Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/4/2006 8:17:07 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I am thinking about doing a what if scenario, in which Japan either does sign the Washington Naval treaty or demands 1:1 parity with American and Great Britain. Anyhow such scenario would add capital ships to the Japanesse OoB, I have not decide what to do for the Allies with regard to this 'what if'. If anything it may just be a scenario to help the AI.

Anyhow there was an interesting thread about this in the 'What if" section of the Axis histroy forum, that got me to thinking about this. If Japan does not adhere to the treaty potentially the following ships can come into play

Kaga Class as a BB (displacement 39900, 5x2x 16.1" 3rd Year Type, 26.5 knots)
Kaga and Tosa

assumption the Kaga is close to completion, since Japan has either parity or renounces the treaty the 'big gun' navy pushes for completion of the IJN's newest battleship.

Amagi/Akagi Class as CV (going to assume conversion instead of BC)
Amagi - still damaged by Earthquake may use name in lieu of Takao which is a CA
Akagi Atago Takao (ex Ashitaka)

Kii Class Fast BB (displacement 42600 tons, 5x2x 16.1" 3rd Year Type, 29.75 knots)
Kii, Owari, Number 11 hypothetical name Mikawa, Number 12 hypothetical name Chikuzen

Number 13 Class (fast battleship enlarge version of Kii class, 47500 tons, 4x2x 18.1"/45 5th Year Type (Model 1916), 30 knots)
hypothetical names
Tsushima, Izumo, Nemuro, Harima

Granted this would add a considerable number of heavy units, perhaps too many. I suspect I may have to either reduce some numbers or scrap older models such as Fuso, Ise, and perhaps the Kongo classes. From what I have gathered it seems that most of the Japanese captial ships were built at either Kure, Yokosuka, Kawasaki, or Mitsubishi, so potentially these extra units or a modernizaiton program would be too much for Japanese industry. Anyhow I am curious about what people think, and in particular if anyone has ideas on what the AA layout should be for the hypothetical BBs, and an upgrade progression. Likewise if there are better suggestions for ship names, I would appreciate them.

Interestingly enough the ships numbered 11 -16 were cancelled 19 Nov 1923, were as Kii and Owari were not cancelled until 14 April 1924. With regard to the 1:1 parity scenario I was thinking of adding Kaga and Tosa, and then possible Kii and Owari, of course all of these units are over the 35000 ton limit, but I could easily see Japan 'cheating' and with parity Japan could have another 210,000 tons worth of capital ships, or six ships at 35,000 tons. The more interesting ships of course are the number 13 class with 8 x 18.1" guns and 30 knot speed, these are too much of treaty breaker though. So a 1:1 parity scenario then would be Kaga, Tosa, and all four Kii class, or Kaga class, two Kii class, and two Number 13, but come up with a background such as design capable of handling 18.1"/45 5th Year Type (Model 1916) at a later date.

With regard to carriers I would have Japan with 3 CVs of the Akagi class and then the historical ships. The Akagi under went two reconstructions, the first from BC to CV and then a second. Hazegray provides the following

Laid down 6 Dec 1920 at Kure Navy. Cancelled 5 Feb 1922, conversion to carrier started 1923, launched 22 April 1925, commissioned 25 March 1927. Displacement was 29,600 tons standard; 33,821 trial as completed, carried 10 8 inch, 12 4.7 inch, crew of 1,600, 60 aircraft in a dual-level hangar; three flying decks. Reconstructed 10/1935 to 8/1938, 4 8 inch removed, one large flight deck fitted, 14 dual 25 mm added, 36,500 tons standard; 42,750 tons full load, 91 aircraft. The combined fleet website has her speed at 31 knots.

