did not call for battleships if they came at the expense of the various other ships like carriers and cruisers, let alone the LST variants that had to be built somewhere. It comes down to making hard choices.
In addition to the ten new builds....many of the standard class battleships were repaired and upgraded at the same time also tying up drydocks and resources
Yes the navy finished the war with 23 operational BBs At that point a couple of more would not make the slightest difference to the war effort.
just a little correction. Italy completed 5 BBs before the was, not 3. You forgot Doria and Duilio, which were almost completely reconstructed fron scratch. They were smaller than littorio and roma class, but had sistema pugliese and 10 320 guns. they were probably better, for example of scharnhost.
They did not had the possibility to shine, of course, not even like cesare and cavour (old renoved BBs) in 1940 a capo teulada, but they not only survived the war and served in italian navy long years after that.
They were built, but place in a secret reserve fleet, like in Star Wars 'The Rise of Skywalker' 😂
Bottom line, there were only a limited number of graving docks large enough to build Ticonderoga, Iowas and Midways. It would have taken many months and much manpower to build even more 1200' long graving docks during a shooting war. You could build 2 or 3 Atlanta AA cursors in space for one Montana, and the Navy needed more AA resources.
Skilled labor/shipwrights it takes a lot of man power to build those ships
Just a clarification, you currently can't play Essex-class carriers in WOWS... yet. They were removed during carrier rebalance and are planned to reappear, but gameplay concept of those ships is being adjusted...
There's a simple answer. They were no longer needed. The world moved on, and that's not a bad thing. I mean it would be awesome to see the full potential of a US Battleship with no treaty restrictions or Panama Canal restrictions, and maybe if the war dragged on into 1946, 1947, and we started seeing losses, maybe they would be needed. Of course we lost more carriers than Battleships and never actually lost a Battleship in war. Course we face a similar problem now in that we only have 1 drydock that can build a nuclear carrier. Technical 2 but 1 will be used to refuel
If I remember right wasn't the Panama Canal a concern? The Iowas barely fit in the Canal with not even a foot of space on each side and the Montanas were supposed to have a much wider beam. The Canal has since been widened and that wouldn't be an issue anymore but not being able to use it would be a massive liability. Either the Montanas only operate on the side of the country they were built or they'd have to navigate the Northwest Passage or the Drake Passage. Being so expensive I doubt they'd make those voyages alone so there's also escort vessels wasting time on a longer trip just because 1 ship in the task force can't traverse the Panama Canal. That's supplies and time that the Navy probably couldn't afford to waste.
Ive been playing WOWS since 2015, and ill say that my favorite line is the IJN BB and currently the best line that fit the meta especially with the super Yamato ship Satsuma with 8×510mm guns.
Weren't needed because the acft carrier was more viable at the time. W of W I play the Terpitz and Alaska primarily
..The Word "Astonishing" Is a Neat-O Word! Thank-You!..
So we have a World of Warships advertisement disguised as a military documentary.
The Aircraft carrier became the dominant naval vessel of WW2 and is still to this day. The Battleships are long retired.
Bethlehem, Carnegie-Illinois, and Midvale made some 21" Class "A" barbette test plates for the MONTANAs, each one having the same 55% face thickness as the thinner plates made for all of the other new WWII battleships ("Thick Chill"), but the hardness pattern of the face layer was very different for each plate. Interestingly, Midvale's plate had a fixed maximum hardness for the entire 55% depth. This hardness was also the maximum for earlier, thinner plates, but for them it was that hard only near the surface, being about 550 Brinell Hardness Number -- we are ignoring the thin 1-1.5" surface ~650 BHN "Cemented" or "Harveyized" (carburized) layer. Then the Midvale plate hardness dropped suddenly to the constant backing layer hardness (below ~250 Brinell Hardness Number). The other companies' plates had a more normal slow dropping of the face hardness from the 550 BHN near the surface to the ~250 BHN backing layer. All plates passed the spec ballistic tests, though.
