USS Montana - Guide 118

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Maty83.]

I mentioned this before, but what would have happened had the IJN technologically kept up with the USN during the war (radar, proximity fuses, etc.), copying the USN-style damage control and seen the necessity of more powerful AA systems, developing their 40mm and 100mm guns fully around 6 months prior to the start of the Pacific war and incorporating them into their to-be built/building ships and retrofits. Furthermore, what if the IJN had improved their shipbuilding capabilities further, including better steel production (starting just as the Yamato-class was laid down) How long would have the war lasted at that point? What major events do you see being greatly influenced by this? I would love to see this either as a question or a theorycrafting special if you wish to do it.

[@GeneralKenobiSIYE]

What are your thoughts on the HUGELY flawed "Glorious Nippon Steel" turret face-plate of the Yamato class that was absolutely destroyed by an Iowa Class' 16"/50 caliber gun at a simulated 11,000 to 13,000 yards? Damn super heavy shell maintained enough momentum to be forever lost in the mud of the river that had been behind the armor plate. tisk tisk. The face plates were the thickest armor on the Yamatos, so it would have been interesting to see a faster well armored version of the Montana have a go. Those 18.1 inch guns couldn't hit the board side of an Essex if either ship was moving in a straight line much less maneuvering so I like a Montana's, even an Iowa's, chances.

[@strub6732]

What type of ship was pushed farthest away from it's original job. I was thinking LCIs harbor tug, mail carrier, fireboat, gunboats, flakboat, radar picket and rocket boat. That just a few.

[@strub6732]

What role would the Royal Marines had if the war in the Pacific would have continued. Would they have linked up with the US Marines or continue to act a special forces.

[@Hardcase_Kara]

I've asked this before and I don't know if it's been listed but I would like to know how a battle between IJN Kirishima and USS South Dakota without USS Washington to pack up go? Would Kirishima be able to sink or cripple USS South Dakota so much is unrecoverable and has to be scuttled. If even more possible I would like to see how this could affect the war. Also I hope you have a good Easter Day.

[@markmohrfield]

One of the ships of this class would have been named Ohio. I've often wondered how the Japanese would have felt about being attacked by a battleship named "Good morning."

[@Panzer_Runner]

Goooood morning vietn... Japannnnn

[@kyle857]

Michigan means "large water." We should have had more BBs named after our state.

[@Panzer_Runner]

@@kyle857 Hello jack torrance

[@keptinkaos6384]

good morning Japan and say hello to our little friend

[@Mishn0]

My dad was in the first group of occupation troops shipped up from the Philippines after the war ended. They landed and offloaded into trucks and started driving north. All the Japanese civilians were waving and shouting "ohayou, ohayou". My dad said the GIs in the trucks would shout back, "Pennsylvania!", "California!", "Georgia!".

[@dougc190]

Not all was lost with the Montana.. The Midway aircraft carrier classes, built on the design of the Montana hull

[@themadhammer3305]

Even dead end designs usually turn up some new understandings that help to make the next class of ship better

[@Archangelglenn]

@@themadhammer3305 Yeah pretty much. I mean they had to strip out a lot of the armor for it but the overall hull design and such led to one of the fastest aircraft carrier classes of the era, all because of the battleship design philosophy.

[@geoguy001]

Midway inherited a similar machinery design and the secondary armament developed for Montana

[@mshotz1]

The Essex Class used the same boilers and turbines as the Iowa Class Battleships.

[@WardenWolf]

@@geoguy001 You know what the hilarious thing was about the Iowas? Their SECONDARY battery was a variant on the same turret used on the Atlanta-class cruisers. Their secondary battery was literally a light cruiser's main battery.

[@GrumpyGrobbyGamer]

So odd to hear the words “steel shortage” and US WWII industrial capacity in the same sentence considering the truly ridiculous number of ships cranked out during the war.

[@jazzhandssixninesixninesix40]

Considering that one Montana was easily worth 31 Fletcher class destroyers in displacement alone, it starts to make sense.

[@AFT_05G]

Actually the US steel output was larger than combined output of Germany,UK,Soviet Union and Japan between 1942-1945. Very odd to hear indeed.

[@williamneitzel2249]

Not odd, considering the need for steel for other warship classes, armor, aircraft, Liberty Ships, field guns, small arms. And it was mentioned that the first keel was laid just prior to the U.S. declaring war, so really, war production rates hadn't been ramped up to its fullest at the onset.

[@memecliparchives2254]

Well there was a reason the Pentagon was mostly constructed out of concrete.

[@tomhenry897]

Had to make tanks trucks planes guns Something had to give

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

The AA guns need AA guns for protection of the AA guns.

[@theleva7]

Of all things the USS Second Ammendment has taught us, this is the most important lesson.

