No Yamato's?

[torten]

Before WW2, Japan built two super battleships of the Yamato class, plus an aircraft carrier conversion. All these ships ended up at the bottom of the sea.

Now these were pretty wasteful, but lets presume that the Japanese went Quantity not Quality. Instead, they build three 16 inch fast battleships similar to the Iowa class, and because some steel and manpower has been freed up, they build another carrier, in the place of the Nisshin (Detailed on the chart above.) The IJN would need to cancel or delay one of the Hiyo cruise liners, but I'm sure they would do that for an proper aircraft carrier. Another advantage would be that these smaller ships would take far less time to build, and therefore the slipways would be available sooner for new production, though finding the materials is an different matter.

So would this been an better aproach for the IJN? Can anyone else suggest where the Japanese could go from here?

 

[Rubicon]

1. The Kure Naval Slipway #2 had only a length of 225m. So you can't lay down any large carriers or battleship on that slipway.
2. No Yamatos? That means that the Japanese navy has given up. They knew they couldn't defeat the US navy in a long protracted war. The decisive battle and having superior quality was the only thing that possible could assure even a chance of success in a war with the US navy according to their thinking.

I suggest you start by reading Kaigun by Evans and Peattie. Evertyhing in regards to the thinking of the Japanese navy prior to WW2 is explained in it. Cancelling the Yamatos were a non-starter for the IJN, according to its doctrine they were a necessity.

 

[zert]

Instead of building any type of battleship, Japan would have been better to use all that steel for building carriers and more escorts for convoys. But I doubt the battleship admirals would have allowed their sacred cows to be lost.

 

[Dalekiller]

S

Instead of building any type of battleship, Japan would have been better to use all that steel for building carriers and more escorts for convoys. But I doubt the battleship admirals would have allowed their sacred cows to be lost.

That's ignoring the entire naval plan of Japan, since 1920 they had been planning a 18 inch bAttleship (Type 18) and it as all for a super-battle. You may not agree with it but Japan understood it was going to get curbstomped the moment the US got around to making a fleet.

Thus their plan was to wipe the battle fleet off the face of the planet in a big battle. Then use distance to win.

Both sides failed to comprehend the changing technology in time for various reasons.
US: Great Depression
Japan: China

 

[luis3007]

But wouldn't the decisive battle doctrine be better served with 2-3 fleet aircraft carriers instead of 2 Yamato's? The Kido Butai ran unchecked through Asia for a year after sinking most of the US battle line in Pearl Harbor.

2 or 3 more fleet carriers may, could and even would have allowed the Japanese to sink all the original US Pacific carriers and be enough to blunt even the rain of Essex's that would have come later.

 

[Dalekiller]

But wouldn't the decisive battle doctrine be better served with 2-3 fleet aircraft carriers instead of 2 Yamato's? The Kido Butai ran unchecked through Asia for a year after sinking most of the US battle line in Pearl Harbor.

2 or 3 more fleet carriers may, could and even would have allowed the Japanese to sink all the original US Pacific carriers and be enough to blunt even the rain of Essex's that would have come later.

Yes, two carriers would've stopped 31 Fleet Carriers. Would everyone remember that until the early 40's Carriers were (probably rightly) seen as another part of the battlefleet due to the low power of the planes?

The other issue is that why spend money on planes when you can spend it on something you know will work. Face it, if you were a admiral and were planning something on this scale, what would you do?

 

[BlueTrousers]

But wouldn't the decisive battle doctrine be better served with 2-3 fleet aircraft carriers instead of 2 Yamato's? The Kido Butai ran unchecked through Asia for a year after sinking most of the US battle line in Pearl Harbor.

Of course not. Obviously only battleships with big guns can win the Decisive Battle. Aircraft carrers, cruisers and submarines are fit only to raid the enemy force and sap its' strength prior to the Decisive Battle close to Japan.

Obviously we understand the falsehood of that logic. But the Japanese at the time didn't. Leyte Gulf was as close as the war came to their expected decisive battle, and it didn't go at all well for them.

 

[AdA]

Before WW2, Japan built two super battleships of the Yamato class, plus an aircraft carrier conversion. All these ships ended up at the bottom of the sea.

