Talk:Montana-class battleship

Calibre terminology

Philwelch wrote in an edit summary that Montana's guns were "NOT 50 caliber! Whoever added that should be disallowed from writing about naval ships ever again." I am the one who wrote that they were, and if I were disallowed from writing about naval ships, Wikipedia's naval content would drop sharply. I obtained that information from the Naval Historical Center -- http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm: "The Montanas were intended to carry twelve 16"/50 guns...," so should they also be disallowed from writing about naval ships? --the Epopt 14:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it was an April Fool's joke? :-) Stan 17:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can't rule it out, but if so, it was an odd one. --the Epopt 18:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Caliber has two meanings: (a) the diameter of the chamber (in this case 16 inches); (b) the length of the barrel, expressed in terms of a multiple of the diameter (in this case, 50 times). Both meanings are in common use. So it is quite correct to write 16 inch 50 caliber guns. Tannin 22:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, cancel that, I thought I saw the dot in .50 but it wasn't there. Sorry. Philwelch 22:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you could have a 16 inch .50 calibre gun - but shooting a 16 inch shell out of a barrel 8 inches long strikes me as a fast way to do a great deal of damage to your own ship and none at all to the enemy! ;) Tannin

I understand that you got those numbers from an official Navy website but if you are going to use those numbers, use them as they are given. The Navy site, for example, talks about 16"/50 guns but it does NOT say 16" 50 caliber guns. To the layman the Navy terminology, while technically accurate, is obscure enough already. As far as this article goes, the terminology seen here seems to do little more than add an additional contradictory note. It is definitely not being written as something that could be understood by someone with only a passing knowledge on the subject. And quite frankly, I have to admit that I have never once seen any of the heavier military weapons referred to in this manner, so as of this writing I can't verify if that method is correct anyway. Tannin's note above suggests that it is, but if so, I suspect that this too is a fairly obscure convention. Either way, those numbers are neither as clear nor as simple as they could or should be. It should be enough to say "16 inch guns " or "5 inch guns" and leave it at that. --Cavgunner 05:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the terminology to what I believe to be the more layman-friendly format. I expect that someone will change this back shortly. Still, I stand by my assessment that any article should be written as if you are explaining the subject to someone who has little or no prior knowledge about it. While most people with a casual interest in naval topics know what a "5 inch gun" is, only a few are familar with the obscure caliber-as-length convention. Indeed, the ongoing discussion here and on the edit page should be proof enough that this inclusion has not been helpful in any way. --Cavgunner 7 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

This being Wikipedia, the problem is easily solved: Caliber#Caliber as measurement of length

—wwoods 22:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Cavgunner, are you seriously suggesting that an encyclopedia should deliberately leave out information because someone might not already know it? ➥the Epopt 04:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't even read what I said so I will disregard your loaded question. Until then, perhaps you should go RIGHT NOW and alter every single article concerning military vessels on Wikipedia until it fits your convention. Let me know when you're done.--Cavgunner 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Check the edit histories. ➥the Epopt 02:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"Armament (secondary battery): 20 × 5 in (127 mm) 54 caliber guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship)"

The 5 inch mounts would have been 5 in 38 caliber mounts (as on the Iowa class). I've changed the line accordingly. The 5 in 54s were not introduced until well after WW2 (and were never used in a twin mount configuration to my knowledge.) I've worked on both kinds - they are very different. Bog 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In popular culture?

Is it just me or is this class shown on some of the battleship game sets (not sure of the electronic ones). It shows on the silouette of a battleship that looks like iowa but with 4 turrets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EnterpriseMH (talk • contribs) .