If I recall correctly, the Montana Class was designed to be more of a return to the "standard type" battleship in terms of speed. This would have made it considerably slower when compared to the previous three classes of fast battleships. Even if completed, the Montanas wouldn't have been able to escort the carriers and couldn't keep up with the speed the Navy liked about the Iowas. If completed, they probably would have had a service life similar to the Alaska Class, while the Navy would have still retained the and used the Iowas just as it did, simply because it was easier to rapidly deploy the Iowas.
By 1944 it was pretty obvious that battleships were obsolete as a weapon system. It was so obvious to the Japanese that they transformed a half built Yamato into an aircraft carrier.
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned speed. Not speed of construction but ship performance. By 1944 it was becoming obvious that a slow battleship didn't have much utility. To keep station on aircraft carriers or perform routine tactical operations, a battleship needed 30-knot speed and the Montana's didn't have that.
The World of Warships read was pretty entertaining : "if you're a *traitor* to battleships.." ha!
I would add that, by this point, it had been shown that the BS was no long queen of the seas as aircraft carriers had more or less made them obsolete for their original role.
A lot of very valid comments here. To me, the primary reason for not building the Montanas was the cost to crew them. The aircraft carrier became the dominant warship due, in no small part, to its ability to attack with force from a distance. Battleships became too labor intensive for their limited scope of operation. The same number of crew aboard an aircraft carrier is much more cost effective.
I’m sure the Navy was thinking about rudimentary over the horizon guided missiles controlled by aircraft far out ranging battleships.
Hey Ryan, remember the joke that was Kearsarge? Well Wargaming just made a semi line of them.
In world of warships I use mostly Montana, Iowa,(All US Hybrid Battleships) Yamato, Musashi, kawachi, Ishizuchi, ISE, Atlantico, Rio De Janeiro, Agincourt, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Konig, Derflinger, Moltke, Von Der Tann, Viribus Unitas, and Sun Yat Sen
Tactically, they (MONTANA’s in particular and BB’s in general) we’re not nearly as important in 1945 as they had been in 1940. The shift to carrier air power was that swift.
Its actually quite simple. Aircraft could take out a ship or disable. The battle of Midway showed this. The US did not use a single battle ship because they were still in repair after thr bombing of pearl harbor. The Japanese new the effectiveness of aircraft carriers especially before 1941. Britian sent a battle group to defend territory. A heavy crusier, battleship and aircraft carrier. The carrier was behind and the battle group was sent without air support. All ships were disabled or sunk i.e. the heavy crusier and battleship. It wasnt because of armor surplus or dock space. It was the navy looked and saw more use of aircraft carriers vs battleships, as the battle of miday was the first battle where both fleets never saw each other and and was fought exclusively by aircraft.
Short answer to this question: Essex and Midway class aircraft carriers.
So was the steel for tanks manufactured differently ? Or different steel allocations for them and manufacturing methods, or different type of steel all together
When the dust from Battle of Midway settled, it was clear, the age of the battleship was over. A Montana in WW2 or after would simply be a huge target that would be expensive to operate and of limited value. Everything important that a Montana could do in the future, could be done effectively by an Iowo-class.
In World of Warships, I'm in the process of earning the XP to graduate to the Iowa class. I wish there were a New Jersey in the game but there isn't.
Battleships were on the way out. One reason the U.S.S Illinois was never completed and the idea scrapped. She would have been the Iowa class BB 65.
I would think that after Coral Sea and Midway the role of battleships changed in Navy doctrine. Naval battles were conducted by combatants out of sight at one another. Battleships became more important prior to landing troops in the Pacific theater than in possible surface engagements.
So Wise , Thank You .
Also, even by the 1930's an aircraft carrier could do everything the Battleship could do, but the aircraft carrier does it better and the aircraft carrier can do much more than the battleship can do.
The point of any warship is to put ordinance on target.
The battleship does this with guns which have a limited range. The aircraft carrier does it with airplanes that have a range of hundreds and hundreds of miles. Plus the airplanes have much greater accuracy.
The US built 10 new battleships, plus the Pearl Harbor salvages / rebuilds / refits.
The short answer is the Montanas were not built because the start of construction was delayed.
