Montana
Montana-Class vs. Iowa-Class: Which Would Have Been the Better Battleship?
Summary: The Montana-class battleships, authorized but never constructed, represented what could have been the pinnacle of U.S. naval power during World War II, eclipsed by the strategic shift towards aircraft carriers. Designed to outclass the preceding Iowa-class in firepower and size, the Montana-class aimed to enhance U.S. naval capabilities significantly. With plans for twelve 16-inch guns per ship, these vessels would have boasted a 25% increase in firepower over the Iowas. However, the evolving naval warfare landscape, underscored by the effectiveness of aircraft carriers demonstrated at Pearl Harbor and against the Royal Navy’s Force Z, shifted priorities away from battleship construction. The Montana-class was ultimately canceled in 1943, a decision that marked the end of new battleship designs in the U.S. Navy. While the Iowas proceeded to serve due to their near-completion and compatibility with the new Essex-class carriers, the Montana-class remained a testament to the transitional period in naval warfare, where the supremacy of battleships was superseded by the advent of carrier-based power projection.
Montana vs. Iowa-Class Battleship: Which Would Have Been Better?
The Montana class could have been the U.S. Navy’s most powerful battleship if it had made it past the design phase. But like all battleships in the World War II era, the purpose of the Montana ships was overridden by the rise of the aircraft carrier.
Five Montana battleships were authorized for construction, and they were designed to bring a whole new set of capabilities to the open waters. In fact, these leviathans would have dwarfed the preceding Iowa-class vessels. The Montana class never made it to sea, though, leaving the Iowa class as the last group of battleships commissioned by the Navy.
Introducing the Iowa-Class
As tensions were mounting in the inter-war period in the 1930s, U.S. engineers prioritized the construction of lethal battleships. As part of the service’s War Plan Orange strategy against Imperial Japan, it was assumed that future combat would take place in the Central Pacific. Since Japan had an arsenal of high-speed cruisers and capital ships, the U.S. worried that its own fleet of standard-type battleships would not be able to pursue enemy ships in battle. Around this time, the Second London Naval Treaty’s escalator clause kicked in, allowing the U.S. and other signatories to build bigger guns and larger vessels.
Iowa-class ships were therefore constructed as 45,000-ton vessels equipped with 16-inch guns, as opposed to earlier battleships limited by the treaty at 35,000 tons with 14-inch guns. Overall, nine 16-inch Mark 7 naval guns were fitted on each ship. They could fire explosive and armor-piercing shells. The three-gun turrets positioned on each battleship could fire any combination of its guns, including a broadside of all nine. In addition to these armaments and large-caliber guns, the Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System was incorporated on the battleships.
Introducing the Montana-Class
While the Montana-class ships never made it past the conception phase, big plans were proposed to make these vessels even more capable than their Iowa predecessors. Notably, twelve 16-inch main guns were intended to be fitted on each vessel. The extra guns would have made the proposed USS Montana, USS Ohio, USS Maine, USS New Hampshire, and USS Louisiana 25% more lethal. These proposed 16-inch guns were so large, weighing roughly 2,700 pounds each, that it would have taken dozens of sailors to fire each one.
The Montana-class ships were also designed to dwarf the already giant Iowa battleships. Initial proposals for the new class indicated that each vessel would have measured 890 feet long and would have displaced 64,599 tons. On the other hand, the Iowa battleships measured 860 feet. Due to the Montana class’ heavier proposed armaments, the ships in this series would have been slower than their predecessors. The Iowa battleships could travel at speeds in excess of 33 knots, while the Montana battleships would have been limited to 28 knots.
Despite the Navy’s ambitious plans for its Montana battleships, the ships never came to fruition. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, coupled with the destruction of the Royal Navy’s Force Z a few days later, indicated that aircraft carriers were surpassing battleships as the most significant naval warship. In the early 1940s, the Montana ships were initially delayed in order to allocate more funds and resources to aircraft carrier construction. In 1943 the Montana proposal was nixed altogether. It would then take the Navy more than a decade to introduce a warship as large as the proposed Montanas, with the deployment of the USS Forrestal supercarrier in the mid-1950s.
When the Montana-class was canceled, prospects also looked grim for the Navy’s Iowa-class battleships. But the Iowas were nearly complete on the construction line and were needed to operate alongside the service’s new Essex-class aircraft carriers, so the battleships stayed on the trajectory toward commissioning. Although the Montana ships would have provided more advanced capabilities and more impressive specs than their Iowa-class predecessors, these battleships were simply not meant to be.
About the Author: Maya Carlin
Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin.
