What if the Japanese battleship Nagato was reactivated and pressed into JMSDF service?
- Thread starter Gillan1220
- Start date
I base my knowledge of the pre-JSDF and early JSDF days from the Godzilla (1954). Didn't the Japanese have P-51s, F-86s, and M4 Shermans as well?
They didn't reactivate their Type 4 Chi-Nu tanks?
That implies the Japanese even want a rusted out, barely maintained, out of date hulk
RousseauX
Donor
Would it be good for close fire support of landing forces like the Iowa? Assuming it never ever has to fight another ship.
No it needs its own supply stream and has been rusting without support for 5 years..... any USN ship in a fit state from its huge reserve better.
As the OP, I imagined a scenario where the Nagato or a Yamato-class battleship sailing alongside the USS Missouri shelling the North Korean coast in 1950-51. Just a thought I had before.
Kinda bummed that will only happen in ASB scenarios.
McPherson
Banned
Her steam plant is burned out by sulfur contaminated improperly refined oil being run through it. What is the value of a floating paper weight? It might be a war trophy on Lake Michigan, but we had laws about that nonsense act of hubris by then. Razor blades. Japanese citizens have to shave.
And if it were it would be unlikely to be a BB. That is overkill for what China had. Probably 3-4 Baltimore Class cruisers, 5-6 Cleveland Class Cruisers and maybe a dozen Gearing Class destroyers and this is stretching it. This is more than enough to handle China .
Or the Soviets and the North Koreans for that matter. I wonder what kind of ships and subs both the Red Navy and the KPN had at this period. Where they a threat to U.S. and UN ships?
McPherson
Banned
They did. Learned some useful lessons (aircraft carriers and subs) and applied them. Oyoda took too much bomb damage to be of any use and she was a one of a kind wrong lesson anyway.
If the US wanted to keep the Japanese navy operating former IJN ships, the late war DE (Matsu and Tachibana classes) would be the ones to keep. They could keep their DP 5'' guns, replace their 25mm AA with a mix of 40mm/20mm, remove their 24''TT and add more ASW weapons (Limbo?/Hedgehog?) .
McPherson
Banned
The lack of a reliable semi-auto slam feed and a good multi-band altitude lead predict fire control system (sometimes referred to incorrectly as a high angle director) limited the Type 89 anti-aircraft guns severely. The destroyers were also very small and somewhat unstable with poor metacentric heights. Acceptable maybe in a wartime emergency (See that US destroyer classes had the same design fault as to stability.) but I can see better uses of the Matsus and Tachibanas as razor blades.
I can't see Nagato lingering on that long. Here's a good piece on her postwar state:
The Final Voyage of the HIJMS Nagato Battleship
www.bikiniatoll.com
If there was a reason for Japan to have a big-gun ship in the Cold War era, then that same reason means the USN will be hanging onto its newer battleships. So what's the reason? Maybe the Soviets build the Stalingrad class battlecruisers postwar, and several are assigned the Vladivostok? Or the Soviets provide one or two to China in an act of Comintern friendship?
If the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces do need big-gun ships, the US has other option. A good one that might keep the neighbors less panicked might be to transfer Tennessee and California
That's South Dakota at bottom right blocking the end of the drydock.
In reserve at Philadelphia, both are pretty modern with their wartime rebuilds, but only good for 20 knots; they would fit a defensive posture pretty well. I have read that West Virginia, with similar rebuild, was considered the equal of a new battleship in all aspects but speed. They would need an AA refit, probably modern 3in/50s in twin mounts replacing the 40mm Bofors. Electronics would need updated as well.
If it was felt the Japanese needed 16in firepower, both Colorado and West Virginia are in reserve at Seattle. Again, they would need AA and electronic updates, and the Japanese could rebuild Colorado to a more modern (even more modern than West Virginia) standard.
If there was a need for Japan to have a faster ship, another option would be Hawaii, laid up in Philadelphia as well.
Hawaii at right in the bottom right nest of cruisers.
Hawaii has the advantage of using the practically mass-produced powerplant of the Essex class carriers, so spare for her engineering will never be a problem.
My thoughts,
It would be better to just get ex USN DE. But if you had to keep IJN ships in service, they would be the ones to keep.
SwampTiger
Banned
Allow JJMSDF Kumano Maru. aircraft transport/landing ship, be converted to an ASW carrier during the Korean incident. Allow a dozen or more C/D Class kaibokan to serve rather than Tacomas. Allow modernization with US guns, radar and sonar.
With the USN based in Japan, what more do they need.
If you need a 'large' ship use Sakawa.
With the USN based in Japan, what more do they need.
If you need a 'large' ship use Sakawa.
Last edited:
Nagato was built in 1920 and was originally partially coal fired. Even after the rebuild she was slow, barely capable of 24 knots. She had no place in post-WW2 naval warfare except as a manpower intensive, mobile gun battery that would require numerous escorts.
Not wanting to sound controversial, but how about the already built Alaskas (Guam or Alaska herself)? No threat to the USN, but quite well equipped and barely used. A reasonable answer to a Stalingrad, if this was the rationale.
How big was the JMSDF at the time in terms of personnel. Crewing of larger ships is always an issue for smaller navies.