Yamato with several more knots

Perhaps what would help Yamato would be if she was built to be more fuel efficient. I'm not sure how you'd do that, but perhaps if you built her with lower cruising speed in mind?
Then you'd actually consider *using* her.

less tonnage would help. In OTL Yamato class, the Japanese you can say went out of their character in terms of building ships.

Assuming the Japanese stick to 28 knots, 35k tons 16.1inch guns, Wouldnt the Diesel Engine like from the Deutschland class help both weight savings and fuel efficiency? I assume the Germans would be willing to share this.
 
Imo 35,000 tons is too small for a well balanced ship. They would end up with something like South Dakota, but they would want something better. RLBH estimated that for a speed of 30kt it needs to be 43,000 tons, that is a good size for nine 41cm guns and protection against same. But to get something better they could have gotten an L/50 41cm gun (like Iowa) firing heavy shells and protection against same, though probably that would have started to get close to 50,000 tons again for 30kt. Perhaps best compromise between cost/time to build and capability is 45,000 tons and 28-29kt imo.

Regarding diesels, as probably known most initial Yamato projects envisaged mixed turbine/diesel propulsion, they dropped diesels because they figured out that as the diesels were under 200mm armour that was integral to the hull, they couldn't take them out (in a reasonable way at least) if they broke down!
 
Assuming the Japanese stick to 28 knots, 35k tons 16.1inch guns,
Cant fit a balanced 16" 28Kn ship on 35K unless its made of cardboard....

the Diesel Engine like from the Deutschland class help both weight savings and fuel efficiency? I assume the Germans would be willing to share this.
No they will probably be heaver/larger for the same top speed, but may well give better range. (not sure with a standard tons limit they make any sense even if you could get them and they are reliable)
 

nbcman

Donor
Or an actual tank for china.:D

The tanks the IJA had were more than good enough for fighting the Nationalist Chinese or colonial Allied forces through 1942. When they had to fight later, Japanese tanks were outclassed by Soviet & Allied tanks.
 
Imo 35,000 tons is too small for a well balanced ship. They would end up with something like South Dakota, but they would want something better. RLBH estimated that for a speed of 30kt it needs to be 43,000 tons, that is a good size for nine 41cm guns and protection against same. But to get something better they could have gotten an L/50 41cm gun (like Iowa) firing heavy shells and protection against same, though probably that would have started to get close to 50,000 tons again for 30kt. Perhaps best compromise between cost/time to build and capability is 45,000 tons and 28-29kt imo.

Well, if they decided on 35k tons in 1930s, there was a chance they would have agreed with 1936 london treaty.

If they did, they might have laid down in 1936 4 14inch, then if there is still an escalator another 4 16.1in 45k tons laid on 1938.

If there was no escalation, North Carolina would have stayed with a 14in gun.

Of course, we got to deal on the other butterflies with Japan agreeing on the 2nd london naval treaty.

With regards, to 45k tons 28 knots, I tested in springsharp, you can have the armor scheme of Montana at that tonnage at 28knots 9x3 16.1 guns. Just like you can have the armor of Iowa at 35k tons, 28 knots with a 9x3 14 inch guns. Of course they wont have the seakeeping qualities of North Carolina.

But do Japanese planners decide on seakeeping qualities?

or 2 more Nagato class and a couple of carriers with the same amount of steel

Nagato was top of the line in 1920. Not so much in 1936-1940. Nagato 6 inch deck was still good enough in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Imo 35,000 tons is too small for a well balanced ship. They would end up with something like South Dakota, but they would want something better. RLBH estimated that for a speed of 30kt it needs to be 43,000 tons, that is a good size for nine 41cm guns and protection against same. But to get something better they could have gotten an L/50 41cm gun (like Iowa) firing heavy shells and protection against same, though probably that would have started to get close to 50,000 tons again for 30kt. Perhaps best compromise between cost/time to build and capability is 45,000 tons and 28-29kt imo.

Actually, I think that, if Japan decided to stay in the London Treaty, they would have gone for modern Kongous. You can do a 30kt, 9x14" guns on 35,000 tons(or a bit more).
 
Well, if the japanese actually keep to the treaty and build 35,000 tons BBs, they could get the first pair ready in 1940 and second in 1943. Though i would think they could surely fit more than 9x 36cm guns on 35,000 tons, KGV had 10 while the US were contemplating North Carolina with 11 or 12 such guns.

Anyway, having them earlier is one of the attraction of smaller 45,000 tons or so Yamatos. The second pair of hulls could be launched in 1942, and if the events are about same as in OTL (read, Midway etc.) then they'd have both available to transform into armoured deck CVs like Shinano, a bit smaller but still formidable, maybe even in time of Marianas. They probably could carry about 65-70 modern (A7M, B7A) planes, or over 80 older ones (A6M, B6N, D4Y).

OTL Shinano could carry 80 and 90-95 respectively, i know what is written in literature and what is believed about her concept and aircraft capacity, but recently i've read info that the IJN was intending to use it as a normal CV afterall (yes, the initial concept was for a heavily protected forward floating base shuttling planes from other carriers and carrying large amount of spares etc.etc., but they changed their minds as the war progressed) those being the number of aircraft she would actually be able to operate as a normal CV.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Actually, I think that, if Japan decided to stay in the London Treaty, they would have gone for modern Kongous. You can do a 30kt, 9x14" guns on 35,000 tons(or a bit more).
IIRC the RN thought they could do a Lion on 40KT. I've checked SpringSharp, and I agree.
They might cheat "slightly" by building something which passes for 35kt while being 40 and which uses 16" triples while passing for 14" triples.
Not legal, but no more cheaty than the Germans were "sorta getting away with".
 
Yes that is exactly what i was thinking about these smaller Yamatos, the japanese could try to deceive the USN and RN at least temporarily by claiming they build 35,000 ton ships with 36cm (or rather "special 36cm") guns.

Might cause the US to arm the North Carolinas with 36cm guns.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Repeat after me, Japan - disguising 40kt as 35kt is a lot easier than building a ship with turrets 1/10 " larger than those of Britain so you've got the biggest barrel.
 
*snort* No. Exhibit 1: Tomozuru.

Given a choice they would probably have an armor, speed weapon scheme slightly better than South Dakota/North Carolina at the expense of Sea Keeping.

Well, if the japanese actually keep to the treaty and build 35,000 tons BBs, they could get the first pair ready in 1940 and second in 1943. Though i would think they could surely fit more than 9x 36cm guns on 35,000 tons, KGV had 10 while the US were contemplating North Carolina with 11 or 12 such guns.

My prediction is better armor scheme than the North Carolina, 30 knots like Kongo. Most likely 10 or 12 guns. 12 if they are going to cheat the tonnage. If they will strictly follow the 35k tons, 9 guns-3 turret.

Or they can just lay down the keel in 1936 and say it is 35k tons/14in gun but in reality they were already making 45k tons/16.1 in guns. Of course assuming there is still an escalation clause. But would there still be an escalation based on just a minor naval power Italy not signing the 1936 treaty?

Of course the catch is the oil. Smaller tonnage better for them. But a 3rd gen BB will probably outperform what the Kirishima and Hiei did in OTL since they will have better armor than the Kongo or better than everything what the Kongo had.
 
Top