Key Points and Summary – The Montana-class was America’s planned super-battleship: bigger, tougher, and harder-hitting than the Iowa class, with twelve 16-inch guns and armor meant to rival Yamato.
-But timing mattered.
Iowa-class. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Iowa-class battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-Had Montanas arrived in 1944–45, they likely would have spent most of their war firing at shore targets and screening fleets, not trading broadsides, because carrier airpower had already decided the Pacific war.
-Their slower speed also limited usefulness with fast carrier task forces.
America’s Ultimate Battleship Was Too Late: The Montana-Class Story
Building five would have competed for shipyard capacity, steel, and crews—potentially delaying carriers and amphibious ships that actually won battles. Postwar, they might have lingered as icons for years.
The Montana-class was envisioned as the pinnacle of U.S. battleship design, surpassing the Iowa-class in size, armor, and firepower.
They were projected to displace about 63,000 tons standard and over 71,000 tons at full load, making them significantly larger than their predecessors.
At 921 feet long and with a beam of 121 feet, they were too wide to pass through the Panama Canal’s original locks, a clear indication of their massive scale.
Their draft was approximately 36 feet, and they were designed for a top speed of 28 knots, slower than the Iowa-class’s 33 knots but still respectable for their size.
Propulsion would have come from steam turbines generating 172,000 shaft horsepower across four screws.
In terms of armaments, the Montana-class was unparalleled. Each ship would have mounted twelve 16-inch/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets, giving them a heavier broadside than any U.S. battleship before or since.
Iowa-class Battleship. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Their secondary battery consisted of twenty 5-inch/54 caliber dual-purpose guns, supplemented by dozens of anti-aircraft weapons, including up to forty 40 mm Bofors and fifty-six 20 mm Oerlikons.
Armor protection was equally impressive, with a belt thickness of 16.1 inches, turret faces up to 22.5 inches, and deck armor reaching 7.35 inches. These ships were designed without treaty restrictions, unlike earlier classes, and would have rivaled Japan’s Yamato-class in size and protection, making them the most formidable battleships ever planned by the U.S. Navy.
What if the U.S. Navy Actually Built the Montanas?
What would have happened if the Montana-class had been built?
Had these ships entered service by 1944 or 1945, they would have been unmatched in gun power and armor. In a hypothetical surface engagement, they could have destroyed Yamato and Musashi with superior radar-directed fire control and heavier broadsides.
Their twelve 16-inch guns would have delivered devastating salvos at long range, while their thick armor could withstand enemy shells. However, such engagements were rare by late World War II.
The last major battleship duel occurred at Surigao Strait in October 1944, where older U.S. battleships annihilated Japanese forces.
The No. 1 and No. 2 Mark 7 16-inch/50-caliber gun turrets are trained to starboard during the main battery gunnery exercise aboard the battleship USS IOWA (BB 61).
By then, carriers ruled the seas. Montana-class ships would likely have served as shore bombardment platforms during island-hopping campaigns, similar to the Iowa-class. Their massive firepower could have shortened battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
If completed, the Montanas might have remained in service through Korea and even Vietnam, providing naval gunfire support. Their imposing presence could have served as a Cold War deterrent, much like the Iowa-class battleships, which were reactivated in the 1980s. However, the rise of guided missiles, jet aircraft, and nuclear submarines would have relegated them to niche roles.
Maintaining such giants would have been costly, and they likely would have been retired by the 1960s or converted into missile platforms. Strategically, building the Montana-class might have delayed carrier production, potentially altering the timeline of U.S. dominance in the Pacific. If resources had shifted to battleships, fewer carriers might have been available for critical battles like Leyte Gulf. This could have prolonged the war or increased U.S. casualties. In short, their construction might have been a strategic misstep, despite their impressive specifications.
Why America Transitioned to Aircraft Carriers
The historical context of the Montana-class is rooted in the collapse of naval arms limitation treaties. The Washington and London Naval Treaties of the 1920s and 1930s had capped battleship displacement at 35,000 tons and gun caliber at 16 inches, forcing compromises in earlier designs like the North Carolina and South Dakota classes.
By the late 1930s, these treaties had effectively collapsed, and intelligence reports suggested Japan was building massive battleships, revealed as Yamato and Musashi.
Battleship Yamato. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
The Japanese battleship Musashi leaving Brunei, Borneo, in 1944, possibly on 22 October, when she departed to take part in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Photographed by Japanese sailor Tobei Shiraishi from the destroyer Isokaze.
Yamato-class
The U.S. Navy responded by planning a class that could outgun and outlast any adversary. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor and subsequent battles especially Coral Sea in May 1942 and Midway in June 1942, proved the decisive role of aircraft carriers.
Carrier-based airpower could strike hundreds of miles away, rendering traditional battleship duels increasingly obsolete. By 1943, the Navy prioritized Essex-class carriers, landing craft, and destroyer escorts over new battleships. The Montana-class was canceled before any keel was laid.
Several factors doomed the Montana-class. The most significant was the shift in naval strategy toward carrier warfare, which dominated the Pacific theater. Battleships became secondary assets, mainly for shore bombardment and escort duties.
Resource allocation also played a role; steel, manpower, and shipyard capacity were urgently needed for carriers and amphibious vessels. The Montana-class ships were slower than the Iowa-class, making them less suitable for operating with fast carrier task forces. Finally, the cost and complexity of building five super battleships during wartime was impractical compared to producing multiple carriers and escorts.
About the Author: Isaac Seitz
Isaac Seitz, a Defense Columnist, graduated from Patrick Henry College’s Strategic Intelligence and National Security program. He has also studied Russian at Middlebury Language Schools and has worked as an intelligence Analyst in the private sector.
More Military
Forget the F-22 Raptor or F-35: The YF-23 Black Widow II Stealth Fighter Summed Up in 1 Word
