| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 803 ( 8-Apr-2008 22:56:32) |
Were any of the BC/BBs reconstructed as historical between 1925-35? If only the early reconstruction of the Kongos happen, I'd use them (3 already through
one reconstruction, capable of 25-26kts) and Nagatos (with minor improvements) as the historical Kongos - keeping only the four Ise-Fuso as reserve. Skipping a
total of 10 full reconstruction - including 10 brand new powerplants of a total power of 1,000,000SHP- would free up enough capacity and resources for 2-4 BCs.
|
||
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 170 ( 8-Apr-2008 23:05:25) |
If you realy want new ships, consider the limmited capacity of Japanese Industry before 1941. If you cecide to build four replacements for the Kongo's from
scratch, you must take away a simmilar amount of buildingmaterials needed for other projects, use four buildingslips in a shipyard, which must be made free for
this purpose and cannot be used for other constructions at the same time.
This can be very conclusive, since most attention would normally be given to the two first Yamato class battleships in this period, which consume quiate a lot of energy and materials in the shipbuildingprogramme. If you can delete these, two, you may have more than adequate material left for four new basical battlecruisers, with no nonsence put into them, to simpify the building of these in a shorter period. (Problem may be a tactical use of these ships, since they are not longer to be considered supplementary to the canceled new battlefleet of Yamato's, but will provide fast escortservice for the carriers only most of the time.) The four ships can be constructed lightly with more true battlecruiser thinking than in more contemporary ships of other nations. Try to construct a lightweight 16.1 inch gun, simmilar to the already existing guns of the Nagato's to make use of the same ammunition, if possible. If this is not possible, try the smaller 14 inch gun simmilar to the guns of the Kongo's and other battleships. (Or you need a new stockpile of new ammunition, which is a bit overstraining the Japanese industry.) These existing calibers already are supplied with large amounts of ammunitions, so make to make use of it is wise. Canceling the Yamato's and building these four replacements of the Kongo's wil need another element however: other new aircraftcarriers, to operate with. So besides these ships, you also need to speed up the construction of the fast aircraft carriers as well, including the Taiho and the Unryu's. This may be a bit too much for the IJN and the Japanese industry, but it should be possible in theory, since the expensive Yamato project has been canceled. |
||
Joshua Kintner |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 386 ( 8-Apr-2008 23:17:28) |
OK so here is my problem, I want to move aside the oldest Japanese battle cruisers and battleships, and put them in reserves. Starting around 1937-138 I want newer ships. So what do I build? Assuming you keep the Nagato class, since they were built in 1920, and discard anything built from about 1915 to earlier, mainly the Fuso and Kongo class ships. Keep the Ise class around, but in a reserve role. Instead of rebuilding Fuso and Kongo classes in between the war, they are both dis-armed and used as accomodation hulks. From the four Kongo class and two Fuso class you have a total of 56x14" guns. If you wanted ot build say a new class of four battlecruisers or fast battleships, from that stockpile you could arm four of these ships with 14 guns apiece. Let's shrink that down abit, and go with either four triple turrets, or three triple turrets, depending on the size of the ship that you want. |
||
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 171 ( 9-Apr-2008 12:41:10) |
As a design, actually projected the four Kongo replacements could have looked like the B-64/65 project:
B64 class large cruisersDispl: 32,000 tons standard; 34,800 tons trial Dim: 802.5 x 89 x 29 feet Prop: Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 4 shafts, 160,000 hp, 33 knots Crew: ??? Arm: 3 triple 12.2/50, 8 dual 3.9/65, 12 25 mm AA, 8 13.2 mm AA, 8 24 inch TT Armor: 7.5 inch belt, 5 inch deck Cancelled due to war. Plans altered to 3 triple 14.2 inch due to US Alaska class, designation changed to B65. Officially classified as "super A-type" cruisers. Originally the main artillery was to have been tripple 12.2 inch guns, but this was increased to 14.2 inch in the later, as more details of USS Alaska became known. At 33 knots, it is as fast as the fast carriers in the IJN and equal in both speed and concept as USS Iowa, besides being much smaller. These proposed ships were simmilar im size to the existing Kongos, but more usefull as AA escorts, by their DP nature of the secondary armament. Simmilarly protected, with more attention given to horizontal armor over vertical protection. Design is considered effective as a battlecruiser, with speed to get out of trouble against battleships and firepower against anything smaller, besides good AA capacity. 