Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/23/2015 9:26:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Was just on the phone with Michael and he asked a good question. If the Japanese had decided to NOT build the Yamato-Class, what could they have done?

In Stanislav and I's work on Perfect Storm we postulated the Japanese building a more conventional 16" BB. In terms of cost, resources (read steel production), and huge amounts of time, what could the Japanese have realistically built?

Essentially this would be a re-write of the 3rd Circle Plan (Yamato, Musashi, Shokaku, Zuikaku, etc...) put in effect when Japan left the Treaty System in 1935-36.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/23/2015 10:27:08 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Post #: 1
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/23/2015 10:48:05 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		If you are not going to build Yamatos, then there has been a fundamental, conceptual shift in Japanese Naval doctrine.

BB battleline gun power "must" follow the square root rule. Even Japan could do the math. They couldn't build in the requisite numbers, so, in order to overcome the mathematical limitations of the Mahan "battle-line" paradigm, they made a conscious and concerted effort to make each of their capital vessels at least one step higher in capability than an equivalent vessel of a potentially opposing fleet.

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

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/23/2015 11:44:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I fundamentally understand the 'Using One to Conquer Many' Japanese philosophy. What I am trying to say is if the Japanese had built a smaller BB along an Improved-Nagato (for instance) would they have freed up enough steel or whatever to build THREE instead of two? Could they have built two 16" BB and added a pair of B-64s? This is what I am getting at. Would a more conventional BB-Class allowed for additional/different mixes.

Once the USA announces the Two Ocean Navy Bills then they KNOW it is over anyway. Course that isn't for 2-3 years after Japan leaves the Treaty System...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 3
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 2:47:53 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Whoops, yep, I missed your point.

I don’t see why not. Although steel production was a limiting factor, the real booger was time. If you started earlier you would have produced more steel by, say, mid ’42.

Another benefit might come from recovering the Yamato’s huge front-loaded costs. These include the costs for enlarging and modernizing Kure NSY. A proportion of these recovered costs could go towards enlarging and modernizing the steel production facilities. You may well end up with enough ‘stuff’.

You could build a couple Kii BBs and couple B-64 BCs. I’m assuming you are talking about the Project B64, Amagi class, 16” BCs rather, than the Project B-65, Katsuragi class, 12” super CAs.

There is a nice, modernized Amagi at http://www.h2.dion.ne.jp/~wakamiya/amagi.htm and images of some original blueprints and design specifications at http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/2328-project-b64-amagi-battlecruiser/

I was struck by the similarities with the Kii. A few tweaks here and there and one could build four very similar ships. They have the same basic 16.1” armament suite and turbines; differ primarily in armor and Hp/ton, and could both use the same propulsion system. This would provide further economies of scale. Both originally spec out with 131,000 SHP plants, but if you use a 150,000 SHP plant, like Yamato or the B-65, you can get two 30 knot ships with BB armor and two 33 knot ships with BC armor.

You might even could get away with the original power plants, but make the boilers all oil fired instead of mixed oil/coal. That would require a fewer number of boilers (14 instead of 19) for some nice space recovery, as well as increased range efficiency.

If you are looking for quantity, this is definitely doable, with what Japan had available in terms of facilities and materials in the years leading up to opening day.


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 3:07:20 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

If you are not going to build Yamatos, then there has been a fundamental, conceptual shift in Japanese Naval doctrine.

BB battleline gun power "must" follow the square root rule. Even Japan could do the math. They couldn't build in the requisite numbers, so, in order to overcome the mathematical limitations of the Mahan "battle-line" paradigm, they made a conscious and concerted effort to make each of their capital vessels at least one step higher in capability than an equivalent vessel of a potentially opposing fleet.

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


+1.

What I would add to Symon's post is that the big qualitative edge which the Japanese ship designers sought lay primarily in the top secret 18.1" guns. It wasn't the size of the ship, its armour or propulsion system which mattered. What mattered was the view that the 18.1" guns would enable the Yamatos to destroy the enemy at a range beyond return fire. Building a couple of extra battleships with only 16" guns would not provide any qualitative edge as these ships would remain vulnerable.

As to abandoning "the whole Mahanian concept", I suspect Symon is being very diplomatic. Personally I consider there was zero chance of that occurring. Only if the war had been delayed until the mid 1950s might there have been any chance of a shift in Japanese naval doctrine. It takes a long time for complicated capital ships to be designed; in the absence of concrete empirical data which conclusively demonstrates that a dead end in ship design has been reached, design revolutions do not happen. No such empirical evidence to justify a design revolution existed in the time period relevant for designing warships which would be available for operational use by mid 1943.