The information is all from www.hazegray.org and www.navweaps.com, so if anyone has more accurate information it would also be appreciated. Likewise if there is any pre-existing artwork it would be apprecaited, for the hypothetical ships. Suggestion for the Allies are welcome. The orginal intent would be for this to be run by a Japanese AI, with a human Allied player. One thing I have not given consideration to is fuel use, how much 'extra' fuel will be required so that the AI does not cripple itself?
Post #: 1
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/4/2006 8:41:08 PM   
RETIRED

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Kansas City, Missouri
Status: offline 		Ladner. The reasons the Japanese signed the Washington Treaty were that the US had made it plain that they were going to answer any Japanese "construction programs"in even greater numbers..., and that the Japanese economy could not support the level of construction it was already committed to. You are living in "la-la land" if you believe Japan could ever achieve "parity". For all their complaining, the Japanese Naval Staff was actually quite pleased with the Washington Treaty. It guaranteed them no worse than a 3:5 ratio against the Americans, which the believed would grow more equal still given the huge distances the US Navy would have to advance through hostile waters to be a threat. And the country didn't go bankrupt.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 2
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/4/2006 8:57:29 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Assuming that Japan did in fact not sign the treaty (see War Plan Orange, after all. That is the whole premise), to maintain any sort of accuracy (not balance, historical accuracy) you would have to include at the very least the six Lexington class Battlecruisers and the six South Dakota class Battleships (The 1920s one with 12-16" guns) for the United States. To include only the Japanese ones would be a complete inaccuracy. Between the two powers, the only one that could have completed the projected ships was the United States.  Japan, at best, could have completed Tosa (already launched in 1921), Kaga, Akagi, and Amagi. The rest would have to be cancelled on the slipways, with the small probability that Atago could be completed in Amagi's place. In addition, Hosho had a sister ship Shokaku, which was cancelled under the 1922 treaty.

From a historical point of view, while Japan was certainly not happy with the 5:5:3 ratio, it new in 1922 it could never achieve parity with the United States. Even if Japan built the same amount of ships that the US did in 1922 the United States, wanting a fleet second to none, would still build more ships. The only result was Japan to accept a reduced ratio on her own (admitting "defeat" as it were) or have it enforced, and thus save some face.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to RETIRED)
Post #: 3
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/4/2006 9:43:55 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I was mostly thinking of a what if, that will end up in more target practice for the Allies come 1943, since this was geared for being an AI Japan mod.  This is not a Japanese fanboi mod, so take it easy RETIRED. 

Tanker I appreciate what you have done with War Plan Orange.  I am not looking to replicate the same, if the premise is flimsy, so be it.  This most likely would be for my own enjoyment and not a sanctioned community mod. 

What I would like is for this thread to get more into a discusison of AA layout, and what if any overhauling would occur with such ships, and how it would impact the overhauls of other ships.  Similarly what would need to be done so that the AI would not run out of fuel running extra heavy units.

I have not even had a chance to open the editor to even see what these changes would do, or what, if any play balancing would have to occur for the Allies.  So if you can bear with an unplausible scenario, and restrict comments to what these ships would look like in terms of AA layout, and how to make the AI not break the game by running out of fuel  it would be appreciated.  I don't wish to hear comments about la-la-land, or any other remarks, this is after all meant to be a Japanese AI mod, for Allied players who want more things to shoot up, knowing you may take some extra lumps in 41/42.  

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/4/2006 9:44:35 PM >

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 4
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/4/2006 9:51:33 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Japan, at best, could have completed Tosa (already launched in 1921), Kaga, Akagi, and Amagi. The rest would have to be cancelled on the slipways, with the small probability that Atago could be completed in Amagi's place.


Just for my own education, how did this fit with the 8:8:8 plan? I have not researched this area, it seems you are implying that were inadequate resources to do this. I know from reading Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Kennedy that Japan was one of the few nations to come out of WWI stronger than when she entered the war. I know little with regard to Japanese industry in the 1920's, I know in general that Japan had incredible economic growth from the 1920s - to 1940s, but even with this she was considerable weaker than the US.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 5
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/5/2006 12:21:47 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		I've written a couple mods like you're talking about. They are fun to create, and very exciting to play. No, they're not historically accurate, but with a decent back-story they can still have somewhat of a historic feel.

One word of caution: be careful when adding carriers to the Jap fleet. If you add too much the first two years become less of a strategic challenge and more of a game of chase (them chasing you).

