BB-72 to BB-78, post-Montana battleships ?

[Grey Havoc]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

Very interesting, especially the mention of the 60000 ton battleship design to be possibly built after Illinois and Kentucky. The displacement figure is consistent with Montana class but it is referred as a Gibbs private venture so it could be something completely different. The only post-Midway USN battleship's design activity I've ever heard of is the 106000 ton "super Iowa" conceptual study.

And, pray tell, can you please provide any sources or images related to this study?

There are scarce notes about it in Garzke and Dulin "Battleships: US battleships in WW2". If the memory assist me, it was a 1944 contemplating a battleship of 1160 feet in length and 140 feet wide, approximately the maximum dimensions permitted by the planned '40s enlargement of Panama canal. The study combined main armament equal to Montanas (12*16") and speed equal to Iowas while I don't remember any mention regarding armor. As Tzoli said, the drive to dimensional increase was anti torpedo protection. There never were any intention to build battleships of such scale, especially at the end of the war, but the study reflects an ongoing internal debate on the future role of battleships.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Actually there was another post Montana study made by two University Students for a small Battleship from around 1942.

But this Gibbs & Cox proposal is new to me as well! This firm did produced battleships designs for the Soviets in 1936-39 so it's not impossible they continued to propose such for the USN when war broke out. Question is does this firm had any archives which survived the past 75 years?

That 106.000ton Super Iowa study you referring are a qucijk study of how large should the Iowa be to be basically unsinkable by torpedoes. Most of the extra tons went into underwater protection.

I'm intrigued by the funnels. That's either a lot of internal ducting or an unusual location for the engines.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Here is the armour layout:
View attachment 630514

There is an article about this design somewhere but I have to find it first.

 

[drwells42]

The BB72-78 “battleships” were and still are the product of the media. Firstly the wartime press who, in the absence of any authorised data, speculated on what could possibly follow the Montana designs. Currently the BB72-78 “design” is enjoying a second lease of life courtesy of the internet – notably Wikopedia which has an unreferenced entry on this topic. This data appears, with the same wording, on a number of other sites which do not appear to have any interest in the authenticity of their information. It is interesting that many of the naval history web-sites that deal with authenticated warship designs and projects make no mention of the BB72-78 battleships.

There is no mention of the BB72-78 in Friedman’s “US Battleships a Design History” nor in Dulin & Garzke’s “Battleships - United States battleships of in World War II”, but Polmar in “Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet” (P128/129) does mention the speculation that took place in regard to this “design” during the war years.

The reality is that other than a small number of design studies that were not intended for production the Montana class design was the end of the US Navy's battleship designs.

While I strongly agree that BB-72 through 78 were products of media speculation, I would be quite interested in knowing what media sources did the original speculation. I suspect that there's a magazine article somewhere, (Popular Mechanics???) but I haven't found anything so far. If anyone has a source, please let me know.

I'm gathering data for an eventual webpage debunking the "Super Montana" class.

David R. Wells