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

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? (8/11/2011 3:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stringbag and on Brits... Ark Royal survives to serve in pacific Skua II remains in production/service as carrier DB only (maybe a Skua III can be dreamed up!) RN gets enough F4F's to equip all carriers before December 7th RN adopts deck parking in Med and Indian ocean in 42 RN agrees to send two carriers + extra escorts to Aus in early 42, as requested by King. Churchill regretted not doing this! RN build 16" Lion's rather than 14" KGV's Operation Crusader pushes Rommel back to Tunisia in '42 (bit far fetched that one!) - more spit Vs and wellingtons sent earlier - maybe some more Brit and Indian units from mid east in mid 42. The two squadrons of Westland Whirlwind's in UK sent to Colombo to provide some long range air cover for Eastern Fleet. Might be easier and more accurate to simply re-deploy some of the assets already on hand. Say Percival realized that without hope of recieving the 500 modern A/C called for, it was senseless to maintain a position in Northern Malaya. So he blows up the airfields and assumes dug-in positions farther south. Or MacArthur pulls his head out and decides that a good portion of the training of his PA units should consist of using the shovels they have to dig with instead of to simulate rifles for drill...., increasing the fort levels at Bataan and other locations. There are a bunch of "reasonable adjustments" that could be made without changing the historic troops available, but just by moving them around.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/11/2011 3:16:47 PM)
You guys are FUNNY! Of course we're going to bring new tricks and treats to the Allied side. We've already talked about Allied on board production control (or at least some), more dedicated training squadrons, and additional ships (all Alaska's and more BBs). The discussion has also hit on a differing ship placement with more warships starting in the DEI. Don't think we have a lot of changes that have to be made but it sure will be fun to make it interesting for BOTH sides. [sm=00000030.gif] We've first got see what is done for ALL of Japan before we can go that direction. This is going to be a massively changed Mod compared to RA but we have to settle on one side's changes before moving to the other. This being said, keep throwing out the ideas for the Dark Side though and we'll come back to them. [:D]

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/11/2011 3:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Beppi: VERY interesting idea. Is this something possible? Mike: WELCOME to the contributions for building the Mod! I LIKE your idea regarding this. Your comment of an "Albertu Speerakaku" made me darned well spew my tea as I watched Paula make breakfast up here at 9,500Ft. [sm=00000289.gif] FatR---What do you think about this? BOTH ideas provide some serious potential along the lines of making both sides happy. I'm a bit busy at the moment. Will try to read through all new posts and give necessary answer by tomorrow. As about the Allied response which was mentioned here - it will be included, but for now we're talking only in the most general terms about it.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/11/2011 3:54:16 PM)
Stanislav and I have been busy this week. He is at a concealed and classsified location while I've been swatting bugs, hiking, fishing, and going into Steamboat Springs for a bit of fun.

FatR -> RE: ideas (8/12/2011 2:38:28 PM)
So, I'm back. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura Tank stuff. In general: not that much can be done here, taking into account RL technical possibilities, and taking Japanese tank forces further in the direction of Panzerwaffe-45 is not something that should be prioritized even assuming extra resources. There is a reason, why Japanese tank production took a dive past 1942. Off the top of my head I can't remember any Pacific War operation in which the outcome would have been changed by replacing all Jap tanks with late-war with Pz.IV (anything heavier would have been very logistically and tactically difficult to use in all of the existing theatres). quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura 1. Analyze the experience of war. From Spain, Poland and so on… And for the first part of war, especially Battle of France and Battle of Britain. RL Japanese tank forces, at least their part initally meant for use against China and USSR, already were patterned on pre-1941 German tank forces in terms of tactics and technology. The combination of tanks with low-ballistics anti-infantry guns and smaller-callibre high-ballistics anti-tank guns directly followed the German example. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura 2. Analyze economic, technological innovations. 3. Negotiate for purchase and closer collaboration. Already done to the extent allowed by Japanese capabilities and intermittent communications between the countries. Of course, it was focused primarily on more vital things, like aviation. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura 1. Assault Gun. Not a single assault gun, as Germans meant this term, was built by Japanese during the war. IRL they only built self-propelled guns and tank destroyers with anti-bullet armor (the 150mm SP Ho-Ro howitzer was theoretically ready for production in 1940, the 75mm Type 1 tank destroyer and the 105mm Type 1 howitzer in 1942). Why such paradigm shift, even not taking into account the technical possibility? Which seems very dubious, considering low production run of the designs listed above. It is not like combatting the Allied tank flood was the top priority for Japan, as it was for Germany. Even placing greater importance on anti-tank duties, the only German TD design useful for Japanese even as an inpsiration will be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer And I mean as an inspiration for something that can at least theoretically be built on the chassis of the obsolete Type 97 tank. But it was designed rather late in the war. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura 2. More and dedicated AT weapons 47 mm AT evolve to 50 mm evolve to 75mm and then to 90mm+ This can be done by buying same machine for production in Germany. Non-SP AT guns bigger than 50mm are quite difficult to move on the battlefiled, and those bigger than 75mm are practically stationary (can only really change positions by tractor or horses, which is not really an option in the heat of combat, and even less of an option in various island holes). In those cases when the enemy is sufficiently incompetent or overconfident to fail at suppressing such big and immobile direct-fire weapons, it is better to just use flak guns in AT role. Japanese weren't able to produce nearly enough of even their 47mm AT guns anyway. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura 3. Flame tanks You have a point here, but building specialized flame tanks, particularly on the chassis of your second-best mass-produced tank, requires having enough normal tanks for the immediate tasks. It is a luxury which Japanese didn't have IRL. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura Well Japan can make same improvement just from close observation of European War Theater. But, if the cooperation was better: Japan can buy all technology and maybe even 1 assembly line for Panzer III in 1941 and for Panzer IV in 1943. Japan already had the tank equal or slightly better than contemporary versions of Pz.III in late 1940 - 1941 - Type 1 medium. In the middle of 1943, Type 3 tank was ready for production, and it was worse than contemporary versions of Pz.IV mostly thanks to overall technological inferiority of the Japanese industry. The problem was in producing either in any significant numbers and rapidly enough, then making them reach the front. There were some dubious consruction decisions, of course, like stubborn dislike of coaxial MG mounting and failure to introduce belt-fed MGs until the end of the war, but the main problem was general lack of production capabilities. As a side note, both of these tanks are understatted in the game. Following the formula used for other tanks, they should have Armor rating of 60-70. RL problem wasn't that they were too bad, it was inability to actually crank them out, and then make them reach the front. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura 5. Infantry Cooperation with German instructors ... Licensed production of MG 34/MG 42… These will only be available in homeopathic doses, at best. Japanese did try to produce German MGs for the most important roles they had - for installation airplanes - and the production was insufficient. Also, IJA is already facing the herculean task of switching its infantry calibre from 6.5 to 7.7, which IRL wasn't complete by the end of the war (granted, using any remotely serviceable old weapons to arm newly raised troops late in the war didn't help). The only things that are up to discussion here (at least without really in-depth knowledge of Japanese firearms and infantry weapons, which I don't possess), is (a) developing a maximally cheap all-metal SMG design, and producing it in large numbers, instead of mostly disregarding SMGs. Would have helped somewhat in night attack (b) distributing heavier mortars among infantry regiments, instead of keeping them in separate units. quote: ORIGINAL: Dibbura A bit more half-tracks and maybe creation of small but real mechanized force, with specialized half-tracks (small AT guns, flamethrowers, small inf. guns etc.) Mechanized mobile groups from the elements of 3rd Tank Division were successfully deployed in 1944 against Chinese.

