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Montana-class remained a testament to the transitional period in naval warfare, where the supremacy of battleships was superseded by the advent of carrier-based power projection.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.
Carrie Gilbertson has been executive director of Cancer Support Community Montana for just under two months, stepping into the role in April with more than 15 years of nonprofit experience and a lifetime of Montana roots.
The organization provides psychosocial and mental health support to anyone affected by cancer — not just those with a diagnosis, but also family members and others walking alongside them.
WATCH: Meet the new leader of Cancer Support Community Montana 🎗️
Cancer Support Community Montana names new executive director
“This mission of providing psycho-social supports and mental health supports for anyone impacted by cancer, not just that person who has the diagnosis, but also family members, anyone who is walking alongside someone as they experience that often scary diagnosis, that’s just something that’s important to me,” Gilbertson said.
Gilbertson’s role extends beyond the Bozeman office. Cancer Support Community Montana’s Missoula location is already up and running, and a Helena location is expected to be operating soon. Each presents its own set of challenges.
“Each hospital is different. They might have different resources. Their social workers might be connecting to things in a different way. So understanding what those hospitals need, what different participants need in each community, is going to be different just because the communities are different, resources are different,” Gilbertson said.
The Bozeman office has been operating for more than 20 years, providing a foundation that supports the organization’s broader statewide efforts.
“I think this is a crew that looks at what does this community need what do our participants need what are some of the changing landscapes in cancer care what things are the gaps that we see that we can maybe just jump right in and you know let’s see if we can provide that for people so that’s something I really love about this crew that I work with and just this mission that there is some flexibility in being able to adjust and adapt as we learn more,” Gilbertson said.
Those adaptations show up in unexpected ways. The organization converts its parking lot into a pickleball court every Friday morning.
“I didn’t know there was a pickleball court. I pulled in actually with my daughter pulled in and she was is that pickleball court and I was like oh, it kind of looks like it is so yeah that’s fun, every Friday morning we clear out the parking lot and put up the net and I haven’t played yet I’ve been watching just to kind of see how that game works but they take it pretty seriously,” Gilbertson said.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at June 17, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Powerball numbers from June 17 drawing
03-26-49-53-61, Powerball: 12, Power Play: 2
Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Lotto America numbers from June 17 drawing
11-16-18-33-51, Star Ball: 09, ASB: 05
Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from June 17 drawing
01-16-17-27, Bonus: 01
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Montana Cash numbers from June 17 drawing
13-22-35-36-39
Check Montana Cash 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.
- Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.
Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.
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.
Death in detention: deported migrant woman describes conditions inside ICE facility
Deported migrant woman recounts harsh ICE detention conditions after her husband died from medical complications inside Camp East Montana.
The Department of Homeland Security told the El Paso Times that two suspected overdoses at Camp East Montana over Memorial weekend were related to an overdose of psychiatric medication and a “self-harm” incident.
In both incidents on May 23 and May 24, the detainees were taken to the Rio Vista Behavioral Health center, a DHS spokesperson said.
The 35-year-old detainee who overdosed on psychiatric medication on May 23 was returned to the immigration detention center the same day and is in stable condition. The 34-year-old who overdosed on May 24 is currently being monitored by ICE medical staff after being returned.
“When there are signs of a detainee self-harming, staff abides by strict prevention and intervention protocol to ensure the detainee’s health and wellbeing is protected,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement. “ICE requires annual suicide prevention training and provides mental health service to detainees.”
The DHS spokesperson said that ICE provides “comprehensive medical care from the moment an alien enters ICE custody. This includes medical, dental, and mental health services as available, and access to medical appointments and 24-hour emergency care.”
The El Paso ICE detention center is the largest in the country, with a capacity to hold 5,000 people. Allegations of human rights abuses have plagued the site since it opened in August 2025.
At least three suspected overdoses have occurred at Camp East Montana, according to 911 emergency calls analyzed by the El Paso Times. The first suspected overdose was reported on Feb. 28, involving a 60-year-old male detainee.
Rising deaths, suicides in ICE detention
At least 50 migrants have died in ICE custody since President Donald Trump returned to office, with 18 deaths occurring in 2026. At least 10 of these deaths were suicides, an investigation by the Associated Press found, including Victor Manuel Diaz, a 36-year-old Nicaraguan migrant who died at Camp East Montana on Jan. 17.
U.S. representatives, including Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso, Angie Craig, DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party)-Prior Lake, and other political leaders, have raised concerns about the conditions at the detention center following more than a dozen oversight visits. Congressional representatives have repeatedly raised concerns over detainees’ access to medical and mental health services.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Texas Civil Rights Project, Human Rights Watch and the law firm Farella Braun + Martel LLP sued ICE on behalf of four detainees held at Camp East Montana over “horrific” human rights abuses in May 2026.
Jeff Abbott covers the border for the El Paso Times and can be reached at:jdabbott@usatodayco.com; @palabrasdeabajo on Twitter or @palabrasdeabajo.bsky.social on Bluesky.
-
Washington5 minutes agoWashington State University Vancouver faculty, staff anxiously await details of 15% budget cuts
-
Wisconsin12 minutes agoPresident of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody
-
West Virginia15 minutes agoCommunity Catalyst Grant applications are open through West Virginia First Foundation through June 30 – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming20 minutes ago250 Portraits self-portrait exhibition now on display throughout downtown Jackson
-
Crypto27 minutes agoCrypto’s Courtside Takeover: Digital Assets in Pro Tennis
-
Finance30 minutes agoConsumer confidence plunges among younger adults
-
Fitness35 minutes agoKylie Minogue, 58, shares how she stays fit without a strict exercise routine – ‘I don’t really work out’
-
Movie Reviews45 minutes agoMovie Review: ‘Leviticus’ makes a demon out of desire in an auspicious debut for Adrian Chiarella – Sentinel Colorado
