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

[wdolson]

What about building 1 BB and 1 CA for the cost of a Yamato? I think that should work out close to a push. Having more CAs would be an Allied player's nightmare.

Bill

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

What about building 1 BB and 1 CA for the cost of a Yamato? I think that should work out close to a push. Having more CAs would be an Allied player's nightmare.

Bill

At the risk of this being a stupid question as I am not as schooled as you guys in the ship construction nuances, would 1x BB and 2x CA be a wash?

[John 3rd]

Have to admit that I rather LIKE the idea of a BB and a CA or two instead of the Yamato's. Could easily justify going with the 3x3 16" BB to replace Fuso. USA responds with the North Carolina's. Japan PLANS to go with Yamato and B-64/65 then see the Vinson Bills and PANIC!

Just a thought...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: wdolson

What about building 1 BB and 1 CA for the cost of a Yamato? I think that should work out close to a push. Having more CAs would be an Allied player's nightmare.

Bill

At the risk of this being a stupid question as I am not as schooled as you guys in the ship construction nuances, would 1x BB and 2x CA be a wash?

I would trade each Yamato for 2 (or could you even get 3?!) Takao, Tone, or Mogami class CAs in a heartbeat. It's like the IJN equivalent of having Fletchers, kind of.

[John 3rd]

Sure SOUNDS nice---doesn't it??!!!

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I would trade each Yamato for 2 (or could you even get 3?!) Takao, Tone, or Mogami class CAs in a heartbeat. It's like the IJN equivalent of having Fletchers, kind of.

Yeah, I would trade it too, if Lokasenna could tell me how to make it happen.
Shipyards, and lions and tigers and bears, Oh my. Lokasenna, things happen beyond Springsharp, and Springsharp ain't all that good. You need yards and materials and all kinds of other stuff. Hootz Gazotties. Ciao. JWE

[John 3rd]

"Hootz Gazottes???!!!" What exactly is that...

[DeltaV112]

You can probably get 3 CA for both of Yamato and Musashi. Maybe 4, if the yards are quicker about these ships then they were about the previous ones. Shinano alone though is worth 2, 3 if they're quick about it. She spent forever on the slipway. Cutting Hull 111 will net you another. Of course, in terms of time those CAs will cost almost as much as a carrier. The carrier would probably be a better choice. On that note, Junyo is terrible and spent a good 50% longer taking up space in return for a carrier that was inferior to Shokaku.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I would trade each Yamato for 2 (or could you even get 3?!) Takao, Tone, or Mogami class CAs in a heartbeat. It's like the IJN equivalent of having Fletchers, kind of.

Yeah, I would trade it too, if Lokasenna could tell me how to make it happen.
Shipyards, and lions and tigers and bears, Oh my. Lokasenna, things happen beyond Springsharp, and Springsharp ain't all that good. You need yards and materials and all kinds of other stuff. Hootz Gazotties. Ciao. JWE

Are you trying to say that a comparable amount of materials, time, and money couldn't have been spent on 3 CAs instead of a Yamato? You'd be underusing an enormous slip, sure.... but seriously? Of course "things happen beyond SpringSharp", but SpringSharp is just one tool and it's not a logistics tool. Typical straw man from you, must make you feel good, but whatever helps you sleep at night.


Go look at the chart of slipway usage again.

[John 3rd]

Let us go to brass tacks.

The Japanese build two smaller--though highly capable--BB (3x3 16.1") in these slipways. If this is done it saves a YEAR of time lost due to the expansion issue. Smaller, less complicated, BBs would be complete and in service--realistically--in mid-to-late 1940. Dealing with the legitimate crew issue, these crews would have 12-18 months to hone their skills and become a team.

OK. We have two BBs built. The slipways open up again for new construction. What would that be?

1. Do we build a pair of B-64/65 that could easily be in service by mid-42?
2. Build two more BBs of the same class that might be complete by late-42/early-43.
3. Begin construction on two new CV (Hiryu or Shokaku-Class)?

Seems to me that building CAs in these slipways is a waste of space.

Is there a 4th Option?

RA--BTS postulates a pair of B-64 joining the Kaigun in 1943. If they were built in THIS scenario, then they are out way earlier and THEIR slipways are open for CV/CA builds.

