If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships...

[John 3rd]

Got your file John. THANKS. It makes for some fascinating reading and conjecturing.

I have to find my ship-building layout I did for BTS. Used the 7 slipways and juggled shipping with the construction times you have been showing above to make the Japanese ship-building schedule for that Mod and RA.

Would LOVE to hear either of the stories you allude to at the bottom of your last Post.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Hi ya Bill. John’s premise is pre-war. What people did in the war environment is another subject entirely. But you have the right idea.

Comparing construction times is a bit like comparing apples, to radishes, to cabbages. Every nation had a different view as to what should be done on the building slip to make a ship ready for “launch”, and what could be done in a “fitting basin” and at a “fitting pier”.

Also, there are national differences between when a ship is “commissioned” as opposed to its “completion”. And, of course, this has huge variances between and among the various types and classes. A quickie example of national differences is the comparison between Yorktown and Shokaku classes of CVs. Built in moderately similar time periods, and having very similar block coefficients, they end up having damn near the same construction times, but allocated very differently among the various steps.

Yorktown: Keel, 21 May, ’34; Launch, 04 April, ’36 (23 months); “Commissioned”, 30 Sept., ’37 (18 months) – 41 months total.
Enterprise: Keel, 16 July, ’34; Launch, 03 Oct., ’36 (27 months); “Commissioned”, 12 May, ’38 (19 months) – 46 months total.

Shokaku: Keel, 12 Dec., ’37; Launch, 01 June, ’39 (19 months); “Completed”, 08 Aug., ’41 (26 months) – 45 months total.
Zuikaku: Keel, 25 May, ’38; Launch, 27 Nov., ’39 (18 months); “Completed”, 25 Sept., ’41 (22 months) – 40 months total.

This illustrates, more than anything else, the difference between Japan and the US as to their thoughts on where the “launch” boundary should go ON CV TYPES (other types were vastly different). Logically, the “complete” and “commission” dates for CVs would be rather close together because of the time required to do air-group work-ups, during which one could do the trials and work-ups on the ships themselves. So for Japan, the “complete” date, like the US “commission” date, is when you can “light the fires”.

Much more to say about CAs and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the political tension between and among the Naval Districts (the NSY yards) and the Navy and Mitsubishi and Kawasaki, but that’s another subject. Woof !!

All in all, Japan had the knowledge, and applied it in their later construction programs. Warship construction was still subject to the ins-and-outs of IJN District Admiralty politics, but that’s still another story.

[ed] so in John 3rd terms, things do not look as ugly as one would think, or as ugly as one would like one to think.

Ciao. JWE

I was responding to DeltaV112's comments. He (or she) claimed Japan built carriers in 16-18 months, but the closest I could find was the Unryu (24 months). I used commission dates as a yardstick. I know launch dates are tricky as ships can get launched at many different points in construction. You can pretty much launch a ship as soon as you have a watertight hull, though I believe in most cases launch happens a little further into the process.

Pre-war build times were always much longer than wartime. I looked up the Essex class build times. They ranged from 13 to 20 months from laying of the keel to commissioning for the war builds (post war commissioned took longer).

Japan built almost all their cruisers pre-war and many of them were embroiled in design politics that slowed construction. The few completed after the war started had their build time disrupted by war time emergencies that put other builds ahead of them in the queue. Comparing Japanese cruiser and carrier construction times is a bit difficult because there was very little overlap in construction periods. I think the only time they had keel up carriers under construction at the same time as cruisers (without disruptions due to emergencies) was when the Hiryu and Soryu were being built. I think the Mogamis were done by the time the Shokakus were built and by the time the Taiho was built their construction program was in a mess because of the losses at Midway and the panic that caused.

Anyway, that was the only points/questions I was trying to raise. I wanted to know where the 16-18 months came from.

Bill

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Anyway, that was the only points/questions I was trying to raise. I wanted to know where the 16-18 months came from.

Bill

I know, Bill. The point of the post was to show where the IJ 18 months came from and why it isn't relevant, All things considered. Ciao. JWE

[John 3rd]

I am playing with ideas and the numbers to create some sort of proposal for commentary.

The initial thinking is to create an RA and BTS variant based on no Yamato's and what that would mean. You could play normal or LITE RA/BYS.

[John 3rd]

Sent a proposal to Juan and John to get some feedback before throwing it out here. Stay tuned...

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Sent a proposal to Juan and John to get some feedback before throwing it out here. Stay tuned...

Got your email. Sent response. Do you think it worthwhile for me to post it here? Or would it just open too many cans of worms?

Ciao. JWE

[ny59giants]

I like worms!!

[Skyros]

You have to chew them before you swallow.[X(]

[John 3rd]

OK. We'll Post here. Give me a minute...

[John 3rd]

Mt original Email to John and Juan:

Hi Guys.

I have been going through the building times of the Fleet as well as John’s Yard Sizes sheet he sent and have a thought.

COULD the Japanese have built FOUR BBs in the time taken to build the two Yamato? I ask because of the following things:

1. If they went with a design already drafted and ready (such as the 3x3 16.1” layout) they might have saved some time.
2. The two slipways would not have need to be expanded (saving at least a year there).
3. More conventional sized BBs would have taken less time to actually build then the monster Yamato.