The Montana-class is also featured in the naval MMOG Navy Field, which may or may not be worth mentioning. --Lord Kelvin 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely worth mentioning under this heading is a "G.I. Joe" cartoon episode, "Sink the Montana," which depicts an aged battleship very similar to this class. 128.255.41.99 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Yamato

There is a comment that says the Montanas would have "clearly outclassed" the Yamatos. I'm finding this one hard to fully believe. The Montanas would have "clearly outclassed" the older Japanese battleships. Against a Yamato, she would have had a fight on her hands. Thoughts? Gulfstorm75 16:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Monatanas would have come close to equalling Yamato, but would not have passed her. TomStar81 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not an expert or anything, but based on Yamato's 18" guns and heavy armour, I'd say "clearly outclass" is a bit too much. How about "equalled", or "seriously challenged"? — Johantheghost 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

as it was originally it read: "The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling Japan's massive Yamato." TomStar81 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much perfect; the Iowas were quite a lot more lightly armoured. BTW, happy new year! (It's 2006 here!) — Johantheghost 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The US designed 16" guns and would have put this class of battleship over the top against the Yamoto besides it's armor. They were better in all comparisons to it's 18" guns. The shells traveled further, had far better penetration in regards to armor, and were the same design of guns used by the Iowa class to sink the Yamoto. Yes it had "better" armor compared to the Iowa class, but it was not by much, and was was due to thickness, not design. It was thicker, but inch for inch US armor on the Iowa class far superior and this would have been the same with the Montana class. This was a class designed with ships like the Yamoto and Bismark specifically in mind. This is all a matter of historical fact. To assume that gun/shell size and armor thickness make a ship superior is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.94.77 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about a "Yamoto", but Yamato was sunk by several bombs and more than 10 torpedo hits from aircraft attacks, not by any kind of gunfire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status

The text of this page appears to be mostly copied from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm. Is there any reason that is allowed? Nloth 05:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Works produced by the US government are in the public domain. Sticking in an {{NHC}} would be appropriate, however.

—wwoods 06:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Midway blurb

The blurb on the Midway seems like a stretch. Aside from the fact that the hull of the Midway class was based on the design of the Montana class hull, the rest of it is completely irrelevant and is highly suspect. THe manueverability of the ship probably had nothing to do with the reason that it was selected as the flagship. It's more likely that it was selected because it was among the first ships on station because it was forward deployed to Japan already. In addition, not only is no cite provided to show that the Midway flew twice as many missions as any other carrier, the explaination for why it did (if it did) is pure BS. All a carrier does to launch planes is get about 30 knots of relative wind blowing almost dead of its bow and the launch them into the sky. When it's done it simply turns around and drives in the other direction until more planes are either ready to launch or land, it then turns around again and heads into the wind. The manuevering only takes a few minutes and all the ship has to do to make up for being less manueverable is cut its leeward run a little short and turn earlier. The only real disadvantage is that in order to cover as much "ground" on the down wind run as the up wind run, it has to go a little faster for having less time to make the run before it starts its turn. Once again, the most reasonable explanation I can imagine, but not prove, is that it launched more missions because it simpls got there sooner.(Sonlee 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

The statement that the Midway hull is based on the Montana class is (1) unsourced and (2) does not appear in any of the standard references (Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, Silverstone, Fahey), and I have never encountered this until the internet era. Midway was 10 feet longer at the waterline, 8 feet narrower at the beam, and had a fuller hull form forward and possibly aft as well. The main similarity seems to be the machinery layout but Midway went to 12 boilers instead of 8 for more horsepower. Recommend it be deleted unless a verifiable source says otherwise. Brooksindy (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonsensical paragraph

The first paragraph under the History section appears rather unclear to me:

“ In 1939, only three Iowa battleships would be built, being BB-61, BB-62, and BB-63. BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66 were intended to be larger, slower ships mounting twelve 16-inch guns, which would soon be known as the Montana class. In late 1939, as the Navy decided that it needed more 33 knot fast battleships, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66 were laid down as Iowas as well, pushing the Montana to BB-67. ”

It says three Iowas would be built, but lists six, however in actuality only four were built. The same sentence also says these Iowas were slower and mounted twelve 16-inch guns, but that actually describes the Montana class, not the Iowa class. It says in 1939 the Navy changed BBs 64, 65, and 66 to Iowas, however the actual ship articles indicate that BBs 63 - 66 were all ordered in 1940 as Iowas.

