Japanese 20inch (510mm) guns

[Phoenix_jz]

23 hours ago, ReefKip said:

America making Super BB,s in 2 years or less is plausible. The Iowa class battleships were constructed  over 2,5 years as well. and this while America was also focussing their Naval efforts on Building Aircraft Carrier,s at the same time. Now considering we are discussing a situation in which America refrained from Building those carriers and choose to Compete with the japanese on Making Super BB,s. this would have taken them much less amount of time to produce such BB,s. America would both produce them faster and in larger quantities then the Japanese. That picture you have is totally irrelevant to the hypothetical situation we are discussing. because it shows American BB production while being held back by Carrier production. but for something else it is useable. for example it shows Ships like Littorio being produced in a way slower time then Iowa while having less displacement and overall resources needed. Because italy just like japan had a smaller Resource source and industrial base to put into the building of those ships. America did not face this leading them to completing Much heavier designs much quicker then italy completed lighter designs. this can be extended to japan as well.

Implying that no one else was having their construction held back by other projects? Both Japan and Britain were conducting major carrier programs at the time of their modern battleship construction - in fact, their carrier programs were both larger (the same as with the Americans) than their battleship programs. It's a simple fact that battleships require many longer lead-time items than carriers and other types of warships. It's one thing to assemble a certain amount of steel and bolt it together, but one can't simply alter the amount of fixed time needed to produce a type of cemented plate. American industrial advantage weighed in heavily on the volume that could be produced, but some things simply cannot be altered to that degree. 

Actually responding to the construction of Japanese superbattleships would demand serious time investments to develop new heavy guns, set up specific infrastructure around their construction, and then actually go through with it. The above chart is actually indicative of the advantages of not doing this - American battleships shared so much in regards to their designs and what went into them that they were able to to take advantage of the efficiencies of such production, which saw construction time (time on slip and fitting out period combined) drop from ~3.5-3.7 years to 2.4-2.5 years by the time it came to the latter members of the South Dakota-class, and this contiuned to where even the larger Iowa's were only 2.7 years - though the latter pair rose to 3.4-3.4 years due to the lower priority battleship production started to have in the US after 1942, and thus spend about ten months longer on the slips than their sisters (though their fitting out time was just as rapid).

Any super-battleships, on top of being greater resource sinks than any of the 406mm battleships built by the Americans, would not have benefited from this, and would have incurred a whole new set of fixed costs for larger guns and larger amounts of thicker cemented plate. This would have only driven the production time of American battleships up, not down. Keep in mind, most of the battleships built by the Americans did not have their time on slips overlap with the construction of many of the new fleet carriers. The first Essex-class carrier was laid down only in April 1941, with two more following in July and September and another pair in December. Another four followed in 1942, while the true cascade of fleet carriers being laid down didn't start until 1943 (9).

The North Carolina-class (laid down in 1937 & 38) were already largely completed by April 1941, and all but one South Dakota-class battleship had been launched by the end of the year (Alabama, laid down in 1940 while her sisters had been laid down in 1939). The first pair of Iowa's were laid down in 1940 and both launched before the end of 1942. This places them more contemporary to the Wasp and Hornet rather than deluge of Essex-class carriers.

The ships that truly would have been competing with the carriers for resources would have been the second and third pairs of Iowa-class battleships, and the Montana-class battleships, had they not been cancelled - with this competition, or, as you put it, "being held back", being the reason - the US wanted to avoid it. Even with its terrifying industrial capacity, the US couldn't afford to print out Essex-class carriers at the same time as building large numbers of new battleships (even discounting steel shortages, there were yard capacity limits, as there were 'only' 19 slips capable of building modern capital ships in the country).