Alfred

Alfred

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 5
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 4:02:28 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		One other restriction to consider is the number of construction slips that could handle capital ships. Some time ago some one posted a chart showing the production of Japanese capital ships and the slipways utilized and that their was not much wiggle room to sneak in an extra Shokaku CV or Yamato BB. You might have a shorter production line that you could stack the newer ships in.

Here is the chart and an interesting discussion.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2599823


< Message edited by Skyros -- 2/24/2015 5:11:08 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 6:46:06 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Quite true, Skyros, but given John 3d’s premise, and building relatively “standard” and “similar” ships, it might be possible to shoehorn them in.

After Soryu, Kure #1 was doing fiddly bits while undergoing expansion for the Yamatos. If no Yamatos, then Kure #1 would be available in ’36, rather than ’38. Going from Soryu launch date (12/23/35) to Yamato launch date (8/8/40) is almost 5 years. Yamato took 2.5 years and a skoosh from keel to launch, so with 5 years, Kure #1 could deliver a couple of the proposed BB/BCs.

If you push Tone construction so she launches in mid ‘37, Mitsubishi, Nagasaki #1 might become available in mid ’37. Starting from there, using the Musashi construction times, and using the post Musashi yard utilization for fiddly bits, you could get a another of the proposed BB/BCs by opening day and possibly two, if you used whips and chains.

Alternatively, you could limit the 6 year expansion of Yoko #2 and build the fourth one there, for availability in mid ’41 or early ’42.

If you do that, and forego the whacko stuff, you can pull in either the Kasagi or Katsuragi, or maybe both, as Taihos, or Kai “kakus. The fiddly bits can go to Yoko #2 as originally configured. Slip Ko (Yoko #2) could do it and there would still be room/time for expansion to 270m to accommodate the Unryus by mid ‘42.

This says nothing about Yoko #1 and the Shinano hull. If there’s no Yamatos, then Yoko #1 is good to go on another “kaku” for launch in mid ’41. And available to build a Kai-Taiho for late ’43 launch.

All this is predicated on no Yamatos. If you tweak the yards, as above, there is no opportunity to build any of them, except at Mitsubishi, Nagasaki, or Yoko #1, and then not till keel in late ’40 and launch in late ’43 and operational in in late ’44.

Just MHO. Ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 7
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 9:07:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Now that is what I was driving at. If you don't pay all that money and time to expand the two slipways then some interesting possibilities occur.

I am thinking of a variant from either RA or BTS where this possibility is allowed for.

John--will look at your modernized Amagi link.

Alfred: Always appreciate your thoughts and totally concur regarding your point.

Thanks Skyros for your thoughts.

I have that link already printed off from when I played the whole 'slip game' trying to figure out what could and/or could not be built in RA and BTS. Remember in both of those Mods we allow for the creation of two new heavy slipways at Port Arthur to make things a bit more 'feasible.' Cost is big but we factored it out in supply and fuel being pulled out of the historical Dec 7th numbers.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 8
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 9:21:17 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline 		John,
Your killing me..

Got to ask, What sort of a change could the allies make, balance wise?....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 9:40:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		No idea whatsoever. Don't even know if there would be. To say that this is in the 'formative' stage is an understatement.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 10
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 9:44:38 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		John and John are putting forth what I was looking for GP. The Allies already have enough extras in BTS. I was talking with J3 about what could be built INSTEAD of the super-BBs - slightly smaller BBs, BCs, some CVs, or maybe some more smaller warships. Looking at another version of RA and/or BTS that allows a player to make this choice before a game begins since we are already dealing with an alternative time line to start with. If one super BB equals two BC, I could see that with a few more CVs and come close to another CarDiv being built.

_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 11
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 9:46:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		YUM!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 12
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 10:21:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Am going into my old Perfect War files to see what we came up with there. I know Juan helped a bunch with those designs.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 13
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 10:22:35 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Now that is what I was driving at. If you don't pay all that money and time to expand the two slipways then some interesting possibilities occur.

Yes Sir. Given your premise, I think it is quite possible for Japan to build 2x modern Amagi BCs and 2x modern Kai-Kii BBs, certainly by mid '42, within the constraints of yard space and steel production (tweaked).

I tend to agree with Alfred, because of the Mahan math, but running some hi-speed capital ships here and there, and facing off with North Carolinas, and So Daks, might play well in the game. Of course, once '43 happens, and the Iowas come to play, you are toast. But as a nice middle war option, could be decent.

Just MHO. Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 14
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 10:25:18 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		"Toast!" Isn't that the operational word for Nippon in 1943--44?

John: How would YOU build a 'modern' Kai BB?

Now I am going back into Perfect War Mod notes...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 15
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 10:40:05 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
John and John are putting forth what I was looking for GP. The Allies already have enough extras in BTS. I was talking with J3 about what could be built INSTEAD of the super-BBs - slightly smaller BBs, BCs, some CVs, or maybe some more smaller warships. Looking at another version of RA and/or BTS that allows a player to make this choice before a game begins since we are already dealing with an alternative time line to start with. If one super BB equals two BC, I could see that with a few more CVs and come close to another CarDiv being built.

I think the Vinson Plan was what it was. It didn't matter whether Japan was building a couple of secret super BBs, or just building building what they could. The Vinson Plan contemplated vessels that would/could confront anything that Japan built.

So worrying about two Yamatos vs four 'conventional' designs is a shibboleth. One can play hard in the margins for a while. But then, one must play with the other boys in the sandbox. Hootz Gazootz. Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 16
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 11:02:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The sandbox ALWAYS wins!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 17
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/24/2015 11:53:28 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Rather than build just more slightly smaller BB/BCs, but more numerous. What was Japan capable of building?? Two of the smaller BB or BC along with a couple more CVs with DDs??

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 18
Owari Class BB - 2/25/2015 12:09:30 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I believe that this was one of Juan's designs from actual design studies of various ships before the Japanese settled on Yamato. This is what we came up with for Perfect War:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 19
RE: Owari Class BB - 2/25/2015 12:16:56 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		If you run on the time schedule John went through, could you squeeze in another Hiryu Class? Japan starts with two modern BBs, a CV, a BC, and another pair of SOMETHING (BBs, BCs, or CVs) deeply in production...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 20
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/25/2015 2:10:01 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
John: How would YOU build a 'modern' Kai BB?

I would do much the same as Juan did. If I was doing a Kai Kii, I would modernize the tower much the same as in the ¡¦43 Amagi. Certainly increase armor like Juan did (240mm belt to 405mm, etc). That would be enough (barely) to give you an immune zone starting at around 20,000m for the 16.1¡¨/45. A 200mm deck is quite adequate.

This would, fur shur, up the displacement, so need to up the HP a bit. Make all boilers oil fired. There can be fewer boilers, so you get some displacement recovery there. You get steam a bit hotter, so with some turbine fiddling, you can get, maybe, 5% more HP from the plant (131,000 „³ 138,000 SHP). Keeps speed at around 30 kts.

I would keep the original armament layout; two twins forward, three twins aft (one being technically center). This is because I would want 10 barrels so as to have an advantage over the US 8 gun 16¡¨ BBs (Colorados). I like to spread out the turrets and magazines, so as to spread out the target area, and also decentralize the firing stress on the ship when everything goes off in battery.

As I said, much as Juan would do for the Owari class, but with a different gun layout. But that¡¦s just personal preference. Oh, and I don¡¦t like casemate guns, so I would put the 12cm/45s on deck with shields or maybe turrets. Can¡¦t use a gun as a DP if it¡¦s in a casemate.

That¡¦s about it. Ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 21
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/26/2015 5:27:46 PM   
DeltaV112

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
John: How would YOU build a 'modern' Kai BB?

I would do much the same as Juan did. If I was doing a Kai Kii, I would modernize the tower much the same as in the ¡¦43 Amagi. Certainly increase armor like Juan did (240mm belt to 405mm, etc). That would be enough (barely) to give you an immune zone starting at around 20,000m for the 16.1¡¨/45. A 200mm deck is quite adequate.

This would, fur shur, up the displacement, so need to up the HP a bit. Make all boilers oil fired. There can be fewer boilers, so you get some displacement recovery there. You get steam a bit hotter, so with some turbine fiddling, you can get, maybe, 5% more HP from the plant (131,000 „³ 138,000 SHP). Keeps speed at around 30 kts.

I would keep the original armament layout; two twins forward, three twins aft (one being technically center). This is because I would want 10 barrels so as to have an advantage over the US 8 gun 16¡¨ BBs (Colorados). I like to spread out the turrets and magazines, so as to spread out the target area, and also decentralize the firing stress on the ship when everything goes off in battery.

As I said, much as Juan would do for the Owari class, but with a different gun layout. But that¡¦s just personal preference. Oh, and I don¡¦t like casemate guns, so I would put the 12cm/45s on deck with shields or maybe turrets. Can¡¦t use a gun as a DP if it¡¦s in a casemate.

