I think that there's a section in Jim Dunnigan's book [i]Victory at Sea[/i] in which he lists the reasons an Iowa battleship would take this.

The Montana Class was probably cancelled for the same reason as the British Lion Class, i.e. the war would probably be over before they would enter service, and the material and manpower required for construction could be utilized elsewhere.

Exactly right.

The range on the guns is essentially irrelevent, the maximum range on both was well in excess of anything you could reasonably expect to get a hit at. IIRC acording to one of Dunnigan's books the longest range hit on a target was in practice under perfect conditions at about 13 mile. The longest in combat was something like 11 miles against an italian battleship. The Yamato class were extremely tough ships. Of that there is no debate, but they were inferior to the Iowa in almost every category. The Iowas had better quality armor (IIRC, the steel in the Yamato's was somewhat brittle), better fire control, a higher rate of fire and nearly as good penetration. Perhaps most importantly they were significantly faster, the Yamato's being something like 28 knots and the Iowa's being 33+ knots. So the Iowa could (barring other constraints) dictate the range and most other aspects of an engagement.

"The Montana Class was probably cancelled for the same reason as the British Lion Class, i.e. the war would probably be over before they would enter service, and the material and manpower required for construction could be utilized elsewhere." The Montana was cancelled because battleships were obsolete. This was understood by 1942. But the Dakotas and Iowas were far enough along to justify completion. Then of course there is sheer obstinancy. Stop Work order for the Montana was issued in May 1942. Yet from the US Naval Registry: USS Kentucky BB66 --- KEEL WAS LAID AND CONSTR WAS SUSPENDED ON 6/10/42. THE KEEL WAS FLOATED OFF THE BUILDER'S WAYS ON THIS DATE FOR HIGHER PRIORITY CONSTR. KEEL WAS RELAID ON 12/6/44 AND CONSTR RESUMED. CONSTR WAS SUSPENDED AGAIN ON 2/17/47 AND CONSTR RESUMED AGAIN ON 8/17/48. TO CLEAR THE BUILDING DOCK. CONSTRUCTION WAS FINALLY CANCELLED ON 1/20/50 WHEN 73.1% OF CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED UP TO THE FIRST DECK. SOLD FOR SCRAP 10/31/58 TO BOSTON METALS CO, BALTIMORE, MD Methinks there was a powerful senator from Kentucky who wanted a ship for his state no matter how wasteful.

"The Montana was cancelled because battleships were obsolete. This was understood by 1942." Obsolete is a bit strong. It was understood after Coral Sea and Midway that Battleships were definitely relegated to the second tier after Aircraft Carriers. Nevertheless, there were battleship engagements off of Guadalcanal in 1942 and at Leyte Gulf, and of course they were extremely useful for shore bombardment. The U.S. continued building the Alaska Class 12" so called Battlecruisers which came into service in 44/45. The Brits built The Vanguard 8x15" guns, entering service in 1945. Also, the U.S., British, and French navies maintained battleships as part of their active fleets through the 1950s. I think the U.S. retired the Wisconsin in 1957, only to bring it, or its sisters out for the Vietnam War.

Interesting thread, here. Some interesting facts to add to it. 1. The Montana herself was 15% complete when cancelled in 1944. At http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016705.jpg and /016702.jpg you can find official U.S. Navy photos of the concept models as of 7 Oct 1944. As a point of interest, Montana's steam turbines and reduction gears ended up being installed in the carrier U.S.S. Midway. 2. The Alaska class "Large Cruisers" (they were >not< battlecruisers, and were never referrred to as such by the Navy) were contracted in 1939, with construction beginning in 1940. The story goes that they were intended as a response to the IJN's "B-64" class of BCs. This is in fact exactly reverse of the facts in the case. The "B-64"s, which were never laid down, were programmed by the IJN for the 1943-44 build cycle >after< they learned of the existence of the Alaska-class project. The "Alaska" and her (planned) five sisters (Hawaii, Guam, Phillipines, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa- all named for U.S. Trust Territories) were in fact intended as counters to the German "Panzerschiff", or "Pocket Battleships" (more properly armored cruisers) of the Admiral Scheer class, as well as the twin battlecruisers DKM Scharnhorst and DKM Gneisenau. For this reason, all were to be fitted as flagships for TF and convoy duty, as it was expected that they would most likely be in Atlantic waters where they could expect to encounter the German raiders- and unlike the DE in "The Enemy Below" (starring Robert Mitchum and Kurt Jurgens), they would >not< have been "outgunned and outrun by one of those murdering wolves". As it turned out, the Royal Navy and the RAF disposed of the DKM's surface assets, and only Alaska and Hawaii were ever completed. Both went to the Pacific, where they participated in the Battle of Okinawa. Between them, they fired less than 100 12" main-gun rounds, but a substatial amount of 5" and 40mm AA ammo. Postwar, both were sent to the Reserves in late 1945, finally being withdrawn in 1952-53, and sent to the breakers in 1961. 3. Kentucky was not >entirely< scrapped. In May 1956, while maneuvering in fog off Cape Henry, Washington during an exercise, the U.S.S. Wisconsin (BB-64)collided with the destroyer U.S.S. Eaton (DD-510). (The results can be seen on P.41 of "U.S. Battleships In Action, Part 2", Carrollton, TX; Squadron/Signal Publications, 1984. ISBN 0-89747-157-1.) Wisconsin's smashed-in bow was replaced by that of the Kentucky, which she still "wears" today. 4. The relative ROF of the Yamato and Iowa class is very much in the American vessel's favor. The 18.1" guns on the Yamato had a standard ROF of 1 round/min/tube; that of the 16" /50 cal. guns on the Iowa is 2 rounds/min/tube. in any sustained engagement, the Iowa would have a higher volume of fire. (Source; "Battleships and Battlecruisers, 1905-1970", by Siegfried Breyer.) 5. It was the New Jersey (BB-62) that was reactivated in 1968 for shore-bombardment duty in Vietnam. The other three Iowas (Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin) were not reactivated until 1983, under the Reagan Administration's naval buildup. And to be honest, looking at what they did with them, I'm willing to bet then- Navy Secretary John Lehman was quietly cursing the decision of the Eisenhower Administration to scrap the Alaska and Hawaii- which could have performed 90%+ of the missions profiled for the battleships at significantly lower costs in manpower and finances. Which leads to the question- is the battleship dead, and does the future belong to the "large cruiser"? (Hm. Nuclear-powered large cruiser with hypervelocity guns plus guided missiles. Imagine the possibilities, especially in alternate-1950s SF.......) Cheers. eon