14.2 inch is also more than adequate to defeat post treaty USN BB's, except the canceled Montana's, so against an Iowa, it still can hurt back, if forced to engage. (although it is wise to avoid a gunneryduel with ships only protected against cruiser sized guns.) As for the proposed replacements of the old Fuso class (and essentially the Ise Class as well), Japan has no productioncapacity to do this at the same time, so it has to be postponed untill the battlecruisers are finished. You may well have to deal with this for some more years untill you can replace them. (perhaps by the Yamato's???). If you want a design with simmilar 14 inch sized weapons, you can use the same guns as the ones designed for the B-64/65 class. (simplify production, if possible) Also use the same secondary guns as in the Battlecruisers, but possibly in larger hulls. Speed has to match the 30 knot limmit, if possible, so they can keep up to some part with the carriers, making them more usefull. (a slower division can be formed by the Nagato's at 26.5 knots and perhaps the Yamato's of 27 knots if proceded with.) Best option is to increase the design with a fourth tripple turret and perhaps some additional secodnary mountings, plus more deckarmor to make them more resilient against heavy bombingattacks. Belt is not so much an issue, since the ships are mainly designed for longrange gunnery, making belts less effective and decks more important, besides the airial threath. Excelent torpeoprotection is a must, since aircraft can also attack with torpedoes, as do submarines. By giving the vessel massive beam for optimal underwaterprotection this can be achieved, as with estensive internal subdivision of the hull. The proposed vessel may well come in the range of 45,000 tons by doing so, but since the threaty already has been canceled to keep size withing 35,000 ton limmits, this is no problem. Alternatively some ships may be armed with twin 16.1 inch turrets, already available. |
||
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2519 (10-Apr-2008 14:30:53) |
Ahoj!
There are four yards capable of building battleships from the 8-8 Programme. Yokosuka Navy Kure Navy Mitsubishi Kawasaki Building "normal" sized ships 30-40K tonnes should not cause much of a problem. In 1913-22 Japan built (or almost built) 3 Kongos, 4 Fuglies, 2 Nagatos, 2 Tosas and 2 Amagis. Borys |
||
E F Draaijers |
IJN Naval yards | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 174 (10-Apr-2008 18:28:10) |
That is true, but remember these were also used to build other big vessels, like the large aircraft carriers, so cannot do another project on the same slip at
the same time still. During the 1935 - 1940 period there were also the conversions of the large Junyo and Hiyo, lso in these same yards and several cruisers on
the way of either building or refitting. (Not even speaking of Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku and Taiho, all being laid down before 1940.) In reality only
three buildingsites capable of building a total of four ships at the same time longer than 200 meters in length could be used, if the Yamato's were to be
canceled before this.
|
||
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 805 (10-Apr-2008 23:10:29) |
Japan has infrastructure to build/accomdate ships up to 830'x101'x32' - based on the Amagi and No.13 designs - the latter had 900' length, so
it might have necessitated some modification of the existing drydocks.
My alternative BB within the dimensional constraints: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/72612/t/Alternative-30-knot-Yamato-competition.html |
||
Eugen Pinak |
|||
|
Posts: 108 (11-Apr-2008 23:50:57) |
NoOneFamous wrote: First of all, unless you can see the future, you need at least one division on more or less capable battleships - so at least two BBs are a must. Second, unless you'll build replacements, you can't replace "Kongo" class as well - they are irreplaceable during "all out"
torpedo attacks on US fleet formation.
Yes, and dot't forget, that by 1945 you need to replace at least 16 more CLs, 4 CAs, and 2 CVs. 1. B.64 design is a design of "Amagi". 2. There was only one design for "Super-A" cruiser - B.65 with 3x3 31-cm guns. The story about conversion to 36-cm guns is a myth. |
||