That¡¦s about it. Ciao. JWE


10 barrels in 5x2 turrets is a poor choice, both 9 barrels in 3x3 and even 12 barrels in 3x4 are likely to be lighter and shorter in length(4x2 is generally inferior to 3x3 as well). Either way, it works out to a ship that displaces about 48,000 tons. Even with Yamato's hull shaping improvements, you'll need slightly more than 138,000 shp to reach 30 kts. Probably around 145,000.

Juan's design is pretty conservative, you can definitely stuff an extra turret in that displacement if you're willing to shed a little bit of armor or speed.

In case you're wondering about the comparison to Montana, which would have a similar 4x3 turret layout, we're able to shed so much weight because Montana was armored significantly more, in particular the heavier decks, turret armor, barbettes, etc. Having much better hydrodynamic properties in addition to this means better speed on less power.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 22
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/26/2015 6:38:21 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		You seem to be a simple wargame weenie talking about simple wargame weenie things. The detail in this forum is beyond simple wargame weenie nonsense. Almost all of your statements are wrong. You obviously know nothing about real ship design or real armament dispositions

You are clearly a troll with nothing to add to the discussion. Your statements on ship design/performance parameters are laughable. My SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) number is 37613. What’s your’s?

[ed] If you want to play on these threads, then you need to learn. If you don't want to learn, then go play on the main board, or go somewhere else.

< Message edited by Symon -- 2/26/2015 7:50:06 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to DeltaV112)
Post #: 23
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/26/2015 7:24:25 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline 		If I was Yamamoto and I would find a way to turn this around, instead of building those Yamatos, with all that tonnages I would build carriers, five or six of them. Of course you will need good crew of pilots and planes to complete the role. Yamamoto knew that carrier borne aircrafts would rule the skies and if you can rule the skies you also take advantage of sea and land too.

Yamamoto also wanted something to go beyond their sub range, the 1-400 example. The way I see it, it a bad idea. First of all, the sub is too big and hard to maneuver and it can get sunk much easier than regular subs. If Yamamoto wasn't killed in action back then, not sure what it would be like. But after his death, they postpone the I-400 plans by one year or longer. Beside you couldn't do much with three floatplanes on each of these big sub. But if they manage to get their hands on Biological Agents, like the Anthrax it could be fatal before they even stop it. Huge population loses on both East and West Coast of US.

_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 24
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/26/2015 8:16:11 PM   
DeltaV112

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

You seem to be a simple wargame weenie talking about simple wargame weenie things. The detail in this forum is beyond simple wargame weenie nonsense. Almost all of your statements are wrong. You obviously know nothing about real ship design or real armament dispositions

You are clearly a troll with nothing to add to the discussion. Your statements on ship design/performance parameters are laughable. My SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) number is 37613. What’s your’s?

[ed] If you want to play on these threads, then you need to learn. If you don't want to learn, then go play on the main board, or go somewhere else.

Mind saying anything about why I'm wrong, instead of engaging in a transparent and meaningless personal attack? This sort of thing always reflects poorly on you. It is sort of funny though that you seem to hate "wargame weenies" so much.

EDIT: The 4x3 design would be very close to the Battleship H study for the Number 13 class. That was planned for 30kts with 12 16" guns. Developments in hull shaping would let you drop the engine size and increase armoring. There's also the A-140J3, which had more armor and displaces 58,000. So 48,000-50,000 is reasonable for 4x3, if you're willing to accept less than cutting-edge protection.

< Message edited by DeltaV112 -- 2/26/2015 9:27:44 PM >

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 25
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/27/2015 11:20:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just fired a query off to Juan to see if his sources might have any info regarding real plans drawn up for a Japanese BB and BC in the mid-30s.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DeltaV112)
Post #: 26
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 5:34:05 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		First of all, of course, the Japanese DID consider alternative Yamato class designs
including several with 16 in gun armament. There were something like 23 variations
fully worked up before the decision was taken to lay down Yamato herself. Oddly,
only the first and last had full steam propulsion - every one in between had CODAS -
combined diesel and steam. Experiments with the Diesel engines led to misgivings -
what if the engines had to be replaced after the armor deck was in place? Further,
the two pure steam plants differed significantly: the first one contemplated 200,000
ship - the one adopted only 3/4 of that. But all shared the same hull - except insofar
as bow shape and propeller design was modified (and the changes would have been used
regardless of other aspects of the selected configurations).

