Montana Class BB

Yeah, the USN didn't seem to care for the 18" gun. They felt that the penalties of mounting it didn't outweigh its advantages. Especially in a treaty constrained design. IIRC, it had been considered for the Montana, but was ruled out on the grounds that 12x16" guns would outperform 9x18" guns for the roughly the same weight. (Going off memory because I'm at work, so that last part may not be 100% accurate)
 
Some designers or admirals suggested but no actual design proposed in the Montana development process
 
Last edited:
SSgtC said:
Yeah, the USN didn't seem to care for the 18" gun. They felt that the penalties of mounting it didn't outweigh its advantages. Especially in a treaty constrained design. IIRC, it had been considered for the Montana, but was ruled out on the grounds that 12x16" guns would outperform 9x18" guns for the roughly the same weight. (Going off memory because I'm at work, so that last part may not be 100% accurate)
Click to expand...
Early 18" shells were only 2900lbs, so the 16" 2700lb superheavy shells were better. Higher rate of fire and equal or better penetration.

The 18" superheavy shells (3850lbs!) are a different story. I guess the real question would have been how quickly the guns could be reloaded, 16"/50s were doing right about 2 rounds per minute (30 second reload) so the 18" guns needed to be pretty close to that to be ready to fire when the previous shells landed and corrections could be made. The Time of Flight chart from NavWeaps says that at any range longer than 20kyds, the guns would be ready to fire before the previous shots landed. The 18" guns prototype was roughly 1-1.5 rounds per minute (40-60 second reload), and assuming a similar time of flight to the 16" guns (18" superheavy was very close to the same velocity as the 16" superheavy, 2400fps or so) that pushed the "waiting for shells to land" range out to 25-35kyards. Max range for either was about 43kyds.
 
3800 pounds would have been a true Big Stick for diplomacy. Now give it a rocket booster and PAVEWAY for aircraft to designate targets at 100 miles away. Very expensive but able to pump out tremendous damage over a single ten minute interval.
 
Dilandu said:
PAVEWAY kit would not survive acceleration from gun launch.
Click to expand...

PAVEWAY was once used as a general term for a lot of different guided munitions, including a laser-guided 8-inch naval gun shell.

Edit: applying the same tech to something as heavy as an 18-inch shell seems a bit harder. The square-cube law is definitely not in your favor here -- bigger/heavier/faster shells will require disproportionately large control mechanisms.
 
Last edited:
MadRat said:
3800 pounds would have been a true Big Stick for diplomacy. Now give it a rocket booster and PAVEWAY for aircraft to designate targets at 100 miles away. Very expensive but able to pump out tremendous damage over a single ten minute interval.
Click to expand...
Imagine what Gerald Bull could do with a 3850 Ibs shell... he already had orbital plans out of 2700 Ibs...
 
TomS said:
Edit: applying the same tech to something as heavy as an 18-inch shell seems a bit harder. The square-cube law is definitely not in your favor here -- bigger/heavier/faster shells will require disproportionately large control mechanisms.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the control surfaces would be enormous. In fact, I suspect that maybe it would be more practical to use some kind of control engines on the 18-inch shell (like small solid-fuel ramjets, integrated into the base - advanced form of base bleeding).
 
TomS said:
PAVEWAY was once used as a general term for a lot of different guided munitions, including a laser-guided 8-inch naval gun shell.

Edit: applying the same tech to something as heavy as an 18-inch shell seems a bit harder. The square-cube law is definitely not in your favor here -- bigger/heavier/faster shells will require disproportionately large control mechanisms.
Click to expand...
Dilandu said:
Agreed, the control surfaces would be enormous. In fact, I suspect that maybe it would be more practical to use some kind of control engines on the 18-inch shell (like small solid-fuel ramjets, integrated into the base - advanced form of base bleeding).
Click to expand...

Not really, shells are notorious for be being aerodynamically picky.

Once you start moving that fast you dont need much airfoil to move it around. And you often dont need to divert much to get it close enough to hit.

As is you be able to easily fit basically a foot long fin thats over 6 inches thick into the shell. Or use a Foot wide by 3 long grid fin that fold up along the nose.

Either be more then enough to make the shell turn to the guidance systems tune.

That just taking the AP shell and replacing the hollow nose windscreen with a guidence kit.

A proper clean slate one?

Well be much lighter at around 2900 pounds since it be an HE or HEAT shell due to those being better at support*. Along with being able to have all the gear properly integrated with with it. Which would allow you to have basically a 16 inch long fin pop out like the 5 inch ones the Excalibur use.

*AP shells, like the 3850, are extremely specialized for their job of penerations, making them shit at most other jobs. Unless they were wanting to murder DEEP bunkers or other Battleships the USN used HE shells tge most. Also AP shells ate gunbores like a 5 year old eats sweets due to the higher pressures often involved shotting them.
 
You probably would have settled for weights more in line with a HE load. As was stated earlier, AP shells tore up barrels.
 
The only practical way to get 18" guns on the Montana design would be to replace the 4 triple 16" turrets with twin 18" ones... triple 18" turrets would require a too large diameter turret (and more powerful/bulkier machinery etc to turn them), which would mean an even broader beam, with the resulting reduction in speed.

Thus, an 18" Montana would almost certainly have 8 - 18" (4 x 2) guns.
 
Montana had a pretty broad beam already, you'd have to rearrange the internal layout for sure but I think you could accommodate 3 triple 18"/48 caliber turrets within those dimensions.

It probably depends on how much redesign the USN would want to do which would depend on other factors like when there would be the space available in the shipyards to start construction.

I think the three shipyards which would be building the Montanas could only fit one at a time each so if the first three 16" gunned members of the class were being built as planned that leaves quite a bit of time before work could start on the remaining two or some 18" gunned variation of the class.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Montana had a pretty broad beam already, you'd have to rearrange the internal layout for sure but I think you could accommodate 3 triple 18"/48 caliber turrets within those dimensions.

It probably depends on how much redesign the USN would want to do which would depend on other factors like when there would be the space available in the shipyards to start construction.

I think the three shipyards which would be building the Montanas could only fit one at a time each so if the first three 16" gunned members of the class were being built as planned that leaves quite a bit of time before work could start on the remaining two or some 18" gunned variation of the class.
Click to expand...
That depends on the option... the Colorado (Maryland, West Virginia, I've seen all 3 as the "class name") class 8 - 16" 4x2 battleships were simply a replacement of the Tennessee class' triple 14" turrets with twin 16" ones... in a barbette 6" smaller in inside diameter, something that would be easy to adjust just before installing the loading equipment and turret mechanisms.
 
BlackBat242 said:
That depends on the option... the Colorado (Maryland, West Virginia, I've seen all 3 as the "class name") class 8 - 16" 4x2 battleships were simply a replacement of the Tennessee class' triple 14" turrets with twin 16" ones... in a barbette 6" smaller in inside diameter, something that would be easy to adjust just before installing the loading equipment and turret mechanisms.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing 3" thicker barbette armor?
 
Tzoli said:
The shipbucket drawings does not fully gives back the true look of the BB67-4 Montana:
www.deviantart.com

Montana class Battleship Final Design by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com www.deviantart.com

ddt7c8x-f30a95da-e190-4807-ad01-29449d92ebc6.png
Click to expand...

No disrespect but the bridge arrangement is not correct. The Montanas reverted to the separate pilot house/ACT arrangement; very similar to the North Carolina class (from the contract plans.) The integrated ACT pilot house was generally disliked by the USN but forced by the necessity of treaty compliance. The Montanas had no such restrictions, hence the reversion to the separate arrangement.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The only practical way to get 18" guns on the Montana design would be to replace the 4 triple 16" turrets with twin 18" ones... triple 18" turrets would require a too large diameter turret (and more powerful/bulkier machinery etc to turn them), which would mean an even broader beam, with the resulting reduction in speed.

Thus, an 18" Montana would almost certainly have 8 - 18" (4 x 2) guns.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with your overall idea, but for slightly different reasons. Going with four 18" twin turrets would not require a major redesign of everything else. Going with three triples would. Such a major redesign would not be impossible, but it would be a significant effort.

The barbette diameter for the 18" triple would have been 41 feet (internal), which could probably be managed on a 121" beam hull,
but once again, some redesign would be required. The barbette diameter for the 18" twin was very slightly smaller than for the 16"/50 Mk 7 triple, so it would be pretty easy to make the changes.

Navweaps.com was good enough to provide us a 1938 drawing of an 18" twin turret. http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php

The weight is about right to replace the 16"/L50 Mk 7 turret from an Iowa-class. That said, the Mk 7 triple from a Montana would have been heavier because of the extra armor, and we don't really know exactly how much heavier.

Usual disclaimer: To the best of my knowledge, the 18" gun was never formally considered for the Montana class.
 
