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

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/19/2011 5:34:03 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

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....

I wouldn't even want to think about that.

_____________________________

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 301

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/19/2011 8:12:38 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

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?

Because it was adopted only in 1940, and because the improvements will be marginal compared to cost. While C/38 Flakvierling probably was the most effective 20mm flak gun of WWII, much of its success is owed to the fact that neither British nor Russians had a naval divebombing force worth speaking of. 20-25mm flak was primarily effective against torpedo/low-level bombing attacks; Flakvierling is not particularly different from 25/60 Type 96 in it. In fact, that's what 25/60 was meant to be used against. Perhaps somewhat greater effective range of C/38 made it a bit more useful against glidebombig attacks, but in the Pacific the main threat to warships was still dive bombing. Divebombers' attack profile makes them quite hard to shoot down with anything smaller than 37mm, and preferably a medium flak gun, capable of taking them under fire before they enter dives. With a 20mm-25mm gun you'll only have brief seconds between the moment a divebomber enters the effective range, and the moment it releases its bomb (USN 20mm Oerlikons, as far as I know, scored most of their kills against Japanese divebombers, particularly earlier in the war, when these still attacked in significant groups, by hitting Vals when they were pulling out from their dives). In fact, Japanese recognized this fact, and meant to use DP guns as the main weapon against divebomber attacks, but their 127/40 had insufficient ballistics to reliably engage modern divebombers while they were still in level flight, and worse than that, it was installed only on carriers and capital ships until fairly late in the war.

In other words, German small-calibre flak offers only relatively marginal improvements over Japanese had already, doubly so in the time when their contacts with Germany still aren't cut by the war. The worst flaw of 25/60 Type 96 was that there weren't nearly enough of them until way too late. Case in point: most, if not all (checked five out of eight) Japanese destroyers that participated in the ill-fated Battle of the Bismark Sea still had their small-calibre flak armament limited to 2x2 25mm (meaning that a destroyer could bring no more than 2 25mm barrels to bear against a low-level attacker). With non-DP guns on DDs and probably nothing serious on escorted transports, the RL outcome was natural. Germans had more numerous small-calibre batteries even on converted-trawler patrol boats at that time. I don't even want to think what consequences switching production to another small-calibre gun will have right before the war...

Now, the development of Japanese medium flak/DP weapons was demonstrably quite flawed, and they underestimated their importance in a modern war severely. That's why this area got considerable attention from me, as you can see above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dibbura
Ps. German also has 5 cm FlaK 41

This was a bad gun, dropped by Wehrmacht like a hot coal.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/19/2011 8:15:04 PM >

(in reply to Dibbura)

Post #: 302

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/19/2011 11:16:54 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Back to the cruisers. My modest proposal:

1)Old CLs - reconstructions and conversions as I described before.
2)CAs up to and including Takaos - as IRL.
3)Mogamis are meant from the beginning to displace 10k. Japanese might try to convince everyone else that they are only 8500, but they won't start believing themseleves that it is possible to cram A-class cruiser capabilities into this displacement. Originally Mogamis were overloaded and too lightly constructed because Fujimoto was ordered to design cruisers six of which could have been crammed into remaining CL displacement, while having capabilities almost equal to that of a normal heavy cruiser.

As the result, Mogamis do not require two expensive rebuilds. Armament is not changed either. Not because 155/60 is better or even equal, but because improvements are too marginal to justify the enormous expenditure (cost weapons was usually close to half of a warship's total cost, with most of that obviously going into main guns. RL 155/60 is used to retain the connection with reality, but some of the extra weight is allocated to faster ammo hoists, capable of supporting its maximum possible ROF of 7/minute, to make these ships more suitable for close-range night fighting.

I expect this should save enough funds and materials to build two more big cruisers right there. As Japanese warship shipyards were underloaded, their availability is not a problem...

Even though Japan has enough tonnage for at least one CA now, they should not be too hasty to build them. Instead, as the tonnage is not enough for a whole new CA division, Navy should take a small vacation from CA building and use it to analyze the experience gained from building the previous ships, and new technologies. IRL, Tones were of relatively "old-school" design, evolution of the ideas on which all the previous large CAs were based, not really incorporating more novel decisions, like Yamato did. Instead, start designing the new generation of overpowered CAs. The project B-65 does not actually have engines available for it, unfortunately

. So, something like this:

Triple 203mm turrets are assumed by this illustration. Note that torpedo tubes are moved to the stern, to minimize damage in case of a detonation.

A more budget-friedly (and not mandating Japan to screw treaties as soon as their existence becomes known) version would be, say, a Tone version with 3 203mm triples forward, torpedoes positioned as on the illustration above, and three pairs of DP guns, instead of increased aircraft complement. I'd like to hear other proposals, if anyone has them.

In either case build four. Do not build Aganos (if torpedo squadron commanders will be complaining too much, plan to build big DDs as leaders, although I'm not sure this is a good idea too) or Oyodo (it has no mission anymore). Instead, as I proposed before build two CLAAs with inreased aircraft capacity, to serve with the carrier fleet. I think you wanted four of them John? Maybe possible, but the last two should be available fairly late in the war. With cheaper CA versions and 2 CLAAs, the pre-war program resulting from this proposition should be cheaper than RL, saving funds for destroyer construction. With "hardcore" CAs and 2 CLAAs, I hope about even. With hardcore CAs variant the second pair will most likely not be commissioned before the war. With budged CAs, the construction can start earlier, so all might be available.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/19/2011 11:18:06 PM >

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 303

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 12:16:24 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Wow. You crammed a bunch of thinking into this Posting. I need to chew on it some before commenting. Like the ideas though...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 304

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 3:29:04 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

The illustration above shows 4 turrets. Does this mean 12 8" guns then? Wow. I'll take FOUR of them to go please...

You also say SIX Mogami's of the CL variety--right?

The CLAA should be simple. I'd go along an expanded Akizuki-Class thought. How about two turrets in front, two on each side, and then a plane complement of 4-6 Floatplanes? Figure a little armor and displace between 5-6,000T.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/20/2011 3:30:12 AM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 305

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 9:59:10 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Don't do the CLAA thing AND the Akizuki thing at the same time, it's wasteful.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 306

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 10:46:09 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

And consider not building new Jap CL's at all. The only real role for them before the war was destroyer leader and that mission had actually gone away by the mid 1920's, since the advent of the big fleet destroyer.

No real reason to build new ones, and if you look at the IRL Jap CL construction programme, it was flailing around with no real sense of direction (scout for submarine squadrons??????). Why repeat their mistakes?

If you want an air defence escort, build large destroyers rather than light cruisers.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 307

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 11:23:03 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Don't do the CLAA thing AND the Akizuki thing at the same time, it's wasteful.

I don't want Akizukis. First, all DDs starting from Hatsuharus will be equipped with Type 89 DP mounts, using 120mm guns (instead of 127/40) in this alternative. 100/65 gun for Akizukis won't be researched. Third, cost of a CLAA is only 2-2.5 times higher, and it will be be able to provide additional airsearch capabilities for carrier divisions as well (besides more guns). I agree, that post-treaty cruiser construction programs lacked realistic direction. I don't think that same can be said about building specialized ships to support the carrier force. Particularly as more heavy cruisers will necessarily be diverted to escorting the Mobile Force otherwise, and Japan will have one extra carrier division in this alternative. Assuming a passable connection with reality, the carrier club will require four of these ships, one per CarDiv, although I don't think two can realistically be completed /early in the war, and completion of the rest will depend on extra industrial power, given to Japan in this alternative.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 308

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 11:42:56 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The illustration above shows 4 turrets. Does this mean 12 8" guns then? Wow. I'll take FOUR of them to go please...

Yes, 12x203

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
You also say SIX Mogami's of the CL variety--right?

I said Japanese wanted to build six "CLs" in their CL tonnage allowed by Washington. The last ones were supposed to be Tone and Chikuma, but they were armed as CAs right during construction. I think that no more than four Mogamis should be built. By the time fifth and sixth ships are laid down, Japan already intends to leave treaties, so, no need to stick with with the treaty-spawned design. Any extra funds saved by absence of recostruction and armament replacement will be uses up for building four "new type" CAs, instead of two Tones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The CLAA should be simple. I'd go along an expanded Akizuki-Class thought. How about two turrets in front, two on each side, and then a plane complement of 4-6 Floatplanes? Figure a little armor and displace between 5-6,000T.

