Slitherine

quote:



15* P-43-A2 (6/42) > P-40N (4/43) [these are "Chinese" - representing diversions to the CAF]

+

15* P-39D (6/42) > P-39K (12/42) > P-39Q (3/43) > P-63 (9/44)

15* P-40F (6/42) > P-40M (11/42) > P-40P (7/43)

15* A-20C (6/42) > A-20H (6/44)

15* B-25D (6/42) > B-25J (10/44)

+

15* F4F-4 (6/42) > F6F-3 (4/43) > F6F-5 (7/44)

15* TBF-1 (6/42) > TBM-3 (10/44)

15* SBD-4 (6/42) > SBD-5 (5/43)

+

5* PBY-5 (6/42)

5* R4D (3/42)

5* C-47 (5/42)

quote:



15* Hurricane IIa (6/42) > Spitfire Vb (2/43) > Spitfire IX (11/43)

15* Kittyhawk IA (6/42) > Kittyhawk III (11/42) > Kittyhawk IV (7/43)

15* DB-7B (6/42) > A-20C (9/43) > Mitchell III (6/44)

15* Wellington Ic (6/42) > Wellington X (2/43) > Mosquito B.23 (1/45)

5* Sunderland I (6/42) > Sunderland III (2/44) > Sunderland V (2/45)

5* Dakota II (6/42)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I have side and shill for the Jean Bart AAA version. Its a killer over 4k AAA value

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I like the development paths presented. Seems to me to be somewhat balanced and a decent cross-section of needed airframes. Thoughts:

2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

SKYLAND: Go ahead and add the aircraft. Please let us now when your work is done and sent to FatR. Do you need artwork for the planes? We have a couple of art volunteers so don't be shy.

• Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
• Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
  
• Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
  
• Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
• Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific

quote:

ORIGINAL: xwraith

I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:

• Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
• Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
  
• Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
  
• Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
• Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific

Some potential (a)historical justifications:

Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xwraith

I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:

• Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
• Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
  
• Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
  
• Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
• Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific

Some potential (a)historical justifications:

Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

I would love to see some Morane-Saulnier 406s. Maybe a squadron or two could get some Dewoitine 520s sometime? The Bloch 170s and Amiot 350 series weren't bad 2E light bombers either.

Didn't the French have a nice naval dive bomber? A Loire-Nieuport?

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.

This is correct. The Japanese argue successfully at Washington for a ratio of 5:5:3.5 as they hoped for. Essentially figure a failed codebreaking situation OR Secretary Hughes showing flexibility (as he did IRL) to get the Treaty completed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Skyland: How are things coming along?

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think we have the same book in our library's.

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(