BDF said:
No disrespect but the bridge arrangement is not correct. The Montanas reverted to the separate pilot house/ACT arrangement; very similar to the North Carolina class (from the contract plans.) The integrated ACT pilot house was generally disliked by the USN but forced by the necessity of treaty compliance. The Montanas had no such restrictions, hence the reversion to the separate arrangement.
Click to expand...
The person who gave me advices is an expert in the USN especially the Iowa and Montana classes so I draw it according to him. I will have to check the sketch I've used as a basis though.

Note: most Montana related material got destroyed in tge 1970' when reorganizations were made regarding the papers of old designs and someone thought thesd were not necessary to exist anymore...
 
Tzoli said:
The person who gave me advices is an expert in the USN especially the Iowa and Montana classes so I draw it according to him. I will have to check the sketch I've used as a basis though.

Note: most Montana related material got destroyed in tge 1970' when reorganizations were made regarding the papers of old designs and someone thought thesd were not necessary to exist anymore...
Click to expand...
Bill Jurens (and Chris Wright) are among the most knowledgeable of the WW2 era USN, especially when it comes to technical history. I've known Bill for over 25 years (he and I coauthored a article in Warship International in 2005) and his personal archive is extensive. He has duplicates of the official Contract Plans so I asked him a few years ago to clarify this very question a for me.

Additionally, you can see the bridge arrangement in the official contract model of the class as seen below:

Montana_Class.png
Interestingly, this model was later painted in post war gull grey and I found images of it online. You can see below a bit better image of the bridge in these images. The pilot house is just below and forward of the forward Mk37 secondary battery director:

Montana.jpg Untitled-6.jpg Untitled-7.jpg Untitled-23_zps4cefdef7.jpg


Of course it is possible that they had made changes or envisioned changes but to my knowledge this is the final "official" design. Given how much the USN did not like the intergrated pilot house and ACT arrangement of the South Dakota and Iowa classes, it would seem to me very odd to revert to that configuration, especially when it is not a "necessary evil." I do commend your artwork as I've seen many of your examples of "what if" designs and you have done some real nice work.
 
The closed bridge as seen on the later Iowas were to be used in the Momtanas is still debatable. Also I've been told that USS Maine would had been equipped as a fleet flagship and thus a 3 level bridge.
As for my drawing I've used John Robert's drawing found in Friedman so it should be accurate except for the light AA which of course could change from artist to artist.
 
BDF said:
Interestingly, this model was later painted in post war gull grey and I found images of it online. You can see below a bit better image of the bridge in these images. The pilot house is just below and forward of the forward Mk37 secondary battery director:
Click to expand...
Interesting that this repainted model retailed the 40 mm quad mounts rather than the 3"/50 dual mounts that would have replaced them. The shape of the 5"/54 turrets also resemble the older 5"/38 Mk 28 mounts rather than the Mk 41 that the Montanas would have gotten.

As a side note, I believe the contractual design of the Iowas also had a gap between the front funnel and the fire control tower that was eventually closed when the ships were built, with the volume used for electronics. I wonder if the same would have happened to the Montanas had they been built.
 
Friedman is a great source for design history, but like any author isn't above mistakes and one must be careful with secondary sources. For instance, what are the sources of his drawings? Friedman himself , while a fantastic author isn't a primary source and like any of us can make mistakes and may have been forced to make interpretations. It is also important to keep in mind that when he (and Dulin and Gartzke) wrote their respective books on American Battleships, there was still restrictions to record access because of classification (these books were researched in the 1970s).

I have also seen many times where information keeps getting passed down from source to source without much check with primary sources. One example is the supposed "misalignment" of the main battery that the Iowa class had until after Leyte Gulf*. I have well over 600 pages of main battery related primary source documents and I was never able to locate any even hint of alignment issue. Further correspondents with those who were part Iowa class gunnery improvement program in the 1980s, where they combed through class gunnery related documents stored at Dalghren, could find no such references either.

My suspicion is that it was a memo or document that referenced issues where the Fast Battleships initially had range table differential modifiers that caused them to overshoot the range tables. It turned out to not be a massive issue as, particularly with radar spotting, the MPI could quickly be adjusted back on to the target.

I can reach out to John to see what he has to say (if he recalls as it's been decades). But I could swear it was AD Baker who was Friedman's illustrator for that book? But I have to say, unless there was some documentation John (or AD Baker) or Friedman have I'd suggest the Contract Plans are probably the most definitive.

