Japanese 'dream project' battleships and never built battleships

ceccherini

In war there is no substitute for victory
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello people! I'm looking for information about the following projects, some pure paper projects, other more serious proposals never come to fruition:
-Kaneda battleship: an alleged 1914 study by Commander Kaneda about an half million ton battleship armed with 100 41cm guns in 50 double turrets. There's a page about it in Japanese Wikipedia.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%94%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%87%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E6%88%A6%E8%89%A6
-A220 battleship: a 1935 design by Admiral Fujimoto for a battleship armed with 12 20 inches guns in three quadruple turrets in a Nelson style arrangement, more armoured than Yamatos and capable of 30 knots speed. All in only 50000 tons of displacement.
-A150 preliminaries: i've read about some very impressive proposed designs for a Yamato successor, before the project was scaled down to a quite well known battleship similar to Yamato in dimensions and speed but armed with 6 20 inches guns in double turrets and a DP battery of 'many' 100mm guns (the same type of Akizuki's destroyer main armament), more armoured and with a slightly increased displacement. There are references on the web about a 90000 tons 1938 design with 8 or 9 20 inches guns in triple or quadruple turrets and about a 85000 ton design armed with 4 double turrets in a Tone like all forward configuration.
-'super' A-150: an often mentioned 4 or 6 battleships class of an enlarged (reportedly over 100000 ton displacement) A150 type with 8 20 inch gun in double turrets.
-Japanese WWII BB study: I know all the japanese ship projects were destroyed at the end of the war and that by the start of the pacific war the resources were shifted to aircraft carriers construction, however i was wondering if japanese, like all other great naval powers during the war, were engaged in conceptual studies regarding battleship incorporating war lessons. Has anyone some informations about? Furthermore, the strategy of continuing superior qualitativity, would have made it necessary in a foreseeable (though far away at the start of the war) future (in 1951, according to the IJN estimate) to develop battleships with guns larger than 20 inches. Has anyone ever heard something about the planning of guns larger than 20 inches and the related battleships to be built by IJN in early fifties?
Thank you for the attention.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Let's clear some things up!

Hidetaro Kaneda (金田秀太郎)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%94%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%87%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E6%88%A6%E8%89%A6

Indeed he proposed that Giga battleship but the date is more like the 1922 or 1923 because he was the director of the Kure Naval Yard between 1922.12.1 and 1923.8.13:
http://admiral31.world.coocan.jp/e/px21.htm#v001
Well known drawing of the proposal:
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/navalcraft/images/3/37/Kaneda%27s_500%2C000t_BB.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160104041608
Artist impressions:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXzDEGqUsAE9wPj.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTZGSDoCAAA06RV.jpg


For the A-220 design
There were no such design in the Japanese archives the A-220 (together with A-200) designation was made up by a friend of mine, many years ago and seemed to be quickly accepted at that time, but it was ages since I've heard that designation.
What you describe is what called "Fujimoto's Dream Battleship" of 1934/35:
http://i7.tinypic.com/24qpw75.jpg
Artist impression:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/16369/3F0A273E68AD4EC5A3AA44B86C630A6A.jpg

Less known that there are two variants:
A: 4x3 51cm Tone arrangement
B: 3x4 51cm Nelson arrangement
8x2 15,5cm
10x2 12,7cm DP-AA
406mm Belt, 280mm Deck armour
It would be a Combined Steam and Diesel (COSAD) powered (140.000shp) fast battleship with 50.000tons standard and 59.000tons full load displacement.


Now with the A-150 preliminaries:
You are mixd up many things here , with the Super Yamatos, Upgunned Yamatos and the Fujimoto design.