_____________________________



(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 6
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/5/2006 2:00:56 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Japan, at best, could have completed Tosa (already launched in 1921), Kaga, Akagi, and Amagi. The rest would have to be cancelled on the slipways, with the small probability that Atago could be completed in Amagi's place.


Just for my own education, how did this fit with the 8:8:8 plan? I have not researched this area, it seems you are implying that were inadequate resources to do this. I know from reading Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Kennedy that Japan was one of the few nations to come out of WWI stronger than when she entered the war. I know little with regard to Japanese industry in the 1920's, I know in general that Japan had incredible economic growth from the 1920s - to 1940s, but even with this she was considerable weaker than the US.



It wasn't a complete impossibility, but completing all the projected ships (2 Nagatos, 2 Tosas, 4 Amagis, plus 4 No. 13s) would have all but bankrupted the military. The Army was already under heavy budget cuts, and in 1922 each battalion in the army lost a company, cutting effective strength from 21 to 16 divisions (though still in technically 21 divisions), and in 1926 4 more were deactivated, leaving an effective force equivelant to 12 second rate divisions.

As for the navy, WWI saw improvements in the Japanese economy, but (from Kaigun) as early as 1918 the Japanese Finance Ministry warned that, given the rising cost of each new battleship and battlecruiser in the 8-8 fleet, building all "could spell the death of the Japanese economy."

All of the ships were to be completed in 1927 (The Kagas by 1923, Amagis by 1926, No.13s by 1927), but the earthquake of 1923 would probably have forced the cancellation of at least some or all of the No. 13s.

Though they would all be completed before hand, if by 1918 the financial situation was sketchy, imagine what damage would be done after the 1929 depression? Japan might be forced to scrap or to sell off excess units, or risk the country collapsing.

Not trying to discourage, far from it. After all, WPO has all the ships mentioned above. Resource wise, Japan could have built the ships (their crunch didn't occur until the late 1930s, after all). Financially, however, the last two Amagis and the No. 13s would be iffy, and the resulting oil shortage (more heavy units than in history) would probably force a 1940 war as opposed to 1941.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 7
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/6/2006 9:40:48 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		While your proposal was not an option, the Japanese were almost given a better deal - and were tricked into the one they got.

But it nearly was a different ratio - and we would possibly have agreed to one step beyond what we expected if the trick failed. A Japanese fleet half the size is barely possible - and a third of the size realistic.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 8
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/6/2006 9:41:22 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

While your proposal was not an option, the Japanese were almost given a better deal - and were tricked into the one they got.

But it nearly was a different ratio - and we would possibly have agreed to one step beyond what we expected if the trick failed. A Japanese fleet half the size is barely possible - and a third of the size realistic.



The problem is cost: Japan could not have afforded to build either fleet.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 9
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/6/2006 5:42:33 PM   
RETIRED

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Kansas City, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner

I was mostly thinking of a what if, that will end up in more target practice for the Allies come 1943, since this was geared for being an AI Japan mod.  This is not a Japanese fanboi mod, so take it easy RETIRED. 

Tanker I appreciate what you have done with War Plan Orange.  I am not looking to replicate the same, if the premise is flimsy, so be it.  This most likely would be for my own enjoyment and not a sanctioned community mod. 

What I would like is for this thread to get more into a discusison of AA layout, and what if any overhauling would occur with such ships, and how it would impact the overhauls of other ships.  Similarly what would need to be done so that the AI would not run out of fuel running extra heavy units.

I have not even had a chance to open the editor to even see what these changes would do, or what, if any play balancing would have to occur for the Allies.  So if you can bear with an unplausible scenario, and restrict comments to what these ships would look like in terms of AA layout, and how to make the AI not break the game by running out of fuel  it would be appreciated.  I don't wish to hear comments about la-la-land, or any other remarks, this is after all meant to be a Japanese AI mod, for Allied players who want more things to shoot up, knowing you may take some extra lumps in 41/42.  