*edited to clarify that the supposed alignment issue was a vexing issue until after Leyte Gulf
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Interesting that this repainted model retailed the 40 mm quad mounts rather than the 3"/50 dual mounts that would have replaced them. The shape of the 5"/54 turrets also resemble the older 5"/38 Mk 28 mounts rather than the Mk 41 that the Montanas would have gotten.

As a side note, I believe the contractual design of the Iowas also had a gap between the front funnel and the fire control tower that was eventually closed when the ships were built, with the volume used for electronics. I wonder if the same would have happened to the Montanas had they been built.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to tell because of the low resolution, but the B&W image of the contract model had the current radar and 40mm/20mm AA battery configuration that were fleet standard for most of the war. Just my WAG but I guess that it was simply repainted, possibly to preserve or refurbish, the model as it appears to me that the model was not changed in any of the details.

As far as the secondary gun mounts, I am not sure as I haven't looked at those things in years. It could be that the mount shield was changed as the design progressed in BuOrd and was not known to the model makers or perhaps when they contract plans were finalized. I.e. it is a very minor design change. As I said it has been years and I don't recall personally seeing the Mk 41 mount plans so if anyone has them it would be interesting to see what the gun shields look like.
 
Apparently the drawing in Friedman's book about the Montana was done by a 3rd person: A.L. Raven:
1694271400779.png

And here are the original plans of the 1941 May state of the Montana (Note there was still design work was done in 1942 (primary to the armour scheme) so changes that was made on the Iowas was likely to appear on the Montana as well)
View attachment 1694271482396.jpeg
1694271497437.jpeg
 
Ah yes it was Raven; Baker did the original drawnings for Dulin and Gartzke. Jurens is doing the illustrations and assisting the revisions for the 3rd edition of Allied Battleships and Axis Battleships (D & G). It is unknown if Volume 1 will see a 3rd edition (USN BBs).
 
BlackBat242 said:
That depends on the option... the Colorado (Maryland, West Virginia, I've seen all 3 as the "class name") class 8 - 16" 4x2 battleships were simply a replacement of the Tennessee class' triple 14" turrets with twin 16" ones... in a barbette 6" smaller in inside diameter, something that would be easy to adjust just before installing the loading equipment and turret mechanisms.
Click to expand...
I do know that the Original design for one of the middle Standard Battleship classes, either the New Mexico or Tennessee, was ORIGINALLY slated for twin 16inch turrets like on the Colorados. But was change at the last moment by the Secnav at the tine for some reason that escape at them moment.

As for the Class Name?

It the Colorado class in official USN nomenclature.

Reason why you see often Maryland as the class name is cause she got launch first. Cue the other navies, AKA the Royal Navy, intelligence people figuring her as the class leader and like. Which get repeat in offical naval paperwork cause they either:

A) Dont want to admit they are Wrong.
OR
B) Dont feel like rewritting everything.

Cue a few years later when the Historians arrive and only use the RN archives and make a book that is consider THE SOURCE. Cause obviously the RN would have corrected it once they found out the truth right?

Right?

Eyeah no, the they did not cause of the above reasons.

Cue the repeat loop as other researchers use that book and so on.

Basically think as what happened with that H45 hoax a few years back. Or how in the REALLY old books you find stuff like the Bismarck class having a 15 inch belt as a fact cause they used the RN Intel reports, which are 95 guess work and should taken as such.

Apparently a similar thing happened to the Japanese Tosa class, which might actually should be known as the KAGA class. But dont take my word on that, still trying to run done the OG sources and like.

As for the West Virginia, that has to do with her Post Pearl Harbor Refit. Which basically made her an one off compare to her sisters. So you have people often putting her in her own deal which just get repeated til the damn cows come home.

Alot of confusion happens when people use intelligence reports as fact and not the guess work they are, instead of digging through the Subject home nations own archives. And dont list it as such or said listing get removed from later version of the text.
 
Firefinder said:
I do know that the Original design for one of the middle Standard Battleship classes, either the New Mexico or Tennessee, was ORIGINALLY slated for twin 16inch turrets like on the Colorados. But was change at the last moment by the Secnav at the tine for some reason that escape at them moment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so this? This is 100% because Josephus Daniels, Wilson's SECNAV, was a complete and total moron who didn't have a clue what he was doing. As far as I can find, the only reason he was appointed to his position was because he agreed with Wilson on his racial views. Namely that he was virulent white supremacist and raging racist. He was easily one of the top 5 worst Secretaries of the Navy we've ever had.

