Kongo Class, Battleships?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Big B »

Just an inquiry of opinions, but can the Kongo Class - in any way be - considered fast "Battleships"?

While doing research on ships, I got out the usual references (Janes, Conway's, etc), and was looking at these ships.
I read the history of their two major rebuilds in the early and late 1930's. They certainly had improvements in overall armor protection from their original 1914 build, but even in their finished state in 1941 - they still seemed quite weak in every area of protection compared to their German contemporaries of the Seydlitz and Moltke classes of pre-1914, not to even be compared with the Derffilinger's in armor protection. Yet the German ships were all considered Battle Cruisers... and of the same generation of the Kongo's.
The Kongo's were supposedly improved HMS Lion's (certainly up-gunned from 13.5 inch'ers to 14 inch'ers main battery) yet the Lions were always considered somewhat weak compared to their German counterparts - as for protection, and the Lions lacked nothing in protection compared to the Kongo's... yet the Lions were always considered Battle Cruisers.

If one were to compare the Kongo's to their rebuilt Italian contemporaries as Fast Battleships - the Cavour's and Duilio's, the Italian ships could be considered in the Fast Battleship class for protection, but I can't see it in the Kongo's.
None of this takes into consideration the resistance quality of of the armor used on the Italian ships compared to the Japanese ships - the Italian ships had much better quality armor per'thickness and protection scheme.

If the Kongo's were compared to other nations WW2 fast battleships - such as the Bismark (Scharnhorst was still classified as a Battle Cruiser - yet far more capable and better protected), North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa, King George V, Richelieu, & Littorio classes, they (the Kongo's) come out as very well built Heavy Cruisers.

So - was the re-designation of the Kongo class from Battle Cruiser to Fast Battleship merely an exorcize in psychology?

I would like to hear opinions,
B
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Shark7 »

They were battleships when first built, but by WWII were pretty obsolete. Given their speed, weaker armor and 14" guns I'd class them BC by the time the war started. My opinion of course.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Big B »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

They were battleships when first built, but .by WWII were pretty obsolete. Given their speed, weaker armor and 14" guns I'd class them BC by the time the war started. My opinion of course.


Not to be too pedantic - but they were Battle cruisers from construction until the 1935 rebuild and re-designation as Battleship.

So, they did start life as Battle Cruisers...
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Shark7 »

Ok, good point. It was the IJN that 'upgraded' them to BBs.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by dr.hal »

The Kongo, lead ship of the class was built as a battlecruiser and the designation was changed in 1931. Certainly the ship was altered and very much improved for the reclassification, but clearly she was never a true battleship (if there is such a thing). After all there is only so much you can do with the hull and still allow it to float. I think it is fair to say that a "classification" is in the eyes of the beholder unless you adhere to some international treaty that "dictates" classifications, such as the Washington Naval Treaty. But soon after the reclassification of Kongo, Japan withdrew from the treaty and thus didn't have to abide by any of its restrictions. Was it "psychological"? I would argue in part yes. I have long argued that to most civilians and politicians, a ship is a ship is a ship. I distinctly recall, while living in the UK during the Falklands campaign, the British referring to their big ships as "Aircraft Carriers" as if they could hold a candle to what the US called "Aircraft Carriers". The Invincible class was tiny with a correspondingly small air wing. HOWEVER, to most newspapers around the world, the UK was sending two AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, with the implication that it was a huge force. And relative to the action, it was, somewhat! So in short, what you call a ships, in many ways makes the ship. Clearly the Japanese wanted the world to see them as a naval power on equal terms to that of the US and the UK. Numbers matter, the US didn't have any BCs, while the UK had three, HMSs Hood,Renown and Repulse. As the "BB" was the yardstick by which great powers were measured, it is better to have yards rather than a lot of inches.
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by dr.hal »

For my European and other foreign friends please feel free to substitute meters for yards, etc.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

There was no standard, world wide definition on what was a Battleship vs what was a Battlecruiser. The Washington treaty did not differentiate them, both classes were under the same category "capital ships".

The designation "Fast Battleship" was fashionable in the mid to late 30s while "battlecruiser" out of fashion. And the Japanese decided that their major modernization efforts made the Kongos fast battleships. Important also to mention, they didn't have any new build based on the fast battleship concept, so the term fit the capabilities they were looking for.

The game considers them "BBs" simply because the Japanese did.

These 4 Kongos are your only "battleship escort" capable of matching speed with the KB, and that is how most Japanese players use them. As you noticed, they are no match to a true battleship.



User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by dr.hal »

It's interesting to note that the Queen Elizabeth class BBs in "The Great War" were considered the "fast battleships" of the day. They were decidedly NOT so by the start of the Second World War.
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Big B »

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

It's interesting to note that the Queen Elizabeth class BBs in "The Great War" were considered the .fast battleships" of the day. They were decidedly NOT so by the start of the Second World War.


Absolutely true, but at 24 kts in a world of BB's at 21 or 20 kts, and BC's at 25 - 28 knts (WW1), They were heavily gunned, heavily armored 'fast' BB's in their day.
But by WW2 standards - not so much.

