Connect with us

Montana

Montana-Class vs. Iowa-Class: Which Would Have Been the Better Battleship?

Published

on

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Montana-class remained a testament to the transitional period in naval warfare, where the supremacy of battleships was superseded by the advent of carrier-based power projection.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.  

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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. 





Source link

Advertisement

Montana

February 26 recap: Missoula and Western Montana news you may have missed today

Published

on

February 26 recap: Missoula and Western Montana news you may have missed today





Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Escobar, Jayapal, Members of Congress Call on Camp East Montana to be Shut Down – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal

Published

on

Escobar, Jayapal, Members of Congress Call on Camp East Montana to be Shut Down – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal


(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) – joined by Representative Pramila Jayapal, the Ranking Member of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee, and 22 other Members of Congress – sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons calling for the immediate closure of Camp East Montana in El Paso. They cite urgent humanitarian concerns following multiple deaths in custody, documented unsafe conditions, and serious deficiencies in medical care.

This marks the fourth letter Congresswoman Escobar has sent to DHS and ICE leadership. The previous three letters have gone unanswered.

The letter can be found in its entirety below and here.

“Secretary Noem and Acting Director Lyons:

Advertisement

We are urgently calling on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to shut down Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas.

Camp East Montana has been operational for six months, and at least three people have died at the site since December 2025: Francisco Gaspar-Andres, Geraldo Lunas Campos, and Victor Manuel Diaz. The El Paso County Medical Examiner has officially ruled Lunas Campos’ death a homicide, citing “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.”

Camp East Montana was constructed in a matter of weeks and opened before construction was complete and it does not have enough federal staff on-site to provide adequate oversight. Over the last several months, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, in whose district this facility is located, has sent multiple letters to DHS and ICE regarding concerns about the conditions at Camp East Montana, and has received no responses.

According to detainees, there have been constant and consistent problems at the facility since it opened, beginning with the facility’s poor construction and poor ambient temperature control. Upon opening, the drinking water at Camp East Montana tasted foul and made some detainees sick. Detainees continue to be served inadequate meals, including food that is rotten or frozen; last fall, the facility was also consistently failing to make dietary accommodations for detainees. Detainees have shared that they have sporadic access to outside spaces and recreational areas, and that their dormitory pods are cleaned only once every eight days, despite pods housing up to 72 people at a time. Laundry services are not consistent, and people are washing their clothes in the facility showers. Additionally, the facility experiences flooding and sewage backups when it rains, leading to stagnant water. 

One of the biggest concerns with the Camp East Montana facility is the inadequate medical care being provided to detainees. Our offices have heard that only the most ill detainees are referred to the medical unit and that there are inconsistencies as to how soon after arriving detainees are able to undergo initial medical screenings. Detainees with chronic health issues who rely on regimented medications for their health have had difficulty accessing necessary medications, including blood pressure medication and insulin.

Advertisement

At least one of the deaths that occurred in ICE custody, the death of Francisco Gaspar-Andres, appears to partially be the result of poor medical care by staff at the facility. According to ICE’s own account, Gaspar-Andres sought medical attention from facility staff for increasingly serious symptoms, but was only transferred to an area hospital once his condition had severely deteriorated.

In addition to our concerns about poor medical care, we are also aware that detainees have experienced irregular access to their legal counsel, including instances of detainees having only two minutes allotted per phone call every 8 days, which is contrary to ICE’s Detention Standards on access to counsel, and that the belatedly created law library lacks adequate resources for the amount of people currently held at the facility. In January 2026, ICE announced the on-site death of Geraldo Lunas Campos “after experiencing medical distress.” ICE opened an investigation into the death, but did not provide a cause of death. However, The Washington Post later reported that another man detained at Camp East Montana had witnessed guards choking Lunas Campos when he refused to enter a segregated housing unit. Weeks later, the El Paso County Medical Examiner ruled that Lunas Campos had experienced “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression” and ruled his death a homicide.

Lunas Campos is the first detainee to die at Camp East Montana as a result of a use-of-force incident, but we are strongly concerned that he will not be the last if ICE is allowed to continue operating Camp East Montana.

ICE was given $45 billion in taxpayer dollars in the reconciliation bill, $1.2 billion of which were awarded to Acquisition Logistics, LLC, a company with no previous experience managing immigration detention facilities, to build and oversee Camp East Montana. However, in the wake of three deaths in custody so far, continued concerns about conditions at the facility, and ICE’s apparent disinterest in responding to oversight letters from Congress, we do not believe Camp East Montana is being run professionally or responsibly.

Camp East Montana must be shut down. For the safety of everyone at the facility, for an end to abuses to detainees, and for fiscal responsibility to the American people, the site cannot continue to operate. We are calling on DHS and ICE to move to immediately close operations at Camp East Montana.

Advertisement

We look forward to hearing from the Department promptly on this matter.     

The other co-signers include Representatives Yassamin Ansari, Nanette Barragán, Yvette Clarke, Lloyd Doggett, Maxwell Frost, Jesús “Chuy” García, Sylvia Garcia, Daniel Goldman, Jimmy Gomez, Henry Johnson, Stephen Lynch, Seth Moulton, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Delia Ramirez, Andrea Salinas, Janice Schakowsky, Darren Soto, Rashida Tlaib, Paul Tonko, Lauren Underwood, Gabe Vasquez, and Nydia Velázquez.


Issues: Immigration



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Governor’s energy task force continues public discussions on data centers

Published

on

Governor’s energy task force continues public discussions on data centers


We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which
enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time.

For any issues, contact newsroom@abcfoxmontana.com or call 406-542-8900.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending