The Deutschland Class Revolution

Surely some Italian or Japanese designs could be simply picked up from the 25.000-ton BB thread, also opened by Krakatoa (like my Kawachi

).
Although with crumbling treaties the Japanese would have simply gone with an earlier Yamato spam... probably.

The Japanese were probably the best off for anti-raider craft with the four Kongos. I was thinking that the Japanese may have been more interested in building their own version of a Deutschland to let loose behind the US lines in the Pacific.

The Italians had the 29,000 ton class BC's with 6x15" on the books. But if the French start building 16" ships then surely the Italians will be forced to follow suit. Maybe something like the 16" Ansaldo project.

Originating as my asking myself what Japan should have made instead of what was in my opinion the wasteful Yamato class I found myself thinking about battlecruisers and where their utility might lie. This was a touch odd as I'd largely considered battlecruisers to be wasteful in and of themselves but looking at Japanese capital ships and finding that the Kongo class battlecruisers were the most used as they could keep pace with carriers both underscored the problem with the Yamato class and the value that a battlecruiser might still bring.

I think that the battlecruiser, as Fischer envisioned it, was fundamentally flawed as I suspect Krakatoa feels given his Fischerless RN. Historically the problem was considered to be a lack of armor but given how even battleship armor was rapidly approaching the point of being useless as gun size continued to increase, so I'm not convinced that any amount of armor would have really solved the problems with Fischer's battlecruisers.

For me the fundamental problem is actually the guns, not only did battleship class weaponry tempt many an admiral to get into a fight with a battleship but it was a key driver in the displacement inflation that battlecruisers saw, stepping back from matching the calibre of a battleship's guns should ease a lot of pressures.

Back to the question of a Yamato replacement I think the answer, barring simply 'more carriers' was to make smaller battlecruisers specifically designed to escort the Japanese carriers. I envision this as a smaller ship then the traditional BC with 3x2 12" guns, more then enough to overwhelm a cruiser, but ( hopefully ) not so much that it would fool it's admirals and offering notable weight savings besides. Also given it's escort-focused role I think the case for a very heavy set of AA armament is pretty clear by the 1940s ( 8x2 12.5cm/50, 12-16x3 Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun ) as well as a sizable battery of secondary guns to further aid against cruisers as well as destroyers. Finally armor would be geared towards protecting very well against the 8" shells that it might face.

Of course this seems very similar to the Lillicrap designs and while not intentional I think there was a lot more merit to his smaller designs for battlecruisers, Deutschland or not, keeping them smaller not only means you can have more of them but it should also help encourage proper running-away behavior around battleships. For the RN I view the original 12" Lillicrap designs as being better suited then the upgunned 13.5" design as the 860 tons added the guns and added turret, plus more from having to opt for the larger 13.5" turrets and the subsequent increases in size to the hull and armor layout just seem more costly then they're worth.

Good work on the ships though, they're lovely and on your work on a Fischerless RN and the subsequent discussion around battlecruisers.

Another Japanese possible choiche is to go with an early design of the B-64/65 plan instead of the Yamato. 9x12.1-inch (310mm) gunned ships with characteristics somewhat akin to that of the Alaska class.

I was thinking along these lines for a Japanese raider. Mixed diesel/turbine propulsion system. Diesel power for 15 knots, steam/turbine installation to take it up to 30 knots. 6x12" 8x5", with the 12x24" torpedoes to give a bit extra. 3-4 aircraft for spotting/search missions.

[ img ]

Displacement: 17500 standard, 22,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 633 x 82 x 26 feet
Machinery: 2 shaft, Diesels 15,000bhp, 2 shaft, Steam turbines 65,000shp
Speed: Max 18 knots on diesels only, max 31 knots on both.
Endurance: 14,000 at 15 knots
Armour: 6" belt, 3" deck, 7" turrets
Armament:
6 x 12" (2x3)
8 x 5" (4x2)
16 x 25mm (4x3 4x1)
Torpedoes: 12x24" (1 set of reloads 12)
Aircraft: 3-4
Crew: 950

Personally I'd drop the main guns by a deck, mainly to avoid going Tomozoru-ish

I put them a deck higher because of deck penetration of the 12" on a cruiser hull designed for 8"

I wanted to keep the high speed hull look, even though I have turned it into a bit of a tub with a lot more breadth than the cruisers.

Awesome work! However, I agree with my good friend the IJN Master Artist (

) ; the main guns probably need to be on the top deck of the hull...the 4th Fleet incident was bad enough. A ship like this capsizing in heavy weather would make the 4th Fleet incident pale in comparison.

_________________
[ img ]

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Ok, I have bowed to the Master and taken his comments into consideration. I have dropped the mains to deck level and increased the overall hull depth by 8 pixels to compensate.

Also lowered the Bridge superstructure one level, should have got rid of a bit of extra topweight.

For the Italians it is simple, they must match or better whatever France had built or was building. The 15" Littorio class would certainly disappear and something like the UP41 type would be built instead. That would give the French something to aim for with a 9x16" gunned battleship of their own like the Alsace. I am not sure what the dual purpose looking guns amidships are, they look like the 5.3" but I can not tell if they are singles or twins.

[ img ]

Keep an eye on this drawing as I intend to give it a bit of Krakatoa flavour.

This is the drawing of the Italian reply to the French Dunkerque class ships. As can be seen it is a bit different to the 1941 model. I could not use all of the fixtures and fittings from the UP41 which would have been laid down 6-7 years after the original Littorio class ships. I have tried to include bits and ideas from all of the Italian designs of the time. The aircraft handling facilities amidships allow the aft most 16" triple turret to be at main deck level and save a bit of topweight. The Italians introduce their own 130mm twin dual purpose mounting, replacing the 6" and 3.9". I have raised the forecastle for slightly better seakeeping qualities.

[ img ]

Shipbucket

Who is online