Talk:Montana-class battleship

message: 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)
thread_title:  In popular culture? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison with Yamato 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Midway blurb 

message: The first paragraph under the History section appears rather unclear to me:
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsensical paragraph 

message: (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  and , 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)
thread_title: Compromise?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary battery updated 

message: 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 lineReview Me! 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA-Passed

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

message: I just noticed that it was changed back again. Enigma message 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: ok. Enigma message 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be Total ships canceled 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Torpedo protection system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ship Model 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cancellation 

message: Can people proofread all the changes I made? 24.4.142.135 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check all the new info added 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Garzke & Dulin give the overall length as . However, many online sources point to 921 ft. Which one should be used? 130.76.96.153 (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum, 1942 contract plans for BB-67 gives length of . 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)
thread_title:  Overall length 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll go through my books to get a more definitive and consolidated information on this. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for this find. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll go through my books to get a more definitive and consolidated information on this. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for this find. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Washington vs. Kirishima