FatR -> RE: Proto-Shokaku (8/12/2011 3:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike The APDs: The T1 design is already not that much smaller than a Shiratsuyu. On a platform of that size, if you switch to a two-shaft plant with more power than the T1 had, you would be cutting deep into the cargo space. In fact, just going to the full Matsu plant would probably eliminate most of it. Taking half the Shiratsuyu plant for a single-shaft design, you would need to use the Shiratsuyu size hull to get enough interior cargo space. How about a Shiratsuyu-sized hull with the kind of modifications the T1 had, especially that roller ramp at the stern for smooth launching of loaded Daihatsus, and a two-shaft plant with 15000-16000 HP, not in unit arrangement to save space. Should be good for about 25 kts. A good comment about APDs design. As about other stuff, see the answer on weapons below. quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike Strange that the 120/45 doesn't have better ballistics in comparison to the 127/40, with a longer barrel and 20% more propellant, although navweaps remarks that initially, the charge didn't combust completely before the shell left the barrel - which was remedied later by using a different grain to the powder. Going by navweaps.com stats, it does have somewhat better ballistics, both AA ceiling and range are greater. quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike So why didn't they just design the 127/50 in the same style? Because it was intended as anti-surface, not as a DP gun like the others? Yes, it was a primarily anti-surface gun. It was supposed to have anti-air capabilities, but these proved so limited, that they were completely dropped on mid-30s DD designs. 120/45 Type 10 and 127/40 were intended primarily as flak guns. quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike Wait a minute. You want to drop the 120mm Tenth Year, so the 127/40 would need to come out first, in 1926. Not entirely, just no re-start of its production during the war. Alternatively, a more ambitious program, which your comments on 127/50 made me think about, is sticking with 120mm calibre after the short deviation for Special Type destroyers (to maintain the link with reality and avoid excessive skipping of RL design specs). The point of deviation here should be choosing to use 120/45 gun as the part of Type 89 AA system, and dropping the development of 127/40 after the improvement proves marginal. 120/45 Type 89 twin mounting is developed and initally adopted to serve as a part of AA system for capital ships (combined with Type 91 and Type 94 directors). During its development, anti-surface capabilities still are seen as primary for destroyer weapons. However, by the time it enters the service in 1932 two facts become apparent: (1)127/50 weapons installed on special type DDs have the capability to engage aircraft mostly on paper. (2)New Hatsuharu DDs are greatly overloaded even after reduction in the number of guns to 5 and use of lightened low-angle mounts. In my destroyer proposal above, the fact #2 led to replacement of existing gun armament on Hatsuharus and first Shiratsuyus with 127/40 guns, but eventually insufficient effective range against surface targets caused return of 127/50. However, if 120/45 gun is used instead of 127/40, the range argument will have less weight, due to its somewhat better ballistics (coupled with the higher ROF of Type 89 twin). In addition, the benefits of using the same tube as the most of the existing destroyers will factor into decision. And postulated expectations of a longer war will force to pay closer attention to preventing attrition of the fleet by the enemy airforce, creating another argument against arming the newest ships with non-DP guns. This will allow to (a)establish a standard of armament of 3x2 DP guns + 2x4 610mm TTs starting from the Shiratsuyu class and build all of the following destroyers to the same standard (b)place this armament in a smaller hull, compared to 3x2 127/50 (c)use the same DP gun throughout most of the fleet, with the sole exception of Special Type DDs. All of this should save money, allowing to build a handful of extra DDs (and/or above-proposed APDs) using the same investments. The new DP gun still will be developed, along the same lines as in my previous proposal, but it will be be based on 120/45, keeping the same calibre, and maybe available a few months earlier. Let's say, 120/55 Type 98. It will require a bigger destroyer to carry it, of course, something between Yugumo and Akizuki, although probably closer to the former. So, what do everyone think about this proposal?