[@weldonwin]

*MOAR DAKKA! WAAAAGH!!!!*

[@dustincarlson7010]

Yo dawg I heard you like AA guns

[@stepbruv8780]

yeah tier 10 CV will got you anyway

[@MagnusVictor2015]

"You see Frank, when ya put enough AA guns on your ships, they are twice as effective at protecting the ship. One, they shoot down or scare away enemy aircraft. Two, all the recoil keeps shifting the ship back and forth to dodge bombs and torpedoes."

[@Siddingsby]

I would like to have seen Montana.

[@jkdm7653]

Et tu, Vassily?

[@collins.4380]

Another movie quote: :"To Monty... A Toast!!!"

[@cyberpunkprussian]

I've Always Felt It referred to Montana too

[@donpacificbobcat9er615]

If it makes you feel any better you can still go and see the state of Montana.

[@Sshooter444]

Well done

[@s.31.l50]

Man Montana would’ve been such a beautiful ship. As much as I love the Iowa the 4 turrets just look so balanced.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Not to mention the weight of that broadside.

[@andrewball4536]

Can you do a special on the fatally flawed ABDA command and Battle of the Java Sea?

[@mattblom3990]

I second this!

[@madwolf0966]

I third this?

[@fullmetalgamers1276]

I fourth this

[@GeneralKenobiSIYE]

I High Ground this!

[@kendog84bsc]

You underesitmate my power!!

[@InchonDM]

Hang on, six 18 inch in three twin turrets? Well I'll be dipped, so there WAS a design for that USS Georgia premium ship that World of Warships is working on.

[@Drachinifel]

The Georgia design is weird hybrid taking on of the early Montana sketches armament but appending it to an Iowa sketch ancestor hull.

[@themadhammer3305]

@@Drachinifel to be fair it won't be the first ship in world of warships made up as a bastard hybrid of several other designs

[@tyfighters002verkerk9]

@@themadhammer3305 more realistic than stuff like, russian tech trees and stuff

[@themadhammer3305]

@@tyfighters002verkerk9 yeah Wargamming have gone totally mad with implausible paper ships. I gave up on the game at the start of the year

[@tyfighters002verkerk9]

@@themadhammer3305 smart move, its only getting worse, just wait till subs

[@redram5150]

I remember my dad talking about ships when I was a kid: we’d walk through the Olympia, he loves that ship, and talk about how cool the USS Pennsylvania was, the Iowas and how big and cool they were, then he’d make a dramatic pause, I doubt he even knew he did it, and say “Montana class” while physically gesturing the size of his ship.

[@wgowshipping]

The other reason for the delay in laying down the keels for Montanas was due to their construction technique. Unlike the Iowas or other previous ships, they would be launched via dry docks and not slipways. This meant that five dry docks had to be built to accommodate the vessels. The five new dry docks were built at Navy Yards - two in New York; two in Philadelphia and one in Norfolk. While the dry docks were built to a new method and allowed them to be completed in less than two years, the decision was made to use them for new construction, and for enhanced repair capability.

[@sarjim4381]

Montana looks like it will finally break its naming drought for a major warship. The Virginia class submarine USS Montana is under construction and due to commision next year. In an ironic twist, this Montana will be many times more powerful than the BB-67 Montana battleship if it had actually been built.

[@sarjim4381]

@Russ Gallagher Unless it was making a port visit, how many people ever SAW a battleship either? Of course it's the same. People see ships in port, rarely on the high seas.

[@josephkugel5099]

@ Sar Jim: I disagree, the Virginia class are attack submarines designed to replace the older Los Angeles class and just carry Tomahawks and Torpedoes, they are not nuclear boomers so I would argue that the thousands of 16 and 5 inch rounds carried by the Montana would equate to more power, and if you really want to get in depth its most likely that had the Montana class been built it would have been modernized just like the Iowa's were and also been able to fire Tomahawks.

[@sarjim4381]

@@josephkugel5099 Firstly, no battleship could equal the 1,500 mile range of a Tomahawk. Secondly, it's classified how many Mark 48 torpedoes have nuclear warheads and what boats they might be on, but there's no doubt some boats have them. Thirdly, Tomahawks now have a newly developed nuclear warhead. Again, it's classified how many and what boats might carry them, but some will. A Montana, even if firing Tomahawks and Harpoons, would probably have been retired by now, and may have been retired before the Iowas, since they only offered the advantage of three more 16" rifles, but at a much higher operating and manning costs. The Montana will be a platform for Tomahawks and Sub-Harpoon missiles, not to mention torpedoes for fleet and self defense, for at least 30 years in the future.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@Svenne-man-1880 Even in WWII they were just targets. Very hard-to-kill-targets, but still targets.

[@bkjeong4302]

Per Johansson Pretty much. Makes you wonder why everyone built them.

[@weldonwin]

USS Montana: This isn't even my final form...

[@bificommander]

Was thinking the same thing. Of course in this case the reply would be "Well, hurry up and pick it then.'

[@mr.narwhal9034]

Your Montana Class Superbattleship is evolving!

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Fatty!