Hi, Havent been on in a while. Just saw this thread. This type of what if question appears regularly! In response to Basilisk Station's post quote "The Yamato class were extremely tough ships. Of that there is no debate, but they were inferior to the Iowa in almost every category. The Iowas had better quality armor (IIRC, the steel in the Yamato's was somewhat brittle)" unquote. I would like to correct this often upheld and too rarely proven wrong urban legend about the performance of the brittle Yamato class armour in comparison to the Iowa class, and as such her ability to withstand damage. Her class was to be 4 ships but only the Yamato and Musashi were completed, with the 3rd one as a (very large and armoured!) aircraft carrier, the Shinano. The following report, cut and pasted in brief, is from a series of ballistic tests on the Shinano's turret face armour, performed in November 1947. (updated by Nathan Okun). SUBJECT Test of 26" (66cm) Class "A" Main Armament Turret Face (Port) Plate, originally for IJN SHINANO, the third Japanese YAMATO-Class super-battleship (converted into an aircraft carrier, instead, and sunk on its way to final fitting out yard by a U.S. submarine), which made up far left side of turret face looking from inside turret out of gun port, with "D"-shaped cutout making up about half of left curved gun port forming center of long right side of plate. STEEL QUALITY Steel had many tiny pieces of dirt and so forth, being about the same as pre-WWI British Vickers Cemented (VC) KC-type armor steel in quality (VC was used for the first time in the Japanese battleship IJN KONGO, built in Britain, and manufactured in Japan under license thereafter), from which the unique Japanese armors New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC), the homogeneous, ductile form of VH used in a number of Japanese post-WWI warships, and VH itself was derived (this steel was not up to U.S., British, or German post-1930 steel quality). Carbon content was raised above VC steel level to increase ease of hardening, some copper added to allow some nickel (in short supply in Japan) to be removed (but not much), slight amount of molybdenum added to increase hardenability still more, and the cemented (carburized) thin surface layer used in VC (and in most other, foreign face-hardened armors) was eliminated with no loss of resistance from VC quality (a good design point). Surface of plate face was very smooth, unlike rough, pebbly surface of cemented plates, such as U.S. Navy Class "A" armor. (Note, here it says her armour isnt up to the quality of post 1930 US UK German manufacturer). CONCLUSION Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! 6-8" of this armour was tested also and found to be the BEST armour available. Even though this armour was of supposed poorer quality. This caused the U.S. test conductors to state that obviously they did not understand what it took to make a high-quality Class "A" plate, since the 7.21" VH plate should not have been so good from everything they thought they knew about face-hardened armor... There is more to the report than this, please GOOGLE Nathan Okun and follow from there. Food for thought isnt it guys...

The special forces used cavalry in Afghanistan. Should the Army be investing in stables? No. Because cavalry is obsolete. As that Rummy guy said, you go to war with what you've got. And the US had battleships at the beginning of WW II with a number approaching completion. The US also had Douglas Vindicators and Brooster Buffalos and sent young men to their deaths in them. This would tend to disprove that using an item proves it isn't obsolete. The fact that incomplete battleships were being pulled out of shipyards to make way for "higher priority construction" (eg. fleet carriers) should be proof enough of where battleships fit on the pecking order.

Just got my Naval History Magazine.....and what should be inside? A story on this very subject. I'll let one and all know what they say when I read it.