Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
lolpip

What if the Japanese completed the Tosas, Amagis and Kiis

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

20
[RNGOD]
Members
41 posts
4,352 battles

I've been thinking about this for a while what if aside from the treaty the Japanese lied about the displacement  of those three classes and completed them whilst also converting the Ises or Fusos to Carriers instead of Kaga and Akagi and scrapping the Kongos and also most likely the fusos. any thoughts on how WW2 would've gone if they did?  Personally i think the Amagis and Nagatos would've seen Way more service and Ended up sunk compared to the Tosas and Kiis. In this situation they have the same ship classes they did in the war except that Akagi and Kaga weren't completed as carriers and the older battleships also Amagi's hull survived the earthquake and was completed in this case

Edited by lolpip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,055
[HINON]
Members
9,007 posts
13,171 battles

nothing wouldve changed, those ships would still have either been sunk or kept in port due to the onslaught of the US's spam of Essex class carriers, thing is, Japan couldnt have a lengthy battle with the US, they just simply didnt have the industry to compete with the US in terms of outputting naval ships

one could say the war between the US and Japan was over before it even started because of that or after Midway, which was really Japan's last chance to truly get an edge over the US

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[CVA16]
Members
6,481 posts
20,097 battles

First, like most nations realized, the arms race would have broken their economies. If Japan built those ships, the US and Britain would have built their ships in the works also. Who knows what revolutions or  government changes might have happened as most were really hoping WWI was the war to end all wars.

Second, CV development would have been set back a few years. No CV versions of Akagi, Kaga, Lexington and Saratoga. And with budgets stretched, nobody would be wanting to invest much in these near useless, gunless vessels. Probably thru the mid 20's anyway.

With so much naval investment, Japan may not have had the ground forces to conquer coastal  China. Or the CVs to pull off a Pearl Harbor attack. Overall, Japan would not have been any stronger relative to the US and UK than they were in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,732
[WOLFG]
Members
12,684 posts
11,804 battles

Japan needed more carriers.  A LOT more carriers.

Plus an increase in production of escort craft.

Plus a sustainable source of trained pilots.  Ship based and land based.

Plus greater access to refined naval and aircraft fuel.

Plus a narrowed scope of operations (China was a resource sink WG could be proud of).

A few BBs wouldn't have made a difference.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,521
[WOLFC]
Members
2,803 posts
11,345 battles
43 minutes ago, lolpip said:

completed them whilst also converting the Ises or Fusos to Carriers instead of Kaga and Akagi

At the time, Amagi and Akagi were selected for conversion while still under construction. Kaga was substituted for Amagi after the latter’s hull was severely damaged in the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. The US did the same with Lexington and Saratoga, the two Lexington-class CCs that were furthest along in construction at the time. The CC hulls were selected for conversion because they were longer hulls designed for high speed, which were a better fit for CVs. Also, it is much easier to convert an incomplete hull to an aircraft carrier than a do a full conversion on a ship that has already been completed. So, I can’t see a situation where the IJN would convert the older BBs into CVs.

Also, there’s only so much you can lie about the displacement of a capital ship like a BB or CC, nor can you really hide the fact that you are constructing them. The other signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty would have determined Japan to be in violation of the treaty, and (at leas tin the case of the US, which had the financial resources) would have restarted their capital ship building programs.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[CVA16]
Members
6,481 posts
20,097 battles
9 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

nor can you really hide the fact that you are constructing them.

Japan made great efforts to conceal the Yamatos. US probably got some details wrong but was aware of the construction. I remember seeing some info in a 1940 (41?) Janes Fighting Ships with some description of the ships. That source indicated they had 9-16 inch guns but that may have been because they didn't want to admit to the public that our enemies had bigger guns than we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
1 hour ago, lolpip said:

Ive been thinking about this for a while what if aside from the treaty the japanese lied about the displacement  of those three classes and completed them whilst also converting the Ises or Fusos to Carriers instead of Kaga and Akagi and scrapping the Kongos and also most likely the fusos. any thoughts on how WW2 wouldve gone if they did?

