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?
|