It only makes sense that the game would include these barrels. A 8x 18 inch gun
setup for the Montana class would have been very possible. The US battleships were
designed with a lot of practicality in mind versus the extreme designs of the Axis.
With good reason. They already had the quantity of gun ships, so an extreme design
would be completely useless. Supposedly the Iowa class would have been able to
carry only 5 barrels due to the extreme weight and the narrow hull of the Iowa. So of
course these guns were never intended to be used on any operational ship.

From a different point of view:

The 18 inch guns were supposed to have a longer firing range than the 16 inch Mark
4 or Mark 7 which is a practical concept for shore bombardment. By way of
comparison, the 16 inch Mark 7 HE projectiles weighed 1,900lbs and the 18 inch Mark
A HE projectiles weighed considerably more at 3,850 lbs. The explosion radius and
power for shelling inland would be valuable.

If the Japanese wouldn't have had so many blunders, the Montana class may have
needed to be built and we would know exactly what the plans were.

*Edit* The quads I think people are referring to are the 14 inch quad turrets that
were considered for North Carolina class battleships.

Most probably the old South Dakota class ships, as I read up on it, and it was developed
during the 1920-1930, round about the time of the old South Dakota (possibly the Lexington
class Battlecruiser too)

what ship was that inteted for cause i doudt it would be the monty man

18 inch US barrel on the far left.



One of two 18" (45.7 cm) "Super-Heavy" Projectiles on display at Building One, NWSC
Crane, Indiana Plate reads "18 inch Experimental Projectile"

Images taken from navweaps.com

^^^^^yes right thare is a very good point correct on that everything in the pacific
was usally bombard for a bit then go back to protecting your carriers

nice job sotrmavenger lol

Well the requirements changed. When Sodak and NorCal classes were laid down, carrier
groups were not a reality. 27 knots was deemed sufficient for the new faster navy.

But by the time WW2 was underway, the reality of 30 knot carriers was driven home, and all
new battleships and cruisers had to be able to maintain a 30 knot speed. The Iowas were
designed for this, and the fact that the Montanas could not was one more factor in the
canceling of the class.

the montana with its 12 16"/50cal marks 7s had a heavier broadside than the
yamato did by about 4000 tons i think or around there atleast and its about 6 knots
slower than iowa but its speed still match the sodak and nocal so you cant say it
would not opperate with carrier groups

yes^^^^^ after the fails and wins of the pacific shows carriers win!!!

because they are very versatile like look at nimitz class its a very versatile ship and
my bro told me thare makes a new carrier thats like bigger and more plane space
and 2 decks(not sure)

but yes in alot of situations a carrier can be better then a battleship

Yes, projection of air power was (correctly) deemed more important to the war effort than
the construction of a super-battleship that could not keep up with said aircraft carriers.

well thanks man i looked up some stuff ALL or most major ports that can buidl stuff
like a monty and stuff are on the east cost like philly and new york and places like
that but i think they were ocupied in makeing like trade ships for the atlantic stuff
but they didnt need a battle ship AS much cause a CV was more important like the
sink of the yamato

they sent a couple hundred of planes to sink it and the carriers made the yamato
monster of a ship usless!!! im mean used right planes can dominate battle ships
they have more range then them and they can be sent it more numbers

but the thing about CVs being better is my opinion