In this case, it's pretty simple. Just look at the AAA layouts given to their contemporaries in 1939. NONE of the WW I era capitol ships that were "modernized" in the inter-war years really aquired much in the way of AAA compared to what would be added once the war started. For the Japanese side just look at anything from the Mutsu/Nagato on back---and for the Americans anything from the Colorado's on back (in terms of commisioning). None of them were what you would call decent AAA platforms at the start of WW II..., and during the war only those on the US side even grew close to newer construction. For the Japanese, even the Yamato's, commissioned AFTER WW II started, underwent massive upgrading of their AAA suites.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 10
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 7:46:35 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I was going to use Nagato class as a baseline of sorts, since the Kaga class was an updated Nagato class. The area were I hoped to have discussion would be on the Kii and Number 13 classes. Aside from glancing at some line drawings I know, and the general specifications given on hazegray I know little about these ships. I was highly intrigued that the Japanese had a designs on the books with 5x2x16" at 29 knots and 4x2x18" and 30 knots.

(in reply to RETIRED)
Post #: 11
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 8:11:14 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

I was highly intrigued that the Japanese had a designs on the books with 5x2x16" at 29 knots and 4x2x18" and 30 knots.


What they might wish for, and what they actually get, are different, a lot of the times. This is true for all nations building heavy ships.

Usually, ship specifications are laid out by the naval staff. High mucky-mucks. In the USA, it was the BuOrd, BuEng, CNO, and the War College all having inputs. In the UK, it was First Lord of the Admiralty (a civialian, a.k.a. Churchill), the First Sea Lord, and I forget the third.

These specifications are based on:

1) Expected furture war needs, based on likely opponents, fuel/range, support facility (drydock) sizes, harbor depths.

2) Cost to build.

3) Expected manning level availability.

But as these ship designs get hashed out, changes are made. Always. There hasn't been a warship in modern times that made it to sea without some kind of changes implemented. These changes cost something in tonnage. Shaving armor here, adding/removing guns there, losing a knot of speed, losing steaming range.

For a taste of what I am trying to communicate, check out "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" by Norman Friedman. (He also did one on CV's, and cruisers, and DD's, and Subs, and Auxiliarys, ad nauseum.)

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 12
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 8:49:06 PM   
RETIRED

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Kansas City, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner

I was going to use Nagato class as a baseline of sorts, since the Kaga class was an updated Nagato class. The area were I hoped to have discussion would be on the Kii and Number 13 classes. Aside from glancing at some line drawings I know, and the general specifications given on hazegray I know little about these ships. I was highly intrigued that the Japanese had a designs on the books with 5x2x16" at 29 knots and 4x2x18" and 30 knots.


As Melees pointed out, don't get excited about "designs on the books"----especially Italian and Japanese designs. Take a look at the Heavy Cruisers the Japanese DID build when the Washington Treaty cancelled the BB's. Some very formidible ships on the spec and design sheets. Very fast, heavily armed and well protected (and supposedly all under 10,000 tons, thought they cheated almost from the start.)
What they also were when built to these specs was extreamly unstable (narrow for better length to width ratio---ie speed) and weak in the frames (skimped on to save weight). Every single one of these "new" CA's (except the two Tone's) had to undergo massive re-constructions just like the pre-WW I BB's to make them seaworthy, emerging buldged and reinforced and quite a bit slower than their "designed speed". And as much as 45% OVER their supposed displacement. Japanese designers screwed up A LOT trying to meet the impossible demands of the Navy. The Yamato's were "designed" to be "all-welded construction"...., but wound up needing 3.5 million rivets apiece to keep them together. Take ALL "designs", but especially Japanese designs, with a HUGE "grain of salt.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 13
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 8:54:10 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The Japs had to take a lot of ships back to the yards after a very short time because their ideas didn't work well in practice. The Akagi and Kaga had very short periods of service right after converting to carriers before they were put back in the yards for further modification.

And the multiple flying decks sounded like such a good idea on paper...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to RETIRED)
Post #: 14
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 9:54:41 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

I was highly intrigued that the Japanese had a designs on the books with 5x2x16" at 29 knots and 4x2x18" and 30 knots.


