Yamato plans given to USA

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Gary » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:01 pm

Thank you Karl :cool:

The 1912 battlecruiser design made my jaw drop.
She was going to be 1250 feet long and armed with 8 X 12 inch guns.
I'm guessing they were planning on putting a very large powerplant in her to give very very high speed as I cant think of any other reason to design such a long vessel :think:
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:08 am

Gary,

Yeah, quite a design. It has to be a powerplant because I don´t think the gunnery will require that amount of additional lenght, on one hand, and the armouring will not require that, neither. Anyway the armouring will not be that fundamental in such a battlecruiser. So, it must be a series of boilers and turbines, can´t be anything else.

Were they trying to reach, what? Thirty five knots?

Warmest regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Legend » Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:39 am

At that length I would expect atleast forty :lol:

I just felt my mouth begin to water when I saw that Yamato with five turrets... As if nine 18in guns werent enough! I also found lots of the Montana designs interesting to look at. I only wonder what the different layouts were for them. Included were some "Iowa Upgrades" that were supposed "Cruiser Killers"... I wounder what the advantage and differences would have been to the "Montana with an Iowa Bow"... I seem to think the latter would be better due to the better TDS...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by RF » Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:04 pm

Looking at the length of this vessel, surely its length would put it at a disadvantage in a serious action in presenting rather a large target for enemy gunners?

I could even imagine Gunther Lutjens licking his lips in anticipation if this vessel showed up at DS in place of Hood or POW.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:15 pm

Let´s remember that before 1921 the big navies of the world had these plans of naval supremacy. Alliances of Japan and England were an option and the US was presenting their super navy plans. The British did a lot of studies in which their new BCs would have been the most inmense warships on Earth with 18" and incredible lenghts. The Japanese were also contemplating very big designs in order to check the numbers of vessels the US could have put in the Pacific by then. Lexignton and Saratoga, by the way, were modifyied survivors of those days.

I think that after the Treaties failed in the late 1930ies all the contenders, in this case including also Germany, ran wild with new ideas of becoming the naval supremacist. The invasion of Poland sent all that to the trash container and everybody came with what they could.

But the plans are great.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:07 pm

Don't forget the impact of the Great Depression World Wide. We have the British floating the idea of 25,000 tons maximum and 12" guns. The building programs instituted were based on potential enemies violating the existing treaties but not so excessively. For the Americans we thought they were also building a new class of very fast battlecruisers. Perhaps instead of building to match, they just write that off as too expensive and decide to deal with them with other weapons? Perhaps we don't go bigger but faster? We finish the NC's (30 knot configuration?) and build the Alaskas, and go straight to reliance on carriers?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by lwd » Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:07 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... we know FOR SURE, that the USN will produce their North Carolina vessels, which are good vessels but will not be regarded as a match for the Yamato.

2. South Dak´s had a great chance not to be built at all. Maybe not even the Iowas.

3. A new class of American SuperBattlehip will be brought to the oceans. 12 x 16" or 8 x 18". We do not know. But no military will sleep confortably knowing that, maybe, the enemy has something more powefull in the oven....,
Thinking about this a bit more I would expect a couple of SoDak's to be built. It does depend at least somewhat on when in 38 the plans become available and how long it takes for them to filter to the correct people. The SoDaks were in the pipeline and they and the NC are the only ones with a gun shell combination that can do much vs the Yamato's. However they bring to question the whole concept of the 16"50 and may well cause a reevaluation of the 18" gun. The more I think on it the more I see only two SoDaks and no Iowas. Probably two follow on classes. A Montana pretty much as per the historical case and a follow on with 8 18" guns. The US might build 4 SoDaks with the thought that that would give 6 ships equiped with the 2700 lb AP round vs the 3 Yamatos. That should be enough to win but not enough to make any one feel comfortable. I don't see the CV alternative being considered even until 42 or so and that's with the historical carrier battles.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by RF » Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:25 am

Dave Saxton wrote:Don't forget the impact of the Great Depression World Wide.
But don't forget that different countries had different reactions to the financial and logistical constraints, and rearmament was one of several factors which initiated an economic recovery. By the late 1930's all major powers were rearming, including increasing naval expenditure.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Gary » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Renown + Repulse at a shade under 800 feet were probably about the longest ships during the WW1 era.