[@merafirewing6591]

@@Edax_Royeaux *all 12, 16 inch guns pointing at you*

[@doritoicecream3818]

@@merafirewing6591 gun operator Salvo

[@Superuser009]

Well, no one can accuse the US Navy of the era of not looking at ALL the options...

[@jimtalbott9535]

Superuser009 the Tillman’s prove that!

[@andrewyork3869]

To be fair the world was rapidly changing nearly by the hour and old ways where ending. The wrong move we would have seen ww2 draw out into the 50's at best or end in a stalemate at worst.

[@dutchman7216]

As hard it would have been to justify having Montana class battleships. It still would have been wonderful to see one or two of them.

[@glorgau]

Total shame the Montana was never built. Upon retirement it would have been quite something to see it on display in Montana as a museum ship.

[@sm0kesonporch]

Frieza: "This isn't even my final form." Montana: "Hold my beer."

[@kevenguimaraes]

Sir Star Adder Hahahaha! This comment made my day! Well done sir!

[@tinafoster8665]

Tony Montana drinks beer?

[@bri-manhunter2654]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@horatio8213]

As always , something good from uncle Drach :)

[@mattblom3990]

The man loves his work, may his audience continue to grow!

[@michaelblaszkiewicz7283]

Little know fact: A Navy admiral William Hannah was the biggest proponent of the Montana class. In his honor, the 1st ship was to be called Hannah Montana

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

LOL!

[@crimfan]

I was hoping for a Tony Montana.

[@CSSVirginia]

Later rebuilt as the Miley Cyrus.

[@psikogeek]

The Tony Montanas come with showers with chainsaws.

[@jefferyindorf699]

@@psikogeek not to mention a lot of his "little friends". LOL

[@jeffdennis4185]

"Whilst" Love that word. I intend to employ it at every opportunity, whilst neglecting to upgrade the rest of my vocabulary.

[@thomaslowery2380]

Try to remember also thats why four out of every three people have trouble with fractions .... :-(

[@nigelrhodes4330]

The first time I am the first viewer on a video on this channel so I will take the opportunity to say I love this channel, it has become my go-to background content while I am gaming.

[@mattblom3990]

It has the best value Patreon, period. Check it out.

[@viper3183]

I wish we had built just one before the war ended, and then kept it active as a ceremonial flagship

[@tjb.7213]

I would have liked to have seen Montana.

[@ruikazane5123]

dayum a Red October reference

[@Metal_Auditor]

I read that Montana's planned increase in armor over SD and Iowa was due to the fact that the SD and Iowa, though designed with armor parity given the existing AP shells their guns fired, lacked armor parity after the deployment of the 16" super heavy shells, and that the Montana's increase in armor roughly corresponded to the increase in penetration of the new shells over the old ones. Is that accurate?

[@timclaus8313]

I kind of view it as the the Iowas being the extension of the philosophy of the North Carolina, a little light on armor but fast for the class, and the Montanas being the logical extension of the South Dakota philosophy of more protection for the size of the ship, while retaining a lethal punch. Maybe a bit less speed for more protection. Seeing as every warship class is a trade off between speed, offensive and defensive capabilities, the Iowa and NC favored offense, the SoDaks and Montanas defense.

[@jimtalbott9535]

I’d have loved to drop a “hint” on the drawing board for this class in 1940: “IJN Yamato and Musashi have 18” guns. - Adjust designs accordingly.”

[@bkjeong4302]

Jim Talbott The only benefit of the 18.1” over the 16” superheavy is that it makes a bigger boom when the shell explodes. The superheavies punched above their weight, while the 18.1” somewhat underperformed for its size. That said, even accounting for that, the 18.1” would still be able to pen most if not all BB armour. It’s just that so can the Mark 8 16”. So having another three guns would probably be a bigger advantage than bigger guns, for increased throw weight. (The firing rate on Yamato was actually competitive, but it’s still 9 guns vs. 12 guns). Of course, the right thing for the USN to do would be to not build the Montanas (or the Iowas for that matter). BBs were obsolete at this point, and if your enemy made the mistake of building obsolete weapons, why make the same mistake yourself?

[@1Korlash]

The USN didn't know the Yamatos had 18" guns in 1940. The Japanese kept them so secret that for the longest time the USN thought they were 45,000-ton, 16"-gun ships.

[@NewtypeCommander]

@@somercet1 That sounds very counterintuitive and counterproductive. By not telling the admiral in charge of the operation the capabilities of his ships, his operational effectiveness was severely reduced.

[@michaelpiatkowskijr1045]

@@bkjeong4302 yet, the Iowa class served for nearly 50 years. The ships were used in shore bombardments in every war from WWII through Operation Desert Storm. The fact that the last time the ships were brought back was to counter the Russian cruiser which had larger guns than any other warship at the time.