What they might wish for, and what they actually get, are different, a lot of the times. This is true for all nations building heavy ships.

Usually, ship specifications are laid out by the naval staff. High mucky-mucks. In the USA, it was the BuOrd, BuEng, CNO, and the War College all having inputs. In the UK, it was First Lord of the Admiralty (a civialian, a.k.a. Churchill), the First Sea Lord, and I forget the third.

These specifications are based on:

1) Expected furture war needs, based on likely opponents, fuel/range, support facility (drydock) sizes, harbor depths.

2) Cost to build.

3) Expected manning level availability.

But as these ship designs get hashed out, changes are made. Always. There hasn't been a warship in modern times that made it to sea without some kind of changes implemented. These changes cost something in tonnage. Shaving armor here, adding/removing guns there, losing a knot of speed, losing steaming range.

For a taste of what I am trying to communicate, check out "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" by Norman Friedman. (He also did one on CV's, and cruisers, and DD's, and Subs, and Auxiliarys, ad nauseum.)


AMEN. The US had a BB plan for 5 times triple 18 inch guns! Not going to happen - ever.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 15
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 9:57:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Japs had to take a lot of ships back to the yards after a very short time because their ideas didn't work well in practice. The Akagi and Kaga had very short periods of service right after converting to carriers before they were put back in the yards for further modification.

And the multiple flying decks sounded like such a good idea on paper...


This is unfair. It was generally so for all nations. US carriers of the same era also had 8 inch guns - and lousy AA - and multiple flight decks.
And it was not really done quickly - but over years of time. It was new
technology - and evolving - everywhere. Japan ended up with the most powerful carrier force in the world - because their ideas did work.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/7/2006 9:59:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RETIRED: Mostly concur - but Japanese cruisers were not well protected. All had 50mm of turret armor - in spite of what is in WITP tables.

(in reply to RETIRED)
Post #: 17
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 1:37:05 AM   
RETIRED

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Kansas City, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RETIRED: Mostly concur - but Japanese cruisers were not well protected. All had 50mm of turret armor - in spite of what is in WITP tables.


CID I was speaking in terms of comparison with their "Treaty cousins"...., almost none of which set the world on fire in terms of protection. In that comparison, they generally come in in the upper half based on "design" specs. The British concentraited on numbers, the US finally solved the "machinery problem", the French and the Italians couldn't make up their minds just what they wanted (but usually speed was a big issue), and when the Germans finally got involved the opted to "cheat" blatently from the get-go. On paper the Japanese definately came out "lookin' good".

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 2:37:21 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RETIRED: Mostly concur - but Japanese cruisers were not well protected. All had 50mm of turret armor - in spite of what is in WITP tables.


Strange, my primary source gives them only 25mm. - JAPANESE CRUISERS OF THE PACIFIC WAR
By Eric Lacroix, Linton Wells


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 8:10:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RETIRED


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RETIRED: Mostly concur - but Japanese cruisers were not well protected. All had 50mm of turret armor - in spite of what is in WITP tables.


CID I was speaking in terms of comparison with their "Treaty cousins"...., almost none of which set the world on fire in terms of protection. In that comparison, they generally come in in the upper half based on "design" specs. The British concentraited on numbers, the US finally solved the "machinery problem", the French and the Italians couldn't make up their minds just what they wanted (but usually speed was a big issue), and when the Germans finally got involved the opted to "cheat" blatently from the get-go. On paper the Japanese definately came out "lookin' good".



Well said. Because of the superior torpedoes - with reloads - I regard Japanese CAs as the true capital ships of the world - I use battleships to eat cruisers and cruisers to eat battleships! France and Italy had short ranges and lots of enemy ships and airplanes to fear - so speed may have been a wise focus. But as for cheating - and you can measure US cheating because of preserved vessels -

every signatory of the Washington Naval Treaty build ships bigger than officially stated or allowed - in particular in the case that matters - battleships.

Still - Japan cheated in this regard more than other nations - and Germany more than we did. So if the statement is qualified not to imply we didn't cheat, you are still right.