My thinking is a pair of BBs enter service in 1940 and the second pair come into service in late-42. I’ve crunched the numbers and it APPEARS possible. Is this stupid or semi-realistic?

Would like a little commentary please...
John


John's Response:

Not really, you would have to bump some things and make certain assumptions. The Yamatos were built surprisingly quickly, considering. But here’s my thoughts. Juan will very likely have some things to say, too.

The last evidence of BB build times were from 1918-1921. The two Nagatos each took approximately 24 months from Keel to Launch. Kaga and Tosa were both launched, but their condition was simply hull up to, and including, the weather deck. These two each took approximately 15-16 months, Keel to Launch. All 4 of them were in the 215-230m size range.

Yamato took 33 months, Keel to Launch, 32 months for Musashi. I don’t think 24 months to launch is unreasonable for a 230 some-odd meter BB. You could cut a few months off that (I’m guessing maybe 3-4), as Kaga and Tosa show, especially if you use whips and chains. BTW, that’s probably all you’re gonna get out of a 250m building slip.

The Launch to Complete times vary considerably. Yamato was 16 months, Musashi was 21 months, Nagato was 13 months, Mutsu was 17 months. I don’t think it is unreasonable to plan for 13-16 months.

Mitsubishi, Nagasaki #1 is pretty easy, all you will bump is auxiliaries and other fiddly bits; Tone launched 21 Nov. ’37, so with moderate slip prep time for a new ship type, you could lay a BB keel 01 Jan. ’38 and launch:

Best case, 15 Aug. ’39 – complete Sep. ’40 (20 + 13)

Nominal case, 01 Jan. ’40 – complete April ’41 (24 + 16)

No need for new slip prep, just a 2 week clean up and you can lay the next keel, and launch the second one:

Best case, 01 May ’41 – complete June ‘42

Nominal case, 01 Feb. ’42 – complete May ‘43

Kure NSY #1 is also pretty good. Again, all that needs be bumped are auxiliaries/tenders and other fiddly bits. Soryu launched 23 Dec. ’35, so there’s a two year push on the figures for Mitsu-Naga. There’s a 72 month period (from 01 Jan. ‘36 to 01 Jan. ’42) in which you can fiddle 33-40 month construction periods up the wazoo.

Yokosuka NSY #1 is also a candidate. Shokaku launched 01 June ’39. It is conceivable that they could complete a BB by April ’42, but Dec. ’42 is more likely.



All this requires absolutely crisp execution times, something Japan wasn’t noted for back then. But you wanted possibilities/potentials, so this is my best shot.



Ciao. John

[John 3rd]

Worm away fellas...

I looked at the idea of FOUR BBs as an extreme. Doing a pair of BCs or even CVs are also possible...

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Worm away fellas...

I looked at the idea of FOUR BBs as an extreme. Doing a pair of BCs or even CVs are also possible...

Thanks John. I wasn't sure how much of my blithering you would want to show. FYI, I did consider where the fiddly bits could get moved to, so you won't lose fleet train assets (such as they were), or auxiliary conversions, like Hiyo/Junyo (but there's an interresting story about those two).

The universe of Japanese warship construction looks like a ball of yarn after it's been played with by a couple of very aggressive Siamese cats. Just figuring out the results is an exercise in frustration. And planning? Ah, planning ! Nan Deska ! One does not get there from here ! All because of the proclivities of the principal players. All documented and all understood. Coulda, shoulda, woulda been different, except for certain particulars in peculiarly Japanese decision making.

Know you asked for those storys, and they are highly relevant to these discussions, so I might post those. Are they relevant here? Or would you like a new thread? Up to you John. Ciao. JWE

[John 3rd]

I think a new Thread would be best due to the amount of commentary that will probably occur.

Cannot wait to learn something new!

I figured there would be 5-8 new Posts on this after I went to work. Very depressed about the lack of commentary from the 'can of worms' of this AUGUST assembly!

[John 3rd]

Options for the building:

1. Two pairs of new BBs. One set already in operation starting Dec 7th and the second set coming roughly a year later.
2. One pair of new BBs and then a pair of Command Cruisers (4x3 8" or 3x2 14") nearing completion.
3. The BBs and then a pair of CVs nearly completed and operational.

OPTION 3 would also necessitate and further spreading of Japanese pilots pulling down XP levels at war's start or REALLY low XP for the starting Daitai on the CVs.

Thoughts?

Is there a 4th Option?

[ny59giants]

OPTION 3 would also necessitate and further spreading of Japanese pilots pulling down XP levels at war's start or REALLY low XP for the starting Daitai on the CVs.

This my preferred option. Maybe have some of the late war (43 and beyond) come in with just TWO pilots and force the Japanese player to pull from his pool of trained pilots to fill out. Many Allied reinforcement air groups come in with just a few pilots and planes. You have to fill them out yourself.

[John 3rd]

OK. That is ONE idea and vote. Others....