[@michaelpiatkowskijr1045]

@@NewtypeCommander his effectiveness was compromised so much in the battle it wasn't funny. Knowing the size of the guns was the least of his problems. Lack of radar and communication. I read they believed they were firing on Essex class carriers and Baltimore class heavy cruisers. Just the fact they couldn't catch up to them gave him that idea. The cruisers closer to the battle knew the truth. When he fully understand what was going on, he turned and ran because he didn't want to get caught between two massive task forces.

[@Commander_Keel]

I see USS Montana I click

[@paperthin2]

Full Speed Ahead!

[@WildBillCox13]

The 5"/54 Rifle is a very good gun. Edit: We did NOT have one on our Knox class ASW Frigate (ours was the standard 5"/38. Sorry, my memory is starting to get old ;-) ).

[@psikogeek]

I agree because the US Navy wanted to use it so much. Still, the 5"/38 stayed on for a long time. The 54 came with trade offs like a heavier shell that wore out crews faster.

[@WildBillCox13]

@@psikogeek And greater barrel wear and a new, hands-off high ROF, loading system with troubles of its own. The 5'/38 was fine for its purpose and time (and a great many years after); a real improvement over the 5"/25cal. We had two 5'/38 on the Garcia class frigate I was first assigned to: in A and C positions. The fantail spot, as was often the case, was armed with Sea Sparrow.

[@BAYSINRACING]

My Grandpa served on the Knox Class frigates, specifically the USS Whipple

[@johnmiller4128]

The gun on a Knox class frigate was a 5in/54

[@dewayneblue1834]

By July 1942, I think that even the biggest fans of the Montana-class in the U.S. Navy would have acknowledged that giving priority to the faster Iowas was the right choice.

[@bkjeong4302]

No, the right choice would have been to get rid of the Iowas as well and build even more Essexes.

[@derptank3308]

Oh boy! Something to listen to whilst doing War Thunder at 4 in the ducking morning

[@logion567]

im playing as Clan Skryre in Total Warhammer 2 Ratling guns are good yes-yes!

[@GenJackOneill]

Thank you for doing this video on a ship that could have been! Its a shame we never got to see her built. Finally my state gets a ship though! The USN is finally fixing the massive goof they made and are building the Virginia Class Submarine USS Montana. It only took them 77ish years. Im a born n raised Montanan, i hope to be able to see her christening.

[@austinreid3951]

We are the only state to not get a modern battle ship... like even Wyoming... i love the USN, but cmon, give us a break!

[@alexius23]

By this time the Allies were aware for the mighty IJN Battleships but thought the IJN Yamato’s were 16” guns. It wouldn’t be until after the War that the USN realized the Yamato had 18” guns

[@tonymanero5544]

Alexius Nemo After Battle of Midway, the capital ship was the aircraft carrier. Even other ship was to screen and protect carrier. So it was a good decision to stop work soon enough as the Iowa class Kentucky wasn’t going to be completed before end of war.

[@bkjeong4302]

Tony Manero And even then everyone (the US included) spent way too much on battleships (the Iowas should have been cancelled). Especially since carriers had already rendered battleships obsolete by the start of WWII, let alone by Midway.

[@lordredlead2336]

@@bkjeong4302 not in the battle of the Atlantic they were doing fine sinking lots of ships and I'm talking about Beginning of war

[@lordredlead2336]

@@bkjeong4302 lowa class had a lot of AA Carriers crews love them

[@bkjeong4302]

NK gaming Even early in the war battleships caused much smaller losses (especially from a cost-benefit perspective) than pretty much everything else, including naval mines.

[@matthewrobinson4323]

I've lived in NY, CA, MO, & currently in IN, so I'm well stocked with battleships. 😃. I'm sure glad that I've never set foot in MT, now that I know. Thanks.

[@A.G.798]

Einfach ein wunderschönes Schiff ❤ und so Ausgewogen, schade das nicht wenigstens eines davon gebaut wurde, es war die Spitze der Entwicklung seit 1905 die Dreadnought vom Stapel lief.

[@estoyaqui5386]

2:15 "6x18`` in 3x2 turrets" ...so that´s the USS Georgia in Wows?

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

Yup

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

Yes, but that's a modification of the *Iowa* class, not the Montana class.

[@ShopeeMarketteam]

@@5peciesunkn0wn would the variant of the Montana be the USS Ohio then?

[@WyvernApalis]

@@ShopeeMarketteam now weegee putting in Ohio lol

[@theT3901]

Torpedoes astern. Torpedoes to starboard. Enemy destroyer detected. Enemy aircraft carrier sighted. Open all the water line we're filling quickly. Critical engine damage. Engine boost de activated

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

@Drachnifel 7:40 One little inaccuracy the immune zone you listed was at 18,000 yards was for the 16 Inch 45 Caliber Mark 6 Guns with the Super Heavy Shell the immune zone for the 16 Inch 50 Caliber Guns Mark 7 Guns would have been 20,500 yards to 30,000 Yards With the super heavy shells

[@kevinrby1982]

Weed, coffee and Drachinifel on auto-play while I work on my model ship kits, is heaven on earth .