In reality very little detailed information are available about the A-150 "Super Yamato"
Two versions are accepted nowadays:
The first is basically an improved Yamato (same hull) but 3x2 51cm Cannons, and many 10cm AA guns in fully enclosed mounts (Not the same as the Akizuki but similar more like a mix of Oyodo's shielded mount and Akizuki's turrets) with 46cm Belt armour on 71.000tons standard and 82.650tons full load some soruces say it would carry 2 triple 155mm turrets as well some say all 10cm armament
The other is a larger vessel more logical in evolution, a 100.000tons "monster" with 4x2 or possibly 3x3 51cm cannons and no other info available


Often information about the Yamato's upgunning was mixed into the A-150 design. During the design and construction of the 5 Yamatos (Yamato (no.1), Musashi (no.2), Shinano (no.110), Hull number 111 (Sometimes referred as Kii), hull number 797) the option was kept to upgun them with twin 51cm gun turrets while all 5 was ordered with 3 triple 46cm armament the last two might had been finished with the 51cm armament while two more improved Yamatos, the A-150 battleships (hull number 798 and 799) was ordered in 1940/41 but never laid down.


If there were any paper projects by the IJN during WW2 all was lost due to the bombing of their cities with incendiary bombs :(
Though I still believe there are still a bunker somewhere which holds these documents!
The last gun armed capital or semi-capital ship project of the IJN was the Battlecruiser / Large Cruiser / Super Type A cruiser Design B-65
Which had an interesting history:
The USN's Alaskas was partly designed to combat the hypothetical Japanese Chichibu class large cruisers (sort of a Japanese Deutschland) supposedly being built by IJN in the late 1930's and partly to counter the German Deutschland big gun cruisers / pocket battleships. When the Japanese got knowledge about the Alaskas they designed their own the B-65:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_B-65_cruiser
Later when they got more accurate information on the Alaskas a revised version was made with 2800tons more displacement an armament of 3 twin 36cm (instead of 3 triple 31cm) cannons and a revised armour scheme. Originally 2 such ships was orders but later this number rose to 4 (Hull numbers 793,794,795 and 796)


While Kaneda's Giga battleship was an early iteration the Yamatos was the result of Japan's Peace Goddesses naval plan:
"Japan hope to postpone any war with the United States or Britain until around 1950. A total of eleven battleships were planned, five original Yamato class with all main battery forward, two enlarged Yamato type (hull nos 798-799) and four still larger battleships with eight or nine 51cm guns.
By maintaining peace through intimidation, these ships would therefore be "Peace Goddesses of the Pacific." At the time this plan was formulated, it was before carrier aircraft had become large enough and strong enough to carry the payloads needed to sink battleships. Therefore, it was not an unreasonable plan, just obsolete the day YAMATO and then MUSASHI hit the water.
Japan believed that the US would be about five years behind, they would adopt 18inch in about 1945 at which time 20 inch would be placed on the original five YAMATO class and the others would have had them upon completion. Of course, fast carriers (or slow ones for that matter) could strike at ranges that even 20inch guns could not even come close to. So much for Peace Goddesses."
More about it an be found here:
http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/naval-equipment/the-yamato-class-battleships/
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
0
The 20" gun has always seemed a dubious investment to me. The size and weight of the individual guns and shells would have placed huge demands on loading and elevation systems which would surely have had a significant impact on rate of fire. On top of that its not clear that six 20 inch guns would have increased total weight of broadside compared to the nine 18 inch guns on the Yamato class. Additionally, six guns with a relatively low rate of fire would have been a ranging nightmare.

I appreciate that even a single well designed 4,000lb or heavier APC shell striking even the most heavily armoured ship would be devastating but would it really be worth a 50% reduction in the number of main guns carried and a probably greater reduction in the rate of fire?

Also, the story that a pair of guns and a mounting were built at Kure, is there any evidence that this actually happened? A lot of things were found laying round Kure but as far as I can tell a 20 inch gun or mounting wasn't one of them.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
0
To add to JFC Fuller's cons regarding 20in guns, the blast problems would have been horrific on anything other than broadsides and even then all kinds of blast damage to lighter topside structures would have occurred.
British and Japanese experience with their 18in guns highlighted these problems but even the Nelsons with their all-forward layout suffered if the 16in guns were fired aft of the beam. Partly in this case perhaps due to weaker construction in the efforts to save weight, but it can be seen than blast was a serious issue as calibres increased.
 