This design would have been over half as long again.

Yes you would want at least 40+ knots out of something so ridiculously long :think:
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by RF » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:08 pm

With that sort of speed then it really does become armour, these ships would presumably be almost invulnerable until the emergence of air attack.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Bgile » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:48 pm

RF wrote:With that sort of speed then it really does become armour, these ships would presumably be almost invulnerable until the emergence of air attack.
So destroyers are invulnerable?

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by hammy » Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:01 am

Pretty much , until they get hit of course .
If you look at the photo series of the "Glowworm/Hipper encounter" you can see she got close enough to ram H , mostly by being small , and a dodging target .
Looking at that battlecruiser design , of course the first thing is that it isnt small at all - probably twice the target size of the average capital ship of the time .
It doesn't look like a serious proposal to me , more of a design study , or something the "boys" put together on a boring rainy monday when the management wasnt in the Drawing office . :wink:
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by RF » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:22 pm

Bgile wrote:
RF wrote:With that sort of speed then it really does become armour, these ships would presumably be almost invulnerable until the emergence of air attack.
So destroyers are invulnerable?
At forty knots plus they would leave destroyers wallowing in their wake in anything other than a flat calm?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:34 pm

lwd:
Thinking about this a bit more I would expect a couple of SoDak's to be built. It does depend at least somewhat on when in 38 the plans become available and how long it takes for them to filter to the correct people. The SoDaks were in the pipeline and they and the NC are the only ones with a gun shell combination that can do much vs the Yamato's. However they bring to question the whole concept of the 16"50 and may well cause a reevaluation of the 18" gun. The more I think on it the more I see only two SoDaks and no Iowas. Probably two follow on classes. A Montana pretty much as per the historical case and a follow on with 8 18" guns. The US might build 4 SoDaks with the thought that that would give 6 ships equiped with the 2700 lb AP round vs the 3 Yamatos. That should be enough to win but not enough to make any one feel comfortable. I don't see the CV alternative being considered even until 42 or so and that's with the historical carrier battles.
Lee, must admit that your points are very interesting. We must consider, also, the inteligence that the powers had of each other. The US regarded the Yamatos as 16" gun armed until the end of the war. So it`s likely that the consideration to continue with the South Dak program will be, in fact, non stop. I also concurr that the Iowas will be left aside in favour of a most powerfull ship as the Montanas. But a 16" or 18" Montana? Inteligence again. The Japanese did, in this respect, achieve some kind of cloaking. Of course the North Cal and South Dak vessels will become in handy when the carrier based battlegroups will begin their operations in the Pacific.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Yamato plans given to USA

Post by lwd » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:45 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ...We must consider, also, the inteligence that the powers had of each other. The US regarded the Yamatos as 16" gun armed until the end of the war.
That's not precisely correct. See: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-084.htm
So it`s likely that the consideration to continue with the South Dak program will be, in fact, non stop. I also concurr that the Iowas will be left aside in favour of a most powerfull ship as the Montanas. But a 16" or 18" Montana? Inteligence again. The Japanese did, in this respect, achieve some kind of cloaking. Of course the North Cal and South Dak vessels will become in handy when the carrier based battlegroups will begin their operations in the Pacific....
But if the US has the plans they know that the Yamato's are armed with 18.1" guns and weigh in around 68,000 tons. To build a comparable ship the US has to eliminate the Panama cannal requirement and while building 18" gunned BBs was judged counter productive at the time the US wasn't looking at opponents like the Yamato either. Also consider that at this time the promise of RDFC wouldn't be known although there was an unfounded believe in the effectiveness of arial spotting. Indeed the US might have looked into a reduced charge for the 16"45 to see if doing so would allow for pentrating Yamato's decks inside 30,000 yards.

Post Reply