It is interesting to note, meanwhile, that in Japan, the Yamato-class (~4.2 years, 1937-41 & 38-42) were being built at the same time as both Shokaku-class carriers were under construction (1937-41), as well as Hiryu (1936-39). If anything, given Japan was building two 'super-battleships' alongside three fleet carriers in the period 1936-1941, versus the Americans in the same period working on 5-6 battleships alongside two fleet carriers, it's pretty plain that Japan was sinking more tonnage into carriers than battleships versus the Americans - 126,400 tons of 'super-battleships' and 68,650 tons of fleet carriers versus 188,878-226,848 tons of battleships (give or take a SouDak) and 35,627 tons of fleet carrier. This is especially remarkable given the disparity in industrial capacity between the two nations.

--------

In regards to Italian battleship construction - it's important to note that Littorio and Vittorio Veneto have exaggerated construction times, about a third of which is down to resource issues as you cited, but a good 2/3rds of which stems from political concerns and extensive design modifications. The date both ships were laid down - 28 October 1934 - was largely a political choice, and the designs for the ships weren't even complete (the first 'final' version of the design was in fact not completed until May 1935). As it was, work on the battleships only began in April 1935, tacking on 6 months to their on-paper construction time (which thus would more accurately be 27 months and 26 months respectively, rather than 33 and 32). As it was, expected dates for launch slipped by another two months thanks to extensive design changes (adding some 3,048 tonnes of displacement to the ship) made in the intervening time, making the total 'excess' time on the construction slips eight months each, and, notably, had little do do with resource issues. Design changes continued to then dog the ships during their fitting out-period, though notably this time material issues also began to weigh on them, namely shortages in high-strength steels caused by the number of projects under works at the time that demanded it (the new battleships Impero and Roma, the reconstruction of Duilio and Andrea Doria, and the new expansion in submarine production). Combined, these added some 5-6 months of additional delays. In total, the two battleships suffered from 12-14 months of delay or excess time, and turned what should have been 50-54 month builds into ~65 month builds. 

Impero and Roma, which notably did not suffer from the same delays (at least until Impero was moved from Genoa to Brindisi), correspondingly had a much more rapid construction time - their designs were finished before they were laid down (minus minor modifications), had work start as soon as their keels were laid, and didn't suffer from major material shortages. Impero only spent 18 months on the slips, and Roma 20/21. Roma spent two years fitting out, and Impero, had she not been moved, would have spent 20 months fitting out, with her completion coming in August 1941. This is, for the two sisters, 3.2 years and 3.8 years respectively, which is notably faster than any other battleships in Europe save for the much smaller Scharnhorst-class (3.3-year average versus 3.5 years), and about a third to a year slower than the averages for the American battleships (3.2 years for the NC's, 2.85 for the SouDak's, and 3.0 for the Iowa's).

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Phoenix_jz

[ReefKip]

7 minutes ago, Shiki said:

I'm not attempting to argue whether or not the Japanese were doomed as a result of their decision to go to war with the United States - that's a subject that's been beaten to death and beyond, right into Asphodel. However, the concept of their plan - which you're saying is short-sighted - is a tactical opinion. Unless you've switched tack from the 'decisive battle' to the overall conduct of the war, grand strategy is not in the purview of the discussion. The entire point is, from a technical and tactical point of view, there's no reason to not go for the larger calibre gun if it's feasible.

As far as American industrial capacity, there is still no method by which the United States can construct a super-battleship in two years or less, especially if it's armed with guns larger than 45.7 cm. The largest calibre that they seriously considered and had actual experience building was 45.7 cm, after all: you can still see the 18in/48 at the Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center in Virginia today. Beyond that calibre - especially jumping to 22in/56 cm - is a completely new field that you have to design, test, and produce an entirely new weapon for. There are basic sketch profiles for twin and triple 457 mm gunhouses, but nothing for anything beyond that, because the USN's surface warfare experts came to the conclusion that - with the known limitations of naval gunnery for the time - that that was the largest calibre you would need.

Going further into this, while one can produce an Essex in around 24 months, one also has to consider that you need so much less to build an Essex than a battleship of comparable displacement. Even the fastest battleship time, Indiana at 29 months, is only possible with the complete mobilization of the American workforce to a war footing - and Indiana is less than half the standard displacement of any potential American super-battleship with guns of that size.

