AHC: Have all FIVE Yamato class battleships built

Good points, but as you said they have about as much staying power as a heavy cruiser (their likely opponents). With their 12' battery they have far more hitting power than their Japanese opponents. I suspect they would give more than they got, but you are right - they arent that much more capable than a Cleveland - and at twice the size and with twice the crew complement as a cruiser, you really don't want to see one sunk by 3 destroyer-launched long lances. I take it back. But they're still about the most beautiful ships the USN ever had and would look great visiting a royal fleet review.
Instead of 3x3 12 inch batteries..

instead of investing on the creation of the 12 inch guns and shells..

If the Navy and the President and Congress and whomever had supported the buildup of the Alaska Class is sooo adamant about them.....

How about just using the 16 inch guns instead and instead of 3x3 12 inch guns...
just have 3x2 16 inch guns ...
Two 16 inch guns per turrents...

and make them a true Battlecruiser and reduce the need to create, inventory and supply the 12 inch shells needed for the Alaska Class units and have them use the already available 16 inch shells that are in production in the military factoies......
meh...
 

sharlin

Banned
Weight and size limits I'm afraid. The 16 inch guns would require bigger turrets and barbettes which would require a stronger and probably deeper hull and then the weight of the ammo goes up considerably. You'd need a bigger ship, so you'd end out with a bigger, under armoured waste of resources.
 
Just wondering, but how come when someone asks if such and such happens, which really changes what one side of battle would do, the other side does exactly the same they do in our time line.

If the Yamato class BBs were built without Japan attacking the US and as one poster stated, without being involved in China at all, then why would the US start building up its fleet to that level anyway. I mean, the Naval Treaty would still be in effect for the US wouldn't it, since it would likely be neutral, assuming that WW2 actually started in 1939..... which it might not have, given the butterflies from no Japan-China war of 1937. Even if WW2 in Europe had started 'historically' there would be no reason for the US (probably still neutral till at least 1943) to have a huge fleet, especially if the Pacific was quiet. I know the US would probably match Japan ship for ship to maintain the treaty, but beyond that they likely wouldn't bother.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Instead of 3x3 12 inch batteries..

instead of investing on the creation of the 12 inch guns and shells..

If the Navy and the President and Congress and whomever had supported the buildup of the Alaska Class is sooo adamant about them.....

How about just using the 16 inch guns instead and instead of 3x3 12 inch guns...
just have 3x2 16 inch guns ...
Two 16 inch guns per turrents...

and make them a true Battlecruiser and reduce the need to create, inventory and supply the 12 inch shells needed for the Alaska Class units and have them use the already available 16 inch shells that are in production in the military factoies......
meh...

If they were going to do anything (which they shouldn't have) it would have been better to pull some 14" guns out of the stores kept as spares for the existing obsolecent 14" BB classes and done something like a 2x2 or even 2x3 14" (all the 14" BB classes were actually lighter than the CB class, so this should be readily doable). That would have given as significant advantage over anything short of a post treaty BB when combined with her designed speed and actually allowed her some utility in the shore bombardment role.
 

sharlin

Banned
Or do what the RN planned to do by making a large heavy cruiser that basically would look like an enlarged Fiji class with 9 x 9.2 inch guns as a big cruiser killer.

The USN probably still had some 10 inch guns from their armoured cruiser lurking around, shove them on a ship. You get a cruiser killing punch without going too big.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Two Ocean Navy Act was more of a reaction to the Fall of France than the Japanese, although Japan withdrawing from the Naval Treaty was also an impact. The U.S. started building the South Dakota class in reaction to the Japanese leaving the Treaty (the North Carolina class was compliant, at least on paper) and the rest of the authorization was thanks to Hitler going through France like a buzzsaw. Pretty much all the ships used in WW II, at least until early 1945, with the exception of the Independence class CL and the CVE classes, were part of the 1940 allocations and those from the 1941 follow up (which was again thanks to the Reich).

Congress, even during the height of Isolationist policy always believed in having a large of a navy as possible. Part of this was due to the power of a few key Senators, but it was mainly common sense. Isolation required that the U.S. both stayed out of European wars AND kept European wars out of the Western Hemisphere. There was also a long running mistrust of Japan, dating all the way back to the turn of the Century. Teere was no way that Congress was going to let any country have the ability to overmatch the USN in either ocean.

This is also why, in the inter-war period, that the Army received such a small part of the budget pie. Small army with a large trained reserve is sufficent to deal with issues in the Western Hemisphere or in the PI but isn't really useful if the President decides to get stuck in a European war.
Just wondering, but how come when someone asks if such and such happens, which really changes what one side of battle would do, the other side does exactly the same they do in our time line.

If the Yamato class BBs were built without Japan attacking the US and as one poster stated, without being involved in China at all, then why would the US start building up its fleet to that level anyway. I mean, the Naval Treaty would still be in effect for the US wouldn't it, since it would likely be neutral, assuming that WW2 actually started in 1939..... which it might not have, given the butterflies from no Japan-China war of 1937. Even if WW2 in Europe had started 'historically' there would be no reason for the US (probably still neutral till at least 1943) to have a huge fleet, especially if the Pacific was quiet. I know the US would probably match Japan ship for ship to maintain the treaty, but beyond that they likely wouldn't bother.
 
If the Japanese were able to build all of the proposed Yamato class BB's one could presume that the beginning of WW-2 was delayed for a number of years.

If that was the case, then the obsolescence of the BB's & BC's would not have yet been demonstrated.

With a lot more capital ships in service, (this also asumes that the British & the European counties) built all the the ships in their pipelines) they might have had a greater impact.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Japanese were able to build all of the proposed Yamato class BB's one could presume that the beginning of WW-2 was delayed for a number of years.

If that was the case, then the obsolescence of the BB's & BC's would not have yet been demonstrated.

With a lot more capital ships in service, (this also asumes that the British & the European counties) built all the the ships in their pipelines) they might have had a greater impact.


The increased impact is rather unlikely.

The carrier aircraft which doomed the big gun ships were already on the drawing board (or in early testing). The TBF factory actually opened on December 7, 1941, the F6F contract was let in summer of 1941, the first Corsair flew in mid-1940 (and the Navy contrated for almost 600 aircraft in early '41) while the problem child SB2C was ordered into full production in December of 1940. The evolution of aircraft was sped up by the war, but it was already happening.

That is just in the U.S., other countries were also bringing on the next generation of combat carrier borne aircraft.
 
If the Japanese were able to build all of the proposed Yamato class BB's one could presume that the beginning of WW-2 was delayed for a number of years.

If that was the case, then the obsolescence of the BB's & BC's would not have yet been demonstrated.

With a lot more capital ships in service, (this also asumes that the British & the European counties) built all the the ships in their pipelines) they might have had a greater impact.


Perhaps in the Pacific, but certainly not in the more important Europe, which was already going for war, as early as the creation of the 3rd Reich. Europe showed the value of the aircraft as well as submarine, not the Pacific, although there it was the aircraft carirer, that showed the days of the battleship in open waters were done for.
 
Top