ceccherini

In war there is no substitute for victory
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Thank you for the useful information. However I'm quite convinced than when we talk about a 8-9 20 inches gun super battleship design we are referring to various projects in two cronologically different stage of planning. The first actually predate the final A150 design and was conceived around 1938-1939. Garzke and Dulin talk in their book 'Axis and Neutral battleship of WW2' about this initial design of about 90000 tons and that then was reduced in armament and displacement. What is extremely interesting to me is that in this initial design quadruple turrets were considered (just imagine 4 20' guns in only one turret!). Some years later, according to various but not always credible sources, a new 100000 ton, 8 gun design was conceived to follow BB 798 and 799. The interesting question is why they initially abandoned the 'large design' only to revert to similar ships some years later but spending in the meantime useful resurceses on the compromised 6 gun design. The most logical explanation seems to me that they needed time to develop the necessary infrastucture and, as a stop gap measure, they planned to built two ships whose dimensions were compatible with the same infrastuctures developed for Yamato class. A proof of that can be found in the contradictory information about where the two original A150 were to be built: while there is consensus about the fact the 798 was to be built in Kure, some sources report 799 in Yokosuka while others in a new arsenal in Oita prefecture. I think is really possible that this new naval arsenal was actually planned to built the new 100000 tons battleships having docks sufficently large for the purpose.
So reassuming I belive the planning for 20 inches guns armed battleships was the following:
-in '38-39 IJN planned a 90K ton battleship class with 2 quadruple o 3 triple turret. A somewhat smaller alternative with 4 double turret arranged like Tone was also considered. These projects were abandoned as infeasible with the existing shipbuilding capabilities
-in '41 two A150 class battleships of 70000 tons with 3 double turrets were intended along with the fifth Yamato class battleship for the Maru 5 plan but never laid down because of war.
-immediately before the start of the Pacific campaign four new battleships with 4 double turrets and 100k ton displacement were intended to follow the 6 guns A150 and planned as part of Maru 6 plan.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
For the blast effects of the 51cm Twins I think would be around the same as for the 46cm triples or probably slightly less.
Little info is available about this cannon but it's bursting charge was 480kg VS the 360kg of the 46cm so that is 1/3rd more bursting charge and we can assume the blast would be somewhat that much bigger as well.
Second an 51cm shell was ballistically much superior to a 46cm one and because of the larger charge it shoots further and would had superior armour penetration capabilities. Even the 46cm was unstoppable by any ship afloat at the time.

I do not have Dulin's book but could you tell me what source did they used for the quad 1938/39 design?

As the only such turret was imagined for Fujimoto's Dream battleship. previously quad turrets were proposed for the Kongo replacement battleships of 1928/29 but those were to be 41cm ones.
I think Garzke and Dulin mixed the Fujimoto design and the A-150 together.

Such errors are not uncommon, for example while Siegfried Breyer was a very good naval writer he made a mistake describing the no.13 and it's outlines. Recent findings shows at least 3 but possible 4 variants for the 8-8 fleet last capital ship series (4x2,5x2,4x3 and 2x2,3x3) With Kongo and Amagi style arrangement and two funnels not with Nagato style and 1 funnel as described by him.
 

ceccherini

In war there is no substitute for victory
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Sorry it's my mistake, I remembered badly. According to Garzke and Dulin, the 90000 tons design of 1938 was to be equipped with 3 triple or 4 double turrets like the later 1941 (?) 'super' A-150. About the upgunned B65, the 36 cm guns were the same old Vickers design used in Kongo, Fuso and Ise classes or a new designed weapon?
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
They were to be the 36cm/45 guns so I presume the 36cm Type 43 used on the Kongos, Fusos and Ises as there were approximately 100 guns made, 32 used for the kongos 48 for the Fusos and Ises that is 80 altogether.
Using 8 from the Ise and Hyuga Conversions and if calculating with the Fuso and Yamashiro conversions as scheduled that leaves us 20+8+8 = 36 guns while the new ships would require 4x6 = 24 pieces and I presume quite a few were used for coastal batteries as well.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
The first actually predate the final A150 design and was conceived around 1938-1939. Garzke and Dulin talk in their book 'Axis and Neutral battleship of WW2' about this initial design of about 90000 tons and that then was reduced in armament and displacement. What is extremely interesting to me is that in this initial design quadruple turrets were considered (just imagine 4 20' guns in only one turret!). Some years later, according to various but not always credible sources, a new 100000 ton, 8 gun design was conceived to follow BB 798 and 799. The interesting question is why they initially abandoned the 'large design' only to revert to similar ships some years later but spending in the meantime useful resurceses on the compromised 6 gun design. The most logical explanation seems to me that they needed time to develop the necessary infrastucture and, as a stop gap measure, they planned to built two ships whose dimensions were compatible with the same infrastuctures developed for Yamato class.
I'm guessing the timeline tells a lot of that story. 1938-39 puts it after the expiration of the Washington Treaty, but also hostilities in the CBI theatre had already begun in 1937 along with a sharp escalation in tension with the US. I'm sure infrastructure was a consideration, but also the immense investment in man-hours and resources.Decisions made "a few years later" are being made in 1940-41. By late 1939 the war was on in Europe, and opening of hostilities against thr French and British colonies is looking increasingly palatable and likely. By mid-1940 the scrap iron embargo was on (representing nearly 75% of Japan's iron imports). Even the smaller Yamato laid down in late 1937 and built in wartime haste was not going to be ready for service for five years. Why tie up all those resources and man-hours instead in a ship that might not be ready before the impending campaigns are finished? The same reason even 4th Yamato was scrapped in the yards at 30% completion right before the opening of hostilities with the West in late 1941.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
The Washington Naval treaty expired in 1930 at the 1st London Naval Treaty which was expired in 1936 when the 2nd London Treaty was signed, which was expired in 1939 at the start of WW2.

The 4th Yamato was scrapped in 1942 March not in 1941.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
Did the 1930 or '36 expiraries come after 38-39 without anyone telling me?

R.A.Bawal said:
The realization that this ship would not be completed in time to participate in the current conflict, coupled with both the shift in naval power away from the battleship and the growing scarceness of strategic materials resulted in the cessation of its construction in November 1941 when it was about 30% complete
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
_Del_ said:
Did the 1930 or '36 expiraries come after 38-39 without anyone telling me?

R.A.Bawal said:
The realization that this ship would not be completed in time to participate in the current conflict, coupled with both the shift in naval power away from the battleship and the growing scarceness of strategic materials resulted in the cessation of its construction in November 1941 when it was about 30% complete
Hull number 111:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship#Warships_Number_111_and_797

2nd London Naval Treaty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_London_Naval_Treaty
"This London Naval Treaty effectively ended on 1 September 1939 with the beginning of World War II. "
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
597
Reaction score
0
It seems the IJN firmly preferred having bigger guns to more guns. I'd also have to question the wisdom of trading 3x3 18" for 3x2 20" guns, especially since the longer range of the 20" guns would probably be of little benefit.

Was an armament of 4x3 18" guns ever considered for the very large post-Yamato proposals?
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Colonial-Marine said:
It seems the IJN firmly preferred having bigger guns to more guns. I'd also have to question the wisdom of trading 3x3 18" for 3x2 20" guns, especially since the longer range of the 20" guns would probably be of little benefit.

Was an armament of 4x3 18" guns ever considered for the very large post-Yamato proposals?
Quality over Quantity the Japanese preferred.

No we don't know what kind of proposals were made after Yamato, only the said scarce information about A-150 is available.
The interwar and WW2 project designations seems to be lost as there are gaps between Tosa of 1918 (A-127) Yamato of 1936/37 (A-140) and Super Yamato of 1941 (A-150)

But there were a number of battleship designs after WW1 and before WW2 which we don't know if ever received designation numbers!
Kii of 1921
Number 13 preliminaries (Designs A through M and N also X,Y and Z ) of 1921
Kongo replacement battleship designs by Yuzuru Hiraga (13 pre variants and one final one) of 1928/29
Kongo replacement battleship design by Kikuo Fujimoto of 1929/1930
Yuzuru Hiraga's Proto-Yamato design of 1929 (3x3 46cm Nelson style forward, 3x3 20cm Nelson aft)
3 Diesel Battleship designs (28, 35 and 55.000tons) with 3x3 36, 41 and 46cm weapons of 1930
Ezaki Iwakichi Diesel Battleship designs similar to Yamato (67 and 50.000tons) 3x3 46cm with 6 and 4 shafts of early 1930's
The above mentioned Dream Fujimoto designs of 1934/35
 

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
351
Reaction score
1
Some document about the A-140 design(pre-yamato): https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4219-a-140-series-designs-yamato-class-preliminary-designs/
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,583
Reaction score
0
A150 : 46cm cannon 3 × 3 forward centralized placement, 69, 500t, 294m, 31 knots, almost in accordance with the military request. Scrapped because it's too excessive
A140A : 46cm cannon 3 × 3 forward centralized placement, 68,000t, 277m, 30knots
A140A1:46cm cannon 3 × 3 forward 2, rear 1, 68,000t, 277m, 30knots
A140A2:46cm cannon 2×4 forward 2, rear 2, 68,000t, 277m, 30knots
A140B:46㎝ cannon 3×3 forward centralized placement, 60,000t, 247m, 28knots
A140B1:46㎝cannon 3 × 3 forward 2, rear 1, 60,000t, 247m, 28knots
A140B2:46㎝cannon 2×4 forward 2, rear 2, 60,000t, 247m, 28knots
A140C:Reduction A140B, 58,000t 26Knots
A140D:High speed A140B version, Armor was limited 40cm, 55,000t 29Knots
A140G0A:Spec down A140A version, 46㎝ cannon 3×3 forward centralized placement, 65,883t, 273m, 28Knots
A140G1A:Spec down A140A version, decreased the horizontal armor (shortened safety combat distance), 61,600t, 245.5m, 26knots
A140G2A:Spec down small A140A version, decrease armor, 63,400t 262m
A140F:46㎝ cannon forward 2×1・3×1, rear 3×1, armament A140G1Atype, 60,350t, 247m, 28knots
A140I:Hiraga plan, 46㎝ cannon forward 2×1・3×1, rear 3×1・2×1, armament A140G1Atype, 65,050t, 268m, 28Knots
A140J0:40㎝ cannon 3×3, forward centralized placement, 52,000t, 242m, 27.5Knots, Armament 40cm
A140J2:40㎝ cannon 3×3, forward centralized placement, 54,000t, 255m, 29Knots, Armament 40cm
A140J3:40㎝ cannon 3×4, forward 2, rear 2, 58,400t, 252m, 28Knots
A140K:Low spec A140J, 40㎝ cannon 8 forward centralized placement 2/3/3, 50,059t, 221m, 24Knots
A140F3:Final candidate plan, 46㎝ cannon 3×3, forward 2, rear 1, 61,000t, 246m, 27Knots
A140F4:Modified final candidate plan(approved plan), range extended A140F3, 62,545t, 246m, 27Knot
A140F5:F4 detail design, 65,000t, 253m, 27Knots
A140F6:Only steam turbine drive plan, 68,200t, 256m
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,583
Reaction score
0
Hi!

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/5459-kantai-collection-discussion-thread/?page=1183

https://chaos-craft999.deviantart.com/art/A140-Scheme-C-3-639014421

計画符号: Planning code, 重要寸法 : critical dimensions、長さ : length, 最大幅 : maximum width、吃水 : draught、公試排水量 : official test displacement,
主砲 : main cannon、 配列 : array, 副砲 : sub cannon、高角砲 : anti‐aircraft gun、機銃 : machine gun、速力 : speed、軸馬力 : shaft horse power、内燃式 : internal combustion type、タービン : turbine, 、防御要領 : defensive instructions、航続力 : range、計画年月日 : planned date、軍令部要望 : military request, 小型戦艦案 : small battleship draft, 福田啓二計画主任案 : The plan of planning chief Keiji Fukuda, 平賀譲案 : Yuzuru Hiraga’s plan
 

Attachments

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Blackkite That is plain A-140 not A-150 in your first post.
 
Top