(in reply to RETIRED)
Post #: 20
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 8:12:19 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RETIRED: Mostly concur - but Japanese cruisers were not well protected. All had 50mm of turret armor - in spite of what is in WITP tables.


Strange, my primary source gives them only 25mm. - JAPANESE CRUISERS OF THE PACIFIC WAR
By Eric Lacroix, Linton Wells




And your source is perfectly correct - it is meant to be one inch - and that is indeed 25 mm. I either misremembered or mistyped. There is only a single (and very odd) exception: Katori class training cruisers have 50 mm of turret armor - and NO OTHER kind of armor at all!

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 21
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 11:26:32 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Has anyone seen diagrams, or line drawings that give the layout for the main armament for the Kaga and Kii classes, with 5x2x16.1" main gun armament?  I have seen depictions of these with two turrents forward and three aft on the internet, but I would like to find a more credible source, if possible on a 'what if' design.  I am not a big fan on mid-ship main turrents since that limits firing arcs, not mention having yet another magazine to protect. 

With regard to this what if, I think there would limitations if these ships were built, so what should be scrapped?  In my mind the prime candidates would be the Fuso class, then the Ise class.  I think the Kongo class turned into a decent design, of course this took two, modernization periods to accomplish, which would eat up a significant amount of shipyard capacity. 

I am limited in what I can do right now with my gaming PC, so this mod is for confined to a spreadsheet and coming up with plauasible values for the 'what if' ships.  If anyone has thoughts or opinions on game parameters and assigning 'accurate' values on a what if ships (yes I know this an oxymoron), please let me know your thoughts.

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/9/2006 4:05:48 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 11:29:47 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I found this by the way, which is why I am really enamoured with the number 13 class, this is a real nice drawing, for which I cannot take any credit for, but much credit to the artist.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/9/2006 4:06:49 PM >

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 23
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/8/2006 11:43:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Have you got an URL to go with that drawing, Ladner?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 24
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/9/2006 4:35:00 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: RETIRED


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RETIRED: Mostly concur - but Japanese cruisers were not well protected. All had 50mm of turret armor - in spite of what is in WITP tables.


CID I was speaking in terms of comparison with their "Treaty cousins"...., almost none of which set the world on fire in terms of protection. In that comparison, they generally come in in the upper half based on "design" specs. The British concentraited on numbers, the US finally solved the "machinery problem", the French and the Italians couldn't make up their minds just what they wanted (but usually speed was a big issue), and when the Germans finally got involved the opted to "cheat" blatently from the get-go. On paper the Japanese definately came out "lookin' good".



Well said. Because of the superior torpedoes - with reloads - I regard Japanese CAs as the true capital ships of the world - I use battleships to eat cruisers and cruisers to eat battleships! France and Italy had short ranges and lots of enemy ships and airplanes to fear - so speed may have been a wise focus. But as for cheating - and you can measure US cheating because of preserved vessels -

every signatory of the Washington Naval Treaty build ships bigger than officially stated or allowed - in particular in the case that matters - battleships.

Still - Japan cheated in this regard more than other nations - and Germany more than we did. So if the statement is qualified not to imply we didn't cheat, you are still right.


In the same vein I remember reading somewhere that no US cruiser was sunk by just one torpedo hit. The same cannot be said for other navies in WWII.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 25
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/9/2006 5:51:24 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Going back to playing with minature BB's and such (1/2400 or 1/4800) back in the 80's on the floor or gym, didn't all the major powers, but the USN, have plans for BB's with 20" guns?? 
My German model of this took out the Iowa class BB with one solvo due to a critical hit like the Bismark on the Hood. 