User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Anthropoid »

Based on what little I know about the surface fleet capital ships of the early 20th century . . . it seems that an awful lot of "luck" went into their proper use (and I welcome anyone clarifying anything that I'm off base about here).

A "battleship" (large heavily armored vessel with large rifles) has some obvious strengths: it can fire shells a long way and when they hit they can be devastating. They can absorb a lot of damage, but even a single bomb, torpedo, or shell if it hits in the right spot, can take it out, even sink it. Moreover, even just having the upper works ravaged by smaller caliber shell fire that nonetheless cannot penetrate armored regions can still cause a helluva lot of damage and casualties and reduce effectiveness and survivability even in the absence of huge kaboomb armor penetrations. Battlecruisers I always thought of as: lighter, less armored, and faster battleships; that was the idea when the design was first integrated anyway right?

In a world without aircraft carriers or submarines, battleships would be, it seems truly the kings of the fleets (or is is queens?)

For an interesting examination of this, I highly recommend the old game "War Plan Orange," which it is my understanding was originally a mod for original WiTP (by a guy named tankerace here on the forums). It depicted an alternate history game setting in the 1920s (there were several different scenarios and quite a few user made mods and scenarios). In this game world, air craft carriers are few, aircraft (even land based ones) are much less effective, and airpower rarely has a dramatic effect on battles. The other thing that was neat with the game was, the ORBATS included quite a few older design war ships that still burned coal, so coaling stations or colliers were a definite consideration.

I found in that game (as I understand the Russians more or less did in their war with Japan in early 1900s) that even in a context where airpower is negligible, and submarines are less effective there is still another very serious concern and it was the torpedo gunboats and other designs that were the precursors of destroyers. Small, fast moving ships equipped with multiple torpedos, which when used in properly large (but not too large!) groups with well-trained crews and aggressive captains could go up against large battleship task forces and cause a lot of mayhem.

It almost seems to me that battleships are some of the least useful weapon systems ever devised especially when reflected as a ratio of their kill to die and/or survivability to cost ratio.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by Leandros »

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
I found in that game (as I understand the Russians more or less did in their war with Japan in early 1900s) that even in a context where airpower is negligible,
and submarines are less effective there is still another very serious concern and it was the torpedo gunboats and other designs that were the precursors of
destroyers. Small, fast moving ships equipped with multiple torpedos, which when used in properly large (but not too large!) groups with well-trained crews and
aggressive captains could go up against large battleship task forces and cause a lot of mayhem.
Aah, the battle of Tsushima - what a fascinating story. Not the least the troublesome voyage of the Russian Baltic Fleet around the World to enter into
the slaughter-house directly.

But, this was still valid in WW2. How many US cruisers were sunk or damaged by Japanese torpedo-launching destroyers in "The Slot" during the battle for Guadalcanal?
Scharnhorst is another example even if it had been decimated somewhat by KGV first. German destroyers (T-boote) damaged an RN cruiser in the Channel during
night-time and the British had to consider the Italian destroyers during the supply runs to Malta.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by wdolson »

The armament of the Kongos is comparable to contemporary US and British designs. The Pennsylvania class for example. The armor on the Kongos was inferior to the Allied contemporaries, which contributed to the speed advantage, but that was also in line with Japanese design philosophy, trading protection for offensive capability. The armor on the Kongos was similar to the Alaskas (though the Alaskas had better deck armor).

Reclassifying them as battleships may have been a bit of PR, but they did get some armor upgrades in their rebuilds. I would call them one of the more successful Japanese BB designs. They only squared off against another BB once and didn't fare very well, but they were used in a lot more action than any other IJN BB.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
wegman58
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:15 pm
Location: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by wegman58 »

Battlecruisers had two major design philosophies as well. British - LOTS of armament, extra speed (speed is armor), - armor - not so much. German - it is a lot easier to repair a ship than build a new one so almost as much armor as a battleship, less armament, not quite as fast.

Kongos were designed in Britain (light armor) but the ships were heavily rebuilt. And while they didn't do well at either the first or second Battles of Guadalcanal, First Guadalcanal was a mess and probably the only time a battleship got into an extended knife fight with cruisers - not a large sample size for battleship effectiveness with that much medium range firepower at short range. Second Guadalcanal was an pre-WWI design going against a modern ship that knew how to use radar 9x16" is a LOT more throw weight than 8x14". The Americans had the advantage of Radar, the lessons of WW I on ship design, All or Nothing protection, a better gun and Willis 'Ching' Lee.

When WWII came around these ships were OLD. Three years older than the magnificent (at the time) Queen Elizabeth class, older than the Nevadas, looks like the same generation as USS ARKANSAS which didn't go to the Pacific until after D-Day.

One thing to send the KONGOs towards the 'battleship' category is they were a British design and took heavy gun fire and did NOT blow up. WW I battleships succumbed easily to torpedoes so the loss of KONGO to a submarine shouldn't impact the equation either way.
Bill Goin
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Kongo Class, Battleships?

Post by John 3rd »

I have ALWAYS (in my Mods) referred tot he Kongo's as Battlecruisers. That is what they were built as and not matter what the Japanese did, that is what they stayed as. TOO Little armor to be considered BBs.
Image

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

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”