While your concept seems to be to save steel - which you correctly identify as a limiting
factor in military (not just ship) production - you might want to consider the alternative
Yamato's themselves. This because the 16 inch gun offers several advantages over the 18 inch.
It has virtually the same range. It could fire the same ammunition as the Nagato class did.
This permits rearming at many more points than the 18 inch - limited (correctly) to only two
by AE code. The 18 inch was in fact too big, creating too much overpressure, a problem for
ships boats and aircraft, requiring additional cost of protective storage to address. These
guns could not be fired in broadside - and in fact no 18 inch gun ship ever did. The Yamato's
fired turret salvos in sequence - reducing their already fairly low rate of fire. The 16 inch
guns could fire salvos. In addition, more shells could be carried. One of the considered
configurations was four turrets of three guns - which is also 33% more than the Yamato with
three triples. Finally - if the original steam plant were used - the ship would have a higher
speed - and more range - than the class as built. A faster ship, firing more rounds per unit
of time, from more tubes, starts to become very interesting. Only the Kongo's could keep up
with fast carriers - but this battleship could - with far more protection, punch and AAA capability.
Not often mentioned, Yamato's also permitted communications technology due to their size and practical
antenna size- they could intercept signals farther off than other ships.

In lieu of these ships the battlecruiser solution sounds more reasonable than it is. They at least could
escort fast carriers. But they would not be cheap enough - nor would less shipyard capacity have been tied up -
and they would need actually MORE engines than the class as built did (160,000 shp vs 150,000)! You don't
get more ships, or significantly less slipway tie up - but these ships are vastly less well protected and
have significantly less firepower. What you do get is what you wanted to get: steel - about half as much steel -
over 30,000 tons per ship. These ships are probably not worth their cost. As well, they were not designed soon
enough to be ordered in 1935 - in time to be built by the first year of the Pacific war. Which means the option
for such a ship would need to be filled by a fictional design - possibly closer to the historical "ships that
never were" - which were much larger - and much better armed - and without a savings in steel or engines.

There was a school of thought (the aviators of course) who believed battleships were a mistake. Had they taken
charge there would be NO capital gunships at all. And it might have resulted in a more powerful fleet - more
carriers.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 27
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 7:04:43 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

You seem to be a simple wargame weenie talking about simple wargame weenie things. The detail in this forum is beyond simple wargame weenie nonsense. Almost all of your statements are wrong. You obviously know nothing about real ship design or real armament dispositions

You are clearly a troll with nothing to add to the discussion. Your statements on ship design/performance parameters are laughable. My SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) number is 37613. What’s your’s?

[ed] If you want to play on these threads, then you need to learn. If you don't want to learn, then go play on the main board, or go somewhere else.



(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 28
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 7:07:26 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

You seem to be a simple wargame weenie talking about simple wargame weenie things. The detail in this forum is beyond simple wargame weenie nonsense. Almost all of your statements are wrong. You obviously know nothing about real ship design or real armament dispositions

You are clearly a troll with nothing to add to the discussion. Your statements on ship design/performance parameters are laughable. My SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) number is 37613. What’s your’s?

[ed] If you want to play on these threads, then you need to learn. If you don't want to learn, then go play on the main board, or go somewhere else.

Mind saying anything about why I'm wrong, instead of engaging in a transparent and meaningless personal attack? This sort of thing always reflects poorly on you. It is sort of funny though that you seem to hate "wargame weenies" so much.

EDIT: The 4x3 design would be very close to the Battleship H study for the Number 13 class. That was planned for 30kts with 12 16" guns. Developments in hull shaping would let you drop the engine size and increase armoring. There's also the A-140J3, which had more armor and displaces 58,000. So 48,000-50,000 is reasonable for 4x3, if you're willing to accept less than cutting-edge protection.


If you want to play around with ship design, download SpringSharp. You can find it....somewhere. I think PaxMondo posted a link to it about 2-3 years ago, if you want to search the forums instead of googling. You only need to know basic ship design principles in order to mess around with things on a "good enough" level that it could be applied to a WITP mod.

Just ignore Symon when he goes off like that. Sometimes he has some really good posts, like his previous one.... other times, well...

(in reply to DeltaV112)
Post #: 29
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 8:02:59 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Just fired a query off to Juan to see if his sources might have any info regarding real plans drawn up for a Japanese BB and BC in the mid-30s.




Didn't the Bismarck get laid down in the mid 30s? If Japan was getting sub info from Germany then you could lay the alternate history for Japan to pick up building plans for them... I think the speed of the Bismarck was high enough to keep up with your carriers. And the reduction in main gun size would make it easier to replenish those BBs when they need rice & bullets.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/generaldetails.html

< Message edited by 1EyedJacks -- 2/28/2015 9:15:28 PM >

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.342