[Symon]

Oh, gosh and Hootz Gazotties! Mike is right, of course, but he's looking at things from a Western viewpoint. Pre-war IJN military philosophy would not accept that approach. In any scenario that attempts to accurately model "Life, the Universe, and Everything" in pre-war Japan, one MUST think Japanese.

OK, gonna have to open that "Japanese Ball-of-Yarn" thread. You can't, simply can't, port Western thoughts and philosophy and doctrine and usage, on top of the Japanese experience.

Japan would never institute the Option 3 pilot program. Never, never, ever. One needs to understand the Naval politics of the period and understand that Combined Fleet was nothing more than a tactical HQ. It was subordinate to the Navy Section of Imperial GHQ. Also note that it had no command authority over the Naval Districts, China, or any "Fleet" not designated as part of "Combined Fleet". i.e., 1st, 2nd, 3rd Southern, 4th, 8th, the Area Fleets, etc..

[ed] i.e., Yamamoto had lots of political influence, but in absolute terms he was little more than the bottom half of Nimitz and the top half of Spruance/Halsey. He didn't have anywhere near the command authority that modern wargamers think. His influence, however, was elsewhere and was part and parcel of the philosophical B-of-Y of the command structure.

Combined Fleet had no window at all on what was happening with expansion of airgroups or training or any else, other than having a CV become operational. Japanese command structure was very different from US command structure and any attempts to impose US doctrinal results will (unfortunately) fail miserably. You gotta think Japanese, my friend. You can't think American. But if you think Japanese, I can find a few places where your doctrine is superior and you can get some push.

[ed] this is of some interest to me, since the whole idea of "special attack" (aka Kamikazes) was in response to the failure of the training programs to provide acceptable replacement pilots, and forced Adm Onishi Takajiro to institute offensive tactics that had been used very often, before. All he did was institutionalize the concept. Okay, enough. This stuff is good enough to go in a separate thread. Hope we have enough Japanese forum folks to keep things Kosher.

No harm, no foul, Skyros, NY59Giants, just gonna have to build a different ballpark, where we can all play. Ciao. JWE

[JuanG]

While option number 3 might sound nice, I don't think it would be ideal, and as Symon has also pointed out, not really in line with Japanese thinking. Even in the RA storyline where Yamamoto does have more power, it would seem a little farfetched. There's also the fact that another two carriers in '42 might be really bad for the allies, and require more reactive changes to their construction and thinking.

As for other options, one thing that occurred to me is that if there is a 3x3 16in BB design capable of 30 knots in service, I wonder if the B-65's make sense anymore. One possible option might be to have two pairs of these 16in BBs, and instead of the B-65's build another pair of CV's - these might need to be a smaller design than the Shokaku-kai's, depending on exactly what yards are being used. These could arrive mid-late '43, and need to be filled out with pilots as was mentioned. Not sure what the larger yards would build after the second pair of BB's.

[Skyros]

Would love to learn more.. Please start the threads and open up the discussion.

ORIGINAL: Symon

Oh, gosh and Hootz Gazotties! Mike is right, of course, but he's looking at things from a Western viewpoint. Pre-war IJN military philosophy would not accept that approach. In any scenario that attempts to accurately model "Life, the Universe, and Everything" in pre-war Japan, one MUST think Japanese.

OK, gonna have to open that "Japanese Ball-of-Yarn" thread. You can't, simply can't, port Western thoughts and philosophy and doctrine and usage, on top of the Japanese experience.

Japan would never institute the Option 3 pilot program. Never, never, ever. One needs to understand the Naval politics of the period and understand that Combined Fleet was nothing more than a tactical HQ. It was subordinate to the Navy Section of Imperial GHQ. Also note that it had no command authority over the Naval Districts, China, or any "Fleet" not designated as part of "Combined Fleet". i.e., 1st, 2nd, 3rd Southern, 4th, 8th, the Area Fleets, etc..

[ed] i.e., Yamamoto had lots of political influence, but in absolute terms he was little more than the bottom half of Nimitz and the top half of Spruance/Halsey. He didn't have anywhere near the command authority that modern wargamers think. His influence, however, was elsewhere and was part and parcel of the philosophical B-of-Y of the command structure.

Combined Fleet had no window at all on what was happening with expansion of airgroups or training or any else, other than having a CV become operational. Japanese command structure was very different from US command structure and any attempts to impose US doctrinal results will (unfortunately) fail miserably. You gotta think Japanese, my friend. You can't think American. But if you think Japanese, I can find a few places where your doctrine is superior and you can get some push.

[ed] this is of some interest to me, since the whole idea of "special attack" (aka Kamikazes) was in response to the failure of the training programs to provide acceptable replacement pilots, and forced Adm Onishi Takajiro to institute offensive tactics that had been used very often, before. All he did was institutionalize the concept. Okay, enough. This stuff is good enough to go in a separate thread. Hope we have enough Japanese forum folks to keep things Kosher.

No harm, no foul, Skyros, NY59Giants, just gonna have to build a different ballpark, where we can all play. Ciao. JWE

[DOCUP]

I like these type of discussions. I learn a lot from you guys.