Maybe if Japan built those Battleships, Japan would have gone bankrupt during the interwar period and the Pacific War averted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[FDK]
Members
1,363 posts
1 hour ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Japan needed more carriers.  A LOT more carriers.

Plus an increase in production of escort craft.

Plus a sustainable source of trained pilots.  Ship based and land based.

Plus greater access to refined naval and aircraft fuel.

Plus a narrowed scope of operations (China was a resource sink WG could be proud of).

A few BBs wouldn't have made a difference.

Lot of Carriers means nothing wihen Japan had such low ratio of good pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,732
[WOLFG]
Members
12,684 posts
11,804 battles
Just now, Xwing_Red1 said:

Lot of Carriers means nothing wihen Japan had such low ratio of good pilots.

My list was in no particular order.

If it was, I would put not dumping a bunch of money and personnel in to China.  Of course, not being in China probably voids the need to attack the U.S.

The rest really all tie together (Need escorts to safeguard fuel to train pilots to man the carriers).

The list wasn't intended to be complete, and if they had done all that, it still might have not made a meaningful difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,754
[WOLF8]
Members
8,126 posts
6,782 battles

Three additional battleships/battlecruisers would have made little to no difference in the grand scheme of things. As someone else already said, they would have been just bombed/torpedoed to oblivion, from the sky, by the might of the U.S. carriers. I mean, if it happened to Musashi and Yamato, why wouldn't it happen to those three? LOL. :Smile_smile:

AFAIK, even Japan itself knew that they would never win against the United States, even before they bombed Pearl Harbor. So why did they do it? Well, IIRC, they were hoping to "discourage" U.S. into negotiating with Japan, in hopes that Japan can negotiate with the western powers to hold onto their conquered gains. Of course, the western allies weren't going to accept anything but unconditional total surrender... so I suppose you could say that the game was already rigged and decided, even before it started... lel. :Smile_hiding:

Edited by Blorgh2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,210 posts
12,863 battles

I don’t think the conversion or completion would have mattered to the outcome, short of increasing the wars length potentially. However the fleet carriers destruction at pearl or midway had potential to force a treaty in japans favor imo. Was even that a likely outcome, probably not, but would make it a possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,932
[RLGN]
Members
16,231 posts
28,107 battles
1 hour ago, Xwing_Red1 said:

Lot of Carriers means nothing wihen Japan had such low ratio of good pilots.

1 hour ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Of course, not being in China probably voids the need to attack the U.S.

The rest really all tie together (Need escorts to safeguard fuel to train pilots to man the carriers).

A lack of trained pilots was an issue of long term planning.

If, for example, Japan had decided on two more Shokaku in the late ‘30’s instead of the Yamato’s, then obviously they would have trained more pilots to put on them.

Still may not have made any long term difference, but I doubt Japan would have built more carriers before the war, and not have trained pilots to put on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[WOLF1]
Members
1,137 posts
2,193 battles
4 hours ago, Xwing_Red1 said:

Lot of Carriers means nothing wihen Japan had such low ratio of good pilots.

The kito butai at the time had a complement of some of the best trained pilots with combat experience in China. If this kito butai was extended, with the respective pilots, air wings, resources, etc A greater strike on Pearl Harbor (maybe 8 carriers) may have caused more setbacks for the US.

but since the Pearl Harbor attack was focused on BBs, and CVs, it would have made little difference. More BBs destroyed = greater realization that carriers were the way to go in the US, and there were no carriers present at the raid, provided the storm USS Enterprise encountered (which delayed her arrival day by one day to Dec 8, 1941) still formed.

A better desicion at the time was to use the 8 carriers, but strike not only battleships and airfields, but the dry docks, oil storage, submarine pens and more. That way it was hard for the US to maintain a presence in the pacific, as all ships in need of repair, refuel, etc needs to go back to the mainland.

This would have forced Yorktown to arrive at the Battle of midway more damaged than usual (sustained damaged at Battle of Coral Sea)

And might have been sunk before she could launch her second strike. The presence of more carriers (5, if three carriers were out of service due to coral sea again, where Shoho was sunk and Shokaku hit by three bomb hit, and Zuikaku losing half her air groups, in port waiting replacement) would have diverted the dive bombers (provided the miracle situation remained the same, where the IJN CAP patrol and aa was focused on the torpedo bombers and not the dauntlesses who arrived at that time) and caused fewer hits, with less bombs per ship. Lets say because of this, three carriers were hit and burned to death due to poor IJN damage control and the haphazard, frantic refueling and rearming of the bombers in the hangers

 

three carriers would have been able to launch against the US carriers, damaging Hornet through anvil method by having double the amount of strikes.

This again leaves US with USS enterprise left, as Lexington was sunk, Saratoga has to go back to California for repairs as well as Hornet, Yorktown sunk. US borrows USS robin again.

Enteprise would have to face the entire IJN by herself for much longer, and she will sustain damage as well, leaving only USS robin left after she is refitted.

But in the meantime, American submarines are hitting Japanese hard to replace merchant fleets, even if they had the defective Mk14 torpedo, submarines like the USS tang and USS wahoo were doing work. By the time better torpedoes such as the MK18 electric torpedo (i rmemeber) submarines started decimating merchant ships, even sinking warships. Japanese production of additional battleships were of little use, and should have been sued to fund destroyer escorts for merchants ships and in carriers.

but in the grand scale of things, eventually US production would catch up. US production produced 27 fleet carriers, 122 escort carriers of 6 different classes, 8 fast battleships , and more, totaling to around 1,200 combact vessels in 5 years, vastly outnumbering Japanese production capacity.

 

Japanese merchant losses from submarines prevent transfer of raw material from newly acquired territories to factories and troop/ship movements are restricted by lack of oil supply. American carriers are quickly replaced with new ones. Pearl Harbor is repaired and back in operation quickly, with oil tankers, repair ships, floating dockyards  substituting the damaged dockyards and oil storages under repair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Boomer625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,036 posts
16,349 battles

If Japan had completed the Tosa, Amagi and Kii classes then there would have been no Washington Naval Treaty and the US and Britain would likely have responded to a degree. The US for instance would be more likely to complete the South Dakota class battleships and potentially more of the Lexington class battlecruisers (6 planned vs. 2 completed as carriers) - and complete them as battlecruisers. The UK would be likely to complete the G3 class battlecruisers and possibly N3 class battleships, or some other ship design.

 

That would generally and most likely mean that carrier numbers drop. I can't imagine the Japanese converting Ise or Fuso hulls into carriers, they wouldn't make particularly good ones as they're slow and relatively short. What would then happen interwar without Kaga/Akagi forming the core of the carrier force is a big rabbit hole. Without the various countries investing in that early air power it's possible that naval aviation overall is hugely set back by the late 1930's compared to what happened historically, though on the other hand there was already interest before the Lexingtons, Courageous, and Akagi were converted - Hosho, Langley, Hermes, Furious.

The overall global impact could be quite considerable - the Pacific War in particular might not go as expected, no or a different Pearl Harbor. Geopolitics without the Treaties I think would see a lot of butterfly effect. Faced with a bigger Japanese stick the US and UK might act quite differently in ways you can't expect - maybe working more closely together, or being more willing to say make nice with Italy and/or Germany.

I don't think people would go bankrupt - there were still interwar building programs of heavy cruisers, the conversions, destroyers, etc. and the Keynesian economic advantage of not turning off the government spending on shipbuilding so much post-war might have some role in easing interwar financial issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
18 minutes ago, mofton said:

I don't think people would go bankrupt - there were still interwar building programs of heavy cruisers, the conversions, destroyers, etc. and the Keynesian economic advantage of not turning off the government spending on shipbuilding so much post-war might have some role in easing interwar financial issues.

It depends on what is being built.  Unless Japan plans to sell some of it's Battleships, they will not get any returns in their investment in capital ships.  War material can be very profitable only if the military is willing to sell it overseas.  A worker can get paid building an artillery shell, but the shell will not contribute to the economy so effectively the money and resources poured into the munition has been dead-ended and will not recycle back into the economy.  At least cargo ships and fishing vessels contribute to the economy after they're built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[WOLF1]
Members
1,137 posts
2,193 battles
30 minutes ago, Sventex said:

It depends on what is being built.  Unless Japan plans to sell some of it's Battleships, they will not get any returns in their investment in capital ships.  War material can be very profitable only if the military is willing to sell it overseas.  A worker can get paid building an artillery shell, but the shell will not contribute to the economy so effectively the money and resources poured into the munition has been dead-ended and will not recycle back into the economy.  At least cargo ships and fishing vessels contribute to the economy after they're built.

True. Maybe the warships can serve as cargo ship’s replacement other purposes, like how USS Lexington was used to help power Tacoma (http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2020/02/28/that-time-the-uss-lexington-saved-tacoma/) during a major power outage. USS Foss did the same thing in 1947 (https://www.navyhistory.org/2014/03/going-ashore-naval-ship-to-shore-power-for-humanitarian-services/).

But then the cost of maintaining the warhip verses the cargo profit is not very good, and the military would have to operate it.

Edited by Boomer625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,860
[WOLF3]
Members
30,987 posts
26,039 battles

The treaty prevented a naval arms race with the US that Japan and UK would not be able to compete with.

 

Japan would lose this race.

 

Within the IJN, there were 2 camps about the naval treaties:

One group saw the limitations as an insult to Japan because the amount she was allowed to retain was smaller than her rivals, especially the US.

The other group knows that the US had more than the Pacific Ocean to worry about, so the larger limitation on the USN by treaty compared to Japan was actually a good deal for the IJN.  The USA had money to spend and the shipbuilding industry to go high, which is exactly what happened for WWII a bunch of years later.  By complying with the treaty, the United States hamstrung the growth of its own US Navy, who had all sorts of potential to become a monster.

 

Anyways, shuffling around ships or whatever would not have changed anything for Japan in its eventual war with the USA.  There's reasons why a number in the IJN leadership like Yonai, Yamamoto, Nagumo were against war with the USA.  Naval power is industrial power and they knew Japan would ask to cash checks that the IJN can't cover.

19sIBYm.jpeg

KyrnNbH.jpg

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[RNGOD]
Members
41 posts
4,352 battles

what i mean is if they built them and then scrapped and converted some of the older ones for their eight-eight fleet plan. some of you caught on and the others thought I meant having all the older classes alongside the newer ones

Edited by lolpip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,036 posts
16,349 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

It depends on what is being built.  Unless Japan plans to sell some of it's Battleships, they will not get any returns in their investment in capital ships.  War material can be very profitable only if the military is willing to sell it overseas.  A worker can get paid building an artillery shell, but the shell will not contribute to the economy so effectively the money and resources poured into the munition has been dead-ended and will not recycle back into the economy.  At least cargo ships and fishing vessels contribute to the economy after they're built.

It's not the most efficient way of 'investing' but a huge proportion of the cost of battleships ultimately goes on wages - I think a battleship under construction would have something like 3-6,000 men employed at the shipyard directly, with thousands more employed doing everything else from forging armor to making guns to components.

All those people then go and purchase things with their wages, which then pays a host of service industries, taxes are paid by workers (depending on timing) and the companies in question. Money circulates. If you import too much you don't see an advantage but the Japanese were doing the design, construction and parts fabrication themselves in-country. While there are better uses the money definitely recycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
On 5/7/2021 at 7:07 PM, mofton said:

It's not the most efficient way of 'investing' but a huge proportion of the cost of battleships ultimately goes on wages - I think a battleship under construction would have something like 3-6,000 men employed at the shipyard directly, with thousands more employed doing everything else from forging armor to making guns to components.

All those people then go and purchase things with their wages, which then pays a host of service industries, taxes are paid by workers (depending on timing) and the companies in question. Money circulates. If you import too much you don't see an advantage but the Japanese were doing the design, construction and parts fabrication themselves in-country. While there are better uses the money definitely recycles.

But at the same time what would there be to buy?  A tremendous amount of steel and iron that is potentially being removed from the economy, ovens that cannot be made to process crops quickly, cars that will not be manufactured to industrialize the population, kettles not crafted to brew tea to keep the populous' energy up.  Even with the Washington Naval Treaty, the average Japanese citizen had to endure a lot of austerity propaganda, I've even heard it being referred to as a cult of austerity.  The government even went so far as to remove ovens and kettles and other scraps of metal from the civilian economy to be melted down for the military.  What does it matter if you had a pocketful of yen when even watermelon has been outlawed?  No other nation I think ever had a navy budget at a high percentage of the national budget than Japan.

The is partly the same problem that happened with the Soviet Union, they would prioritize giving the workers pay raises, but what was the point when the stores didn't have much in them?

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[RNGOD]
Members
41 posts
4,352 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

But at the same time what would there be to buy?  A tremendous amount of steel and iron that is potentially being removed from the economy, ovens that cannot be made, cars that will not be manufactured, kettles that will not brew tea.  Even with the Washington Naval Treaty, the average Japanese citizen had to endure a lot of austerity propaganda, I've even heard it being referred to as a cult of austerity.  The government even went so far as to remove ovens and kettles and other scraps of metal from the civilian economy to melted down for the military.  What does it matter if you had a pocketful of yen when even watermelon has been outlawed?  No other nation I think ever had a navy budget at a high percentage of the national budget than Japan.

The is partly the same problem that happened with the Soviet Union, they would prioritize giving the workers pay raises, but what was the point when the stores didn't have much in them?

yeah i think they would've been really suffering during that time and even moreso during the war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,677 posts
5,128 battles

If this scenario were to happen, the US would have likely built the six Lexington class battlecruisers and six S. Dakota (1922) class battleships they'd started on.  Then, they'd have rebuilt them to more modern standards keeping them up-to-date while the Japanese ships slowly became increasingly obsolete.

Japan simply couldn't win an arms race with the US.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,845 posts
15,096 battles
21 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Japan made great efforts to conceal the Yamatos. US probably got some details wrong but was aware of the construction. I remember seeing some info in a 1940 (41?) Janes Fighting Ships with some description of the ships. That source indicated they had 9-16 inch guns but that may have been because they didn't want to admit to the public that our enemies had bigger guns than we did.

I have a book on the Musashi, which covers from its construction to its sinking. Yamato was built at Kure, and thus was on military property and more easily 'protected' from prying eyes. Musashi was built in the Mitsubishi yards in Nagasaki, and was vastly more exposed. The Yard and Military police went through immense efforts to hide the ship. The public knew a battleship was being made, but no one knew the shape or design. In fact, the workers themselves couldn't fully explain the ships as they only worked on sections of the ship and only saw plans for that spot, not the complete hull.

Janes would only have speculation and likely couldn't get any better information then the US or British Governments. The US Navy put them at 16in guns, because that was the largest guns they believe the Japanese could produce. They also had them at a lower tonnage then they actually were. It wasn't until US aircraft spotted them that their size was able to be determined.

11 hours ago, lolpip said:

what i mean is if they built them and then scrapped and converted some of the older ones for their eight-eight fleet plan. some of you caught on and the others thought I meant having all the older classes alongside the newer ones

Again, its harder to convert an existing ship then one that is under construction. You have to take the time to remove material (armor, barbettes, superstructure, interior spaces) to get the ships in a position to convert them to a suitable CV. All those ships under construction that were converted CVs were no were near completion as BBs, thus were easier to convert.

10 hours ago, Murotsu said:

If this scenario were to happen, the US would have likely built the six Lexington class battlecruisers and six S. Dakota (1922) class battleships they'd started on.  Then, they'd have rebuilt them to more modern standards keeping them up-to-date while the Japanese ships slowly became increasingly obsolete.

Japan simply couldn't win an arms race with the US.

It is possible that had the 6 Lex and 6 SD been built, alot of the older BBs of the time of the original treaty (Florida, Wyoming, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania) might have been scrapped due to a version of the treaty that would allow those ships to be completed. The ships listed were pre-WW1 designs, thus could not be modified with lessons learned from Jutland. It's also possible that the New Mexico and Tennessee class could go, leaving the US with a 16in gun BB fleet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,055
[HINON]
Members
9,007 posts
13,171 battles
On 5/7/2021 at 8:12 PM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Naval power is industrial power and they knew Japan would ask to cash checks that the IJN can't cover.

as the TF2 Soldier (RIP Rick May) once said "Son, you are writing checks that your butt will find uncashable"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×