Ideal Treaty BB

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dolphinstriker) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:35:24 GMT

So let's return to my previous statement - why not to disband Navy (and Army) at all. If the Armed forces are unable to provide proper defence against possible enemies, why should we keep them?

I sense we're not communicating at all here when I see you use the term "proper defence" in relation to The Japanese armed forces of the 1930's. The IJN and IJA had nothing to do with defense and everything to do with naked...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Eugen Pinak) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:44:47 GMT

Dolphinstriker

That's all correct and would be great in peace-time. But there is the problem with your logic - building or not building of "Yamatos" actually doesn't mean a thing, because in 1937 Japan is already dragged into big war, which increased army spendings on armaments TEN TIMES. And the next years...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Eugen Pinak) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:36:26 GMT

Dolphinstriker is absolutely right here. US politicians were not selfless to forfeit the chance to increase their influence in SEA and not stupid to allow some other country to rival them in this race (especially if this country was buying 80% of the oil in the USA).
And the Summer of 1940 looked like ideal time to start this race: Netherlands and France were conquered by Germany and had very few chances to actively protect their colonial interests (unless they were threatened by the...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dolphinstriker) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:31:59 GMT

The problem was that IJN had no oil to wait till 1945 (not 1944). They needed major oil supply source by the end of 1942.

Agreed, that is why the Japanese should have waited to expand into China and especially Indo-China till after the US was out of the Philippines so that the US would not use their oil embargo until...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (hoist40) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:22:39 GMT

Eugen Pinak says

The problem was that IJN had no oil to wait till 1945 (not 1944). They needed major oil supply source by the end of 1942.

Agreed, that is why the Japanese should have waited to expand into China and especially Indo-China till after the US was out of the Philippines so that the US would not use their oil embargo until after 1944. Then with no US colony in the Philippines the Japanese would have a free hand in moving south if...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dolphinstriker) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:11:22 GMT

That's all correct and would be great in peace-time. But there is the problem with your logic - building or not building of "Yamatos" actually doesn't mean a thing, because in 1937 Japan is already dragged into big war, which increased army spendings on armaments TEN TIMES. And the next years this sum was more than doubled again. Do you really believe that your "saved" money would be spent on long-term economic...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Eugen Pinak) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:33:12 GMT

Dolphinstriker

A decision not to build the ill-advised Yamato class battleships does not equate to a decision to disband the IJN. The point remains that Japan's obsession with military spending in the 1930's was a major cause of political tensions in Asia and the economic drain severely crippled Japan's industrial development precisely at a time when a more balanced approach would have yielded much better long term...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:35:44 GMT

Thod,
One problem was that money was appropiated at one time to widen & deepen the Panama Canal(construction was even started) so eventually the US would have been able to build ships as big as Yamato and thier able to pass throught the canal.

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Throd) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:16:16 GMT

Was not the idea behind the Yamatos prodigeous size to be superior to anything the US could get through the Panama canal (max firepower of 10 x 16" I read in one book) thus forcing the US to either build 2 navies or give up ideas of naval dominance. Not necessarily a sound idea but one I've read the Japanese had. Putting the money into the economy instead may be more sensible but gives nothing easily visible.

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (hoist40) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:09:04 GMT

Dolpinstriker says

The best policy the Japanese could have pursued was one of patience, the pursuit of long term economic development, and of walking and talking very softly in the presence of US interests.

One thing the Japanese could have done was wait for 1944 when the US turned the Philippines over to the Filipinos which would have reduced some of the US interest and presence in the area. There would still be some sort of US activity but...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dolphinstriker) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:47:24 GMT

this was recognized by Japan as this nation was the first to sink a freely moving ship by means of a torpedo biplane back in 1914

I wasn't aware of this, and it would seem that the Japanese anticipated Billy Mitchell by a number of years. Could you provide the details of this early use of naval air power?

Japan probably is best suited with the full...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:53:18 GMT

Japan probably is best suited with the full exploitation of their advanced torpedoe technology. A BB isn´t exactly what Japan needed most against the USN. They have been on the right track with the early carrier programs, including the conversion of large civilian ships into useful carriers. The new airforce - and this was recognized by Japan as this nation was the first to sink a freely moving ship by means of a torpedo biplane back in 1914 - had the potential to project firepower to a...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dolphinstriker) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:33:25 GMT

I'd like to hear a reply to such proposition made to any of the major power Naval General Staff in 1937 Why not to disband IJN at all - you can save much more money this way.

A decision not to build the ill-advised Yamato class battleships does not equate to a decision to disband the IJN. The point remains that Japan's obsession with...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Eugen Pinak) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:35:28 GMT

Dave Bender wrote:
Spending 100 million pounds (or whatever they cost) for 5 new Yamato class BBs is probably the worst possible military purchase that Japan could make with this huge sum of money in 1937. They would be further ahead to purchase nothing at all with the money and plow it back into the Japanese economy.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dolphinstriker) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:38:00 GMT

Spending 100 million pounds (or whatever they cost) for 5 new Yamato class BBs is probably the worst possible military purchase that Japan could make with this huge sum of money in 1937. They would be further ahead to purchase nothing at all with the money and plow it back into the Japanese economy.

I could not possibly agree with you more. The Japanese military/naval expenditures in the 1930's sucked so much capital out of the...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (Dave Bender) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:30:41 GMT

Dolphinstriker wrote:

He gives the order for the cancellation of the Yamato program and the funding shift to a high performance naval fighter aircraft.
It will also be necessary for this guy to effectively order entire national industries to upgrade their processes overnight, and have it happen. Otherwise, the project will spend a lot of money and still be a failure, as...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (dunmunro1) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:05:22 GMT

The RM and IJN were not limited by treaty restrictions, so neither the Yamatos or Littorios were treaty BBs in any sense. Since both Italy and Japan withdrew from the treaty process in 1936, IIRC. I think the fact that the Allied treaty BBs compare so well to their Axis counterparts is indicative of a generally higher level of Allied design acumen, and a much better use of available displacement.

Littorio wastes a considerable amount of tonnage with a mixed calibre secondary...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:52:19 GMT

Getz wrote:

but nothing implies that the Italian shells won't work at up to ~35 degrees impact on face-hardened armor - only the general misconception that whatever Italians made in WWII was generally a piece of crap and inferior to anything else.

Very true, on the whole the Italians designed very fine warships of all sizes, and their artillery of all sizes was also of...

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:48:59 GMT

Eugene,
No I don't know if there was. I was just suggesting a possible reason why Yamato wasn't treaty compliant.

Re: Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:46:40 GMT

Red Admiral wrote:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.htm Link to Nathan Okun's revised article on decapping. With regards to proofing angles on the Italian shells, I've seen them described as "good" but again there aren't any figures available, a fact which plagues most research on Italian ships and systems. The USN proofed shells so that they would penetrate in most conditions but not explode....

Ideal Treaty BB

feeds@yuku.com (taschmidt) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:02:04 GMT

Given that the treaty BBs consume a large amount of the interest on this board, I'm wondering what features members think would go into a 35,000 ton battleship.
I'm not posting this on the ship design space because I'm looking for a discussion not a lot of springsharp designs.
For example, There has been a lot of discussion lately about the speed and range of some treaty BBs.
I believe that flexibility of a fast (and I think all the treaty BBs qualify for speed) ship and long...