The options are endless but we need to be realistic in time and material.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I would trade each Yamato for 2 (or could you even get 3?!) Takao, Tone, or Mogami class CAs in a heartbeat. It's like the IJN equivalent of having Fletchers, kind of.

Yeah, I would trade it too, if Lokasenna could tell me how to make it happen.
Shipyards, and lions and tigers and bears, Oh my. Lokasenna, things happen beyond Springsharp, and Springsharp ain't all that good. You need yards and materials and all kinds of other stuff. Hootz Gazotties. Ciao. JWE

Are you trying to say that a comparable amount of materials, time, and money couldn't have been spent on 3 CAs instead of a Yamato? You'd be underusing an enormous slip, sure.... but seriously? Of course "things happen beyond SpringSharp", but SpringSharp is just one tool and it's not a logistics tool. Typical straw man from you, must make you feel good, but whatever helps you sleep at night.


Go look at the chart of slipway usage again.

There are many things which armchair naval designers appear to fail to take into account, such as the complexity and resource constraints in building off site, key components of complex warships.

Take the case which is being floated (pun intended) of building 3 ships (3xCA to be precise) in lieu of a single Yamato equivalent BB. Instead of building 3 or 4 main turrets (together with the associated "rifles") for the single BB, instead 9 or 12 main turrets would now need to be built off site to equip the CAs. Building turrets (and their associated rifles) is one of the main constraints in putting together a ship. The individual turrets for the CAs would not be built in 1/3rd the time required to build the BB turret. There would therefore be an increase in construction time to build the main weapon system. Plus this is separate from the question of whether the additional turrets could be built offsite concurrently, let alone sequentially. How much investment saved from not building the additional slip capacity would instead have to be ploughed into adding additional capacity to build the additional turrets within the timeframe envisaged.

Of course it isn't just the additional main turrets which would need to be build from the contemporary resources. Three CAs would almost certainly need, in aggregate, more AA guns than a single BB would carry. Or the power plants which in aggregate would exceed the number needed to be built for a single BB. The list of important components for the three CAs, which in aggregate would exceed that for a single BB, is quite long. Everything built off site of course and just as importantly the offsite manufacturers still being required to meet their other commitments to provide military hardware for the rest of Japan's military.

In any naval arms race with the USA, putting aside what the RN might bring to the table, there simply was no chance of Japan being competitive. Substituting 3 CAs for a single BB would still not result in matching what the USA could build; and the CAs would still be as vulnerable to destruction as the rest of the IJN. These are the underlying constraints which propelled the IJN, as I said in my earlier post, to focus on achieving a qualitative edge via the top secret 18.1" guns which in it's view would allow it to destroy the enemy without coming into range of the enemy's guns.

Alfred

[wdolson]

Here's a thought...

The Yamatos had 6 inch turrets because there were spare turrets around after the Mogami class upgrade. There were a total of 20 of these 3 gun turrets built for the 4 cruisers.

I believe some of these turrets were re-used on subsequent CLs, but there were the turrets used for the Yamatos that would now not be used. Building the Aganos earlier and building 1 or 2 more would probably be doable. Just spitballing here, I could be wrong.

Bill

[ny59giants]

OK. We have two BBs built. The slipways open up again for new construction. What would that be?

1. Do we build a pair of B-64/65 that could easily be in service by mid-42?
2. Build two more BBs of the same class that might be complete by late-42/early-43.
3. Begin construction on two new CV (Hiryu or Shokaku-Class)?

Option 3 please!!

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Are you trying to say that a comparable amount of materials, time, and money couldn't have been spent on 3 CAs instead of a Yamato? You'd be underusing an enormous slip, sure.... but seriously? Of course "things happen beyond SpringSharp", but SpringSharp is just one tool and it's not a logistics tool. Typical straw man from you, must make you feel good, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
Go look at the chart of slipway usage again.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. And I made that chart of slipway usage. I know exactly what Japan had available, and the capabilities of every pre-war yard. As you say, Springsharp is not a logistics tool; it’s not all that good for much of anything else either, so just forget it. If you think in terms of logistics (materials and, more important, space, and most important, time) and do some critical thinking, you will find goodness and righteousness filling your heart.

So, CAs were 190m. There weren’t that many yards that could do them. Don’t kid yourself, a 200m yard would be extremely hard pressed to build a 190m ship. So there weren’t too many yards: 2 at Kure (maybe 2 more, but not really), 2 at Yokosuka (maybe 2 more, but not really), maybe 1 at Sasebo (but not really), you got 2 at Mitsubishi, Nagasaki, and 1 at Kawasaki, Kobe.

