# Shinano question



## diddyriddick (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm hoping ya'll can help me with something. In reading about the Shinano, I'm curious about the relatively small number of aircraft that she carried. Being the behemoth that she was, she should, in theory, have been able to carry at least as many planes as the Kaga and the Akagi. Why did she have such a small complement of aircraft?


----------



## Tinplate58 (Jun 5, 2009)

Shinano was a converted "Yamato" class BB ,it's anticipated value bearing in mind it's size was as a support vessel carrying replacement aircraft for the fleet carriers ; she could have carried an air combat group of 40--50 planes located in her forward hangar but main complement would have been up to 120 replacement aircraft.
Launched 8 Oct. 1944 she never entered service, while on route for final fitting-out she was torpedoed by the US sub "Archerfish" on 29 Nov. 1944 and sank some hours later.
(displacement 64,800 tons, the "Essex" class were 27,200 ). Nick


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 5, 2009)

Size wise (width length) she was actually smaller then an Essex class carrier though wieghed almost twice as much.


----------



## mlsco (Jun 5, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Size wise (width length) she was actually smaller then an Essex class carrier though wieghed almost twice as much.





vikingBerserker said:


> Size wise (width length) she was actually smaller then an Essex class carrier though wieghed almost twice as much.



That may be a little misleading. 

Lengthwise, the Shinano and short hull Essex class ships were almost identical (872' O.L.), while the long hull Essex variants were slightly longer (888 ft O.L.). 

However, beam is a different matter: the design waterline beam for the Essex ships was 93 ft, while the waterline beam for the Shinano was 121 ft. 

As a result, the difference in draft for the two is pretty striking: 25-26' for the original Essex vessels, 33-35' for Shinano

Are you thinking about maximum beam (147' for the Essex class, I don't know this number for Shinano) or some of the post-war dimensions resulting from an angled flight deck and other modifications. 

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prim...ports/USNTMJ-200H-0745-0786 Report S-06-2.pdf

Home Page


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 5, 2009)

mlsco said:


> That may be a little misleading.
> 
> Lengthwise, the Shinano and short hull Essex class ships were almost identical (872' O.L.), while the long hull Essex variants were slightly longer (888 ft O.L.).
> 
> ...



Waterline beam for the Essex class carriers are not as relevant as it would be for the Shinano. The Essex's were designed from the bottom up as carriers and if you look at pics of them you’ll notice an overhang on the sides which you alluded to in your post by mentioning the 147''. The Shinano was based on a battleship hull where the waterline beam is more relevant as typically that was as wide as the ship was, which was the case of the Yamatos. The Shinano's width was 119' (vs 121' of her sisters) as stated in "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946" 

Size wise the Essex's were bigger - not by much, but still bigger. The main point I was trying to make that the Shinano was not this incredibly huge ship compared to other carriers, she just weighed twice as much due to her armor.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 6, 2009)

I remember right, the Shinano was still packing her hull plating and armor, too...

The Shinano also holds the record for being the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine. Not a bad prize for the rookie Archerfish!


----------



## mlsco (Jun 6, 2009)

The point about overall size being not that different is well taken, but I still wonder how comparable avgas, fuel, or munitions stores would have been. Perhaps Jane's addresses that question, though the Shinano never became fully operational. 

It could easily be similar to the comparison between early Lexington/Saratoga and Yorktown class vessels. The Lexington-class, converted from battle cruisers during early construction, were 1/3 heavier but carried air groups similar to the Yorktown's and stocked significantly less avgas.

The 1946 sinking document from my earlier posting also indirectly addresses the armor plating question. Shinano did not retain full BB armor (main belt 6.4 inches instead of the 16 inches for Yamato), but apparently had 2 to 4 inches more than the Essex's.


----------



## hartmann (Jun 6, 2009)

The Shinano only carried a small part of the armour plating to make room for the hangar/depots. `
By example, the armoured belt was only some 165 mm (when It was 406 mm in the Yamato).

Another thing is that It was sunk by the "Archerfish" by pure luck. It was making way to another port to finish the fitting of equipment for enlistment and It didn´t carry the watertight door bulkheads completed. It didn´t carry the proper fire extinguisher systems completed, and by the way also It didn´t carry the water pumps (also lacked the complete damage control parties). Those four torpedoes wouldn´t have been so dangerous If the shinano would have been finished (It carried the same torpdeo defence system of the Yamato/ Musashi and They whitstood 10-20 torpedoes before sinking). The survivors told very dramatic accounts when they saw that the water started to flood and the watertight door bulkheads didn´t close because They lacked the close doors. It was question of time that all the ship flooded (even They tried to alleviate the flooding by the use of water recipients).

I hope It can help something.

Best regards


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 6, 2009)

Hadn't done her trials, was incomplete,little or no damage control, going slow and coming out of harbour.....a PT boat could have sunk it.


----------



## hartmann (Jun 6, 2009)

Yes, Herrkaluet. 

You can read a very resumed issue in this link:

Nihon Kaigun: Shinano

and:

Imperial Flattops

I read long time ago this in very detailed way. It was very scary and also shocking .

Best regards


----------