Colour me confused, but this paragraph makes no sense to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the last three ships listed (64, 65, 66) were supposed to be the Montana class, but those numbers were reallocated to create 3 more Iowas, although only 1 of the 3 were actually completed. As far as I can tell, the articles for the Iowas don't clearly state they were originally ordered as Iowas or not. Whether the above claim is true, or not, I do not know. Parsecboy 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the Iowa class battleship article, it makes the same claim. It is also not sourced, though. Parsecboy 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

This class was never build isn't it better to merge the separate articles? --Technosphere83 (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there ships are notable enough to warrent there own article. Otherwise they would have been merged or axed somw time ago. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with TomStar81 here; the individual Montana-class ship articles appear to meet the same criteria as our other articles on commissioned ships that were canceled before completion. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They're awfully short, and not likely to grow. A table of the ships' dates or a series of short sections could contain all the same information.

—WWoods (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how these articles will ever grow beyond there current state.

Why are they important individually again?This is exacly the stub growth on wikipedia that should be discouraged. --Technosphere83 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who seem to think that these article will not grow beyond their current status, take a look at what TomStar81 is working on in his sandbox: User:TomStar81/Sandbox#Montana class battleship. I see no reason to believe that this treatment will not also be applied to the individual ship articles of this class. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not following what Technosphere83 means, but why exactly should de-stubbing articles be discouraged? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with MBK004; TomStar81 has quite a bit of material in his sandbox, and pretty well sourced too. There's no reason to merge the articles with that quality of material in production. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should NOT be merged. Maybe some articles on non-built ship classes deserve to be merged, but this article relates to a proposed class of battleships which would have been the largest ever built by the US, (or by any Western democracy). therefore, I feel that it definitely needs to remain as a separate article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that what Technosphere83 is proposing is merging the articles on the individual ships of the Montana class into this class article, not merging this article into anything else. He feels that it is unlikely that USS Louisiana (BB-71), for example, could ever grow. TomTheHand (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. thanks for your reply. not sure about that, either way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow down, all, and wait for the class page I am working on in my sandbox up. It may be that the class page provides enough information to expand the individual ship articles in a manner similar to USS Illinois (BB-65) or USS Kentucky (BB-66). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Montana class battleship will become an FA if TomStar keeps working on it. However, I'm not sure that there is any point having an article on each individual ship: since they were never even started, there is virtually nothing to say about them which does not belong in the class article. The Land (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add to my previous comment, and say that i feel the individual ship articles should not be merged into this article. just my opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

(ec)How about this:

• Wait until TomStar81 finishes his work on this article (Montana class battleship).
• Then evaluate if the individual articles on each ship should be merged or not.
  • If there is enough content to expand each like USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66), then a merge is a moot point.
  • If not, how about this course of action:
    • Then move the contents of the articles on the individual ships to his sandbox for development, and have the individual articles redirect to the main class page.
    • If there is enough content for the individual articles to exist after work by Tom in the sandbox, they can be re-created at that time.

I think this would work, if Tom is up to it.

I personally think the individual articles on each ship should stay the way they are (but expanded in due course after the expansion to the main class article), but hopefully something like what I have proposed is amenable to all of us? -MBK₀₀₄ 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was never referring to the class page,I admire the work of TomStar81. It was just that unlike the non finished Iowa class ships the individual ships in the Montana class don't have much history to them and what is there can easily fit on the class page.Hell the unbuilt Iowa's are almost 50% made up from info from the class page. --Technosphere83 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

An open peer review request for the article can be found by clicking "show" in the Military history Wikiproject template at the top of the page. All are invited to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Peer Review is now officially closed. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary battery updated

While proof reading the article, I noticed that the link for the secondary battery, 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, was actually a Vietnam-era weapon. Since I had a little extra time on my hands today, I went ahead and changed the text and links in this article to 5"/54 caliber Mark 16 gun, then started that article. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GA-Passed

Congratulations! This article is now a Good Article! It is on its way to FA, just needs some more sources. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Surviving FAC issues