[@themadhammer3305]

Sounds good, what kit are you working on at the moment?

[@willtipton100]

not even gonna lie that makes me pretty jealous

[@christopherherrington8387]

Q&A. Could you do something on the HMS Dasher D37, i had family serving on it when it was lost, was considered Top Secret at the time of her sinking and i have not been able to find much information on it, all i know is it was an Archer Class Escort CV, (was originally a Merchantman (Rio De Janeiro) and Converted at the start of the war. Sank in Scotland after an internal Explosion. Love your content! Keep up the very hard work you must put into your video's!! Mr C Herrington

[@vger9084]

They Gave Me a Seafire Book by R. M. Crosley HMS Dasher is mentioned in the book several times. Then we heard that she had ‘blown up’ of her own accord without any assistance from the Germans. We believed the last news. We could easily guess why. Much later, I met Lt/Cdr (A) Brian ‘Blinkers’ Paterson, MBE, DFC, RN, the batsman aboard Dasher when she blew up. He said that someone smoking had touched off the petrol vapour in one of her compartments below. He was batting an aircraft in to land at the time, when a great flame shot into the air all round him. He immediately dived 60 feet over the side. As he always wore a Mae West - even in the shower - he floated high out of the water and was picked up. He told us that when he had ‘come to’ in the water astern of the flaming Dasher he could see hundreds of her crew jumping over the side straight into the black smoke and red flames of the burning petrol, where they were swallowed up and burned alive, unable to swim faster than the spread of burning petrol on the water. Very few of her 528 crew survived the horror of 27 March 1943.

[@markdarrow2905]

Hello, how about a review of the Mitscher-class destroyers. They were an experimental destroyer class of four ships that were built for the United States Navy shortly after World War II. USS John S. McCain (DL-3) was in the Johnston Atoll during a nuclear test for atmospheric and extremely high-altitude nuclear explosions in outer space. I wonder what you can dig up. During the Cuban Missile crisis the ships were operational. Each ship was different in some way to test designs. Anyway, Thank you and really appreciate the work to make this forum a success!

[@WildBillCox13]

Geeze. I'd not heard of these. I went to the Wiki to have a low res look. I like the layout, with 5"/54cal guns fore and aft and 3"/50cal dual gun turrets in B and X positions. The Weapon Alpha turret above B position must've been quite a sight for the bridge crew when fired. One of the pictures shows it replaced with the standard ASROC box (8 tubes).

[@WildBillCox13]

I'm not sure why they moved away from Hedgehog, though. Russians still use the RBU mortars, which are essentially the same thing.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Building Carriers, Submarines, Destroyers, Landing Craft, and Liberty Ships was such a better use of shipyard resources

[@spartanx9293]

I don't disagree but you have to admit battleships are pretty f****** cool

[@MagnumLoadedTractor]

@@spartanx9293 also ww2 was usa flexing not making logical decisions....

[@luciusvorenus9445]

Fantastic video. Pleased that KZbin recommended it to me.

[@NathanOkun]

The barbette test plates for these ships were made at 21" of Thick Chill Class "A" armor (up from 17.3" on IOWA and SD). A plate from Carnegie had a hardness pattern rather like the thinner IOWA plates (ski-slope drop in hardness down to the back level at about 55% of the thickness), but the Midvale plate (no Bethlehem plate was submitted, to my knowledge) was rather unique in having a somewhat jittery hardness level that was more-or-less constant to circa-55% and then abruptly dropped to the back level from there on, which was more like an old Compound armor plate, though of only one kind of steel. Not sure why Midvale did this; perhaps as an experiment. To my knowledge, both plates passed the extrapolated plate test spec, as with thinner Class "A" armor of mid-WWII. Note also that the 5"/45 guns (later to become the US standard destroyer gun for decades with significantly heavier projectiles than the 5"'/38 used -- only relatively recently replaced by the much-higher-MV 5"/62 with even heavier ammo) was put on the weather deck and one-superstructure-deck higher just like in NORTH CAROLINA, not the one deck higher design of IOWA and SD. This makes these ships look like super-NC designs, not anything like the IOWA and SD. Not sure why this was done, since the reason for the IOWA and SD raise of these side guns was to keep them functioning in bad weather,. after some poor weather results in NC. That 16"/56 gun mentioned was actually built and tested during the 1920s (no results known to me), being a rebuild of the 18"/45 gun built in the early 1920s but never fired as an 18" gun until early in WWII and at the US Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia, the extra gun length (added by a screw-on tip to the barrel when it was lined down to 16") was sliced off, shortening the 18" gun to only 42 calibers, called the Mark "A" gun, and thoroughly tested with 3300-pound HE-type inert test shells for flight-trajectory tests and, against armor, with 3850-pound Type "B" AP projectiles that were upsized 16" Mark 8 designs (not exactly like the Service 16" AP shapes, but close) with similar scaled-up penetration results against the regular AP projectile 13.5" test plates. The 18"/42 Mark "A" gun was easily a baseline for a new-model 18"/45 gun (50 cal?) with an MV of 2500 ft/sec for its AP rounds, had it been decided to use such on a super-MONTANA. I am pretty sure that the final nail in MONTANA's coffin was the fact that it could not keep up with the carriers like IOWA Class ships could, since protecting them was considered "JOB 1".