Now these were pretty wasteful, but lets presume that the Japanese went Quantity not Quality. Instead, they build three 16 inch fast battleships similar to the Iowa class, and because some steel and manpower has been freed up, they build another carrier, in the place of the Nisshin (Detailed on the chart above.) The IJN would need to cancel or delay one of the Hiyo cruise liners, but I'm sure they would do that for an proper aircraft carrier. Another advantage would be that these smaller ships would take far less time to build, and therefore the slipways would be available sooner for new production, though finding the materials is an different matter.

So would this been an better aproach for the IJN? Can anyone else suggest where the Japanese could go from here?

would replacing 3 Yamatos for 3 Iowa analogues even liberate ressources. The design requirements for the Iowas were very demanding. Essencially its a N.3 vs G.3 situation, The extra speed of the Iowas being, in a AJN design, potentially as expensive as the extra firepower of the Yamatos.

 

[AdA]

But wouldn't the decisive battle doctrine be better served with 2-3 fleet aircraft carriers instead of 2 Yamato's? The Kido Butai ran unchecked through Asia for a year after sinking most of the US battle line in Pearl Harbor.

2 or 3 more fleet carriers may, could and even would have allowed the Japanese to sink all the original US Pacific carriers and be enough to blunt even the rain of Essex's that would have come later.

The IJN had, by 1941, parity (or better) with the USN regarding carriers. They had a resonable chance of winning the air component of the the decisive battle. with the USN buiolding six 16'' fast BB the IJN battle line would have been tottaly outclassed in a gun battle. They had either to abandon the gun battle option entirely, something no major navy up to the advent of nuclear weapons did, or build something. the conventional reponse would have been to match the USN new BB with similar numbers, but they tried to build a smaller force of superior ships, probably thinking it would save ressources. The first two Yamatos would be a conter to the two North Carolinas and the four South Dakotas, with the next ones having to counter both the Iowas and the Montanas.
the IJN was probably the major navy that used a bigger % of their ressources on carriers when compared with battleships.

 

[Minty_Fresh]

Japan would have been better off using the resources poured into the Yamatos on sabotage operations on American ports to attempt to cripple them. This of course sounds impossible, but really, what would two additional carriers or a bunch of escort ships instead give them when faced with the massive numbers of the ships the USN put to sea?

 

[Dalekiller]

The point is that there are only two ways Japan could win,
1.Have America start the building program late thus making Kido Butai a possibility. After Pearl harbor and if all goes well then Japan has 3 years.

2. Give up

 

[Rubicon]

Obviously we understand the falsehood of that logic. But the Japanese at the time didn't.

Nobody of the time understood it. Everyone was focused on battleships.

 

[luis3007]

For the material used in a heavy battleship you could build two fleet carriers that could bomb a fleet at a distance.

But it's true that everyone was focused on the battle wagons at the time.

 

[Dalekiller]

Stop using hindsight, until late a carriers job was to wreck the light ships. They are an easy target.

Plus, if I had to put my trust in a bunch of rickety biplanes and a ship that needs a fleet to survive a close attack or a 80,000 ton behemoth that makes the fleet better what would I take?

 

[Rubicon]

For the material used in a heavy battleship you could build two fleet carriers that could bomb a fleet at a distance.

But it's true that everyone was focused on the battle wagons at the time.

No you can't.
First of all the most limiting factor of building a ship is slipways. No slipway large enough, no ship to build.
The second most limiting factor is the turbines and the boilers, i.e. the engine.
The third most limiting factor is guns.

So no not building a 70K ton behemoth does not equal two 35K ton carriers. There are other much more limiting factors then just material.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Nobody of the time understood it. Everyone was focused on battleships.

It's the strategic vision that the Japanese were lacking, not the tactical competence. They failed to realise that by the time the US fleet was in position for the Decisive Battle, they'd already have lost the war - regardless of the outcome of the battle.

For what it's worth, there was good reason to have doubts about the aircraft carrier. That's why nobody in 1939-1941 was promoting them as the main arbiter of sea power. See, for example, ARK ROYAL vs BISMARCK - it was 1944 before a battleship at sea was sunk by an aircraft carrier. Partly because of lack of opportunity, but also because aircraft development progressed very quickly. They were an essential part of the fleet for reconnaissance, air defence and spoiling attacks, but actually sinking battleships wasn't on the cards. Even postwar, battleships were retained into the 1950s because all-weather carrier operations couldn't be relied upon.

 

[torten]

Really, I don't think is a push for the Japanese to go for three Battleships of a standard slightly better than the USN latest designs (North Carolina's) and something that can smash a standard to pieces against two super Battleships which are far better than the USN latest designs.

No you can't.
First of all the most limiting factor of building a ship is slipways. No slipway large enough, no ship to build.
The second most limiting factor is the turbines and the boilers, i.e. the engine.
The third most limiting factor is guns.

So no not building a 70K ton behemoth does not equal two 35K ton carriers. There are other much more limiting factors then just material.

Japan only had five full size slipways capable of building BB, and I'm not sure about the capacity of Mistu Naga 2 being more than 35000 tons and 240m, which isn't quite enough to build a standard Shokaku, though I don't believe it is inplausable that the Japanese would build an improved Hiryu on the slipway, as I believe a class of 20 improved Hiryu's was part of their long term naval plan. So that gives the Japanese in 1941
- Three 16 inch BB
- Two Improved Hiyru's
- One Shokaku
Again, Aircraft Carriers don't take as long to build, so Japan could have laid down two more improved Hiyru's in the same slipways, ready for the start of 1942.

 

[Dalekiller]

Where are the pilots coming from? Its very easy to say "LETS BUILD MORE SHIPS!"

Then that one person in the back says "Where are the men and the cash for them coming from?"
Remember that.

 

[mack8]

Hi Torten,

In your ATL, you want 3 small Yamatos, two Hiryus (instead of OTL which ships, Nisshin and...?), and one Shokaku instead of OTL 2 (is the Zuikaku replaced by a Hiryu?). Would appreciate some more insight into your ideas. Nisshin could be replaced by a Hiryu, yes, though not sure how to get 3 small even Yamatos built at the same time as there were only 2 slipways capable to build BBs in 1937. When i have time and the disposition i always like to ponder about things like these (japanese wiki is very useful and enlightening sometimes), i hope i am not mistaken but i am pretty certain that chart is wrong in some places, Shinano was built in a brand new slipway (the third capable to build a BB, built between 1936-1940), which it occupied until it's eventual launch in Oct. 1944. It appears that the slipway where Shokaku was built was then used to convert Zuiho, Shoho and possibly Ryuho, while Unryu, since it was planned anyway before the war, was only accelerated after Midway, though i can't recall now if it followed Ryuho, or it was built in yet another, separate slipway. But again, better check japanese wiki on shipyards.

Anyway, as to getting smaller Yamatos, it's relatively simple. Have the political leadership (Army?) decide - through a decent, plausible POD, can't be that hard - that Japan is better served if it sticks with the WT size limits even if discarding the numerical limitations imposed on Japan. Another poster pointed out that on 43,000 tons you can have a nine x 41cm ship able to do 30kts. It sounds perfect for this ATL, hell, have them build an L/50 41cm gun for it so you get something more formidable than anything the americans have until the Iowas.

As for an extra one or two carriers compared to OTL, getting pilots of them is again relatively easy, the IJNAF had i think about 4000 pilots in 1941, mostly for their shore based units. Have enough of them retrained to fill one or two extra carriers, sure, this might butterfly a handful of landbased fighter and bomber/attack units, but nothing impossible or improbable.

Btw, i also found prices for various classes of japanese ships, from memory a Hiryu or Shokaku would be about 80-100 mil yen (varrying a bit with year/inflation/type), a OTL Yamato closer to 150 (but would be a bit less for smaller ones, maybe 120 mil in 1937?), 60 mil for a heavy cruiser, 30 mil for a light one, 12 mil for a DD etc. The Junyos together cost 114 mil yen, so aprox 57 mil per ship. Figures for the IJN budgets before WW2 can also be found.

 

[Athelstane]

Instead of building any type of battleship, Japan would have been better to use all that steel for building carriers and more escorts for convoys. But I doubt the battleship admirals would have allowed their sacred cows to be lost.

It would certainly be better use of resources (especially if paired with a better pilot training program), but as Dalekiller says, you need the IJN to seriously overhaul its entire strategic doctrine to get that.

Not impossible, but not easy.