The long answer is construction of the Montanas were delayed for many reasons, until they were seen as not part of the Naval doctrine at the time. The decision to incrementally improve US battleship design delayed larger more radical designs. The Montanas were delayed and barred under the Second London Naval Treaty. When the admiralty considered what was needed to counter the Kongō class batttlecruisers and Yamato class battleships as understood, they prioritized the Iowas. When the time construction of the Iowas began, the Montanas were doomed to never be built. If the admirals wanted more battleships for an extended 1946 war, they would of focused on completing the Iowas under construction and might not of commissioned another in favor of aircraft carriers and large cruisers.
I've got a Montana class boat on world of warships legends it's a beast of a ship
How big/what a differences in shapes of the armor plating parts, so they can steal it between ships? Is it unified shapes? Or did it ship as rectangular pieces and finally shaped in the shipyard?
I am a sneaky destroyer player,
Funjin
Kamikaze
Kamikaze R
Are my long time favorites from the early days of the game, not so viable anymore
Norman Friedman argued the Iowas were not good bargains compared to the South Dakota’s; 10,000 tones, 200 feet and double the shp for 5 knots more speed were not worth it even if the South Dakota’s were cramp. The Montanas adding 3 more 16” guns and reverting to the South Dakota speed were also not good exchange.
There was a change in thinking , Carriers are the new capital ships.
Battleships were already seen as semi obsolete so it makes sense.
haha he says the name of the "certain" game he has danced around for so long. Was wondering how long it would take.
What were the dimensions of the armour that steel yards shipped to builders?
How much of the armor plate production from Lukens Steel in Coatesville, PA find it way to the New Jersey, if any?
Evolving tactics made the battleships somewhat obsolete post-war. Rockets have a longer range and can carry more explosives than a 16" shell. Etc
Hello, aircraft carrier ?
This is battleship...
You win.
How much armour steel plates were allocated to the Alaska Class CB (Battlecruisers) during their tenure run on the slipways... Since two were completed... was a third CB even had steel available to laid down her keel??
The simple reason that they were never built, airplanes could destroy and sink battleships, the attack on Pearl damaged every battle ship and heavy cruisers sinking several or cap sizing several, only the Arizona was completely destroyed, killing everyone below deck. Because of that day, the Navy saw the superiority of aircraft carriers and halted the Iowas at four, though there was one hull that was about 40 percent completed, and the keel for another already built. The partial hull was completed but the ships top was changed to an aircraft carrier which was christened the USS Midway. It entered service just after the war ended in 1946. It was the longest serving aircraft carrier because it was unique, it is the only carrier with an Iowa class armored hull. The keel that was laid also became a carrier and was the second of the Midway class carriers but it did not have the armored hull. Two more were built but only the Midway was kept in service long after her sister carriers were decommissioned. The Midway survived as the navy was building and fielding the Nimitz class nuclear supercarriers. She was known for being wobbly because of her narrow battleship hull as were her sister ships but was kept in service until the late 90’s because she alone could survive torpedo or other attacks upon the hull.
since you have covered how you think how the us navy would upgrade the iowa-class for today with modern standards, could you do the same thing with the montana-class or even other battleships like bismarck, yamato or better jean bart and vanguard?
They were obsolete when it was realized that aircraft with bombs and torpedoes ruled the seas. So Carriers were the new big stick on the water with their aircraft. The reach of the carrier was far greater with its planes then a battleship could fire it's shells with its guns... battleships were done with the invention of a bomb carrying airplane. The top brass knew this early on.
WW2 demonstrated clearly that Air Power was the deciding factor of any Naval Engagement.
the early war loss of Repulse and King George V Battleships to Aircraft alone, at Sea under Battle Readiness Zed. underscored just how deadly planes really were. only reinforced when Yamato was sunk also by Air power alone in 45.
BB Guns had a finite effective Range for their big guns around 24 miles with Radar Fire Direction.
a Plane armed with 500lb AP Bombs can fly more than 500 miles round trip and deal more damage per ton of delivery system than any BB could dream.
the Carrier was the defacto King of the Seas as WW2 kicked off and the USA had to play Catch up to Japan's large and effective Carrier force.
technically, Kentucky could have been converted into a Carrier since she had already been completed to launching to clear the slipway. Illinois was barely started and simply broken up in situ.
material resource limitations aside, Manpower and funding to operate a Battleship throughout it's lifetime adds up.
by the time the Montana's were considered, it was well known that the War was won. with 10 BB's in operation or soon to be. there was just no justifiable reason to add 5 more slower ships to the fleet that could not rapidly relocate in time of need as the Montana's were too big to fit through the Panama Canal and had to take the long route to switch Oceans if it was deemed necessary.
Essex, Midway's and the Iowa's were made to fit through the Canal Locks so they could rapidly reposition as needed.
Question: are the new hybrid battleships in world of warships realistic?
The tier X version has 10 16inch guns and an armored flightdeck on a montana class hull this seems to my like it would be very overweight.
How about Montana vs Yamato video?
As impressive as they were, the Montanas would have just been extremely expensive burdens. They could not go through the Panama Canal and were too slow to keep up with the carrier groups. Two SDs or NCs could easily do the same job as one Montana.
Best channel on TH-cam!
Frankly I have said this before but no one is clearly listening
The Americans should frankly consider themselves lucky to know what they had planned next whereas France and the British Empire we have no idea of what they would have done heck we have no idea what Alsace was actually going to be
When it comes to the British Empire, we have only what they considered and we frankly no idea what the Lion Class successor was going to be
I am sorry for going off in the comments
General BillyMitchel proved that battleships were outdated vessels and that the future was in Aircraft Carriers.
They also werent built because there just wasn't a need after the war with noone left to compete with the Iowas. Also, the navy had it's budget cut significantly.
Good information on the evolution from Battleships to other warships. Were there any plans to increase the main gun battery caliber from 16" 50 cal? Or was that going to be the stopping point in that particular arms race. (Yes, I know there's an example of a Yamato class battleship armor, but that was under ideal conditions and near point blank range.)
My understanding is that the 16 inch was the sweet spot with main guns. The 18 inch while a larger shell, didn't get the muzzle velocity the 16-inch achieved. And that is a significant factor.
Paradigm shift. Aircraft carriers had more roles that they could fill compared to a battleship. Plain and simple.
Five Montana class BB -- Ordered May 1942, suspended June 1942, canceled July 1943
Montana BB-67
Ohio BB-68
Maine BB-69
New Hampshire BB-70
Louisiana BB-71
So the decision to cancel came right after the Battle of Midway.
Also too, the Battle Of Midway proved that battleships were anachronistic; thay carriers were indeed the way of the future.
Just in case people are expecting it Essex class carriers are not available in World of Warships. Essex was removed a few years ago.
They already had 10 battleships and they chose to keep them in service and upgrade them with new technology keeping them in service far longer than expected
At least one of the Montana class should have been built at least one mighty worship
Had the doctrinal shift towards air based attack not taken place by the time of the Montanas? Orthodox history has the shift away from battleships occurring thanks to the rise of air power.
I assume they where expecting the Iowa class to escort carriers while the montana class where for 'hunting' near pier opponents. But what opponents? Bismark was sunk, so was her sister ship.... the yamato was over powered with aircraft as was her sister and shanano met USS archerfish.... with how much more the iowa class proved tbey could do why go bigger?
why did they limit BB slips
It was because the priorities had changed after Pearl Harbor. We needed more aircraft carriers than we did battleships.
I would love to know why only 2 ships were commissioned a year during the beginning of the war.
if iowa's were lost then i suspect they would all have been replaced with montana. however was not needed.
Another reason…the number of sailors needed to staff battleships. I had read that the Alaska Class big cruisers required almost as many sailors as a battleship. This was among the several reasons why the 2 barely used Alaska class ships were placed in reserve so quickly after the War ended. Montana class BB would have required huge crews.
Especially given that by 1944-45 the US Army was pretty hungry for manpower. It makes a lot of sense to not spend manpower crewing a battleship you don't really need to begin with.
Additionally, they used almost as much fuel, and you could get 2½ broadsides from an Iowa for less than a single broadside from an Alaska. Maybe even 3. Additionally, the Alaskas, with 4 screws and a single rudder handled like pigs. The Iowas and Midway-class carriers could out-turn them.
You are entirely right about both the Alaska crew size and the Montana class crew size.
