Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RETIRED

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:


My conception - given the limited number of ships Gary proposed - and his explicit words - was that this was a slightly different Washington Treaty - and that is actually probable. We only got the one we got because we read Japanese codes - and we would have settled for a different outcome had they been tougher about it. Gary's idea - allow four more newer ships (six total - counting Nagato and Mutsu) for Japan - implies six (nine total - counting Colorado class) for USN. That is actually a very plausable possibility. He was willing to get rid of four other capital ships - and his idea these should be the worst has merit - although the Kongo's might have been sacrificed instead.

That pretty much sums up the idea I had for the mod, a slightly different Washington Treaty. There would still be a Washington Treaty. However, it would be a modified treaty from the one that historically took place. The modified treaty would simply allow the Japanese and Allies to complete some of the BB programs they had already started while preserving the original 5:5:3 ratio.

As El Cid Again has painfully pointed out to me, the inclusion of more BBs would no doubt spell the end of most of the carrier conversions like Kaga, Akagi, Lexington and Saratoga and that the world economies of the 30's could not have supported such programs of extra BBs thrown in to the mix with as many CVs as were historically constructed or converted. I was hoping there would be some way to plausibly shoe-horn in a few extra BBs without penalizing the historical contingent of CVs. Unfortunately I have to agree with El Cid Again's position. Although I would like to throw in a few extras, most importantly I would like to keep things on a plausible level and I don't see how that could be done adding many more ships to the fragile world economy of the 30's without subtracting some of the popular participants in WW2.

Obviously the scenario will have to involve some sacrifices (eg. KB doesn't exist on Dec 7, 1941) or else I'll have to figure out a way to get those extra BBs some other way. I proposed that a few of the older BBs get scrapped such as Arkansas, New York and Texas. However that would also probably involve the Kongos on the IJN side. While Arkansas, Texas and New York played little role in the war, the Kongos of course were a different story.

If anyone has any ideas on how to re-write history just a little without departing into fantasy, please throw them into this thread. This might be a good place to come up with ideas to re-float the original conception of the mod.

Thanks.

Here's a thought for the "slightly modified Washington Treaty". The Japanese get what they wanted - a 10:10:7 ratio! Of course, then the Allies wouldn't have had to promise NOT to fortify any positions West of Hawaii or North of Singapore. Japs would get to build 2 of their Kagas, and would have Akagi and Amagi to convert to A/C Carriers. Of course, the 1923 EarthQuake would leave them with just the Akagi and no Kaga to convert in the Amagi's place...., but such is life. And the Allies would have some additional fortifications at Guam, the P.I., Hong Kong, and such (with the Depression keeping them from going to any massive lengths.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I don't like cancelling earthquakes - makes those who charge I like to play God seem right !!

But you might rationalize around it various ways.

The original names were Akagi and Amagi. No problem defining them either. And IF you do that - you also would have Lex and Sara - which is nice.

The US would get Lexington class BC - also very nice. There are three 16 inch gun battleships in fact- but there would be a fourth - then two more Lexington cum BC - or else South Dakota (early type) BB.

The forts would likely stay the same. People agreed to what they could not easily afford anyway. We didn't want forts in the Carolines, Japan didn't want them at Guam/PI - so we would likely agree - and avoid the cost as well. And this is MORE likely if you have extra ships = less money and less steel - the most critical of strategic materials.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'd say that the G-3 and Nelson are mutually exclusive. Remember that the Nelsons only came about after the cancellation of the G-3/N-3. Build 3 G-3's...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As for Japan building smarter, maybe you could consider cleverer allocations vis-a-vis ASW escort construction as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As for Japan building smarter, maybe you could consider cleverer allocations vis-a-vis ASW escort construction as well?

That would seem to be the smartest move on their part. Would it be too much of a stretch to assume that Japan recognizes the existence of a capable US submarine force and, considering the lessons of WW1, decides to prepare for ASW? At the very least perhaps the IJN could have armed more of its existing escorts with DCs and such. As it stands there are a number of DDs that don't have any DCs which seems sort of an odd move on their part.

What do others think of better ASW preparation? Plausible, implausible?