Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "IJN No.13 - Guide 261 (NB)" video.

The actual reason that the Kongos were designated battleships is that their first rebuild in the 1920s (adding more deck armor and torpedo bulges) reduced their speed to 26 knots, which was deemed to make them too slow to be battlecruisers (that was slower than Nagato, after all). And by the time of their second rebuild in the 1930s (which brought their speed up to 30 knots, the "battlecruiser" designation had been abolished in the IJN so they were designated fast battleships.
9
@davidchambers8697 Japanese strategy was presuming they'd have superior gunnery on the basis that...they needed to have superior gunnery, and since they were Japanese they could obviously achieve it. In other words, wishful thinking mixed with jingoism.
8
@jannegrey IIRC, the cost of the 8-8 Fleet would've actually exceeded the entire GDP of Japan. The Army and Navy essentially wanted to spend not just more money than Japan had, but more money actually existed.
5
The guns were however still 460mm (18.1") rather than the 457mm (18") that other nations designed and occasionally built. They were actually also longer-barreled than 460mm/45s later built for Yamato and Musashi, though they would've fired a lighter shell.
4
Compared to previous Japanese battleships (which had 305mm flat vertical belts), Kii's 15° angled 292mm belt was at least equivalent, probably a slight improvement. And Number 13's 330mm 15° angled belt was a significant upgrade. It's only by comparison to N3's massive belt (18° angled 381mm abreast the magazines and 343mm for the engine spaces) that it seems inadequate, but N3 would've been the most heavily armored ship on Earth if built, right up until Yamato. And N3 would've been a standard slow battleship, while Japan had basically already transitioned to fast battleships starting with the 26.5 knot Nagato (only 1 knot slower than the pre-rebuild Kongos). G3 would've also been better armored with 18° angled 356mm belt for the magazines and 305mm for the engines, and despite the battlecruiser designation was similarly a true fast battleship. But G3 paid for that by having a weaker armament than Number 13.
4
@hantm6269 Presumably there'll be a British BC line at some point, though no word on it yet. My choices for it would be: Tier 3: Invincible or Indefatigable Tier 4: Princess Royal Tier 5: Tiger Tier 6: Renown Tier 7: Admiral-class Tier 8: F3 Tier 9: G3 Tier 10: I3
2
330mm belt armor angled at 15° is pretty good. Compare it to Iowa, with 307mm angled at 19°.
2
@davidchambers8697 That's more a matter of N3 being a complete monster. A substantially more powerful ship than what the US and Japan had in the works at the time. Number 13 would compare quite well with the 1920 South Dakota. Comparable armor (15° angled 330mm belt vs unangled 343mm, 127mm deck vs 152mm), more powerful armament (4x2 460mm/50 vs 4x3 406mm/50), and vastly superior speed (30 knots vs 23). It wasn't a particularly innovative design like N3 and G3, but it was still a good design for the era.
2
Some of the alternative designs considered did exactly that. But ultimately Japan stuck with twin turrets up until they were designing treaty battleships as potential Kongo replacements, because they were simpler and proven technology.
2
@hantm6269 Shouldn't be premium at all. We just got a German battlecruiser line. A Japanese one is equally doable. Tier 3: B-41 (a mini-Myogi with 305mm guns) Tier 4: Myogi (replace in the main line with one of the 305mm armed Fuso preliminary designs, such as A-55) Tier 5: Kongo (replace in the main line with a 5x2 356mm Fuso preliminary design, such as A-57) Tier 6: ??? (I haven't been able to find a good option. If only there were an English translation of the Hiraga archive to search. If there's a Kongo variation with a 5x2 356mm that would be perfect.) Tier 7: B-62 (8-gun version of Amagi) Tier 8: Amagi (replace in main line with Tosa) Tier 9: Owari (Kii-class) or Number 13 Tier 10: Number 13 or Battleship L (10-gun Number 13 preliminary design)
1