How many other BBs were prevented by the 3 Yamatos?

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Or you can do what the signatories often did, which is to have it in limits 'on paper' but not in reality. Look at the Japanese cruisers, most of them realistically displaced well over the 10k limit.

Not so easy in this case as the Allies knew the exsiting weights of all the ships and hence would know these would be limited to 33K , you could argue you trimmed the weight from other ships with some proof. Note Histroically these ships were like 39K tons so even trying to get them down to 35 was hard ( though can be done as the Kaga came in pretty light as a carrier)

Yep, and it sacrificed armor protection to get the weight down. It can be done, usually to the detriment of the vessel involved. Honestly, Kaga and Akagi might have been better scrapped and rebuilt from the keel up, in terms of function/displacement.

Note the thread is premised on if the Japanese got 70% allowance instead of 60%. With Kaga and her sister already launched there is no change they would be scrapped they would be built as battleships though so that should be much better. Prob best options are a reduced belt with possible additions later , removal of bunkarage and casements and remove some casemates from some other ships. Basically cut the designs by 4K from 39 to the maximum 35K and cut 5K from all the other battleships and provide proof to the allies. .

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bklooste




Not so easy in this case as the Allies knew the exsiting weights of all the ships and hence would know these would be limited to 33K , you could argue you trimmed the weight from other ships with some proof. Note Histroically these ships were like 39K tons so even trying to get them down to 35 was hard ( though can be done as the Kaga came in pretty light as a carrier)

Yep, and it sacrificed armor protection to get the weight down. It can be done, usually to the detriment of the vessel involved. Honestly, Kaga and Akagi might have been better scrapped and rebuilt from the keel up, in terms of function/displacement.

Note the thread is premised on if the Japanese got 70% allowance instead of 60%. With Kaga and her sister already launched there is no change they would be scrapped they would be built as battleships though so that should be much better. Prob best options are a reduced belt with possible additions later , removal of bunkarage and casements and remove some casemates from some other ships. Basically cut the designs by 4K from 39 to the maximum 35K and cut 5K from all the other battleships and provide proof to the allies. .

So much easier to over-build without those pesky treaties though. [:D]

In the case of what you are suggesting then, they would be able to build new carriers from the keel up that were designed from the outset as carriers. You'd probably end up with the G-6 (17.5k ton pre-Shokaku) design or even the 1924 Shokaku (~14k tons) design. Of course this is all dependant on Japan having enough building and launching slips to make this possible, even without a treaty, you still have physical limits unless Japan invests heavily in new shipbuilding sites.

Really, treaty or no Japan only had so much shipbuilding capacity and had to make the most of what they had, hence the top-heavy, armed to the teeth ships they produced.

[bklooste]

So much easier to over-build without those pesky treaties though. [:D]

In the case of what you are suggesting then, they would be able to build new carriers from the keel up that were designed from the outset as carriers. You'd probably end up with the G-6 (17.5k ton pre-Shokaku) design or even the 1924 Shokaku (~14k tons) design. Of course this is all dependant on Japan having enough building and launching slips to make this possible, even without a treaty, you still have physical limits unless Japan invests heavily in new shipbuilding sites.

Yes Akagi will be converted but when her sister collapses in the earth quake they will not convert the Kaga but build a dedicated carrier ( its much cheaper than converting Kaga and building a new BB limited at 35K and carriers benefit more from a dedicated design.) Note this is the 20's and early 30s there is no issue with the yards . You wouldnt get the Ryujo as this was a compromise design based on remaining tonnage after the Kaga and Akagi. Whats the 1924 Shokaku design ? This sounds like an excellent candidate. Trails and experience of the Akagi , Hosho and this design would see a new design laid down in 26-27 or so though modified as its built. No armoured flight desks or anything fancy till 39 or so. I also asume that they wouldnt build 2 full carriers simulatiously in 22-24 due to the recent costs of the BBs and lack of experience. Still 62100 tons ( not including the Akagi ) is a lot.

If they wanted they could have pumped out 15 BBs from 20-34 in terms of slips , yards and yard resources not that they had the money or resources ( steel , coal , plate ) ( a few liners wouldnt get build though) . They did have the new 8+8 program.

Really, treaty or no Japan only had so much shipbuilding capacity and had to make the most of what they had, hence the top-heavy, armed to the teeth ships they produced.

This is more due to the Treaty limits and the disatisfaction with their ratios, with a 70% ratio they would be a lot more satisfied and prob build a more balanced fleet ,at least due to spare tonage for carriers there would be a bigger focus on them. You couldnt stop the Yamatos but you could delay them with some BC and plan on laying the Yamato down in late 41 /42 and build a more balanced fleet , im also sure with the 2 extra slow BB there is no way the Yamatos would have been sub 30 knots . 1939 Ship Building capacity was 800K tons and steel was about 6M tons.

We must also remember the US response here and i would imagine 2 more South Dakotas ordered with prob a less balanced fleet! Craking the codes made the US job in WWII much easier it prob saved tens of thousands of lives if not more.

[mariandavid]

Does anyone know how much information the RN was giving the IJN at this time on the operation of large carriers? The Brits had three big converted high speed ones (for the time) in service as well as the much slower Eagle. The RN was debating the issue of carrier speed but I do not know if the IJN was in a position to decide on a new build fleet carrier design until at least the  20's. More to the point I do not think any navy would have assigned BB building capability to CV until the mid 30's. The sticking point here is when aircraft were deemed effective weapons. Until the mid 30's the only reason to build a carrier from the point of view of decision makers was to find the enemy and chase away his spotting aircraft. My guess is that an admiralty would think 1 carrier to 8 battleships would be a sensible ratio.

[bklooste]

The hull of the Hôshô was based on a cruiser design, but it was not a conversion. She was built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier. Hôshô was commissioned on 27 December 1922, thirteen months before the Royal Navy's first purpose-built carrier Hermes, which was designed before Hôshô.

The Hosho was designed with the assistance of a British technical mission which provided broad details of the Hermes.

More to the point I do not think any navy would have assigned BB building capability to CV until the mid 30's. The sticking point here is when aircraft were deemed effective weapons. Until the mid 30's the only reason to build a carrier from the point of view of decision makers was to find the enemy and chase away his spotting aircraft. My guess is that an admiralty would think 1 carrier to 8 battleships would be a sensible ratio.

There is no question of this given a choice, however the Washington Naval treaty stipulated the maximum tonnage of Battleships and Aircraft carriers. Which is why Lexington , Akagi , Kaga ( as CV) etc got built , not because they wanted to but because they had to ( which is also why they carried 8" guns as cruisers) . Historically After Kaga and Akagi Japan had very little tonnage left over ( After the Hosho and what they have left they built the Ryuho) however by increasing the treaty from 60--70% ( which is the first entry of this thread) if Kaga and her sister are built and Akagi converted there is nothing left to convert the other BC after the earthquake and plenty of spare tonnage. Hence the comments above