How many Tachibana class escort ships be made with the first 30% of a Yamato class battleship?

@ABWorsham4

Iowa’s faster and outranges the, hypothetically (not including fire control) Iowa can take out a ton before it runs out of ammunition.

If they’re fighting close Iowa losing to 8 pre dreadnoughts with 14 inchers sounds right. 👍

For those who don’t know, Shinano was originally planned as a Japanese Yamato class battleship. However, midway through construction Japan decided to convert it into a carrier.

Not an aircraft carrier though, a “support carrier” which would only carry 47 aircraft for self defense but held almost a hundred more aircraft as spares and many supplies to support the actual fleet carriers on extended operations. It was sunk by a US submarine in 1944.

Another such support carrier actually did exist, the HMS Unicorn.

What if the Shinano was converted into an actual fleet carrier though? It takes space to house not just replacement aircraft, but additional pilots, mechanics, etc.

So Shinano probably wouldn’t have been able to carry the 120 aircraft it theoretically could’ve. But it still probably would’ve carried a lot of aircraft owing to its size.

The question is, how much? I look forward to your responses!

Part of the problem that the US Navy ran into when it went to war was that – like many military forces before or since – it had to learn some things for itself before it believed them.  The British had over two years of experience fighting the Battle of the Atlantic at that point, but the Americans didn’t feel that they needed any advice from them on the matter.  It didn’t help that Admiral Ernest J. King was an Anglophobe, in addition to having a generally abrasive personality.  (His wife reputedly once said: “Ernie is the most even-tempered man I’ve ever met.  He’s always in a foul mood.”)  As a result, the Americans made mistakes in their early ASW methods of operations which could have been avoided.  In fairness, the US Army had similar learning-curve problems in North Africa, notably at Kasserine Pass if I remember correctly.

@RJL518:

The real question to be asked is how would a battle have gone if the Missouri and Iowa took on the Super-Battleships Yamato and Musashi.  
As Samuel Eliot Morison, author of the History of US Naval Operations in World War II, once said…“What a brawl that would have been!”
Even though the Yamato and Musashi had 18.1 inch guns compared to the 16 inch of the Iowa class, the Iowas were still faster and still had better range.  
But who knows.  
IMO it would have depended on the tactics and strategy of the captains in a great battle at that time.

And it was a match-up that nearly happened.  Yamato and two of the Iowa-class battleships, Iowa and New Jersey, missed each other by only a few hours in the area of the San Bernadino Straight during the closing stages of the Battle of Leyte Gulf.  And if Musashi hadn’d been sunk the previous day, there would have been the potential for a two-on-two fight.  I’d have given a lot to get tickets to watch a slugging match like that.

One interesting technical difference is that even though the belt armour of the Yamatos was thicker than that of the Iowas, its performance might not have been better by comparison.  Japanese industry wasn’t capable of producing 16-inch armour as a single block, so the Yamato belt armour was in two layers rather than monolithic, which reduced its effectiveness.  Also, the Class-A armour components of the Iowa’s defenses were more advanced than the grade of armour used on the Yamatos, and thickness-for-thickness had better resistance to penetration.  On the offensive side, the 16-inch AP shells fired by the Iowas were heavyweight designs, with a greater weight relative to their diameter than the 18.1-inch AP shells fired by the Yamatos (2,700 lb vs. 3,219 lbs), and they were fired at nearly the same muzzle velocity (2,500 ft/s vs. 2,600 ft/s) because the Iowa guns had longer barrels relative to their bore (50 calibers vs. 45 calibers).

@abworsham4

I’ll settle with Japan giving Germany two “I-boats” (basically the Japanese version of U-boats, but with totally different functions due to differences in doctrine). I call them I-boats because all the ships in this group of ships (with several classes) started with the letter”I” (there was also the shorter range, possible cheaper, older, and generally inferior RO- boats). These submarines carried the type 95 torpedo, superior to the famous type 93 on Japanese cruisers and destroyers. More submarines for the Battle Of The Atlantic is always a great thing, and U-boats, especially those manned by great crews, with these torpedos could have been deadly.

In return, Germany could give Japan some of their experience in radar and optics-it was a real problem for the Axis, not sharing technology with each other, even though the Kriegsmarine was ordered to under direct orders from Hitler (who they didn’t follow). This is especially a problem as the Allies did share technology with each other.

I think German panzers would not have helped Japan anyway, as they would have been too heavy to transport, and armoured warfare in general was not needed on the islands of the Pacific and China (who didn’t have many good tanks at all, so Japan had no need to have better tanks). If I had to choose a land weapon for Japan to use, I would choose the 88mm anti aircraft gun. A superb anti tank gun that can fight any US tank and possibly a good help for the anti aircraft armament of Japan’s ships (if it could be adapted to naval use).

I love the Bismarck. Thank you.

Ships come with a crew and to compare ships has nothing to do with crews and also has nothing to so with comparing SHIPS.  I’m glad you agree as well!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

And this site has done something similar, (which obviously does not compare crews because this is a comparison of ships) concluded rightfully that Iowa class BB is the best ship all around based on all basic stats.

@KurtGodel7:

@Imperious:

But short of that I think they could have won if Japan even made the gesture of attacking Russia.

The forces in the ‘far east’ didn’t cause Hitler to lose, Hitlers decision to attack Stalingrad and how he did it destroyed his chances in 1942.

In 1941 The winter caused Hitler to lose because he didn’t prepare for it and underestimated the Soviet army. Those forces were just icing on the cake used for the foiled counteroffensive, AFTER the Germans failed to take Moscow. The battles just before Moscow at Vyzma are the ones that cost the Germans too much time, so they didn’t get to Moscow in force after fighting 5 Soviet Armies.

“Contrary to German expectations, the encircled Soviet forces did not surrender easily. Instead, the fighting was fierce and desperate, and the Wehrmacht had to employ 28 divisions to eliminate the surrounded Soviet armies, using forces that were needed to support the offensive towards Moscow. The remnants of the Soviet Western and Reserve Fronts were able to retreat and consolidate their lines around Mozhaisk.[22]  Moreover, the surrounded Soviet forces were not completely destroyed, as some of the encircled troops escaped in groups ranging in size from platoons to full rifle divisions.[23]  Soviet resistance near Vyazma also provided time for the Soviet high command to quickly bring some reinforcements to the four armies defending the Moscow direction (namely, the 5th, 16th, 43rd and 49th), and to transport three rifle and two tank divisions from the Far East.”

I hardly think “three rifle and two tank divisions from the Far East” were the cause of the German failure. The weather and Hitlers unprepared logistics past a campaign of over 4 month duration were catastrophic.

If Japan attacked Russia it would have done nothing except expose yet another front to them and cause a 3 front war for Japan. The balance of the Soviet forces on the border were more than enough to wipe out the japanese Kwangtung army as they did in 1939.

Japan would gain nothing but another defeat, and tie up units that were used after Dec 41 in a protracted battle. Declaring war and doing nothing was not an option either. Stalin would go on the defensive if he was engaged with Germany. If Japan didn’t get her feet wet, the ploy would fail and 5 divisions still head toward Moscow. If they committed, it would have hastened japanese defeat in Asia. Stalin had more than enough forces for both once Moscow was protected.

You are obviously very familiar with this period of history. I think that the forces from the east to which the earlier poster was referring may have been the 100 divisions the Soviets shipped west during the winter of '41 - '42. After the Japanese attacked Britain and the U.S., Stalin knew they would have little attention to spare for a war against the Soviets.

I agree, however, that Stalin was probably guilty of being overly cautious on his eastern front, and that he could have safely sent large numbers of divisions westward against Germany regardless of what Japan did.

1905 may have played a role in Stalins units  in the East.