Surpringly, only about a hundred more crew, in Flagship configuration, as planned. Remember, the 4th gun itself only required 80 men, the WWII complement for an Iowa was 2,700 men. The Montana was planned to have half the 40mm guns of an Iowa.
The Alaska was basically a pocket battleship/battle cruiser
Something else that has to be considered is the manpower drawdown that begins to loom as the outcome of the war becomes apparent. The Navy begins to rapidly decommission the battleship fleet right after the war's end. As Japan entered the final stages of the war, with her navy all-but-eliminated and airpower dissipated, even the oldest battleships like Arkansas and New York get shifted over the Pacific. The Navy just doesn't NEED that many battleships...especially new ones. After "Operation Magic Carpet" gets finished, all the old battleships start getting disposed of (Arkansas, Nevada, New York to Operation Crossroads), the others get sent to either the scrapper or mothballs...even the "new" ones like the 2 North Carolinas and the 4 South Dakotas get taken out of service due to manpower shortages. So, in addition to the material shortages and the slipway shortages, the Navy knew that the manpower was going to be limited and the BB's were too manpower intensive to keep going. (Even the carriers got hit with this, many being taken out of service at war's end as well...)
The US had built ten fast battleships by the end of the war, the British five (six if you include HMS Vanguard completed in 1946), add the Richelieu and the Allies had a vast overmatch of modern battleships over the Axis. No need for Montanas, Lions or Alsaces.
I think something that's also overlooked is the labor and skill of the Craftsman involved there just weren't as many qualified workers either to build such an extensive dedication of resources at that point in time at least battleships required greater degrees of engineering and tooling than an aircraft carrier by comparison and it just didn't work out in how many hands they had to hold the Hammers
The amount of war precious metals needed for ships, copper, brass, and aluminum that were used elsewhere for the war effort.
Not to mention that aircraft carriers were now the kings of the oceans.
Two more Iowa class BB would have been completed in 1946 if the war lasted.
@@alanstevens1296 oh without a doubt had the United States rolled around into 1946 with everything else staying the same no atomic bombs for would have going on for at least one more year Illinois and Kentucky would have been completed and I still believe the Montana's demise was assured after the Battle of Midway
Profoundly really the only way The Montanas get built if the war doesn't break out for the United States initially and the Battle of Midway does not occur in some timeline continuity if possible but really for them to have seen any service whatsoever Ryan has said this multiple times on his channel they would have had to have their kills lady immediately after Pearl Harbor and Terriers we nowhere More instrumental and I can only imagine if we had actually constructed them and I would have liked to have seen them constructed that would have been fewer aircraft carriers by as much as maybe 10 or 12
I think modern historians sometimes underestimate the effect of seeing Musashi and Yamato sunk by aircraft with relative ease. The Navy's Big Gun Mafia was ebbing in popularity and prestige, while the Brown Shoes waxed in influence. There is a good chance any Montana's that had been started on the ways in late 1943 or '44 would have been scrapped before completion anyway, even if the armor plates had been available earlier. The concept of the super battleship having been discredited by the proofs of their vulnerability.
Yup. After the British lost the Prince of Wales and Repulse early on in the war, and then the US taking out the two Jappinise BB's we saw the carriers where the wave of the future.
100% agree.
Even if you allow a wide interpretation of "relative ease", sending 70k tons of anything to the bottom (twice!) is an undisputable success.
Agreed. Sometimes it's hard to understand motivation because we have the whole picture.
any Montanas
The Battleship in WW2, by the end, was not a ship killing weapon so much. They can deliver more ordinance than 20 squadrons of aircraft in the first hour of an assault. Its naval artillery. Given that 80% of the worlds population lives with in 100 miles from the coast having a mobile artillery piece that can sit off shore and pummel your port is still a valuable weapon. We have nothing that can compare today. Shells are cheap by comparison to smart weapons. With radar and lidar acquisition you could build a ballistic weapon that is just as accurate as a smart bomb but it could deliver continuous bombardment, for days, to a region for a half the price. Every smart missile costs us 10's of millions of dollars. Even manned to 2500 people a battleship would just cost us about $400,000 a day. If we really get into it with a force like China or Russia we will be looking at putting a battleship-ish type warship in the theater just to save money on missiles.
