How many other BBs were prevented by the 3 Yamatos?

[Historiker]

As some of you know, I created "boosted Japan" scenarios from time to time. One of these in mind includes that Japan got the initially wanted 70% instead of the real 60% as their naval code wasn't broken in my world.
This might have led to the building of BBs rather like the Hiraga or Fujimoto designs than the mighty Yamato.
How many 35.000-40.000 BBs could be built by not building the Yamatos, never designing the 46cm guns and avoiding the necessary delays by security for the monsters?
I'm no naval architect nore have I any numbers in mind I can use.

[DuckofTindalos]

The Japs would have better things to do with those unused resources than building more battleships, but maybe 2 others.

[Historiker]

So what may be built instead of the 3 Yamatos?

[DuckofTindalos]

A couple more carriers.

[Alikchi2]

It comes down to slips and resources, basically. Remember, the shipyards had to be enlarged and all sorts of other stuff to build the Yamato, it was a completely different level of magnitude.

You could probably swing, like Terminus says, a couple carriers or a couple battleships with said slips. Shinano could be a Taiho-sister, and you'd probably have a bit of material (human and otherwise) left over to speed up the construction of other ships at the yards where Yamato, Musashi and Shinano would have been priority.

[Historiker]

Gimme a number! [;)] Two additional Hiraga-BBs and how many Shokakus?
Or which carriers were the best in their cost/strikepower ratio?

[DuckofTindalos]

2 more Shokakus and 2 more modern battleships. Here's a couple of Jap battlewagons; they're a bit blurry because they're scaled up.

[Historiker]

Thank you!
Which types are the battleships?
Are Shokakus the best choice? They are really good but also very expensive. Wouldn't a medium type be a better choice? Still big enough for fleet operations but cheaper. More small than ne big might allways be a good choice concerning the Japanese damage control...

[DuckofTindalos]

Project A140 on top and a Fujimoto type on the bottom. And 2 more Shokakus would be good, yeah.

[Historiker]

All completed as well 1 more BB and 2 more Shokakus building? When completed? late 42, mid 43, late 43 mid 44?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

As some of you know, I created "boosted Japan" scenarios from time to time. One of these in mind includes that Japan got the initially wanted 70% instead of the real 60% as their naval code wasn't broken in my world.
This might have led to the building of BBs rather like the Hiraga or Fujimoto designs than the mighty Yamato.
How many 35.000-40.000 BBs could be built by not building the Yamatos, never designing the 46cm guns and avoiding the necessary delays by security for the monsters?
I'm no naval architect nore have I any numbers in mind I can use.

Two for one. The resource limitations were steel tonnage, armour tonnage, and shipbuilding manpower. There wasn't much of an efficiency payoff for putting it all into one ship. In fact, the reverse.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Thank you!
Which types are the battleships?
Are Shokakus the best choice? They are really good but also very expensive. Wouldn't a medium type be a better choice? Still big enough for fleet operations but cheaper. More small than ne big might allways be a good choice concerning the Japanese damage control...

Japan started building Hiryus in quantity in 1942. They were a good deal cheaper and almost as effective as the Taihos.

[ny59giants]

I like the idea of the carrier admirals winning out over the battleship admirals. None of the 3 Yamato Class BBs are built, but a few more CVs and possibly a new class CLAA to go with them.

[Historiker]

IMO, Japan needs battleships or at least battlecruisers - especially in AE.

As far as I've seen, mid ocean intercepts are no longer unlikely, so CVs need a strong protection. This can be done by CAs and by the Kongos, but a few more ships that can survive a couple of hits - even 14in and above - and are capable of running around 33kn aren't a wrong choice.
Moreover, as the surface combat model is thankfully changed in a much more realistic way, a few ships seem to be able to destroy a whole landing force in one single battle, now. So for a hit and run later in the war, they'll also proove their worth.
(Moreover, I'm totally a BB/BC fanboy, so the way to force me not to add additional BBs will be a really stony one [;)])

@herwin
So I can simply take the formula "scrap 60.000ts and build 3 20.000ts or two 30.000ts ships instead"?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

IMO, Japan needs battleships or at least battlecruisers - especially in AE.

As far as I've seen, mid ocean intercepts are no longer unlikely, so CVs need a strong protection. This can be done by CAs and by the Kongos, but a few more ships that can survive a couple of hits - even 14in and above - and are capable of running around 33kn aren't a wrong choice.
Moreover, as the surface combat model is thankfully changed in a much more realistic way, a few ships seem to be able to destroy a whole landing force in one single battle, now. So for a hit and run later in the war, they'll also proove their worth.
(Moreover, I'm totally a BB/BC fanboy, so the way to force me not to add additional BBs will be a really stony one [;)])

@herwin
So I can simply take the formula "scrap 60.000ts and build 3 20.000ts or two 30.000ts ships instead"?

As long as you have the shipyard and fitting-out space and engine plant--those don't scale with tonnage.

[Historiker]

Well, and then it gets complicated...
While I know all the shipyards data from Germany, I don't have any clue how much slipways they had, whether there was enough engine production - or whether it could be increased in time - etc.
There's always the possibility to let civilian shipping be produced in other countrys to free slipways, especially when these countrys have debts towards Japan - but how to calculate that seriously?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Thank you!
Which types are the battleships?
Are Shokakus the best choice? They are really good but also very expensive. Wouldn't a medium type be a better choice? Still big enough for fleet operations but cheaper. More small than ne big might allways be a good choice concerning the Japanese damage control...

Japan started building Hiryus in quantity in 1942. They were a good deal cheaper and almost as effective as the Taihos.

You Gentlemen are leaving out one big stumbling block. To be of any use, those CV's need trained airgroups..., and aircraft and trained aircrews are very expensive to create and maintain! Planes wear out rapidly, and ops losses are high in carrier groups even in peacetime conditions if the crews training levels are to be maintained.

Two Shokaku's and their trained/equipped airgroups are about an even swap for the Yamatos.

[DuckofTindalos]

It also presupposes that the IJN might have devoted a little more intellect to their aircrew training. Like from 0% to 1% brainpower.

[Akos Gergely]

Are you working on a mod Sir T? (hint,hint - judging from the art )

BTW I don't think the japs would have choosen a different route had they got the 70%. Remember CVs were not an option back in 1934-1935 when design work started on the new BBs - gunships were still by far the undisputed king of the seas. CVs did not have the potential they had 7-8 years later. So that definitely gives a BB route. And since the main idea behind the Yamato was that no matter what, Japan could not match the output of the USN, they have to build big and powerful so that 1:1 the USN can't match them with their Panamax ships.

There is a very good 4 part article in Warship (or Warship International) by Hans Lengerer (he is one of the best in this field). I'll dig it up for you Histroiker if you need.

There are a lot of alternative designs to Yamato and not just the preliminaries.

Herwin,

"There wasn't much of an efficiency payoff for putting it all into one ship. In fact, the reverse. " - i beg to differ on this one. While this might be partly true in this specific case, reading Dr. Norman Friedman's design history books, and Battleship Design and Develeopment book it clearly comes through that a bigger ship is ALWAYS the bigger bang for the buck and more economic in that sense. It is especially true for BBs that were weight critical ships not volume critical ones like todays super-electronics equipped AEGIS DDGs.
You have to get one set of engines, crew etc. for a given amount of steel, not to mention that certain military features like a deep TDS, AD etc. require a minimum size of hull. The oodless of treaty propsed small BB designs done by the USN and RN in the '20s showed clearly that small BBs were the worst investment (that is 25ktons and less).
So while you might have a point in that this case two 30-35ktish BBs might be better than a Yamato, remember that the Japanese had to build individually superior ships as they could not hope to compete on numbers.

Just my 2 cents

[DuckofTindalos]

Er, why were "CV's not an option in 1934-35"?