And they were all busy. You got 7. That’s all there is. And they make all the BBs, CAs, CVs, everything “large”. The rest did everything else, but not Unryus, or anything in that genre. You gots 7, and that’s all there be.

All this is predicated on a pre-war model. So CAs take an average of 28 mos from keel to launch. BBs take an average of 29 mos from keel to launch. CAs take roughly 13 mos from launch to completion. BBs take roughly 17 mos from launch to completion. Once launched, they complete at the equivalent of ‘pierside’.

It takes time and planning. It can be done. It requires foregoing a few auxiliary ships, but … who cares about that stuff? You should, but whose counting?

Anyway, if John wants the biggie yard setup for all of Japan, for 1941, just ask. It will be done.

[John 3rd]

John--I would be MOST INTERESTED. I say that only if you already have the info and it wouldn't be too big a pain to Post here. It would be fascinating to see it but you don't need to go to any big effort!

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
John--I would be MOST INTERESTED. I say that only if you already have the info and it wouldn't be too big a pain to Post here. It would be fascinating to see it but you don't need to go to any big effort!

No effort. Just gotta find the files. I have them, and am sending them to you. They are cold and stark, and might need some illumination, so please don't be shy. btw, some of it is in Japanese. Think I translated it ok, but you might see some strange characters., hope not. Ciao John

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Symon


You don't build Yamatos, you are going to have to build something pretty darn close (i.e., same relative cost and time),
or just abandon the whole Mahanian concept and build a fleet according to the crazy wild-ass ideas of the air advocates.
You cannot have both. You only have six toothpicks: you can make a square (and waste two), you can make a hexagon
(don't know what that would be), or you can make two triangles.

Sorry, John. Japan could not have built anything with Yamato 'capability' without building Yamato. Just MHO. JWE

While the technical stuff is way over my head here I would like to say something about the "Mahanian concept". Isn't it so that already
by putting so much emphasis on carriers and submarines in the mid-thirties the Japanese had already distanced themselvelves from Mahan.
For example, Mahan, like the Germans, saw the submarine (as the surface fleets) as a strategic weapon (trade warfare) while the Japanese (as the Italians)
emphasized its tactical use. Also, as the war started, the IJN had no problems using their biggies, carriers and gunships, in separate forces.
What I'm getting at is that it wouldn't have been so strange if the Japanese had taken a step further and built more carriers rather than
ultra BB's.

I go for more CV's.....[:)]... (I need to make some posts here to earn my privileges...)

Fred

[DeltaV112]

28 months is really an embarrassing performance by IJN shipyards. For some reason they built all their cruisers at an absolute snail's pace. To compare, US shipyards managed as little as 12 months between keel laid and launched, though around 16-18 months was more common. The British during peacetime accomplished about the same. It doesn't really make any sense either- IJN carriers were actually built faster than their cruisers, usually around 18 months, which is basically the same as carriers and cruisers of other nations.

IOW, having Japanese shipyards build cruisers is a waste of time and shipyard space, unless you make them stop taking forever to do it. I don't know why they were so slow at it, but they were.

[wdolson]

The Japanese used slave labor and indentured labor in their shipyards. Some of the workers were POWs most of the others were workers pressed into service from other parts of the empire like Korea.

The US also employed mass production techniques to build ships. Far more than any other country ever did.

I don't know where you're getting the 18 month number for building Japanese carriers.
The Hiryu was laid down 7/8/36 and was commissioned 7/5/39 - 36 months
The Shokaku was laid down 12/12/37 and was commissioned 8/8/41 - 44 months
The Taiho was laid down 7/10/41 and commissioned 3/7/44 - 32 months
The Unryu laid down 8/1/42 and commissioned 8/6/44 - 24 months

The Unryus were stripped down and simplified as much as possible which probably helped reduce the build time to 2 years. Anybody really knows how they would have performed at war. They were completed so late they were just targets.

If you are counting the many CVLs Japan converted, these were all converted from existing ships which cut the production time.

Japan's wartime production of CLs was also interrupted many times. Most had stops and starts to production which extended their build time significantly. After Midway, the Japanese warship production was prioritized for building and converting carriers.

Bill

[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