Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 9:36:25 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I LIKE the idea of sticking to those 16" guns. Makes re-arming far more easy during the war.

Am open to ideas past that...

No BC designs for the time makes that an easier decision. Perhaps we just focus on several 'fast' 16" BBs for the 3rd Circle and see what gets thought up. The concept of 5x2--4x3--3x3 are all options for a main gun armament. Secondary and Tertiary guns are also open for consideration...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 31
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 10:10:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The biggest factors in my thinking is NOT having to enlarge the slipways that Yamato and Musashi were built upon. By not doing that, one saves a YEAR of time and a BUNCH of $$$.

Tentative thoughts would have 3 new Battleships ordered in 3rd Circle along with a twin CV to Hiryu. The Gun Club gets new 'toys' while the slowly growing 'air' faction gets another flightdeck. The first two BBs would be complete by Dec 7th while the 3rd is finished sometime in mid-to-late 42. The CV would be ready in early-42.



_____________________________



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 #: 32
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 2/28/2015 10:44:32 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8585
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

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


I like this idea.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 33
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/1/2015 12:32:43 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9671
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Tentative thoughts would have 3 new Battleships ordered in 3rd Circle along with a twin CV to Hiryu. The Gun Club gets new 'toys' while the slowly growing 'air' faction gets another flight deck. The first two BBs would be complete by Dec 7th while the 3rd is finished sometime in mid-to-late 42. The CV would be ready in early-42.


Following traditional Japanese planning, I would go with pairs. A set of 2 BBs and 2 CVs (Hiryu Class CV is OK). Any possibility of another modern dozen DDs to go with these new large warships?? Another full CV TF (2 CVs, 2 BB/BC, 12 DDs) would be nice.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 34
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/1/2015 1:42:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Could make sense Michael. Have to think on it some...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 35
BB Design - 3/2/2015 6:58:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK. Did some research and went through a bunch of websites before settling on this for the Japanese BB (replacing the Yamato-Class):






Armament:
4x3 16.1"
6x2 6"
4x2 5" AA

Going with the 'Few to Conquer Many Thinking" this BB would have two additional 16" Rifles over any current US BB, would be faster, and just as heavily armored. We could go with the HP number JWE threw out and place their speed at 28-30 Knots.

I am not sure about the armor. The studies I found on this BB did not include those numbers. Does anyone know or want to take a guess?


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/2/2015 8:01:52 PM >


_____________________________



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 #: 36
RE: BB Design - 3/2/2015 8:05:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Just after I Post this, Michael sends me some of Juan's Scenario work from right when AE was published. Will look through that for any hidden gems...


_____________________________



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 #: 37
BB Design - 3/3/2015 12:55:31 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is the BB Juan devised that is very similar. At 56,000T, this is going to be too big for the quest of NOT expanding the slipways. Figure that we're shooting for about 45,000T to still fit.

At any rate here is what he devised:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



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 #: 38
RE: BB Design - 3/3/2015 6:06:13 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is the BB Juan devised that is very similar. At 56,000T, this is going to be too big for the quest of NOT expanding the slipways. Figure that we're shooting for about 45,000T to still fit.

At any rate here is what he devised:






Those are still available here, along with artwork (incase you want to use any of it); http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2179124

John, out of those I would look more at Sagami class (3x3x16.1in), that is a concept based on the design studies done about possible Kongo/Fuso replacements. They are around 42,000tons and 28 knots, more could probably be squeezed out by sacrificing something, and just being laid down a little later with newer, more compact powerplants (think they are '32/33 vintage in AltWNT).

Secondly, there is absolutely no way you are going to get a design with 12x16.1in and a speed of 30 knots with decent protection on anything less than 55-60,000 tons, which means you need those expansions. That means that design above is out if you don't want facility expansions.

Remember that speed is by far the most 'expensive' thing in terms of tonnage at these sizes, and even the difference between 28 and 30 knots can mean several thousand tons of additional weight. Bigger powerplants mean more internal volume, which also means more armour surface, etc. Something of an illustration is comparing Iowa to South Dakota, with the former gaining around 10,000 tons of size with the majority of the coming from direct or indirect impacts to acheive 5 knots of speed.

The only sensible choice given size constraints (around 45-50,000t) for a 'balanced' design at 30 knots is somewhere between 8 to 10 16.1in guns, with protection decreasing with increasing firepower. I tend to favour arrangements with 3 turrets as it cuts down on turret weight somewhat and also plays nice with a larger powerplant by reducing internal volume. An interesting option might be 2x4 with the aft deck used for floatplanes ala Tone, but presents its own engineering challenges due to the quad turrets.

Here's a nice graphic showing some of the proposed layouts during the Yamato design studies - obviously the ship would probably be smaller, but it shows the kind of layouts that were in the minds of the IJN at the time;
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/135/2/3/the_comparative_turret_layout_of_the_ijn_yamato_by_tzoli-d5hvc0i.png

Here's a list of the design studies with their general characteristics, from Anatomy of the Ship - Battleship Yamato;
http://imageshack.com/a/img540/4725/ZGTq3S.jpg

If you settle on some design criteria I can put together a few design calculations about what it would mean in terms of size, powerplant, cruising ranges, etc.

EDIT: Just saw the Satsuma (Owari class) on the other page, thats probably as good as its going to get to be fair. Gun layout is up for debate as Symon said, but the general characteristics are probably in the right ballpark. That one is using an interesting two forward, 1 center (either amidships or more likely forward but masked ala Nelson), no intermediate 6.1in battery (a good choice imho, but maybe not in line with IJN thinking), and a very heavy secondary DP AA suite based on an upgraded 12cm.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 3/3/2015 7:53:06 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 39
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/3/2015 3:24:23 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Purely in terms of cost, Yamato stood at 281 mil. yen, with following battleships in the series projected at 214 mil yen each. A B-65 battlecruiser was estimated to cost 136 mil. yen (by calculations made in July of 1941). So looking at this in terms of cost, building 3 smaller superdreadnoughts, who would have been noticeably larger and more expensive than B-65s, in place of 2 Yamatos seems unlikely. Particularly as the impact of the initial investment necessary to build Yamatos lessens as the series continues.

There is also the problem of crew. While lack of trained aircrews (and airframes for that matter) to staff existing Japanese carriers to their capacity before Midway is well-known, Kaigun notes that Japanese also barely had enough trained ship crews for their existing fleet. Assuming new battleships would be a bit bigger than Nagatos they would probably require around 2000 crewmembers to Yamato's 2767.

Now I understand perfectly well that Yamato and Musashi are not exactly the most valuable surface assets in the game. 90% of naval battles are by night where they don't shine, and thanks to the overall system, every time they eat a torpedo they may be stuck in Home Islands shipyards for a year. But in terms of real life logic and knowledge available at the moment of their construction, they were the optimal choice. On every previous stage of the battleship race a substantial qualitative advance was a prize much sought after. It can be argued whether Yamato accomplished its design goal of imposing one-sided fights on post-treaty dreadnoughts it was designed to beat. But the overall goal was correct.

In fact, while modding the Japanese fleet is fun, the more I read about IJN, the more I think that the number of their actual screwups was quite few: the medium calibre gun situation, both having four bloody medium guns produced at the same time, and choosing 127/50 3 YT as their cannon of choice for the destroyer fleet; then not developing a heavy rail-dropped depth charge; and building Oyodo. Heavily investing in sub construction before the war and building cheap RO-subs was a bad error (no wonder that most players shut down sub construction!), but a large part of the blame should be placed on Germans and Italians and their vast overestimations of successes their submarine warfare achieved. Overall that's a pretty fine rate of correct to erroneous decisions, perhaps better than that of pre-war US Navy, certainly better than that of every other major navy. And perhaps this is the reason why most attempts at alternative history end up producing something worse than the actual Japanese OOB, when they do not postulate extra resources, as we generally do with the mods.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 40
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/3/2015 9:00:57 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10369
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 41
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/3/2015 10:14:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23946
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

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?

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 42
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/3/2015 11:01:52 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 43
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/3/2015 11:07:53 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8585
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

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.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 44
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/3/2015 11:51:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Sure SOUNDS nice---doesn't it??!!!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 45
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/4/2015 6:56:00 PM   
Symon


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

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

< Message edited by Symon -- 3/4/2015 10:43:38 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 46
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/4/2015 10:04:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
"Hootz Gazottes???!!!" What exactly is that...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 47
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/4/2015 10:57:24 PM   
DeltaV112

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 48
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 2:20:07 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8585
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

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.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 49
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 3:06:57 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 50
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 6:30:32 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5424
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 51
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 6:48:41 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10369
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 52
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 11:14:42 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9671
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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!!

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 53
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 5:10:31 PM   
Symon


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

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.


< Message edited by Symon -- 3/5/2015 7:03:26 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 54
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/5/2015 10:35:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16087
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 55
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/6/2015 5:48:03 PM   
Symon


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

quote:

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

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 56
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/6/2015 10:39:07 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1168
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 57
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/7/2015 3:51:38 AM   
DeltaV112

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 58
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/7/2015 6:24:08 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10369
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to DeltaV112)
Post #: 59
RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... - 3/7/2015 5:12:22 PM   
Symon


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


< Message edited by Symon -- 3/7/2015 6:48:33 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: If the Japanese did not build the Super-Battleships... Page: <<   < prev  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

0.160