Hero Image by Ethan Saunders. All others are Creative Commons.
Montana
‘It was apocalyptic’, woman tells Crans-Montana memorial service, as bar owner detained
Tragedy brought people together in Crans-Montana and brought the country to a standstill.
On Friday, just down the road from the bar where 40 young people were killed by fire on New Year’s Eve, church bells rang in their memory.
They tolled right across Switzerland, to mark a national day of mourning.
Then, moments after the last notes of a special memorial service had faded, came the news that one of the bar’s owners had been detained.
Swiss prosecutors said Jacques Moretti, a French national, was a potential flight risk. He and his wife Jessica, who is also French, are suspected of manslaughter by negligence, bodily harm by negligence and arson by negligence.
Many of the victims’ families had demanded action like this from the start: more than a week after the fire, the anger in this community has been increasing.
At the main ceremony in Martigny, down in the valley, relatives of the dead were joined by survivors. Some had come from hospital for the memorial. People held white roses in their laps and gripped each other’s hands for support.
“The images we faced were unbearable. A scene worse than a nightmare. Screams ringing out in the icy cold, the smell of burning. It was apocalyptic,” a young woman called Marie told the audience.
She had been in a bar opposite Le Constellation when the fire broke out and suddenly found herself helping the injured as they ran from the flames.
She said she would never forget what she’d seen.
Listening in the front row were the presidents of France and Italy, whose citizens were among those killed and injured in the fire. Both countries have opened their own investigations.
Back in Rome, Italy’s prime minister vowed to make sure all those responsible were identified.
“This was no accident. It was the result of too many people who did not do their jobs,” Giorgia Meloni said.
She wants to know why the music wasn’t cut as soon as the fire started.
“Why did no-one tell the young people to get out? Why did the council not make the proper checks? There are too many whys.”
In Crans-Montana people have the same questions and many more.
For now, the only two formal suspects are the co-owners of Le Constellation, Jacques and Jessica Moretti. Early on Friday, the pair were called in by prosecutors. They are being investigated for causing death and injury through negligence but have not been charged.
Now Jacques Moretti has been remanded in custody. In a statement, the public ministry said the move followed a “new assessment of the flight risk.”
“I constantly think of the victims and of the people who are struggling,” his wife told a crush of TV cameras after several hours of questioning at the ministry.
It was her first public comment since the fire.
“It is an unimaginable tragedy. It happened in our establishment, and I would like to apologise.”
Nine days on, Le Constellation is still obscured from view behind white plastic sheets. A lone policeman stands guard, his face covered against the relentless snow.
What unfolded inside the building’s basement has gradually become clearer – and it’s the story of a disaster that should never have happened.
Mobile phone footage shows a sparkler tied to a champagne bottle apparently starting the fire as it brushes the ceiling. Covered with soundproofing foam that was never safety tested, it ignites quickly.
When the crowd eventually rush for the exit in panic, there is a crush on the stairs. It seems the emergency doors were blocked.
But another video, from six years ago, suggests the risk was well known. On the footage, a waiter can be heard warning that the material on the ceiling is flammable.
“Be careful with the foam,” the voice shouts, as people wave the same sparklers.
But the questions here are not just for the owners.
This week the local authorities in Crans made the shocking admission that they hadn’t carried out mandatory safety checks of the bar for five years.
They offered no explanation.
“It was a hell inside that bar. More than 1,000 degrees of temperature. There was no way to escape,” Italy’s ambassador to Switzerland, Gian Lorenzo Cornado, told the BBC, citing a long list of safety violations.
Six Italians were killed as a result.
“Italy wants justice, the Italian government wants justice and the Italian people want justice, for sure. The families want justice,” the ambassador stressed.
That includes for those with life-changing injuries.
The regional hospital in Sion took the first major influx of patients. The stress was compounded by the fact that many doctors’ own children were partying in Crans for the New Year.
“They were all scared the next stretcher to arrive would be carrying their own child,” hospital director Eric Bonvin remembers.
But he’s proud of how his team coped.
Some casualties were unconscious and so badly burned, it took time to identify them.
The most serious cases were moved to specialist burns centres elsewhere in Switzerland and in Europe where some are still in a critical condition.
All face a long, tough path to recovery which the doctor likens to a “rebirth” because many of his young patients have severe burns to the face.
“First the body needs to be protected, like the foetus in a mother’s womb. That’s what’s happening for many now. Then they will have to re-enter the world and find their identity,” Professor Bonvin says.
“It will take a lot of work and resilience.”
Add to that the anguish of surviving.
“They came round and at first they felt lucky to be alive. But some now feel this guilt, wondering why they are here, but not their friend or brother,” Bonvin explains.
“It is a delicate moment.”
In central Crans, the heap of tributes for the dead is still growing, protected from the elements by a canvas.
After leaving their own fresh flowers on Friday, many people then stood in front of the ruins of the bar itself for a moment. Remembering, in silence.
Montana
Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes
This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
On Monday, Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would downgrade six vaccines on the routine schedule for childhood immunizations. The changes scale back recommendations for hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus, RSV and meningococcal disease.
That decision — shared by top officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services — took many public health experts by surprise, in part because of how the administration of President Donald Trump departed from the CDC’s typical process for changing childhood vaccine recommendations.
Montana Free Press spoke to Atty Moriarty, a Missoula-based pediatrician and president of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, about her perspective on the CDC’s changes. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
MTFP: What happened in this most recent change and how does that differ from the CDC’s normal process for adjusting childhood vaccination schedules?
Moriarty: The way that vaccines have traditionally been recommended in the past is that vaccines were developed, and then they traditionally went through a formal vetting process before going to the [CDC]’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which did a full review of the safety data, the efficacy data, and then made recommendations based on that. Since November 2025, that committee has completely been changed and is not a panel of experts, but it is a panel of political appointees that don’t have expertise in public health, let alone infectious disease or immunology. So now, this decision was made purely based unilaterally on opinion and not on any new data or evidence-based medicine.
MTFP: Can you walk through some of the administration’s stated reasons for these changes?
Moriarty: To be honest, these changes are so nonsensical that it’s really hard. There’s a lot of concern in the new administration and in the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC that we are giving too many immunizations. That, again, is not based on any kind of data or science. And there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the number of vaccines as compared to 30 years ago, and questioning why we give so many. The answer to that is fairly simple. It’s because science has evolved enough that we actually can prevent more diseases. Now, some comparisons have been made to other countries, specifically Denmark, that do not give as many vaccines, but also are a completely different public health landscape and population than the United States and have a completely different public health system in general than we do.
MTFP: Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] getting its guidance from now, if not ACIP?
Moriarty: We really started to separate with the [CDC’s] vaccine recommendations earlier in 2025. So as soon as they stopped recommending the COVID vaccine, that’s when [AAP] published our vaccine schedule that we have published for the last 45 years, but it’s the first time that it differed from the CDC’s. We continue to advocate for immunizations as a public health measure for families and kids, and are using the previous immunization schedule. And that schedule can be found on the [AAP’s] healthychildren.org website.
MTFP: Do any of the recent vaccine scheduling changes concern you more than others?
Moriarty: I think that any pediatrician will tell you that 20-30 years ago, hospitals were completely full of babies with rotavirus infection. That is an infection that is a gastrointestinal disease and causes severe dehydration in babies. I’m nervous about that coming roaring back because babies die of dehydration. It’s one of the top reasons they’re admitted to the hospital. I’m nervous about their recommendation against the flu vaccine. [The U.S. is] in one of the worst flu outbreaks we’ve ever seen currently right now and have had many children die already this season.
MTFP: Do you think, though, that hearing this changed guidance from the Trump administration will change some families’ minds about what vaccines they’ll elect to get for their children?
Moriarty: Oh, absolutely. We saw that before this recommendation. I mean, social media is such a scary place to get medical information, and [listening to] talking heads on the news is just really not an effective way to find medical information, but we see people getting it all the time. I meet families in the hospital that make decisions for their kids based on TikTok. So I think that one of the effects of this is going to be to sow more distrust in the public health infrastructure that we have in the United States that has kept our country healthy.
LATEST STORIES
Former judge-elect sentenced to probation in drug case
A Lake County attorney who was elected judge but resigned before even taking the bench was sentenced to three years of probation in the very courtroom he was once going to oversee.
Group refiles corporate political spending ban days after court setback
The Transparent Election Initiative, an anti-dark money group, filed with the Montana Secretary of State two ballot initiatives that aim to prevent corporate political spending. The filing came just two days after the state Supreme Court found an earlier version of the initiative legally insufficient.
Montana
Montana Lottery Lucky For Life, Big Sky Bonus results for Jan. 8, 2026
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Jan. 8, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Jan. 8 drawing
05-12-13-39-48, Lucky Ball: 13
Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Jan. 8 drawing
05-15-20-28, Bonus: 16
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
- Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
- Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
- Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.
Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.
Where can you buy lottery tickets?
Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.
You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.
Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Delaware1 day agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Nebraska3 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska