RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding

Message

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/16/2011 8:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Like using the Scen C version of Da Babes. They have already said it is OK to use it so it seems appropriate. Don't think we should get more carried away then where we are with the new BBs until we have settled onto everything else. If time allows I am going to create the Japanese 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circle Plans as we have designed them. Want to make sure everything is good there and we agree then the warship side of this is settled. We can move to IJN Air and LCU as well as IJA Air and LCU. On the IJN LCU side of things I think we should examine the SNLF units as well as BF. The units that are able to combine into one IRL are pretty strong. I would propose we create some sort of lean and mean equivalent to the Marine CD Battalion. Perhaps about 3,000 men with CD, Engineers, some Artillery, and strong Infantry. Call it an Atoll Defense Force. The Japanese would start with several created and get a steady stream of them as reinforcements during 1942/1943. Additionally more small SNLF Coy and IJN BF Coy for providing minor garrisons and AF capability across the Pacific. Where are all the men going to come from? We have a lot more IJN ships coming on line, and SNLF people are naval personnel, so I think we're looking at an either/or situation.

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/16/2011 9:30:58 PM)
Attached is a .zip file with side and shil for the A-140 battleship. Try not to lose it.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/16/2011 10:14:37 PM)
Thanks for the art again, Terminus! I'd like to think things through fist and start writing them down later, but, knowing myself, I fear that I might start forgetting things before we're done... As about manpower for extra garrizon units, the most expedient and least politically volatile solution probably is not for IJN to hog as much responsibilities as it can, but to ask the Army nicely for South Seas Garrizon units as soon as hostilities begin (and begin favorably). Hopefully in this alternative logistical problems, associated with difference in weapon systems, should be much reduced. TOE upgrades for existing SNLFs, reflecting their shift towards island defence units, also might be scheduled.

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/16/2011 10:41:13 PM)
I think you have to be REALLY careful assuming any sort of cooperation between the IJA and IJN. The inter-service loathing was legendary, and there's no realistic way to reduce it dramatically.

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/16/2011 11:54:36 PM)
Anyhoo, converting the various SNLFs to defence battalions is obvious. Have them withdraw at some point and come back with a defence battalion TOE. SNLFs are offensive units and at some point, Japan WILL have to go defensive.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 1:41:11 AM)
That was my exact thought Sir. We'll have lots of CD guns from the upgrades done to warships during the war so we're good there as well.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 3:13:43 PM)
One last note on battleships: I believe the art for Kaga-class battleships and fast Ise/Fuso conversions I've found in my install directory, actually belongs to JuanG. It seems I thought his Enhanced mods are gone after reinstalling the game in the same directory. Stupid me. So, Juan, can we use it? Pretty please[:)]? Returning to Japanese cruisers as promised. After more deliberations and reading, I think there are two exceedingly obvious attempts to cheat their way out of treaties in the previously proposed program. First is building exact same ships as CAs and CLs. This will raise too many questions about the class that already is one of the most egregious treaty violations. Second is downgrading old CAs to CLs. While technically not forbidden, this is likely to elicit appropriate response from other nations, something that is undesirable. This does not mean, that it can't be done. Historically the four second-class CAs underwent their reconstructions with replacing of the main armament starting from summer of 1936. So they can be rearmed to 9x155 before the war, they cannot really be used to free more tonnage to CAs under the London treaty. Meanwhile, mikemike's proposal on picking another prototype for Japanese 155mm cannons enables us to create CLs that are practically as good as CAs. So, at the moment I think that, first, the Mogami division should be built as IRL, except with these better cannons, and never convert to CAs. Furutaka, Kako, Aoba and Kinugasa should be rearmed to 155mm cannons during their reconstruction in the second half of thirties. However, this means, that Japan, with more lenient Washington treaty, will have a bit more free tonnage in both CA and CL categories, but not enough by far to form a full cruiser division of either, moreover, until about 1935 and the decision to leave the treaties, they will have to struggle with the fact that anything more ambitions than Mogami is a too brazen tonnage limit violation... What to build, and what can be built, then? I'll need to read a bit more to formulate a modified proposal. Will be glad to hear any ideas meanwhile.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 3:22:48 PM)
If I clearly understand what you are saying it is: 1. The 4 Mogami's come in as 6" CLs with 5 triple turrets. AND 2. The 4 Aoba's convert to CLs with 3x3 6" turrets as well. The Aoba conversion would free up 32,000T for CA. If correct the Treaty Tonnage would allow for three more Takao CAs. Japan would start with 8 solid CLs and have several new CAs. This seems good to me.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 3:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd If I clearly understand what you are saying it is: 1. The 4 Mogami's come in as 6" CLs with 5 triple turrets. AND 2. The 4 Aoba's convert to CLs with 3x3 6" turrets as well. The Aoba conversion would free up 32,000T for CA. If correct the Treaty Tonnage would allow for three more Takao CAs. Japan would start with 8 solid CLs and have several new CAs. This seems good to me. No, I'm not saying that. I've stated that CA->CL conversion of old cruisers is an obvious way to cheat the treaty, and will cause response by other fleets. We don't want that. But IRL funds for reconstruction of these cruisers with replacing their main guns were only available from 1936 and later. So we can still reconstruct them as CLs. We just can't use this to free tonnage in the first half of thirties. So, at the moment I'm studying the Lacroix/Wells Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War to see what can be built on tonnage left by modified Washington treaty, besides a division of Mogamis.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 4:20:05 PM)
Got that book. It is valuable.

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 4:49:28 PM)
Wrong. It's INvaluable...[;)]

JWE -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 5:59:03 PM)
Ok, here's the oddball, doing the usual. Mission, mission, mission, mission !! Folks did not build ships just because they could. Navy's had missions and built ships to support the missions. They didn't build ships and then find missions for them. Your basic Japanese CL was a DesDiv leader, C3I stuff. The CA was the 'punch' that broke the defensive screen, to allow the DDs to conduct the long range attrition attacks with torps. And then the CA was a desperate substitute for the BB line. So Japanese CA's were definitionally/doctrinally 'fleshy'. Their CLs were definitionally/doctrinally 'wimpy' (if compared to a Boise). The Brits wanted unlimited CLs because they had a global empire to patrol. And the operative word is patrol. They wanted range and a skoosh more gun power than a local PB or DD. Show the flag, cruiser diplomacy. US had some global reach too. So the paradigm for a pre-war CL was an Omaha, or an Enterprise, or a Dido, or such like. The Brooklyn was simply a direct response to the Mogami. The Brooklyn was 6" guns on an almost CA hull, and had no independent mission whatever, except to confront Mogamis. Talk about dogs and tails, woof! Japan had no global imperitives. She was highly localized to the Western Pacific, so can't be allowed to use US or UK hindsight to define her building program. There was no "use" for a gnarly CL in Japanese thought. There was no mission for these ships. To the extent they were built, it was only because they were CAs in disguise. The Japanese model for naval warfare was a battleline, CAs as cover and point for DDs as attritional squadrons. Was it me, I would do a finger at the treaty and build what I wanted. If I had the bucks and yards, I would build a poopload of DDs and nominal escort types. I would forget all about CL types, as essentially useless. Just me. [8D] Ciao. John

JuanG -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/17/2011 7:49:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR So, Juan, can we use it? Pretty please[:)]? Feel free. Anything from my scenarios and arts is free to used, so no need to even ask. I may have a new peice of art for Kaga sometime this autumn if I redo the shipside for AltWNT. Regarding CL's, I feel that they have to conform to one of these 2 purposes; 1)CA replacement (ie. Mogami with 15x155mm -> maybe intended to be regunned, but trials show the value of a faster firing caliber) 2)DD leader (which if built in the late 20s / early 30s, is likely to look like an evolution of the Yubari; 3x2x140mm in twins?)

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 12:01:36 AM)
I understand where you are coming from, JWE. I disagree, though, that discarding treaties can be beneficial to Japan in the long term. So the task of cheating one's way to a worthwhile combat ship remains on the table for post-Takaos cruiser building. Building a division of Mogamis with 155mm weapons is the way of doing it, likely to provoke the least response, so it will be done. Also, as you've noted yourself, Mogamis impacted USN's ship design - while it probably will be beneficial for Japs if USN sticks with its CAs designs, rather than Brooklyns and their successors, I'd prefer less sweeping deviations from reality (plus, taking Boise from AFBs is just too cruel[:)]). The question is - to change turrets or not, and if not, why the decision is different from RL? So, about the mission statement. It my, perhaps inaccurate, opinion, RL Japanese decisions regarding armament of their ships, were thoroughly dominated by the doctrinal expectations of a major daylight battle between IJN and USN. Despite heavy training for night fighting, it was not prioritized in armament design. Instead, torpedoes and main calibre guns on cruisers and destroyers were primarily optimized for long-range artillery duels. Even their RL 155/60 gun had ballistics quite similar to 203mm 3rd Year (at the expense of quite similar ROF). However, in this alternative, adherents of the Decisive Battle hold much lesser sway in upper circles of the fleet. By the time Mogamis' turrets were changed IRL, in particular, greater emphasis will be placed on night actions, as a result of greater influence of the carrier faction and approriately greater recognition of the aviation's role during the day. Moreover, possibilities of strike-and-retire night raids, aimed at gradual attrition of the enemy fleet, will be considered even earlier. Accordingly, priorities in picking armament will be different, which is already quite noticeable in what I'm proposing for destroyers. I'll write more on differences in the fleet armament tomorrow. To Juan: thanks. Let us know, if you redo the art, it will be much appreciated.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 2:05:05 AM)
Nice summation of Japanese Doctrine JWE! Well said in only a few short paragraphs. I think FatR is right in thinking about the new direction the Fleet takes away from the "Decisive Battle" Doctrine of the Torp Assault during the prior evening leading the great Battleline brawl the following day. if the Japanese adopt a more attritional view then their shipbuilding requirements/vision changes. There is still a strong Fleet faction but the Attritional/CV boys have won the fight prior to Dec 7th. How big of impact does that have is question and where does it lead the building AFTER Japan leaves the Treaties?

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 9:53:47 AM)
I personally think you shouldn't bother with additional Jap CL's at all; John's right about them being missionless. If you need to have leaders for destroyer squadrons, you can have DD leader classes.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 10:27:41 AM)
I think Mogamis are de-facto CAs with either armament configuration, and will be used as such, similarly to USN's "light" cruisers. I really don't like the idea of total main calibre changes for twenty turrets, because it's super expensive, probably worth an extra cruiser. Furutaka and Kako (Aoba and Kinugasa to a much lesser extent) need to have their main guns changed before the war, because their old ones are too obsolete compared to armament of the later treaty cruisers. But doing it to newer cruisers is a waste, that should be avoided if possible. EDIT: And frankly, looking at comparative characteristics of 155/60 and 203/50 #2 as presented by Lacroix/Wells, I'm wondering more and more why Japanese bothered with replacing former with the latter at all, even with their existing doctrine. Effective practical range of fire is 5 rounds per minute vs. 2-3. Effective broadside weight is therefore 4200 kg vs 3780. Armor penetration is considerably lower (though the gap is not as big for very long-range fire), but so is dispersion at long ranges. Just equip 155/60 installation with ammo hoists capable of sustaining its theoretical maximum ROF for short-distance night battles... The only big advantage of 203/50 I see is that there is no tactical safe zone from it for American cruisers, except for CAs past Wichita at all - by the time they're far enough for their main belts to withstand its hits, most shells will be impacting the deck. Not sure if this is true in the game. 155/60 cannot boast this - at medium ranges, around 15km, it will be ineffective. I'm honestly not sure if this advantage is big enough to outweight other factors, as stated above.

oldman45 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 1:22:56 PM)
Something made them go with the 8" perhaps it was because everybody else had 8". I know that sounds silly but if all the other world heavy cruisers were armed with them.....

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 3:06:39 PM)
Well, I agree that in principle having a gun that can perforate enemy ships of the same class over all possible engagement rangers is better. However, I question practicality of switching to it, once a passable substitute is already produced and installed. The resources that they sank into rearming Mogamis would go a long way towards turning the RL pair of post-treaty cruisers into a full division. There also will be no use for the old 155mm turrets from Mogamis in this alternative (need to utilize which also impacted Japanese designs too much, IMO), unless we want to equip old 6-gun cruisers with them. If we don't want to (i.e., if Mogamis are not rearmed), old CAs should keep 203mm armament, even though they won't be able to contribute on the level of newer CAs in combat. It appears that Aoba and Kinugasa had only guns themselves replaced in late thirties, not turrets, so making new turrets and reconstructing magazines for all four 6-gun CAs will increase the cost of modernization considetably past RL figures, and if we rearm only Kako and Furutaka, then we'll destroy homogeneity of one of our cruiser divisions.

JWE -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 5:26:29 PM)
Just for grins and giggles here's some penetration plots for the 155/60 (maroon) and the 203/50 (black), both shooting a Type 91. Evaluated them both against Brit Cemented, and US Class A. Penetration a skoosh higher against Brit Cemented armor, but not much. Plots from Nathan Oakun's latest and greatest. Used 'Effective Limit', where a shell 'usually' retains its fuse and explosive filler cavity intact. The extra lines at bottom right are deck penetration. These are the absolute best case penetration calculations for 'Eff". Assumes the target ship is at 90 degrees, such that only vertical obliquity is a factor. Horizontal deflection will reduce the penetration values by the sine (or cosine, if you will) of the deflection angle, accordingly. Don't have any thoughts one way or the other for either of these guns. Just thought it would be fun to show the plots. Just fyi, the 203/50 could penetrate the belt of a New Orleans at 20k yards. The 155/60 must close to 12k yards to do that deed. And that's only if the target body was at 90 degrees to the flight of the shell. I frikkin love ballistics. Woof !! Ciao. John [image]local://upfiles/17451/E79AC1B2475A4B049CCF1F6063907434.jpg[/image]

Terminus -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 5:34:56 PM)
You gunbunny, you...[;)]

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 6:03:53 PM)
To quote the Joker regarding John's above Posts: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?!" Going by what was described earlier, would the penetration distance drop down to 12.000 Yards be cared about by the new Japanese paradigm of Night Attritional warfare? One would certainly be inclined to say it will be a close fight ANYWAY so why change things. Can save money that way and still get plenty of BANG for the buck.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 6:25:49 PM)
Late in the war 12k is not sufficent. At Sibuyan Sea the gun duel started at over 20k yards (Yamashiro was able to target American cruisers and actually achieved straddles with her main calibre, but was too catastophically outgunned to survive long enough for scoring a hit). Early in the, war, it is probably enough. But 203mm is still preferable, because it can perform decently in any realistic situation, and does not have weaknesses outside of an optimal scenario. The only question is, again, can increase in efficiency justify the cost? EDIT: And take note that requirement to make turret rings on Mogamis suitable for 203mm turrets was not actually fulfilled, and a new turret had to be designed for them... I shall note again, that we also have an alternative proposal from mikemike - to base a 6in weapon for new cruisers on this (some units might have been delivered to Japan by WWI reparations): http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_59-45_tbts.htm and create a rapid-firing 155mm gun. For the record, French copied that German gun exactly to solve the problem of low ROF with Welin breech-block (which RL 155/60 also used). I'm not sure if the same design decisions are applicable to a much heavier and more powerful weapon, though. I also want to say, that London treaty sure screwed with Japanese warship design... Thankfully, we have a bit more of free displacement in this alternative, so maybe the attempts to squeeze two litres into an one-litre can will be not so radical. I'll try to figure out a new proposal by tomorrow.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/18/2011 6:58:32 PM)
[:'(] Your summation of the London Treaty's impact of warship design is spot-on and made me laugh! Just compiled all the ships authorized by all the Circle Plans as well as the small accleration/SS plans put forth in 1940/1941. Will put all this out and compare it to what--I think--we have decided.

Dibbura -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/19/2011 12:39:41 PM)
It�s more like question about AA. But German has 2 cm Flakvierling 38, which is based on the statistics is better than 25mm AA gun So, why would the Japanese do not adopt it? But maybe I'm missing something and I�m wrong. Ps. German also has 5 cm FlaK 41 [;)]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/19/2011 1:52:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura It�s more like question about AA. But German has 2 cm Flakvierling 38, which is based on the statistics is better than 25mm AA gun So, why would the Japanese do not adopt it? But maybe I'm missing something and I�m wrong. Ps. German also has 5 cm FlaK 41 [;)] Like virtually all German weapons, they was manufactured to extreamly high tolerances and specs. Japan lacked the machine tools and the industrial capability/capacity to do much of this type of production. It's not just a matter of obtaining the blueprints. It's the same with the Allies. Britian invented pennicyllin (sic) and the cavaty (sic) magnitron, but couldn't produce either in large amounts. Fortunately she had the US as a partner that could produce both in massive quanities (enough to share).

Dibbura -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/19/2011 2:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura It�s more like question about AA. But German has 2 cm Flakvierling 38, which is based on the statistics is better than 25mm AA gun So, why would the Japanese do not adopt it? But maybe I'm missing something and I�m wrong. Ps. German also has 5 cm FlaK 41 [;)] Like virtually all German weapons, they was manufactured to extreamly high tolerances and specs. Japan lacked the machine tools and the industrial capability/capacity to do much of this type of production. It's not just a matter of obtaining the blueprints. It's the same with the Allies. Britian invented pennicyllin (sic) and the cavaty (sic) magnitron, but couldn't produce either in large amounts. Fortunately she had the US as a partner that could produce both in massive quanities (enough to share). Yes, but if we're talking about an earlier change in history. Why in 1935-1939 Japan not to buy machinery and equipment. Just machines, not even a military order. Even before the war, Russian received a large number of German and then American machinery, Assembly lines entirely ... So why Japan don�t buy?... Raise the level of industrial production quality ... Send Engineers to learn ... Yes, this requires the state will, but it think it�s possible ... Construct with the aid of German or even France another wind tunnel. It�s also can be a civil order in 1936, and so on� Equipment for the production of synthetic fuels. Simply the best refinery equipment. Better metalworking. I think that before a certain year we can safely buy from America, at last civil orders ... Just to make state the idea of buying the most advanced machine and not too worry about national pride [;)]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/19/2011 2:49:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura Yes, but if we're talking about an earlier change in history. Why in 1935-1939 Japan not to buy machinery and equipment. Just machines, not even a military order. Even before the war, Russian received a large number of German and then American machinery, Assembly lines entirely ... So why Japan don�t buy?... Raise the level of industrial production quality ... Send Engineers to learn ... Yes, this requires the state will, but it think it�s possible ... Construct with the aid of German or even France another wind tunnel. It�s also can be a civil order in 1936, and so on� Equipment for the production of synthetic fuels. Simply the best refinery equipment. Better metalworking. I think that before a certain year we can safely buy from America, at last civil orders ... Just to make state the idea of buying the most advanced machine and not too worry about national pride [;)] It would have to have been a lot earlier, and much more widespread. When Japan emerged from total isolation, the goal of her rulers was to make her a player on the world stage. To do so, she had to concentrate her limited resources on heavy industry for military development..., which led to a very narrow industrial base. There was vertually no "consumer economic" development (except in narrow segments for export). Compared to the US or Western Europe there was little infastructure developement except to support heavy industry. It's not that the Japanese were dumb or incompetant, but when you are trying to build a first class military on a third class resource base, you have so specialize in narrow areas. She did what she could, but simply did not have the breath of economic development to support more. Had Japan chosen to develope on a broader base, there could have been no military toys for her leaders to play with. She didn't have the luxury of "guns and butter". The cost of buying an "assembly line" from the US would have meant cancelling a Yamato..., and the military wasn't going to do that.

Dibbura -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/19/2011 2:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 It would have to have been a lot earlier, and much more widespread. When Japan emerged from total isolation, the goal of her rulers was to make her a player on the world stage. To do so, she had to concentrate her limited resources on heavy industry for military development..., which led to a very narrow industrial base. There was vertually no "consumer economic" development (except in narrow segments for export). Compared to the US or Western Europe there was little infastructure developement except to support heavy industry. It's not that the Japanese were dumb or incompetant, but when you are trying to build a first class military on a third class resource base, you have so specialize in narrow areas. She did what she could, but simply did not have the breath of economic development to support more. Had Japan chosen to develope on a broader base, there could have been no military toys for her leaders to play with. She didn't have the luxury of "guns and butter". The cost of buying an "assembly line" from the US would have meant cancelling a Yamato..., and the military wasn't going to do that. Maybe yes, maybe no. To be honest I think it's possible, but this is my personal opinion ... You can sell an aircraft carrier to the Germans [;)]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/19/2011 3:51:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura Maybe yes, maybe no. To be honest I think it's possible, but this is my personal opinion ... You can sell an aircraft carrier to the Germans [;)] You have to have "hard currancy" to buy on the international market. Japan had trouble finding enough exports to support her need for foriegn oil and scrap metal. Unlike Russia, she had no massive reserves of oil and minerals to export to get "hard currancy", and nobody wanted the yen. It's econ 101. Ass to selling something to the Germans, what makes you think they'd want to buy it? Nazi egotism being what it was, they'd assume they could design and build a better one. If they'd had any real cooperation in this area they might have bought the design for the Zero. Imagine the Battle of Britian if the Germans had had a few squadrons of fighters that could loiter over England ALL DAY instead of 20 minutes....

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.171997