HELP: Building "Ship that never was": Super Yamato in 1/350 scale - Need pictures and suggestions

check this link. http://www.shipmodels.info/mwphpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4707&start=45

One thing to remember is that caliber increases on naval guns always require exponential reinforcement of the hull and turret structures to withstand increased recoil forces.  When the U.S. Navy did their studies, it was generally agreed that increasing firepower in ships with triple 16" batteries to triple 18" batteries would mean an increase of 3,000 tons per turret, most of that being extra steel to absorb recoil.  Going from 18" to 20" is an even bigger jump to 4,500 extra tons per turret.  That's one reason the "Super Yamato" drawings in the above link have a larger hull than the previous ship.

Ok, Got the idea. The Super Yamato had only 2 barrels per turret, not the triple. So, wouldn't it make it a little over 3,000 tons? So, the ship would only be slightly larger, in length and width.

Am I on the right track?

 

That sounds about right, at least without a degree in naval architechure to fall back on. 

Greylipps wrote:

Ok, Got the idea. The Super Yamato had only 2 barrels per turret, not the triple. So, wouldn't it make it a little over 3,000 tons? So, the ship would only be slightly larger, in length and width. Am I on the right track?

Yes.   The Japanese had plans to re-arm the Yamatos with 20" guns in twin turrets within 5 years of their commissioning.  So Yamato hull can definitely accommodate 20" guns.

The 18" guns had been a great secret.  The Japanese expected that, when the truth about the Yamato's size and guns finally comes out,  the US would be well along on construction of Iowas and Montanas.   Too late to make fundamental changes to the armor and barbettes of these ships.   The most US could do would be to possibly swap out Iowa and Montana's 16" triples for 18" twins.    If this were to happen, the Japanese would immediately respond by replacing Yamato's 18" triples with 20" twins, knowing the US ships, with their barbettes originally designed for 16" triples, can never accommodate a 20" twin.    Thus they can garranty that Yamato class would continue to enjoy qualitative superiority for another 4-5 years.

But regarding the actual follow-on to Yamatos, they would probably be about the same size as the yamatos.     The Yamatos were too big for existing Japanese naval facilities, so 4-5 new docks were  to be built for them.   Some of these never started because of the war.   But these new docks were only good for ships marginally larger then the Yamatos.   So it seems the japanese didn't really entertain the notion of ships much larger than Yamatos.

Any follow-on to the Yamato would probably have ditched the 6" triples superfiring over the front and rear main turrets.   These turrets were a major loop hole in Yamato's massive magazine armor, and was much critisized inside the IJN.    In any case, Yamato's inefficient mixed secondary armament, with separate anti-surface and anti-air batteries, would probably ave been replaced by a uniform caliber, dual purpose secondary battery.   The 6" anti-surface guns would probably be gone altogether.   The 5"/40 AA guns would probably have been replaced with far superior 3.9"/65 dual purpose guns.   

If we accept that follow-on Yamatos would not have 6" turrets taking up valuable centerline space, then the superstructure layout could have been made much more relaxed, and less cramped.   It should also free-up room to for a better arrangement of secondary guns on the beam.    Yamato's superstructure was so camped that 3 5" twin turrets is all that could be accommodated in a roll.   Yamato follow-on could probably find space for a more relaxed arrangement.   Possible 4 on one tier and 3 on another.

Contrary to popular history, Japanese had radars under development since before 1940, and a Yamato follow-on would almost certainly be designed from the on-set to carry radar.   

Chuck Fan wrote:

Contrary to popular history, Japanese had radars under development since before 1940, and a Yamato follow-on would almost certainly be designed from the on-set to carry radar.

That however doesn't say anything about the quality of the sets and whether they would have really been able to develop integrated fire control.

Anyway, it may perhaps be of interest that Takara produces a model of Kii and shows her with 20in guns.

Look here:

http://cgi.ebay.de/1-700-Schlachtschiff-Kii-Yamato-Klasse-Takara_W0QQitemZ7383501515QQcategoryZ9150QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Takara models look more like collectable toys, but in fact - no doubt due to them cooperating with SkyWave, I think; some of the models definitely come from SkyWave moulds - the quality is surprisingly high. I have an 1/700 Surcouf, which is much better than the resin option, as well as an 1/700 Grayback (Regulus), which is lovely.

Jorit

I think Chuck Fan's dissertation holds a lot of merit as to how the follow-on class would be improved over the original, especially eliminating the secondary triples and replacing the smaller batteries with advanced DP guns.  Those two changes alone would realize several efficiencies ... room for more armor and magazines and the need for fewer small batteries.

He's right, too, about the 20" guns.  The U.S. Navy tested 18" guns of their own and found that little advantage was gained over the 16" gun at an extreme cost in disadvantages.  No 20" gun, therefore, was ever even built or tested and all Iowa and Montana hulls were designed and reinforced around the 16" triple batteries and twin 18" at the top limits.  So the Japanese had carte blanche to go to 20" guns if they so elected.

Those Takara models are interesting items ... especially with how they are baloney-sliced to show the insides.  But I think the 20" version simply changed the guns and nothing else.

Chuck Fan wrote:

Greylipps wrote: Ok, Got the idea. The Super Yamato had only 2 barrels per turret, not the triple. So, wouldn't it make it a little over 3,000 tons? So, the ship would only be slightly larger, in length and width. Am I on the right track?   Any follow-on to the Yamato would probably have ditched the 6" triples superfiring over the front and rear main turrets.   These turrets were a major loop hole in Yamato's massive magazine armor, and was much critisized inside the IJN.    In any case, Yamato's inefficient mixed secondary armament, with separate anti-surface and anti-air batteries, would probably ave been replaced by a uniform caliber, dual purpose secondary battery.   The 6" anti-surface guns would probably be gone altogether.   The 5"/40 AA guns would probably have been replaced with far superior 3.9"/65 dual purpose guns.    If we accept that follow-on Yamatos would not have 6" turrets taking up valuable centerline space, then the superstructure layout could have been made much more relaxed, and less cramped.   It should also free-up room to for a better arrangement of secondary guns on the beam.    Yamato's superstructure was so camped that 3 5" twin turrets is all that could be accommodated in a roll.   Yamato follow-on could probably find space for a more relaxed arrangement.   Possible 4 on one tier and 3 on another.

OK, so kill the 6" triples. Expand the superstructure. Add 2 rows in tiers of the 3.9"/65 dual purpose guns. Add better radar, maybe something that the German's may have given them (sheer speculation).

Any other thoughts?

BTW, I have the barrels from Steve Nuttall and 2 1/350 kits, the Tamiya and the LIFE-LIKE Hobby Kit. Plus the photo-etched detail. I think that plus scratch building and my spares box, will work.

Thanks for all the help.

some reference

http://album.nikon-image.com/nk/NK_AlbumPage.asp?key=555537&un=97313