[@williambryant2580]

The USS Montana show is a repeat of the alaska show

[@bkjeong4302]

William Bryant And the Iowa show.

[@project9701]

This would have been a fun ship to see during the Korean War, with twelve 16" guns providing fire support out to fifteen miles for the Marines. A lot of Chinese would have never gone home under THAT kind of artillery flail.

[@paytonmynhier285]

I was expecting a rant on hows the world of warships one is a mix of most of the final designs, but besides that amazing video as always.

[@megalodon7916]

I hate that WoW did that. I really wanted an accurate depiction of Montana class based on the BB67-4 design, which is probably the design that would have been used had they been built. Instead, we got another imaginary “what-if” hybrid abomination that I couldn’t give two shits about. And don’t get me started on the Ohio.

[@treyhelms5282]

A Montana with 18" twin gun turrets would have been cool. Like the Colorado class and Iowa class had a baby. A BIG baby.

[@FreshCoolBeer]

Sexiest Battleship ever, even prettier than the Yamato by a hair in my opinion, unfortunately never build. Can you make a video about the Vermont ship (457mm/18-inch), thank you and cheers.

[@Eirik36]

the hate and discontent that the navy had for the enemy when designing this... damn I love it lol

[@Bluehammer32]

Hey Drachinfel, Have you ever considered covering the Kirov class of cruisers or the Gangut class of battleships? Ps. New subscriber but loving your work!

[@Drachinifel]

Gangut has I think been covered but in robo-voice so is in line for revoicing

[@Bluehammer32]

@@Drachinifel awesome thanks mate will have a look!

[@HerralemanZyG]

The legend in the photo "NOT TO BE RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION" made my day

[@mrz80]

There's a gorgeous large scale model of a Montana design study aboard USS New Jersey.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Ill take 16" belt at 19 degrees, 9 16" 50 guns, 20 5" 54 secondaries. Im sure it can still do about 30 knots....

[@ronsmith7739]

it is interesting that Fletcher class destroyers were capable of 36 to 38 knots or almost 43.7 mph.

[@johnfisher9692]

Nice I can se the design teams had lots and lots of fun churning out different designs for the Montana class. Maybe there should be another design where every space inch of deck space is covered by AA guns. I can almost see the ultimate design, deleting all main armament guns for a solid wall of 40 and 20mm AA weapons lol.

[@Odin029]

Montana still doesn't have a ship named after it and it won't until a Virginia class sub is finished in 2020. I bet something happens to change that name too

[@HSMiyamoto]

That's interesting when you realize that Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska, the last 47th-50th states, have all been honored by a ship.

[@HSMiyamoto]

@Russ Gallagher - Of course, the first Hawaii and Alaska were cruisers, as they were territories then, and thus deemed to not warrant the honor of a battleship. Also, the first USS Hawaii was never commissioned. Today, USS Alaska is an Ohio Class SSBN and USS Hawaii is a Virginia Class SSN.

[@Epicmylikes]

That is one hell of a model in the first slide

[@steeltrap3800]

However they might have ended up looking, I think we can agree the description would have included the adjective "large". ;-p

[@cogidubnus1953]

Fascinating as ever....thank you!

[@TheWizardGamez]

The Big E please aka super carrier enterprise

[@themadhammer3305]

Probably to modern for this channel, seem that ships built before 1950 is about the limit. I'd like to see it though

[@ancientgamer3645]

I know that the "caliber" of the gun is a length, but how is it calculated? Could you mention this occasionally in your FANTASTIC videos. Great work here. Two thumbs up!!!

[@dougsmith5690]

I believe it is the multiple of the diameter of the barrel

[@christophersnyder3050]

Would have liked to see this video get the (NB) designation in the title. Was a bit turned around to find out it wasn't.

[@jamessullivan7692]

always great video with great information I've also like to know your opinion on which ship you would have chosen to be the best ship in the Montana

[@gilanbarona9814]

I suppose the strategic shift from battleships to carriers played a role in this? Whether that shift was intentional or the result of circumstances, or perhaps both, it changed US naval doctrine forever after. Thanks for the video.

[@chippledon1]

That ship would have been a beast!

[@chandlerwhite8302]

chippledon1 White elephants are beasts, I guess, lol.

[@trevynlane8094]

This ship did appear in the TV series GI Joe: A Real American Hero, in the episode Sink the Montana. No points for guessing the plot. USS Constitution also plays a key role in that episode.

