CH: No Yamato Battleships

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not :D

But at least a 5:5:3,5 ratio might make the Pacific War slightly more interesting, as it would also add some 14-15.000 tons for the Japanese carrier ratio.
I am saying the US would not give anymore than the minimum to Japan as that would all it to satisfy Japan and the UK, as well as the forces of US domestic conservativism. If you can satisfy two imperialists nand save money, that is winning deal.

A higher ratio for Japan would not allow the treaty to happen. The UK would scream bloody murder. While the US realized the UK could not afford to do anything, the US had nothing to gain from humiliating the UK. The US was having enough trouble with getting the UK to honor her debts to the US from the war--which the UK never did honor. The 5:5:3 gives the UK onel less thing to complain about.
 
Last edited:

elkarlo

Banned
The Yamatos were laid down before WW2. At that point, no one was sure carriers were the wave of the future. Big guns had served for hundreds of years, and the idea carriers would supplant them in a few years would have been anathema to most Admirals.

Honestly, I don't know if a case for not building the Yamatos could be made.


True. Also til the start of 43, night fighting was out of the realm of carriers. BBs, still had their role to play, and no one knew how the new warfare would go.
 

Rubicon

Banned
I am saying the US would not give anymore than the minimum to Japan as that would all it to satisfy Japan and the UK, as well as the forces of US domestic conservativism. If you can satisfy two imperialists nand save money, that is winning deal.

A higher ratio for Japan would not allow the treaty to happen. The UK would scream bloody murder. While the US realized the UK could not afford to do anything, the US had nothing to gain from humiliating the UK. The US was having enough trouble with getting the UK to honor her debts to the US from the war--which the UK never did honor. The 5:5:3 gives the UK onel less thing to complain about.
I disagree that the UK wouldn't sign the treaty. I think the UK negotiators would scream, curse and threaten to leave, but in the end would sign it even if was 5:5:3,5:1,75 as they can't afford not to.

For the USA, yes they don't want the Japanese ratio to be any higher then necessary, but the reason still for the successful shafting of the Japanese was that the USA had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew that 5:5:3 was the minimum acceptable ratio for Japan. If the USA did not know that this was the minimum acceptable term or that the minimum acceptable term for Japan was 5:5:3,5 or they would walk, then there is a possibility that the USA would agree to this ratio. This could though negate the non-fortification clause of the USA pacific possessions though.
 
I disagree that the UK wouldn't sign the treaty. I think the UK negotiators would scream, curse and threaten to leave, but in the end would sign it even if was 5:5:3,5:1,75 as they can't afford not to.

For the USA, yes they don't want the Japanese ratio to be any higher then necessary, but the reason still for the successful shafting of the Japanese was that the USA had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew that 5:5:3 was the minimum acceptable ratio for Japan. If the USA did not know that this was the minimum acceptable term or that the minimum acceptable term for Japan was 5:5:3,5 or they would walk, then there is a possibility that the USA would agree to this ratio. This could though negate the non-fortification clause of the USA pacific possessions though.
I agree the UK was over a barrel. History shows the UK was begging to have a US-UK naval treaty after the war.

Just don't let the UK fanboyz know you feel that the UK had though. If they find out, they will claim the UK will seek to the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty, absurd as that idea is. Still, among the numerous fans of the RN, that bizarre claim finds traction. The RN Fanboyz will also claim the UK had the money to build the G3s and the N3s--and man them, plus build the 70 heavy cruisers. Apparently in their universe the RN had the money to rebuild all the ships it planned on rebuilding but could not afford to ebuild, had the money to fortify Singapore, and never experienced the Invergordon mutiny over pay.

My point, with which you seem to agree, is that 5-5-3 worked out well for the US and the UK. It was a cheap solution that both felt they could live with.

I am less certain as to what would have happened were Japan given a 3.5 ratio. Japan had enough trouble paying for 3 ratio. I would need more knowledge about the Japanese fiscal situation. For example, if money is as tight as I believe was for the Japanese military, a higher ratio may not have helped naval aviation all that much because they may have spent money on ships that in our time went to planes.

I read that the US navy budget was the same after the treaty. The money that would have been spent on completing the Lexingtons and South Dakotas instead went to naval aviation.
 

Rubicon

Banned
I agree the UK was over a barrel. History shows the UK was begging to have a US-UK naval treaty after the war.

Just don't let the UK fanboyz know you feel that the UK had though. If they find out, they will claim the UK will seek to the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty, absurd as that idea is. Still, among the numerous fans of the RN, that bizarre claim finds traction. The RN Fanboyz will also claim the UK had the money to build the G3s and the N3s--and man them, plus build the 70 heavy cruisers. Apparently in their universe the RN had the money to rebuild all the ships it planned on rebuilding but could not afford to ebuild, had the money to fortify Singapore, and never experienced the Invergordon mutiny over pay.

Yes, the RN fanboyz are strong on this fora. The sheer number of RN wanking threads alone is a testimony to that.

My point, with which you seem to agree, is that 5-5-3 worked out well for the US and the UK. It was a cheap solution that both felt they could live with.

I am less certain as to what would have happened were Japan given a 3.5 ratio. Japan had enough trouble paying for 3 ratio. I would need more knowledge about the Japanese fiscal situation. For example, if money is as tight as I believe was for the Japanese military, a higher ratio may not have helped naval aviation all that much because they may have spent money on ships that in our time went to planes.

I think to be honest if one want the Japanese navy to go more for carrier aviation instead of big-guns (or lesser guns as it might be the case) one will most certainly need to have PoD when the lessons from the Russo-Japanese war is being done and that the 'Decisive battle doctrine' is a myth. That Tsushima was simply an natural ending to an virtually already won war. Even a tactical draw at Tsushima would have been a victory for the Japanese as there were no facilities left to accomodate and repair the Russian fleet.

In regards to the Japanese financial situation, the Yamato class almost broke the Japanese economy, but I have little knowledge of what the economy looked like for the Japanese in the early 20-ies. However they, like everyone else, had ships in the yard that were either later finished as carriers, scrapped or used as target practice. IIRC the four Amagi-class battle cruisers (Amagi, Akagi, Atago and Takao), and two Tosa-class battleships (Tosa and Kaga). Both of the Tosa-class battleships were quite far along in construction when they were cancelled so it's not impossible they're finished as battleships as they were paid for and the material assembled.

I read that the US navy budget was the same after the treaty. The money that would have been spent on completing the Lexingtons and South Dakotas instead went to naval aviation.

The USA didn't even build up to it's tonnage limit and the US congress were quite happy enough to not spend money on new ships as there were no new naval race.
 
Not withstanding the arguements made, there is an interesting article put out by Avalanche Press Games about the likelihood of a 5:5:4 ratio adoption at the WNT.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/LooseLips.php
The new ships would have given Japan an overwhelming advantage on paper, particularly against the Royal Navy. It is hard to imagine the UK tolerating this. On the other hand, the UK did not have enough money to really do anything about it should it have occurred. The US did.

Japan's battle fleet spent much of the war anchored due to lack of fuel. 100,000 tons more may have exacerbated this.
 
Japan focused on the super-battleships because its navy had an unbroken naval string of awesome moments when it needed to do them, and it did so with battleships. To alter this requires PODs sometime in WWI, and with PODs that far back a WWII as we know it is not entirely probable, nor will more carriers give the Japanese an edge in their war with China.
 
Japan focused on the super-battleships because its navy had an unbroken naval string of awesome moments when it needed to do them, and it did so with battleships. To alter this requires PODs sometime in WWI, and with PODs that far back a WWII as we know it is not entirely probable, nor will more carriers give the Japanese an edge in their war with China.

Really? I thought it was a way for them to qualitatively beat the US that they couldn't do quantitatively. If one is limited to a particular tonnage then one is going to build the most awesome thing with that tonnage.
 
Really? I thought it was a way for them to qualitatively beat the US that they couldn't do quantitatively. If one is limited to a particular tonnage then one is going to build the most awesome thing with that tonnage.
Well that is the reason for that particular design, for their fixation with BBs in general Snake is correct

Given different circumstances I could see them building different designs, but they will still build BBs
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Really? I thought it was a way for them to qualitatively beat the US that they couldn't do quantitatively. If one is limited to a particular tonnage then one is going to build the most awesome thing with that tonnage.

Problem with this theory is that the Yamatos weren't even designed until after the Empire withdrew from the Naval Treaty. The second problem is that the Yamato and her sister(s) were better than twice the size limit allowed even under the updated London treaty.
 
Problem with this theory is that the Yamatos weren't even designed until after the Empire withdrew from the Naval Treaty. The second problem is that the Yamato and her sister(s) were better than twice the size limit allowed even under the updated London treaty.

I believe that the size increase was done in order to build a superior battleship that would force any US reply to be large than permittable to transit the Panama Canal. At least that is IIRC mentioned in the article on the Yamatos in the first Warship International volume.
 