_____________________________


(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 26
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/9/2006 1:01:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well, no. There were various ideas. The biggest USN project I remember was a 1918 design for a BB with five triple 18 inch guns - but the guns were not built. The Japanese actually built a 20 inch gun - we found the barrol at Mururan. Germany planned 18 and 20 inch designs - but never did the weapon work for guns bigger than 16 inch. These were mostly paper studies to show what would be required to protect a captial ship in the 1940s - and began as plans for ships to be built for the NEXT war - with the USA. That is, Germany planned a navy for a war with the USA after dealing with France and UK - basing itself on the Azores and Morocco - and there is considerable confusion about the H class. These ships would not have completed in WWII years in any circumstances - and the plan as a whole (according to Segfried Breyer in his latest series on the German navy) was "utopian" on fuel grounds alone: sans taking a place with lots of oil it could never have trained, much less operated. Putting such ships in a game is fantasy.

The Japanese ships are slightly different: they MIGHT have built SOME of them - the first two classes - Amagi's and Tosas - possibly two of each.
This would most likely have prevented the modernization of the Kongos - and any thought that might be a good idea. It also would have set back carrier development - so not only would Kaga and Akagi not exist as CV - the Hiryu and slightly different Soryu might have completed to a very different design. [Many designs existed for these vessels - most semi-carriers]. Shokaku and Zuikaku probably would have been much later in realization, pushing back Tahio.

On the other side, you might have got a similar US Navy - with 16 inch gun BC in place of Lex and Sara - and delayed Yorktowns and other CV.
There would have been no 12 inch gun BB at all - and the oldest two 14 inch gun ships would have been training ships instead. There might have been 4 Colorados and possibly 2 or 3 Lexingtons and 2 or 3 of the first South Dakota design (arranged so the total is 1 extra Colorado, and 5 of the others for a total of 6 ships - 1.5 times the Japanese 4). UK would have had a problem financially matching these figures, but likely would have built a pair of its cancelled capital ships. Bearn would have been a BB and likely would have had a sister - with their strange quad turret arrangement.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 27
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/9/2006 3:33:05 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Have you got an URL to go with that drawing, Ladner?



As requested, you may have to register though, which does not cost anything.

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104&mforum=warshipprojects&sid=8b06bea2b59f0966b08c91d08127a30c

The forum, above is a nice board, I found some very interesting drawings, artwork and discussions on this board. The members are very knowledgeable, although there is not a large amount of activity there, in comparrison to this forum.

I found the following, there as well, it is a design that never went into produciton for the Kreigsmarine, it would have been interesting if the Bismarck class had been built to this standard. It is one of the reasons why I keep harping for a game engine with the level of detail of WitP but covering both the European and Pacific theaters.

The KW 50 class was an actual design, the documents were captured after the war and currently at the US Naval Academy archives. The statistics are as follows:

displacement: 50,000 tons
length: 984'
beam: 121'
draught: Unknown
speed: 35 knots
Armament: 8-15"/52 (4 x 2)
Secondary: 12-5.9"/55 (4 x 3) similar to the Littorio class
AA Tertiary: 8-4.1"/65 (4 x 2)
Torpedo armament: 8-21" tubes Same as KW45
Armor Belt: 11.8"
Deck: Unknown





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/9/2006 3:45:42 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 28
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/9/2006 3:46:42 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		That's where that was from? Okay, just registered yesterday...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 29
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/9/2006 3:56:41 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I strongly encourage members of this forum to check out

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?sid=ed1daf7f240ea01f60b71a746ef34cab&mforum=warshipprojects

which is the Warship Projects Discussion Boards 3.0. I have found this to be a good resource.


With regard to the H-class I think once you get beyond the early designs, which were in fact laid down, ony to be scrapped on the ways in early 1939, these ships are completely unfeasible. I think the final iterations would have been larger than the USS Nimitz. I posted above about the KW45-KW50 'battle-cruiser' designs, which in my mind are much more interesting ships, due to their speed, I think these had rather unique design features, the hull form had characteristics that would operate on the same principal as jet-ski, if I recall correctly, and they would have had five screws. Of course as RETIRED has noted it is a far cry to have drawings and paper specs and an actual working ship that meets the design specification.

Anyhow getting back topic, I seem to recall that someone made a statement that there was a corrollary between displacement and the durability rating of ship in the database.


< Message edited by ladner -- 8/9/2006 4:17:59 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875