8 minutes ago, Shiki said:

Considering that the US had a steel shortage starting in 1943 and had completely maxed out their armour production capacity by that point

with their construction programmes, it's not unrealistic to say that any super-battleships would have been the first to be axed (the fate of Montana). If anything, the U.S. would have been tapped out for production earlier with any production on that scale. This goes without going into the other logistical infeasibilities of such ships, like their inability to use the Panama Canal (which would kill them before they made it out of sketch stage), the massive infrastructure overhaul required to transport the materials for their building (their gun turrets would be as heavy as a WWI-era light cruiser), or the requirement to build new slips and dredge anchorages to handle them.

Finally, Littorio and Vittorio Veneto's building times are inflated in that the first pair didn't actually start construction until about 5 months after they were initially laid down. Their actual building times were on the order of 27 and 26 months, respectively - and their displacements were nearly the size of those afforded to Iowa by the time they were finished, despite their nominal '35,560-metric ton' designation.

 

9 minutes ago, Shiki said:

I'm not attempting to argue whether or not the Japanese were doomed as a result of their decision to go to war with the United States - that's a subject that's been beaten to death and beyond, right into Asphodel. However, the concept of their plan - which you're saying is short-sighted - is a tactical opinion.

A tactical opinion that is short sighted in the context of the war they were planning to fight. reasons for that i already explained. 
 

 

10 minutes ago, Shiki said:

The entire point is, from a technical and tactical point of view, there's no reason to not go for the larger calibre gun if it's feasible.

and i am arguing that its best to go for what is practical. if what is feasable is not going to give you any considerable advantage, then logically what is practical takes the upperhand. 18 inch was the practical caliber here,

 

 

13 minutes ago, Shiki said:

Considering that the US had a steel shortage starting in 1943 and had completely maxed out their armour production capacity by that point in time

Which they would not have had if carriers were not sucking up that same steel resource pool. apparantly i have to say this for the second time. Steel which could be put into the Super BB program instead.you keep referencing the original time line here while what we are discussing happens in a scenario Where america acts differently in how it builds its navy. also the steelshortage argument works both ways. japan was suffering from this considerably as well. slowing their own production time even more as time went on,

 

14 minutes ago, Shiki said:

Finally, Littorio and Vittorio Veneto's building times are inflated in that the first pair didn't actually start construction until about 5 months after they were initially laid down. Their actual building times were on the order of 27 and 26 months, respectively - and their displacements were nearly the size of those afforded to Iowa by the time they were finished, despite their nominal '35,560-metric ton' designation.

So the picture is inaccurate then. so why use it as a support for your initial argument? whats to say many other examples layed out in that graph are not inaccurate as well?

How complex a ship is matters ofcourse. but reality and your graph also shows that if a country has the resources and facilities, design difficulties matter less in the overall production progress thern when  a country with fewer production facilities and less resources has to deal with it.. which fit  America and japan perfectly. So America working on a Super BB facing design difficulties will still Finish it much faster then japan designing the same class of BB. Missouri was finished in 3,5 years  in our original time line with Steelshortage and the focus being put on carriers. this already beats Musashi with 10 months and Yamato with  8 months. the Americans were already significantly faster then the Japs in their first attempt. What makes you so sure that this production process would not have been streamlined in a Naval industry totally focused on producing those kind of Ships? like it was with CV,s in the original time line?

[Shiki]

1 hour ago, ReefKip said:

 

A tactical opinion that is short sighted in the context of the war they were planning to fight. reasons for that i already explained. 

and i am arguing that its best to go for what is practical. if what is feasable is not going to give you any considerable advantage, then logically what is practical takes the upperhand. 18 inch was the practical caliber here,

Which they would not have had if carriers were not sucking up that same steel resource pool. apparantly i have to say this for the second time. Steel which could be put into the Super BB program instead.you keep referencing the original time line here while what we are discussing happens in a scenario Where america acts differently in how it builds its navy. also the steelshortage argument works both ways. japan was suffering from this considerably as well. slowing their own production time even more as time went on,

So the picture is inaccurate then. so why use it as a support for your initial argument? whats to say many other examples layed out in that graph are not inaccurate as well?
How complex a ship is matters ofcourse. but reality and your graph also shows that if a country has the resources and facilities, design difficulties matter less in the overall production progress thern when  a country with fewer production facilities and less resources has to deal with it.. which fit  America and japan perfectly. So America working on a Super BB facing design difficulties will still Finish it much faster then japan designing the same class of BB. Missouri was finished in 3,5 years  in our original time line with Steelshortage and the focus being put on carriers. this already beats Musashi with 10 months and Yamato with  8 months. the Americans were already significantly faster then the Japs in their first attempt. What makes you so sure that this production process would not have been streamlined in a Naval industry totally focused on producing those kind of Ships? like it was with CV,s in the original time line?

1. It is not a shortsighted tactical consideration in the context of a short war fought with on-hand resources, centred on a single decisive outcome between surface fleets.

2. It is both practical and feasible to go for the larger calibres in the case of the Japanese. As you've pointed out before, Japan's industrial base and resources aren't as sufficiently advanced as the Americans (the product of going from medieval to modern in the span of a decade) so they need the calibre gap to make up the disparity. Additionally, you never once mentioned 46 cm / 18 in. You said explicitly to go to a 56 cm / 22 in calibre in two years flat, which is ridiculous.

3. I am referencing the only timeline there is. If you want to talk ahistorical scenarios, we can go on about illogical and unreasonable things all day. Tillmans, for example. This leads into the crux of the argument that America wouldn't act differently: if they lost their aging Standard fleet in the Marianas - as your ahistorical scenario might go, I don't know - and then needed to rebuild it quickly to counter a supposed 510-mm-gun-armed Japanese battleship, they would rather produce a large number of modern 406-mm-gun fast battleships than a small number of 558-mm-gun 'super battleships.'

4. The graph isn't inaccurate. That was the time they spent on the slips. However, of the time that they spend building, only part of that time was when construction was actually being done. There's a difference between being labeled as 'under construction' and actually 'building.'

5. Design difficulties factor into production immensely. The Iowa-class ships were a result of wartime expediency and the yards building them had already had experience building previous modern warships with a high efficiency rate; the two Yamatos were unlike anything Japan had attempted previously, with their last battleships having been built in the early 1920s. They had to dig into a hillside in order to extend the reach of the slip at Nagasaki.

6. Because even without a carrier fleet slowing you down, you don't just get to produce 'more battleships.' There is a hard upper limit to armour production capacity and naval ordnance; carriers require comparatively nothing in terms of armour plate, so they can be assembled relatively rapidly. But light surface elements still take priority for surface construction; unless you want to cut the production of all heavy and light cruisers, which you cannot do without dooming your fleet to destruction at the hands of torpedo-armed Japanese fleet elements, your production will still be bottlenecked. Even the industrial might of the U.S. wasn't enough to produce more than the ten battleships they did build.

Finally, I'm going to retire from the discussion. I've already said everything I wanted to say. I hope this has been informative.

[slayer6]

On 9/9/2020 at 6:53 AM, Bluishdoor76 said:

How many Enterprise's have there been so far? like 4 or something around that?

the US army is the worse when it comes to naming equipment tho

What do you mean the US Army is the worst when coming to naming equipment, they had the M1 Garand, the M2 Carbine, the M3 Lee, the M3 Stuart the...

...

Oh I see...

[Bluishdoor76]

7 minutes ago, slayer6 said:

What do you mean the US Army is the worst when coming to naming equipment, they had the M1 Garand, the M2 Carbine, the M3 Lee, the M3 Stuart the...

...

Oh I see...

thats not even the worst of it, this is what I mean!

 

[slayer6]

2 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

thats not even the worst of it, this is what I mean!

 

Bet it would confuse the living hell out of the enemy if they captured material!  They might just throw their hands up in the air and abandon it instead...