If Halsey left TF 34 to guard the San Bernadino Strait we would have at least finished Illinois and Kentucky because the largest naval battle in history would have been primarily a surface engagement and we would looked at battleships differently then we do now.
The possible battle of San Bernardino strait would have matched the battleship numbers of Sarigao strait (8 battleships total) but the numbers would have been more even (6 US and to Jap in Sarigao, 4 ea at San Bernardino). Assuming a lot of "ifs": What would have really been impressive, and would match your point at looking at battleships differently, is if Halsey had taken the bait and headed north, left TF 34 behind, and the Japanese center force was undetected until spotted by TF 34. If adm Lee decided to seek support with the 7th fleet, and if the Japanese center and southern forces had merged prior to a huge surface fleet fight there would have been 7 Japanese and 10 US battleships engaged with each other. It would have been the biggest BB duel since Jutland, although not anywhere close to the numbers of Jutland, and would have fulfilled the wet dreams of all the Admirals involved in all four fleets. After the war the survivors - Lee, Obendorf, Kurita, and the Jap dude who ran the southern force, would all be sitting in a bar reliving the glory days of the last major battleship duel in history while Halsey would be siting in the corner eating his heart out.
@@richardthomas5362 Drachinifel did a what if, but I think he it left as Lee v Kurita for balance. If it really happened Lee would have coordinated with the Senior Sprague and would have hit Kurita with an anti shipping strike from the three TAFFYs before the surface engagement.
than we do
@@johnshepherd9676 I saw Drach's video on that, but I am not sure the TAFFY air strikes would do much good. They were armed with ground support weapons rather than anti-ship weapons, so, other than confusion and making life hell for anyone on deck on the cruisers and battleships, the only ships which could have been threatened would be the destroyers.
@@richardthomas5362 The air groups had a limited supply of anti-shipping weapons. The historical action off Samar was a haphazard affair and the aircraft flew with what they had available in the hanger. They still launched several torpedo attacks. Aircraft would have been set up with whatever anti-ship weapons were available if given a mission. By Lee
My recollection of history indicates that there was a view the US was winning the war in 1944-45 and there was a realization that the BB was no longer 'Queen of the Seas'. Also, BBs were expensive to build but somewhat dependent on the sale of war bonds. With the end of the war, most warships that were started were canceled outright, including KENTUCKY and ILLINOIS. As you mentioned, in 1945 only about 7,000 tons of armor were designated for BB construction, the same as pre-war. I imagine most of this armor plate went to KENTUCKY as not much had been done on the ILLINOIS. The USN budget after September 2 was seriously reduced to the point it was hard to properly maintain the 'mothball fleet' due to paucity of funding.
Kentucky wasn't cancelled when the war ended. Work continued on her until 1950, and she was nearly 75% complete when they halted construction.
Lol that was known in 1941
@@HoldenOversoul The hull for the New Jersey was laid down in 1940 and was launched in 1942. The hull for the Kentucky was laid down in 1942 and was not launched (uncompleted) until 1950. It is obvious that the construction of the Kentucky was a very low priority.
@@chac65 Ok, what's your point? The post I was replying to stated that Illinois and Kentucky were cancelled outright. All in caps, ILLINOIS and KENTUCKY cancelled outright. Cancelled outright and low priority are the same thing?
@@HoldenOversoul My overall point is that the USA and the rest of the world stopped building battleships (the Montana, etc.) because the raid on Taranto, Pearl Harbour, the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales, and early naval battles between the US and Japan demonstrated their obsolescence.
I would be interested in seeing a video on how armor plate was installed during construction of a battleship like New Jersey.
You see similar issues with German tank production resulted in over hardened (brittle) steel going on the front and mild steel being used on the rear because that is what they had. Can you imagine haw many tanks could have been produced with the steel used on Bismarck and Tirpitz at 55,000 tones each?
The tank factories were already running at full capacity.
Bismark and Tirpitz had already been completely years before the German tank industry started making "real" tanks. When Tirpitz was launched a Pz.Fpfw. II was state of the art and the PzKfw III was just getting approval for production.