Potential Future U.S. Battleships

I would be curious so see the additions of some more potential U.S. battleships in the future specifically the U.S.S North Carolina more specifically the U.S.S. Washington and the additions of some potentially more paper vehicles being the U.S.S. South Dakota (1917) and the U.S.S. Montana (1943).

These ships would fit very well into the future of high tier naval in the game so far due to the early South Dakota being a great end all be all for U.S. dreadnaughts and the North Carolina being a good vehicle to bridge the gap between the South Dakota and Tennessee being the first U.S. fast battleship and fitting well into that line with the U.S.S. Montana being the top of the line for the U.S. fast battleships due to its 1 extra 16 inch gun battery but with less anti air overall fitting a bit better into some more of the balance.

would hope to see some of this in the future.

3 Likes

Dreadnought classes we still don’t have as of March, 2026:
North Carolina class - practically certain
Iowa class with thicker bulkheads - practically certain
South Dakota (1920) class - likely
South Carolina class - possible, but not popular
Florida class - possible, but not popular
Lexington class - some battlecruiser variant is possible
Montana - unlikely, because it breaks addition precedent

Does not, it had major components built which were then used to build USS Midway and the HARP program, which is more real than a number of other ships we already have in game.

1 Like

Requirement for implemented ingame is ‘laid down’, not major component build
That principle is on ‘discussion on forum’

1 Like

Incorrect, per the suggestion forums and the already done at length thread on the Montana and other similar vessels, like the A-150 which has been suggested, only major components are required, the A-150 being her guns, no other major components for the A-150 were built.

Montana’s guns were built as well, making her, main battery alone, as real as the passed A-150 thread. Said guns were used in the HARP project.

You even commented on said A-150 thread, you should already know this well.

I am also linking my previous comment on suggestion requirements for said vessels here in relation to Montana.

TLDR : The A-150 only had her gun tubes built, nothing else, and her suggestion got passed for consideration 13 days ago. Montana had fully built guns ready, which went on to be HARP guns and serve as a replacement guns on Wisconsin and New Jersey, a fully built secondary battery which outright went on to serve on Midway as working guns, and working propulsion machinery which went on to be used in Midway.

Montana has literally 3.5 times more completed components than the A-150 and the latter was still passed as a suggestion.

1 Like

You’re confusing ‘implemented in game’ and ‘discussion on forum permissioned’

They are not same.
No ship with never laid down but component exist is currently ingame, and likely not in few years.

Especially US currently don’t needs such battleship as currently Iowa is very, very good.

2 Likes

Does not matter, this is a thread about future battleships, the Montana meets the criteria for such and is within the requirements to be added, thus it is valid.

Irrelevant to the thread.

You are aware that you are in a thread called “Potential Future U.S. Battleships” Right?

Cool such is irrelevant to the thread, this is a discussion about what could be, not what is.

1 Like

no its completely on unneeded right now US tree for naval is already strongest in game across most BRs only matched by Russia at toptier they dont need more instead they should fix the boats we already have ingame

its future warships, not for next update

1 Like

There are upgrades to Iowa’s that will do it

1 Like

No it doesn’t.

Edit

Yet.

Montana will be added, it’s only a matter of time.

1 Like

USS Trump?
I keed. I keed.
But I wouldn’t put it past Gaijin.

Please write me a five paragraph essay explaining why Montana is going to be in War Thunder with proper MLA citations to continue this conversation.

Personally, I want to see pre-dreadnoughts because they look cool, but I already don’t like the situation we have right now with ships which have no chance to cause damage being matched with ships several times their size and protection. I was playing the new 5.0 (HE-only) German destroyer the other day and I had a Westfalen in the same game as me because it’s a 6.0 battleship. The west truly has fallen.

1 Like

No.

By the developers’ own words, Montana fits the criteria for being added to Warthunder.

Incorrect. No battleship currently in game is more fantastical then a hypothetical addition of a Montana class battleship would be.
All three of the big Soviets (Kron, Stalin, Soyuz) were actually laid down, and while you might’ve heard that the Kron’s 305’s are historically innaccurate, that is not entirely true. They were supposed to fitted with those guns but development was so slow the Soviets bought German 380’s instead.
Ersatz Yorck was equally laid down but never finished
Clemenceau had the same fate (Of the 4 Richelieu’s, only Gascogne was never actually laid down)
And the same goes for Sachsen, Mackensen, Amagi, Tosa, Francesco Carraciolo, and Izmail, who were all far further into construction.

A matter of many years, at best

Matter of fact is that the German H-39’s and British Lions have more chance of getting into this game then the Montana class does, since they were actually laid down.

And beyond that, the US already has one of the best end-of-line battleships in the Iowa, of which a further five can be added. Not to mention we’re still missing three South Dakotas, both North Carolinas, the 1920 South Dakotas, and the Lexington if she were finished as a battlecruiser.

1 Like

HMS Lion and H39 will be added eventually as well.

Edit

I think one of the very few exceptions to the rule of it being added is Shinano. As I think a dev stated she would not be added in her Battleship configuration.

Montana does not fit that criteria.
The criteria is to have been laid down, and it has never changed.

Notice that this very specifically says “is therefore a valid vehicle to be suggested.”

“To be suggested”, not “to be added to the game”.

As for why the suggestion forum has a different rule from that of the game, I have not got a clue, but as it stands Montana cannot be added.

1 Like

Montana does fit the criteria to be added.

A150 only ever had a 51cm prototype built. It is the single most incomplete ship that meets the criteria to be in the game.

There is an official developer response (somewhere, either in news section/developer’s blog or on the forums) that even states as such.

Tanks and aircraft have different criteria because there’s so many of 'em. Ships do not have that luxury because if we went solely with ships completed, Russia would be a barren wasteland, as would Germany, France and Italy. (Especially in the battleship sections of the techtree)

It is not in the game. It was passed for consideration, and I honestly do not understand why it was anyway since it genuinely does not fit the criteria Gaijin stated themselves, but I digress.

Consideration does not equal “will be added to the game” in the slighest. It just means the suggestion moderators forwarded it to the development team, but the development team has every liberty to discard considerations. We just never get told if/when that happens.

I suspect roughly 33% to 50% of all vehicles passed for consideration will never see the light of day in this game.

You are correct on the Soviets, but these three did have plenty of actual large capital ships in service. More then enough to create a serious top layer of ships in game.

Yet.

A serious layer of free RP for Iowa and SoDak, maybe… Which they currently are.

The requirements for ships being added are vastly different from requirements for tanks and aircraft.