I believe that the size increase was done in order to build a superior battleship that would force any US reply to be large than permittable to transit the Panama Canal. At least that is IIRC mentioned in the article on the Yamatos in the first Warship International volume.

Why would that matter, considering they can just build and launch the ships from the West Coast?:confused:
 
Really? I thought it was a way for them to qualitatively beat the US that they couldn't do quantitatively. If one is limited to a particular tonnage then one is going to build the most awesome thing with that tonnage.

Nah, as they really didn't actually beat the USA on quality of equipment so much as using experienced combat troops with good leadership against inexperienced combat troops under Dugout Doug. When the USA gained experience and leadership the question was when Japan would be beaten and the specific form its defeat took.

The battleship fixation, however, owed itself purely to a naval tradition that included Tsushima, one of the most lopsided naval victories in history prior to the latter stages of the Pacific Theater in WWII itself. Tsushima tended to blind the IJN to several of its major flaws and gave it an overconfidence in the long term that was rather dangerous.

The problem, of course, is that Japan will still want battleships when naval war will be decided by carriers, not battleships, and it will have no way short of a pro-Japanese version of Guns of the South to see this beforehand. And even if it builds more-better carriers it's never, ever, at any point, going to defeat the USA outright in a naval war. And once more all the naval changes in the world can't win it that China War.
 
Nah, as they really didn't actually beat the USA on quality of equipment so much as using experienced combat troops with good leadership against inexperienced combat troops under Dugout Doug. When the USA gained experience and leadership the question was when Japan would be beaten and the specific form its defeat took.

The battleship fixation, however, owed itself purely to a naval tradition that included Tsushima, one of the most lopsided naval victories in history prior to the latter stages of the Pacific Theater in WWII itself. Tsushima tended to blind the IJN to several of its major flaws and gave it an overconfidence in the long term that was rather dangerous.

The problem, of course, is that Japan will still want battleships when naval war will be decided by carriers, not battleships, and it will have no way short of a pro-Japanese version of Guns of the South to see this beforehand. And even if it builds more-better carriers it's never, ever, at any point, going to defeat the USA outright in a naval war. And once more all the naval changes in the world can't win it that China War.

The Japanese apparently shared the same fixation on the battleship as most of the nations of the world at the time. Your points on the shadow of Tsushima are certainly correct in regards to the idea of the decisive naval battle as being their desire.
 
The Japanese apparently shared the same fixation on the battleship as most of the nations of the world at the time. Your points on the shadow of Tsushima are certainly correct in regards to the idea of the decisive naval battle as being their desire.

The problem was that in their case they kept on looking for Tsushima even after their own tactical success at Pearl Harbor should have indicated no Tsushima was ever going to happen again.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The new ships would have given Japan an overwhelming advantage on paper, particularly against the Royal Navy. It is hard to imagine the UK tolerating this. On the other hand, the UK did not have enough money to really do anything about it should it have occurred. The US did.

Your statements have the British dilemma. The British claimed they could not tolerate/accept many things, but in the end, the gave in. About a decade before, the British said they had to have a 2:1 advantage over rivals. Then it became ok for parity with the USA and a 1.6:1 ratio. At some point, they British would have reached the truly unacceptable ratio, and decide another sacred cow was no longer sacred. The truth is, there was a decent size list of things that were more important to the British than these ratios such as:

1) All those money losing colonies (most of Africa, Eastern Pacific Islands, etc.) There were hugely valuable, strategic resources in the British Empire, but things like Cameroon and Kenya were not these items.

2) The Gold standard at prewar rates. Often after very expensive war, a countries currency is permanently debased.

3) The white dominions were not carrying their share of the naval budget. There were about as many whites in the white Dominions as in the British Isles, but the UK was paying for the capital ships that benefited all. This problem is not unique as the USA and NATO shows.

4) Some of the domestic priorities of the government. There are budget cuts that can be made that don't lead to a communist revolution in London.

5) Not scrapping so many ships. They did not have to build the extra ships they need, they were built. The Orion and King George Class look like they would have had value in WW2.

6) India wanted to be a full Dominion, and they likely would have agreed to large military expenditures in exchange for this change. It could have been mostly Indian divisions in the BEF in WW2.

So the RN enthusiasts are right the UK could have afforded more ships based on GDP, just as you are right they would not. The RN was just less sacred than other sacred cows. Germany had the same issue pre WW1. Plenty of money for an army 50% larger, plenty of men, but sacred cows were in the way such as exclusive Junker officer class and German social programs.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy
 
Top