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 4:19:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd That is some solid thinking. Let me mull it over some before responding. Anybody else got thoughts or reactions to what we've been chatting about? I used to think about something like this..., postulating the Imperial appointment of "Albertu Speerakaku" as minister of Armaments in 1936 with authority to direct all (IJN/IJA) production programs. Some of the limiting factors even in this "pipedream" were: 1. Japan's economy was NEVER going to hold a candle to the potential of her opponants. She had no "consumer economy" to convert for war usage, resources were in limited supply, and the industrial base was rather small (especially compared to the US). 2. Given the above, the key for the Japanese would be simplification of production. Even then it would not be easy (The IJA began converting their standard infantry weapon in 1936---and had still not completed the task when the war ended 9 years later). But you could postulate agreement on commonality of parts (the IJA and IJN used to different and incompatable electric voltages for their A/C until 1944---requiring two seperate industrial bases). Japan had a critical shortage of machine tools and engineers, which made for difficulty in bringing new designs into production. The answer to bringing Japanese production to it's highest potential levels is to simplify and reduce the number of "systems" in use to gain maximum numbers from the resources available. Germany cranked out hundreds of new designs during the war looking for "perfection". The Russians limited themselves to a few basic types and improved them whenever the opportunity arose. The numbers and results speak for themselves. I agree with these ideas. In particular, maximum unification between IJN and IJA is necessary.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 5:32:24 PM)
As to your DD proposal regarding standardization of main armament as TT, I totally concur with that thought. The ability to add a few DDs due to the standardization and slightly smaller ship makes sense as well. If we then focus on the development of the 120/55 Type 98 do we need a new class of DD or does this weapon simply become the modernized secondary weapon of all CA and larger warships? Have got some thoughts regarding Albertu Speerakaku but need to work on them. My knowledge base with the IJA is woeful. Will leave it up to people who have a far better base in this aspect of the game.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 5:36:16 PM)
Anyway, returning to the roots: Premise and the Points of Deviation It is fairly common to criticise the Japanese for various faults in their armament program before and during WWII. Personally, I think that their mistakes rate was not above average, and, considering that Japan's overall economical potential was only about 20% above that of Italy before the war (although Japan had much better access to resources during the war), they actually did fairly well. Japan just has far lesser margin for mistakes (that is, practically none at all) due to massive economical inferiority. Regardless, this mod is supposed to be a "what if", primarily dedicated to an alternative, where we'll try to avoid as much of those faults and mistakes, as plausibly possible, assuming exceptionally competent management of Japanese armed forces' development. By "plausibly possible", I mean that improvements, both in armaments produced and in doctrines, according to which armaments are ordered, should be explainable by reasonable amounts of foresight and reasonable changes in the vision of the future conflict. Purely hindsight knowledge shouldn't be used. (Of course, the Allied side will get some benefits, from more production late in the war, to better preparedness at the beginning, as well. I'm copying down all good posts related to the Allied side on my HD, to keep track of proposals, but at the moment I'd like to talk about the Japanese side, the discussion is unfocused enough already.) As about the point of deviation. The first point of deviation should lie as far as the assessment of Russo-Japanese war by IJN's military analysts and theoreticians. Here it is supposed to be more insightful, paying less attention to the Tsushima and more to the really decisive naval operations during 1904. It is expected that a major war will last at least 1.5-2 years and will include several major fleet engagements, with periods of potentially costly attritional fighting between them. The second point of deviation is the Washington Naval Treaty, where Japan gets a better fleet ratio. Various minor deviations happen across twenties and early thirties. Besides different technical decisions, there is one political change - the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 is directly ordered from Tokyo, as opposed to just instigating the junior officers of Kwantung Army, as to avoid potential responsibility. This, IMO, contributed much to loss of real control over IJA. At about that time, a circle of highly competent military reformers (still fixated on the idea of military expansion and seizing a colonial empire, thanks to their connections to major industrial/trading groups, though), which will be responsible for most of the althistorical decisions later, should start to form around Emperor Hirohito. The biggest point of deviation should be the failure of the military coup in February of 1936. IRL, it led to relatively light punishments for the junior Army officers immediately responsible (only 17 key ringleaders were executed), and slaps on the wrist for their inspirators and supporters in higher positons. This resulted in IJA still remaining out of the governmental control in practice. In this alternative, the reformers group uses this opportunity to enact a much more thorough purge of the ranks, both to ensure subordination in the future and to pave way for their ideas about building the armed forces. As the immediate result of this, the war with China doesn't happen until at least second half of 1938, as IJA is reigned in and prevented from executing further landgrabs. Instead, the policy of sponsoring pro-Japanese warlords is continued. However, by 1936 it is impossible to prevent the excalation of war completely. Japanese need to at the very least encourage maximum chaos in China, if they want to safely keep Manchukuo, and blatantly buying off local warlords still will be seen as intolerable by the Chinese patriots. Sooner or later, Chiang Kai-shek will be taken hostage by his generals and forced to take action, as happened IRL. But in this alternative Japan will still win a year or relative peace. Thoughts and comments so far?

JWE -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 7:04:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR I agree with these ideas. In particular, maximum unification between IJN and IJA is necessary. There's another little detail, about unification, that you might think on. Japan had no system, whatever, for deferrals. Skilled tool and die makers, machinists, radio/radar technicians, ship fitters, welders, engineering and physics students, were all drafted, indescriminately and wholesale, as infantry privates; enraging the IJN, which could do nothing about it. There was a massive philosophical difference between the two services that pervaded the entire Japanese war effort, to the detriment of both. It went far beyond unifying a/c voltages. Japan was at least as industrially capable as Italy or Canada, but ranks along with them in various production metrics. Hell, Czechoslovakia out performs her in certain areas. She had scientists, she had technicians, she had students, but she drafted them as infantry cannon fodder. She had resources, she had fuel, she had the brains, but she squandered or ignored all of it. Making an Econ Czar sounds pretty, but the Japanese Constitution and governmental organization would make him a useless shadow. The services have direct access to the Emperor. Nothing that nobody can do or say, nowhere, nohow, can have any affect on what IJGHQ feels like doing: and IJN and IJA were independent entities within IJGHQ. Consesus was the operative norm, i.e., go along to get along and don't rock the boat. The entire idea of an Econ Czar is alien to that thought process and the poor guy would have been assassinated by some Army Major within a week of his attempting to tell the IJA what to do (the Major would be tried, acquited, promoted to Lt Col and sent Manchuquo for a month for pennance). Am I being harsh, you bet your a$$ I am. Japan was utterly screwed up culturally. Couple generations out of medievalism with the class and cultural implications still in place, woof!!

JWE -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 7:05:14 PM)
What does all that blithering nonsense mean? Absolutely nothing; except you can't really assume you can tweak one part, without tweaking the whole. To do that, you have to go back to 1928 and make some hard assumptions as to the size of the Diet's winkies (and the caliber of their supporters' guns, If ya do that). There are some limiting factors, so maybe Japan grabs Manchuquo (a cultural imperitive) and spends time and $$ to develop its industrial infrastructure. Colonialism at its most intense. China is worrisome, but fangless. The 'Incident' didn't happen, but something similar did, and Japan starts out with an expeditionary force extending, maybe, maybe, maybe Peking, Tientsin, Suchow, Nanking, and perhaps a Canton, Hengyan/Changsha enclave. So no China, except what Japan wishes to deploy there. Lots more 'stuff', but they have to conquer China with it from a much smaller foothold. More ships and harder 'nuts' to crack for major bases. Just a thought.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 7:56:42 PM)
Damn. Between Stanilav's and John's recent Posts I could see the true germ of an idea come out. If one can combine the better control of the Army (read what FatR said), hard and fast total colonization/development of Manchuria, a war with China that has been somewhat limited to this point, AND modifying the Japanese Draft System there could really be something there. To further add, if the Army IS reigned in then does that allow the Kaigun a greater voice behind someone more forceful and charismatic (read Yamamoto) who FAR BETTER understands the nature of their enemy the USA. This development would further strengthen the "if we go to war crowd" then we should plan for a longer war, an attritional war, and a war that requires us to WORK TOGETHER.

fcharton -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 8:12:56 PM)
Hi, If you consider a limited war with China, you might want to explore something along the following lines... Lots of chinese intellectuals and early republicans (including Sun Yatsen) had studied in Japan. And there was, at some point, a strong pan-asian current among Japanese progressist circles. A softer Japanese approach to the invasion of Manchuria (for instance, if the Japanese had helped seal the fate of the Beiyang government after the failure of the Northern expedition) could have prevented the patriotic surge in China, and the rise of Chiang Kaichek. Instead, Wang Jingwei would have become the strong man, after Sun Yatsen's death, and a relatively projapanese KMT might have ruled in the north. As an alternative, you could imagine a defeat of Chiang in the battle of the Central Plains. Whereas this would not turn the chinese into card carrying members of the Axis, it would probably mean a much quieter China. A strongly built Manchukuo, northern China under collaborationist regimes, and a much reduced KMT army, which could justify more focus on the navy throughout the 30s. It would probably mean a more agressive USSR, too... Francois

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 8:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Am I being harsh, you bet your a$$ I am. Japan was utterly screwed up culturally. Couple generations out of medievalism with the class and cultural implications still in place, woof!! Can't argue with your thesis John..., which is why I qualified my idea of an "economic czar" as a "pipedream". But people like to play around with these things..., so if one can postulate a situation where the Emperor developed enough of a backbone to actually appoint "Albertu Speerakaku" (assuming such an individual could be found at all), then why not postulate a situation where the IJA gets infected with "common sense". Of course it's BS! But any situation where Japan is given a snowball's chance in He11 of winning WW II is BS. BS sells! Ask any politician. As long as the folks engaging in these "pipedreams" KNOW it's BS, I can't see the harm. It's only when they want to BELIEVE it that any problem arises. So far, I don't think this thread has fallen that far.[:D][:D]

JWE -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 9:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd WORK TOGETHER. Guong'ho, John. As in all things, there are certain compromises. I don't think Japanese infrastructure development would tweak anyone's winkie. It's much too complex an issue for a politician to even think about. I think you are good to go on that front. Armaments and stuff are ok, because nobody pays attention to that crap except generals, and nobody listens to them anyway. Ships are a different matter. The whole first third of the 20th century was all about ships, more ships, and bigger ships. To even hint that somebody is building something, will cause a rection in response - screw the Treaty - these were practical people! You break the Treaty, they will respond and break your bones! So go be frikkin samurai, and wait and be smart. Dial up the infrastructure so it can support your fleet requirements. [And you better have those well in hand and defined before opening day]. Japan (IMHO) can do pretty good, if she had a different govt system ... oh well ...

oldman45 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 9:54:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd WORK TOGETHER. Ships are a different matter. The whole first third of the 20th century was all about ships, more ships, and bigger ships. To even hint that somebody is building something, will cause a rection in response - screw the Treaty - these were practical people! You break the Treaty, they will respond and break your bones! So go be frikkin samurai, and wait and be smart. Dial up the infrastructure so it can support your fleet requirements. [And you better have those well in hand and defined before opening day]. That's why I asked the question what are the western powers doing while all this infrastructure building and rearmament is going on. I know that the first part of the thread is all about Japan but while all the great discussions are going on, I think that there needs to be some thought of how will the West react and just how far Japan wants to ruffle their feathers with its building program.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 10:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd WORK TOGETHER. Ships are a different matter. The whole first third of the 20th century was all about ships, more ships, and bigger ships. To even hint that somebody is building something, will cause a rection in response - screw the Treaty - these were practical people! You break the Treaty, they will respond and break your bones! So go be frikkin samurai, and wait and be smart. Dial up the infrastructure so it can support your fleet requirements. [And you better have those well in hand and defined before opening day]. That's why I asked the question what are the western powers doing while all this infrastructure building and rearmament is going on. I know that the first part of the thread is all about Japan but while all the great discussions are going on, I think that there needs to be some thought of how will the West react and just how far Japan wants to ruffle their feathers with its building program. ...and for the 3rd, 4th, or 5th time WE WILL DO THIS once we settle on the Japanese course. These is no planning worth anything until we decide what happens. When that is clearly drawn up, detailed, and can be implemented through the Editor--THEN--ONLY THEN--can the fun be brought around to "What would the Allies know? How would they react?"

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 10:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd As to your DD proposal regarding standardization of main armament as TT, I totally concur with that thought. The ability to add a few DDs due to the standardization and slightly smaller ship makes sense as well. If we then focus on the development of the 120/55 Type 98 do we need a new class of DD or does this weapon simply become the modernized secondary weapon of all CA and larger warships? A new class of DD. They will need to be significantly larger to maintain the same armament configuration. Arming capital ships (past the new CL(AA)s, designed for this gun from the beginning) will be a secondary prority, due to cost and removal of ships from the combat force involved. Probably upgrades to the new gun should not be available before 1944 for the most valuable and spacious ships, like new BBs and Shokaku-class carriers, and late 1944 to everything else still floating (realistically by that point guns should be at surplus, like 100/65 were IRL - see, even massive ship losses can have a brighter side[:)]). I'll throw my opinion on the topic of the topic of Japanese economy in general tomorrow. JWE gives some good food for thought here...

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 10:15:49 PM)
Sorry OldMan if that was a little strong. There are so many ideas circulating right now for Japan that it is difficult to keep up with them and try to imagine their impact.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 10:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd As to your DD proposal regarding standardization of main armament as TT, I totally concur with that thought. The ability to add a few DDs due to the standardization and slightly smaller ship makes sense as well. If we then focus on the development of the 120/55 Type 98 do we need a new class of DD or does this weapon simply become the modernized secondary weapon of all CA and larger warships? A new class of DD. They will need to be significantly larger to maintain the same armament configuration. Arming capital ships (past the new CL(AA)s, designed for this gun from the beginning) will be a secondary prority, due to cost and removal of ships from the combat force involved. Probably upgrades to the new gun should not be available before 1944 for the most valuable and spacious ships, like new BBs and Shokaku-class carriers, and late 1944 to everything else still floating (realistically by that point guns should be at surplus, like 100/65 were IRL - see, even massive ship losses can have a brighter side[:)]). I'll throw my opinion on the topic of the topic of Japanese economy in general tomorrow. JWE gives some good food for thought here... Clear as a bell for thinking. Agreed with the priorities and speed of use for the weapon system.

DOCUP -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 10:28:01 PM)
Some nice ideas and thoughts here. Beppis idea of haveing factorys to give extra AC is nice. I think it was Nemo who said to have a cpl factorys on islands, where the Allies can recieve AC. But they have to send in supplies to fix the damage and then so much to keep it up and running. This would decrease the amount of Allied supply and transports. I don't know if it can be done with the game engine but nice idea. What about starting an Allied thread for this mod so you guys can focus on the Japaneese side without being side tracked with all of us AFBs popping in. Then you guys can come over and see what nasty ideas we have for the Empire. I read somewhere on this thread about SMGs for the Japaneese. They weren't hard to make. The Germans made the MP 40, UK sten gun, US the grease gun. They were all cheap easy to make. Low caliber but good for sending lots of lead down range and to keep your opponents head down. Looking at it they did have an SMG type 100 it had 2 versions. There was three but one didn't sound like it would be worth considering. The other was the Type II. Type II could of been used fromt he get go I think. The 100 prob could of came a little earlier than 42. doc

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 10:54:43 PM)
DOCUP--That is a capital idea on starting a 2nd Thread. Wouldn't be near as confusing and we can bounce back-and-forth. Does this idea have merit? JWE: I've gotten a few PMs about whether we would start with Da Babes as the baseline scenario prior to changing and making the new Mod. What are you/your design team's opinions to this query?

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/12/2011 11:32:13 PM)
I am starting a companion Thread so that everyone can get their thoughts out and we can separate the Japanese and Allied topics. Thank you DOCUP!

oldman45 -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 12:42:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Sorry OldMan if that was a little strong. There are so many ideas circulating right now for Japan that it is difficult to keep up with them and try to imagine their impact. No worries pal, love the work you all are doing and how this thread is chugging along.

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 1:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Sorry OldMan if that was a little strong. There are so many ideas circulating right now for Japan that it is difficult to keep up with them and try to imagine their impact. No worries pal, love the work you all are doing and how this thread is chugging along. Thanks for saying so. Was really concerned I'd offended you! On the subject of your ideas regarding the Allies, please Post onto the new thread. I think there are a TON of them that hold serious merit. In this area, I am, at the moment, trying to write a historical outline combining what we've discussed here to see how it reads and provoke more thinking as to our direction, timeline, and focus.

JWE -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 1:14:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd JWE: I've gotten a few PMs about whether we would start with Da Babes as the baseline scenario prior to changing and making the new Mod. What are you/your design team's opinions to this query? Don't see why not. Lots of people playing Babes, and everything seems to be working as intended. If you want to use Babes as a base, be glad to help out and explain anything that needs 'splainin. J

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 1:16:03 PM)
So, on leadership: theoretically, what is most likely to be able to push necessary decisions is not a single man, but a de-facto junta led by politically savvy Army/Navy officers with connections to both leading military thinkers and industry and supported by Emperor Hirohito. It might be initially formed in an attempt to overcome the impact of the Great Depression, both on the Army/Navy (by trying to achieve a unified solution to armament production) and on Japanese economy - meaning primarily their zaibatsu buddies (by trying to snatch resources and markets in Manchuria, as IRL). Of course, they still will be forced to ride the wave of Japanese militarism and nationalism, particularly as they will need to overcome much resistance among senior officers of both services just to establish some Army-Navy cooperation, and will end up hostages to it, unable to back off in the right moment, when the confrontation with the West still can be avoided. As about what to build up, I think, until the war begins in earnest, Japan should primarily concentrate on developing heavy industry and civilian infrastructure, with military spending being about the same as IRL. IRL Japan heavily invested into developing Manchuria (which was one of the key reasons, why admitting defeat in China, thus letting the victorious enemy on Manchukuo doorstep, much less agreeing to abandon the Chinese territory entirely, was seen as unacceptable), even establishing aircraft production there, in this alternative, the same will be done, except Japanese will have more time to do it, under somewhat better direction. From 1939, when the open war in China finally breaks out (because KMT generals pressure Chiang into doing something about the foreigners that snatched 1/4th of the country and instigate chaos across the rest, or because hawks in Tokyo see Europe' slide into war as an opportunity to do as Japan pleases with China, or because of some combination of these two factors), funding naturally shifts to expanding weapon production. In late 1940, Japan decides to throw its lot with Germany and to go to war against the old colonial powers (plus, inevitably, USA; actually, the fear of of USA military buildup and perspectives of having the same coalition dictate terms to Japan, after Americans get involved in the war in Europe and win it, will be an important factor here), from this point economy starts converting into total war mode, and emergency fleet expansion begins. Before that point we're mostly talking about benefitting from more lenient treaties, and most of the new costruction or wide-scale modernizations are done at the expense of other ships, that existed IRL. As a side note, I find rather hard to believe that indiscriminate drafts, as described by JWE above, wouldn't undermine production entirely. Like the persistent myth about especially poor living conditions on IJN ships, this might be a projection of realities of the war's final year (manpower for many new divisions raised in late 1944-45 had to come from somewhere, after all) on Japanese practices in general.