As far as the Navy wanting to go to 16" guns? They wanted to make the switch to 16" with the fucking Pennsylvania class. IIRC, the Navy wanted to go to 8x16" starting with BB-38. Then move to either 10 or 12x16" with the follow on classes. But Daniels expressly prohibited it.
 
The first ships to consider 16" guns were the New Mexicos; an eight-gun battery was considered for the Pennsylvanias, but it was for a notional 15" gun.
 
CV12Hornet said:
The first ships to consider 16" guns were the New Mexicos; an eight-gun battery was considered for the Pennsylvanias, but it was for a notional 15" gun.
Click to expand...
I had read that the Navy wanted 16" for the Pennsylvanias, but Daniels overruled them on the fear that the still in development 16"/45 wouldn't be ready by the time the ships were. To me, that would have at least been a reasonable "no." Delays in weapons programs aren't exactly a new thing after all. And again, from what I had read, the Navy didn't fight for it too hard, figuring that the follow on New Mexicos would certainly get them. But Daniels still refused to allow the a Navy to go to 16". I could be wrong on it, but that's what I had read about them.
 
That's pretty much what I have seen - the 16" gun wasn't ready for the Penns, but NM on could have shipped them with no delay.

While the General Board approved the 16-inch gun as early as 1911, George von Lengerke Meyer, Taft's Secretary of the Navy*, felt that a move to the larger gun caliber would make capital ships still on the drawing board obsolete. For this reason, he restricted the Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) to proceed no further than blueprints for the new gun as a hedge against foreign developments. He finally approved construction of this gun in October 1912 and the weapon was test-fired successfully in August 1914.

Apparently, Rear Admiral Joseph Strauss, then the Chief of BuOrd, also argued in 1913 that the 16-inch gun was not worth pursuing; he argued that at the expected battle ranges of the day, the 14-inch gun was capable of penetrating heavy armor plate just as effectively and that a ship carrying twelve of those guns had a much better chance of hitting than a ship with eight 16-inch guns.

Additionally, the 16" gunned battleship versions being considered were almost 30% more expensive (they were also planning for 6" secondary guns instead of 5"). The General Board concurred and instructed the designers to work on the 14-inch ship. Wilson's SecNav Josephus Daniels then ordered the secondary guns to remain 5".

Daniels also prevented the Navy from making any significant improvements to the Colorados other than the main gun change.


I have never seen anything about the USN considering a 15" gun.


* Meyer was replaced as SecNav by Daniels on 5 March 1913.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The only practical way to get 18" guns on the Montana design would be to replace the 4 triple 16" turrets with twin 18" ones... triple 18" turrets would require a too large diameter turret (and more powerful/bulkier machinery etc to turn them), which would mean an even broader beam, with the resulting reduction in speed.

Thus, an 18" Montana would almost certainly have 8 - 18" (4 x 2) guns.
Click to expand...
I think the number of main guns installed on the Montana-class battleships depends on the USN's intelligence on Japan's new battleships.If the U.S. Navy had known between 1938 and 1940 that the main gun of the Yamato class was 18.1 inches, then it is certain that the design of the Montana class would have been around an 18-inch or larger caliber, never 16 inches. I think 9-18"(3x3) is the most reasonable scheme.
 
Jacky said:
I think the number of main guns installed on the Montana-class battleships depends on the USN's intelligence on Japan's new battleships.If the U.S. Navy had known between 1938 and 1940 that the main gun of the Yamato class was 18.1 inches, then it is certain that the design of the Montana class would have been around an 18-inch or larger caliber, never 16 inches. I think 9-18"(3x3) is the most reasonable scheme.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. USN and many other navies generally came to conclusion that guns heavier than 16-inch are more problematic than advantageous.
 
Jacky said:
I think the number of main guns installed on the Montana-class battleships depends on the USN's intelligence on Japan's new battleships.If the U.S. Navy had known between 1938 and 1940 that the main gun of the Yamato class was 18.1 inches, then it is certain that the design of the Montana class would have been around an 18-inch or larger caliber, never 16 inches. I think 9-18"(3x3) is the most reasonable scheme.
Click to expand...
When using Super heavy shells, the 16"/50 gave armor penetration equal to the 18" gun. But it delivered it at a higher rate of fire, and with fewer reliability issues. As is with 16" guns, the Montana class would have delivered a heavier broadside than the Yamato class did. And delivered it more often. I think the Navy sticks with the 16"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom