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Montana-class remained a testament to the transitional period in naval warfare, where the supremacy of battleships was superseded by the advent of carrier-based power projection.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
University of Montana president job draws high interest • Daily Montanan
The search for a new University of Montana president has drawn more than 60 applicants, according to a spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.
“We do not have an exact count at this time, as several applications are still being completed and additional submissions are expected,” said spokesperson and Deputy Commissioner Galen Hollenbaugh in an email earlier this week.
In January, then-UM-President Seth Bodnar announced his resignation to pursue other public service. Wednesday, the final day of filing, he announced he was running as an independent for the U.S. Senate to try to unseat Republican incumbent Steve Daines.
Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton Christian earlier said that with the advice of AGB Search, a firm that’s helped the Montana University System conduct other executive searches, he would undertake an expedited process to appoint a new president.
Christian has been providing brief updates on a website dedicated to the search. Last week, he said he and AGB Search are reviewing applications, and the pool of candidates was “strong and diverse.”
The commissioner also announced he was convening a small working group to assist in the search, members who “represent a variety of perspectives to assist in vetting and narrowing this field of exceptional candidates.”
In an email this week, Hollenbaugh identified the members of the working group who are assisting Christian with application review as:
- Community member and former Regent Joyce Dombrouski
- Faculty Senate Chairperson Valerie Moody
- Staff Senate President Dominic Beccari
- Administration Representative John DeBoer (Vice President of Academic Affairs)
- ASUM (Associated Students of the University of Montana) President Buddy Wilson
Hollenbaugh declined to comment on the way the rest of the process would unfold or the role the working group members would play.
Christian earlier said he anticipated an appointment within one to three months, or as soon as early this month.
Montana
Montana Supreme Court allows ballot measure on initiative process to move forward
HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a proposed ballot measure intended to simplify the process for introducing ballot measures in the future.
Justices ruled 5-2 that the measure, currently called Ballot Issue #8, did not violate state requirements that a single constitutional amendment can’t make multiple separate changes to the Montana Constitution.
“We’re very grateful to the Montana Supreme Court for agreeing with us that the attorney general’s finding of legal insufficiency for Ballot Issue #8 was incorrect,” said SK Rossi, a spokesperson for Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring the measure.
Montanans Decide argues the Montana Legislature has passed laws making it harder for the public to propose and pass ballot issues. The Montana Constitution already guarantees the people the right to pass laws and amendments through ballot measures, but Ballot Issue #8 would expand that to include a right to “impartial, predictable, transparent, and expeditious processes” for proposing those measures. It would seek to prevent “interference from the government or the use of government resources to support or oppose the ballot issue.”
Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office argued the measure “implicitly amended” multiple provisions in the state constitution, including by limiting the “power and authority of public officials to speak officially on ballot issues that affect those officials’ public duties” and by putting restrictions on judges and on the Legislature. Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring Ballot Issue #8, disagreed – and the majority of justices sided with them.
“Its provisions operate together to define and protect a single constitutional right—the people’s exercise of initiative and referendum,” wrote Justice Katherine Bidegaray in the majority opinion. “They are closely related components of one constitutional design.”
Bidegaray’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Jim Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Beth Baker and Ingrid Gustafson.
Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice Jim Rice each wrote dissenting opinions, saying they would have upheld Knudsen’s decision to disallow Ballot Issue #8. Rice said the language restricting government interference with a ballot issue was not closely related and should have been a separate vote. Swanson agreed with Rice and said the measure’s attempt to fix a timeline for legal cases surrounding ballot measures was also a separate substantial change.
In a statement, Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for Knudsen’s office, reacted to the decision.
“This decision only further muddies the courts’ jurisprudence on ballot issue questions,” he said. “This initiative would violate the separate vote requirement by amending multiple parts of the Montana Constitution, but the court contradicted its prior rulings. Attorney General Knudsen will continue to neutrally apply the separate vote requirement in his review of ballot initiatives.”
The court’s decision means that Knudsen’s office will now need to approve ballot language for Ballot Issue #8. Once that language is finalized, Montanans Decide could begin gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.
However, last year, sponsors of another initiative went to the Supreme Court to argue that the ballot statements Knudsen prepared were misleading. If Montanans Decide object to their ballot statements, that could further delay signature gathering while the case plays out in court.
“Regardless, we’re going to push as hard as we can to get those petitions into the hands of voters and let them sign and support if they so choose,” said Rossi.
Rossi said the legal battle this measure has gone through – and the possibility of more to come – shows why Ballot Issue #8 is needed.
“The state Legislature, and also statewide elected officials, have taken every opportunity to create burdens and hurdles and rigamarole for campaigns to get through in order to just get to the signature gathering phase, and then to get through the signature gathering phase onto the ballot, and then get through the election phase,” said Rossi. “The reason we filed this initiative is just to make sure that the process is simple, that the timeline is clear, and that Montanans can have their will heard when they want to propose and pass laws that they deem worthy.”
Montana
Christi Jacobsen enters race for Western House seat
HELENA, Mont. — Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen is running for Montana’s Western Congressional District seat, entering the race a day after U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke announced he would not seek reelection.
Jacobsen’s announcement sets up a new contest for the open seat after Zinke, a Republican, said he would seek reelection.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“As your Secretary of State, I’ve stood up to Washington overreach, defended election integrity, and delivered real results for Montanans. In 2020, voters gave me a mandate to clean up our elections, grow Montana business, and push back against radical liberal special interests. I delivered. Now it’s time to take that same results-driven, America First leadership to Congress.”
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Maryland4 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Florida4 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Oregon6 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks