Kii class battleship

Class overview
Operators: Imperial Japanese Navy
Preceded by: Tosa-class battleship
Succeeded by: Number 13 class
Planned: 4
Cancelled: 4
General characteristics
Type: Battleship
Displacement: 42,600t standard/48,500t full load
Length: 826 ft (252 m)
Beam: 101 ft (31 m)
Draught: 31 ft (9.4 m)
Propulsion: 4-shaft geared Gihon turbines, 19 Kampon boilers, 131,200 shp (97,836 kW)
Speed: 30kt
Range: 8000nm at 14kts
Armament:

10× 16in/45 cal rifled cannons (5 twin turrets)

16× 5.5in/50 cal
4× 4.7in AA
8× 24in torpedo tubes
Armour: 11.5in belt, 4.6in deck, 9–11in barbettes, 14in CT

The Kii class was a planned battleship design of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Designed by Yuzuru Hiraga, the 42,600 t (41,927-long-ton) class was to have been armed with ten 16.1 in (408.9 mm) guns and would bring Japan closer to its goal of an "Eight-eight fleet" (eight battleships and eight battlecruisers).[1] However, after the Washington Naval Conference and the signing of the Washington Treaty, work on the ships was suspended, and they were cancelled in November 1923 (un-named ones) and April 1924 (named ones).

The design was an improved Amagi-class battlecruiser, itself an evolution of the Tosa-class battleship. In keeping with a new classification system, the Kii class merged the battleship and battlecruiser categories, being designated "High Speed Battleships."

Contents

Specifications

Dimensions and machinery

Armament

The ships were to be fitted out with a main battery of ten 410 mm (16.1 in)/45 caliber guns in dual turrets, which were also fitted to the Nagato.[2] At that time, it would have been the largest size ever fitted to a capital ship, only surpassed by the 460 mm (18.1 in) guns mounted on the Yamato class.[3] A secondary battery of 16 single 140 mm (5.5 in)/50 caliber guns, common secondary guns on Japanese capital of that era,[4] was also planned. The ships also were to be armed with four single 120 mm (4.7 in)/45 caliber Vickers antiaircraft guns, along with eight-610 mm (24.0 in) above water torpedo tubes.[5][6]

Armor

Background

Experiences in the Russo-Japanese War convinced naval war planners that more fast capital ships were needed, so on 4 April 1907, the Imperial Defence Council approved an "Eight-eight" policy. This plan originally called for a fleet of eight battleships and eight armored cruisers that would all be under ten years old (later changed to eight battlecruisers and reduced to eight years old). However, the advent of the dreadnought battleship crippled this plan at the beginning; given Japan's weak and underdeveloped economy and the enormous strain that had been put on it during the Russo-Japanese War (Japan emerged from the war victorious, but bankrupt),[7] the launch of HMS Dreadnought was a "disaster" for Japan.[8]

In 1907, Japan was halfway to the eight-eight, with two newly delivered battleships (the Katori class) in the fleet and two more (the Satsuma class) and four armored cruisers authorized or under construction. In addition, three more battleships and four armored cruisers had been authorized, though not funded. However, naval technology was changing; older battleships, including all of Japan's battleships in commission or under construction,[A 1] were quickly rendered obsolete with the commissioning of HMS Dreadnought (hence the terms dreadnought and pre-dreadnought), and armored cruisers were seemingly useless in the face of the new battlecruisers being laid down by Great Britain and Germany. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) recognized this, and proposed in 1909 that two battlecruisers be ordered from British plans, with one to be built in Great Britain and one to be built at home. These two ships became the Kongō class.[8]

In 1910, there was still authorization for one battleship and four armored cruisers. This battleship, a more heavily armored version of the Kongo-class battlecruisers, became Japan's first super-dreadnought, Fusō. With these ships, Japan appeared to be getting closer to the eight-eight goal; however, these new ships represented a "new level of naval strength" for the IJN, and they made all previous Japanese capital ships obsolete. This meant that any naval planner aiming for an eight-eight fleet would have to call for seven more battleships and four more battlecruisers[8] at a time when Japan was trying to weather a worldwide economic depression.[7]

After proposals from the IJN in 1911 and 1912 for massive shipbuilding programs, the Cabinet compromised down to a "four-four" plan; under this, three new battleships and no new battlecruisers were authorized.[9] The Navy did not agree, and instead called for an "eight-four" fleet, while the Imperial Defence Council called for the original eight-eight. The Cabinet relented, and by July 1914, it was decided to aim first for an eight-four fleet, followed by the eight-eight fleet. The eight-four plan was presented to the Diet of Japan in 1915; it aimed to have the eight battleships and four battlecruisers by 1923 with the building of two Nagato-class and two Tosa-class battleships. The problem with this was that the old plan intended all of the ships of the eight-eight fleet to be under eight years old; by the time these new ships were completed, Fusō and the first two Kongo ships would be past their replacement age.[10]

The plan was approved in 1917, along with funding for two battlecruisers which became the Amagi class. In late 1917, the Navy proposed to expand the eight-four plan by adding two more battlecruisers; this was approved, and two more Amagi-class ships were ordered. However, having eight 16 in (406 mm) gun ships (four battleships and four battlecruisers) on order put an enormous financial strain on Japan, which was spending about a third of its national budget on the Navy. The massive size and scale of its building program was rapidly driving up the cost of naval construction and armament.[10]

Design and planned construction

Designed in 1920 by Yuzuru Hiraga,[11][12] the Kii class was based largely on the preceding Amagi-class battlecruisers,[12] where were in turn based on a less-armored Tosa design.[13] The only major difference between the Kiis and Amagis was their speed and armor—the Amagis were .25 knots (0.29 mph; 0.46 km/h) faster, and the Kiis had a thicker belt.[12] Despite this lineage, the Kiis were classified as "High Speed Battleships" by the Japanese, as they had decided to end the distinction between "battleship" and "battlecruiser."[12]

Two ships were ordered on 12 October 1921, and two more were ordered later that year.[11][12] Kii was allocated to Kure Navy Yard, with a projected completion date of November 1923, and Owari was allocated to the Yokosuka Navy Yard with completion in September.[12] Two more unnamed ships, Numbers 11 and 12, were given to Kawasaki in Kobe and Mitsubishi in Nagasaki, respectively.[11][12] The ships' keel laying was postponed on 5 February because of the limitations on warship building introduced by the Washington Naval Treaty, signed on 6 February.[11] Numbers 11 and 12 were formally canceled on 19 November 1923; Kii and Owari followed on 14 April 1924.[11]

Notes

  1. ^ While the Satsuma-class battleships were technically "semi-dreadnoughts" due to their heavy secondary battery, they were still made obsolete by Dreadnought.

References

  1. ^ Garzke and Dulin, p. 43
  2. ^ "HIMJS Nagato". Seawolfproductions.com. 1946-07-29. http://www.seawolfproductions.com/Shipwreck%20Museum/Bikini%20Wrecks/Nagato/himjs_nagatoweb.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-28. 
  3. ^ Garzke and Dulin, pp. 14 and 88
  4. ^ Tony DiGiulian (2007-08-23). "Japanese 14 cm/50 (5.5") 3rd Year Type". Navweaps.com. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_55-50_3ns.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-28. 
  5. ^ "Materials of IJN (Vessels - Kii class Battleships)". Homepage2.nifty.com. http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0125.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-28. 
  6. ^ "World Battleships List: Japanese Dreadnoughts". Hazegray.org. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/ijn_dr.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-28. 
  7. ^ a b Friedman, p. 222
  8. ^ a b c Friedman, p. 223
  9. ^ Friedman, pp. 222–223
  10. ^ a b Friedman, p. 224
  11. ^ a b c d e Friedman, p. 232
  12. ^ a b c d e f g Breyer, (1973) Battleships and battle cruisers, 353
  13. ^ Friedman, p. 235

Bibliography