[@barrylucas505]

Entertaining and diverting as usual...thank you

[@samholdsworth3957]

I love you drach!

[@bgw33]

Thanks. Would hospital ships be within your mission?

[@Hardcase_Kara]

Would have interesting to see the Montana Class especially with an upgrade similar to what the Iowa class received to keep them in service.

[@xt6wagon]

It wouldn't have lasted that long, battleships were used as carrier escorts in peacetime, and the Montana would have been too slow. That said if you knocked a few years of use off the Iowa by reactivating Montana's for korea and Vietnam, they might just now be leaving the navy.

[@bkjeong4302]

xt6wagon The idea of using battleships as carrier escorts is questionable in itself. A BB isn’t necessary for anti-aircraft fire, and a carrier battlegroup should never be within range of surface vessels anyway, eliminating the need for big guns to defend the battlegroup. Edit: by “range” I mean mechanical gun range, not visual range, so radar guidance isn’t going to change anything.

[@xt6wagon]

@@bkjeong4302 but... that is exactly what the USN used them for. With the mechanical computer taking inputs from the radar, effective range was the same as the mechanical range of the gun. It's no longer limited to visual range of an optical rangefinder.

[@bkjeong4302]

xt6wagon Just because they were used for carrier escort doesn’t mean that they were the best tools for the job. The Iowas didn’t get anything done when their carrier groups were launching air strikes. The targets of carrier battlegroups were not just out of visual range, but also out of the *mechanical* range of the Iowas’ guns. Radar-guided targeting doesn’t help you against a target that’s hundreds of miles away (which is the distance carrier vs. surface ship engagements took place at). A BB sailing as part of a carrier group is not going to have any enemy targets within range. The Iowas FAILED in the role of sinking surface ships precisely because the fleets they were part of never got that close to the enemy. The only targets they ever got, during Operation Hailstone, were ones that were deliberately spared from air attack (under Spruance’s orders) so the Iowas could get a shot in, a decision that allowed one Japanese destroyer to escape because the air attack that could have sunk her was called off. TLDR: the best fire control in the world means nothing when your strike force is fighting at distances beyond the mechanical range of your guns. Edit: also, even USN fire control wasn’t so good that the effective range was the same as mechanical range, though the difference between effective and mechanical ranges was smaller than in other navies.

[@stewartellinson8846]

fascinating, as ever. Many thanks

[@tankmanmatt111]

Building a 1/350 Montana as I watch this ^^

[@LeninPolimorfed]

I have recently started watching you and I absolutely love the content! I have a small proposition: maybe I can provide some help with Russian language pronunciation? I'm a native speaker, so if you ever will be doing a video on Imperial Russian Navy again, or have any hard-to-pronounce Russian name in other video, I can explain how it's pronounced in Russia, and maybe provide audio example, if you are interested:)

[@LeninPolimorfed]

You can find me as Radiosterne in The Drydock discord, if my help would be needed :)

[@Battleship009]

Russia is one of my ancestral homelands on my father's side the other being Ukraine and despite being a Yank I actually prefer foreign tech (mainly military) over American tech which includes Russia.

[@memonk11]

Well done and very informative. Thanks for posting.

[@grandestcherokee]

Review the Kaiser-Class Battleships?

[@SitioLumbia]

Before Montana and Yamato class, there were the Tillman BB's.

[@potatolord7774]

"Official photo, not for publication" Appears in a KZbin video at 3:13

[@frankgulla2335]

Nice quick summary of the "Last Battleships" designed by the US. What a monster, and to what purpose, one wonders? What did Montana bring that the Iowas did not already provide?

[@Drachinifel]

The Iowa's deviated from the US preference to have an extensive immune zone against your own armament, and given that at the time they suspected Yamato might be roughly similar to Iowa, they wanted something superior. :)

[@Cirrus2000]

HOLY CRAP! My suggestion was made into a video!

[@Cirrus2000]

THANKS MATE!

[@scottmccarthy1875]

My father served aboard the uss Shea, a destroyer/mine-layer during WWII & Korea

[@HSMiyamoto]

The never built ships are always fascinating. I guess people have an inordinate love for hypotheticals because imagination is more fun than dreary reality. It's like joining the Navy hoping to captain a "fighting ship" or submarine, and being assigned an oiler or repair vessel. "Uh, yeah. Thanks." My father's last tour was on a supply ship; however, he was the sort who was happy to stay far from the alarms of war.

[@TheNocturnalLoner]

Just have a proposition for a video idea, or two rather. At some point would you consider looking into the steam frigate USS Minnesota? The other was about US battleship or rather, pre-dreadnought battleship development from the Indiana class all the way up to the Mississippi class. Don't know if you have plans for either just throwing a couple ideas out if they catch your fancy.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

The Battleship equivalent of a case saying "In Case of Yamato Swarm Break Glass"

[@ricardokowalski1579]

9:00 The Montana got cancelled in July 1943, before anybody had had a good look at Yamato/Musashi.