FatR -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 1:27:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd DOCUP--That is a capital idea on starting a 2nd Thread. Wouldn't be near as confusing and we can bounce back-and-forth. Does this idea have merit? JWE: I've gotten a few PMs about whether we would start with Da Babes as the baseline scenario prior to changing and making the new Mod. What are you/your design team's opinions to this query? Although this isn't adressed to me, I won't mind using Da Babes (BTW, which version people requested to use, Lite or Big?), as long as I'm not forced to rewrite its device list to adopt it for mod's purposes for the third time (beyond general mod-related tweaking, I still feel that stats for certain weapons, like pom-poms, Soviet 41-K, and WWI-era Allied land-based flak guns are quite excessive; while aircraft guns above 20-23mm are understatted, making a number of planes worthless). Let's just take the Babes-based device list from RA (adding new guns as necessary for the mod).

John 3rd -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 3:47:38 PM)
You've done a bunch of Postings this morning Stanislav! As I have been perusing the records of the Thread here are the big dates/events we've chosen to incorporate into our timeline: A. 1904-1906 Russo-Japanese War---The Imperial Fleet realizes how near of a thing the war was. The real lessons taken from the experience is that any war will be longer (1.5-2 years), be attritional, and require different planning. B. World War One: Several officers who serve with the ASW Detachment in the Med realize that Japan MUST prepare for some sort of commerce war if she goes to war against a major power. This small faction agitates for better ASW Research, resources, and vessels. They also advocate for a Coastal Command HQ to coordinate a national response when needed. C. Washington Treaty allows for the Japanese to build-up to 3.5 instead of 3.0. D. London Treaty does the same thing in 1930. E. Manchuria is invaded but the Japanese Army is reigned in and the occupation is much more peaceful. A concerted Japanese economic investment takes place here and in Korea. F. The Army Mutiny, spoken of on the previous page, is RUTHLESSLY put down and the middle grade of the Army Officers are forced to sit back instead of assassinate at will. A much stronger Privy Council takes hold that prepares for war as well as forces the Army and Navy to somewhat better cooperate. G. In 1939 open war breaks out in China as the Chinese Warlords will no longer be cowed. The army deploys into the region and massed fighting takes place. Once again, the progressive elements of the Japanese Army work to make the 'peace' in China much more passive. There is no Nanking... H. As war breaks out in Europe a large set of 'observers' travel to the region and absorb 'lessons' from what they see. For the Army and Navy this means: AIRPOWER. The ASW faction sees its fears realized with the German SS success against British Commerce. The Army...well...I am not really sure what they would see... I. In 1940 the Japanese sense opportunity and throw themselves in with Germany and Italy. The die is cast... Did I miss anything? Thoughts?

Herrbear -> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod (8/13/2011 7:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd You've done a bunch of Postings this morning Stanislav! As I have been perusing the records of the Thread here are the big dates/events we've chosen to incorporate into our timeline: A. 1904-1906 Russo-Japanese War---The Imperial Fleet realizes how near of a thing the war was. The real lessons taken from the experience is that any war will be longer (1.5-2 years), be attritional, and require different planning. B. World War One: Several officers who serve with the ASW Detachment in the Med realize that Japan MUST prepare for some sort of commerce war if she goes to war against a major power. This small faction agitates for better ASW Research, resources, and vessels. They also advocate for a Coastal Command HQ to coordinate a national response when needed. C. Washington Treaty allows for the Japanese to build-up to 3.5 instead of 3.0. D. London Treaty does the same thing in 1930. E. Manchuria is invaded but the Japanese Army is reigned in and the occupation is much more peaceful. A concerted Japanese economic investment takes place here and in Korea. F. The Army Mutiny, spoken of on the previous page, is RUTHLESSLY put down and the middle grade of the Army Officers are forced to sit back instead of assassinate at will. A much stronger Privy Council takes hold that prepares for war as well as forces the Army and Navy to somewhat better cooperate. G. In 1939 open war breaks out in China as the Chinese Warlords will no longer be cowed. The army deploys into the region and massed fighting takes place. Once again, the progressive elements of the Japanese Army work to make the 'peace' in China much more passive. There is no Nanking... H. As war breaks out in Europe a large set of 'observers' travel to the region and absorb 'lessons' from what they see. For the Army and Navy this means: AIRPOWER. The ASW faction sees its fears realized with the German SS success against British Commerce. The Army...well...I am not really sure what they would see... I. In 1940 the Japanese sense opportunity and throw themselves in with Germany and Italy. The die is cast... Did I miss anything? Thoughts? Not that you have missed it, but just curious, regarding in building up the Mandated Islands. The agreement by Japan on 5:5:3 was accepted requiring the islands of the Pacific not being built up. In winning the 5:5:3.5 agreement is that corollary still in or are you looking at the ability of islands such as Guam, Carolines and so forth being able to be built up?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.421875