The following is a list of FAC posted issues that still need adressing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• My logic says that basic terminology should be covered in the battleship article and by the time someone is reading about ships that were never constructed, they'd be quite clued up, but I suppose each article must stand on its own. I'm too tired to find all appropriate links (refs are a killer for copyeditors - ironically, so are links), but here's a list: armor, firepower, gun, anti-aircraft capability, heavily-armed (specifically armed), Panama Canal, ammunition, main (primary) guns and secondary armament / guns, caliber, breech, recoil, air resistance, rangekeeper, radar, fire control, hardened steel, reinforced concrete, shore bombardment, impact, detonation, defoliate, nuclear deterrence, Cold War, nuclear bombs & shells, kilotons, turret, island of the battleship, starboard, port, fleet, gas blow-back recoil system, automatic guns, logistics, hydraulic couple drives (or just hydraulic), gunnery spotting, catapult, taxi, crane, operating ceiling, fall of shot, radio, floatplanes, ditch, landing gear, floats, search and rescue. I know many of these (or similar) are available, I used them in Tank. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Both books in your reference list need publication dates (at least the year).
• Re footnote #12: "I'm not sure how to format this footnote (I can't tell exactly what the book title is, and I presume it was published by the Bureau of Ships or the Navy itself rather than the NHC as it appears) but double hyphens are definitely not the way to go."

Should be Total ships canceled

I just noticed that it was changed back again. Enigma ^message 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, parameters in the infobox cannot be changed for individual articles. Your fix made the infobox not display anything in that line. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cancelled" is an acceptable US alternate spelling per notable dictionaries such as Merriam-Websters. I don't see a need to make another alternate spelling field for the infobox for this one. (Just commenting.) - BillCJ (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. Enigma ^message 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo protection system

Our article on Iowa class battleship makes a couiple of references to a torpedo protection system. such as:

• A proposal to redesign the hull with a Montana-class type torpedo protection system was rejected.[37]

I came to this article to read about the system, but there's no mention of it. The reference goes to a deadlink: http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Armor.htm (though the website is still up - maybe it just needs a new URL). If anyone can track this down I'm sure it wold be an interesting addition to the article.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ship Model

I remember as a young boy in the late 1960s a large model of the Montana gracing the lobby of the state capitol in Helena. In the 1990s I returned and asked the tour guides what became of the model -- they were not sure but suggested that it had been sent to a naval reserve unit. What a treasure to find that today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.96.131 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cancellation

Regarding the cancellation of these ships, the article sas "In July 1943, the construction of the Montana class was canceled following the Battle of Midway ...".

But that battle was in June, 1942, over a year earlier. Did it take a year for the Navy hierarchy to realize that battleships were obsolete? T-bonham (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this problem is still unaddressed. The article first says the class was suspended in May 1942, and then cancelled in July 1942. Shortly afterwards, it says the class was cancelled in July 1943. That's directly self-contradictory. Can anyone clear this up?

Check all the new info added

Can people proofread all the changes I made? 24.4.142.135 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montana-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410113949/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410113949/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325002644/http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/warships/slideshow/slideshow_10.html to http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/warships/slideshow/slideshow_10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Overall length

Garzke & Dulin give the overall length as 925 feet (282 m). However, many online sources point to 921 ft. Which one should be used? 130.76.96.153 (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As an addendum, 1942 contract plans for BB-67 gives length of 921 feet 7 inches (281 m). Other values might be accidental misprint. The current value listed in the infobox appears to be reasonably accurate and adequate. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm opening a peer review request, as it has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Authorization

The history of the authorization of this class (in the lede and first section) seems inconsistent with the information given in our short articles on the Naval Act of 1938 and Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940; specifically, when these ships were authorized, and how many. The lede to this article says that the first two Montanas "were approved by Congress in 1939 following the passage of the Second Vinson Act" (which is the Naval Act of 1938), yet our article on that Second Vinson Act says that it authorized only three Iowas. The History section of this article says that the 1938 act "cleared the way" for the construction of four South Dakotas and two Iowas. According to our article on the 1940 act, the five Montanas were authorized by that act. Kablammo (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go through my books to get a more definitive and consolidated information on this. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The battleship tonnage authorized by the 1940 act appears to be the planned tonnage for the final two Iowas and the five Montanas. Kablammo (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this find. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington vs. Kirishima

This article gives the range for that engagement as 18,500 yards. The Kirishima article says 5,800 yards, and the Washington article gives 8,400 yards. Hopefully someone who watches/edits these various battleship articles can bring those different statements into some kind of harmony. John D. Goulden (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)