[@mudhutproductions]

I wonder if they ever had to replace the canopy glass on the aircraft from the concussion of the aft turret firing?

[@TheAngelobarker]

Never built😂

[@mudhutproductions]

@@TheAngelobarker Ah, that answers that. Thank you.

[@TheAngelobarker]

@@mudhutproductions but seriously not really most aircraft had bulletproof glass on parts and ability for pressurization so it would probably be fine.

[@rhinehardt1]

Write your congressman and let's get those ships built. It's not too late.

[@victoriacyunczyk]

"a variant with three quad turrets" The French would be proud.

[@greatwarships2758]

Worth the wait!

[@SteveBull-tg8mi]

I think the Iowa class are the best looking battleships ever built.

[@patricknix5975]

There is an approximate 12 foot model of the USS Montana in the basement of the Montana Historical Society building in Helena, Montana.

[@darylmorning]

Do you know where it's from? Was it a US Navy model or one someone made with the specs available?

[@Tj-kz8hf]

Could you explore the pre-dreadnought USS Montana? It was renamed USS Missoula to free up the name and hen scrapped in the WNT.

[@ChrisTian-lf2oh]

The sheer amount of AA-guns on that thing....

[@Battleship009]

Montana class BB is a real beast in Battlestations Pacific.

[@johncook3125]

Interesting article. Thanks

[@ag2938]

Die Montana Klasse, mit 4 Drillings Türme schwere Artellerie war die Nachfolge Klasse nach der Iowa Klasse mit 3 Drillings Türme schwere Artellerie. Wurde zwar auf Kiel gelegt, aber durch das ende des 2.Weltkriegs wieder abgebrochen, um Kosten zu sparen, eigentlich Schade das diese Schweren Schnellen Schlachtschiffe nie durch die Wellen pflügten, aber es gab halt sehr viele andere Aufgaben zu erledigen.

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

Phrase Of The Day: "vaguely sane"

[@charvolth]

Well those bofors had pretty good coverage. They could clear the deck of Battle Android Troopers when the nefarious terrorist organization Cobra hijacked the Montana. In the alternate history that is G.I. Joe, the Montana was built.

[@country6247]

Can you do one about "USS Oklahoma? Cents you did one on it's sister ship "USS Nevada"

[@ssgus3682]

The Nevada had a brilliant career.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

On paper, at one point, the USN intended to build a fantasy fleet with four Montanas and eight Iowas. There was a problem: the cost and time of construction was in orbit -- and there'd be no remotely equivalent opposing navy to thwart. In retrospect, one imagines that such a fleet was intended to counter Germany, France and Britain -- and Italy -- all at the same time. The supposition being that Hitler had conquered France AND Britain. In early 1942, this was not deemed excessive speculation. Remember that virtually everyone expected Hitler to conquer the the Soviet Union during the Autumn of 1941. Once it became obvious that carriers were the new capital ships, this paper fantasy went into the circular file. The Coral Sea and Midway ended all battleship fantasizing... as if prior events weren't enough. The Iowas were saved because of their carrier equivalent speed. During Halsey's venture north, his BBs attained 35 KNOTS in full battle readiness, something the British noted at the time -- and included in wartime media releases. Subsequent USN media never claimed that the Iowas could obtain more than 32 knots. Cute. All during the Cold War, the USN always under-claimed the statistics for is ships. Ditto for the USAF and USA. For example, the M1 tank, all variants, is the highest horse-power tank in the world. To obtain fuel economy -- stop the boys from sporting around -- a throat restrictor is in front of its turbine. US jets also fly with throat restrictors. These were removed for 1991 combat over Iraq. The gap in engineering and performance between the US and its NATO allies is great. It's why US military gear costs so much and seems to deliver such modest performance. Yet look at how long some US gear stays in service... starting with the Iowas -- deemed effective -- after upgrades -- into the 1990s -- and the end of the Cold War. (!!!) The Iraqi Campaign is what destroyed the USSR, BTW. The Red system of government turned on itself as the KGB, CP, GRU, and Red Army began the blame game -- something so predictable that I forecast the end of the USSR for mid-August of 1991. I got that one on the nose. (Gorby had to be in Sochi -- on vacation -- for the Revolution to begin. Pretty obvious, when you think about it.)

[@kurtwagner350]

It will never cease to amaze me how long those displacement and turret treaties were respected. Seems like every country largely disregarded it but never fully ignored it until basically the age of battleships were over. Design wise anyway those damn treaties killed so many interesting possibilities, however I suppose it’s best nations across the globe didn’t spend ridiculous sums on ever increasingly powerful killing machines that would become antiquated within a decade.

[@tomstech4390]

I REALLY want to find someone who has modeled this with 4x quad turret 18in/48cal guns as a "what if" I lack the skills, time and funds to do it myself.

[@psikogeek]

Shouldn't H-Class have been the topic on 4/20?

[@robertjohnson8938]

A monster of a ship