As about the design, I think about either 10 new 120/55 guns (three twins on the bow, two on the sides) and extended aircraft facilities for 4 floatplanes; or 12 guns positioned classicaly, three fore, three aft, 1-2 floatplanes. Not too many DP guns should be positioned at the sides, as there is no space for magazines here, and ammunition will needed to be delivered by hand. The first variant looks closer to actual Japanese direction of thought at the time, I must say. Armor on Agano level or slightly below, meant to protect only against destroyer fire. I'll try to find an image that might fit this project on the net.

The first pair is completed in summer of 1942, primarily delayed by the availability of new guns. The second pair, if you want it, in 1944. With it we'll definitely go over RL Japanese cruiser building capacity (as much of the resources used IRL to construct Oyodo, Aganos and Ibuki will necessarily be diverted to construction of big and expensive new type CAs), but with expanded Japanese industrial capabilities I guess it is forgivable).

One thing to note: with the war emergency program of constructing repeat Shokakus launched in late 1940 and providing a clear perspective of carrier fleet's replenishment, there will be much less impetus to convert everything that floats into carriers after a first major defeat. So new battleships and cruisers will be completed as battleships and cruisers.

Will post proposed batteship/cruiser OOB a bit late, after sending my turns for today:).

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/20/2011 11:43:32 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 309

RE: ideas - 8/20/2011 3:01:45 PM

Dibbura

Posts: 11
Joined: 11/15/2010
Status: offline

Sorry for delay�

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
So, I'm back.

quote:

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).

Well at last Pz.IV, why not?

And we need tanks not only for island hoping� Crash China. And a big tasty Australia

. And BTW, the AS gun may weigh less, with the same gun and armor, or even a bit better.

quote:

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.

I think that this can be done better.
Do not simply copy the organizational structure.
But send observers to the army headquarters, division ..
Just so you can understand how the blitzkrieg working. How to use the tanks. How to deal with the tanks. What equipment is needed ... Why you need AS guns ;)
Analysis of the Battle of Britain will help to understand that fuel tanks must be protected ... How to deal with the enemy bombers. That the fighters need more firepower� Night fighter�s organizational structure and, so on�

quote:

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.

In real life, yes. But in reality, the Japanese did not consider AS guns until the middle of the war.
But in this timeline if they observed it on the test ground in 1938, then how to use it in 1940.
I agree that this is a very strong paradigm shift ...
But in RL development of Type 2 Ho-I started in 1937. It is quite possible to create a separate version of AS gun on the same chassis to 1940. And it�s a bit cheaper�

quote:

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

Hm� yes I think it�s true.. But at last creation of same 57 mm AT is possible�
And Panzerfaust technologically simple ... do not require super precision equipment to produce ...

quote:

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.

Flame tanks can be even better than �normal� when enemy have no AT�
And we can use other chassis, more "older".
The Germans continued to produce �flamingo� in 1940 even when the needed a �normal� tank.
Also sometimes it is cheaper to make conversion, than to make a complete repair of damaged one�

quote:

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.

I agree. And all this is quite complicated. However, if briefly. It seems to me that in this time line, many Japanese tanks would have appeared a bit earlier, would be a little better, and there would be a few new late war types. And maybe a bit more of them at any given year.
And in any case the current stats should be changed. As you said: at least to the 60-70.

quote:

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.

I agree.
But it's probably better to buy the entire production line. It's easier than something big

. All the equipment fits on a single vessel. And probably not go to 7.7 and go directly to the German standard ... but this is somewhere in 1934 ...
In any case, the purchase of this equipment appears to be most simple, even if we cannot afford something more big. (not for sale/no money)

quote:

Mechanized mobile groups from the elements of 3rd Tank Division were successfully deployed in 1944 against Chinese.

Maybe a bit early, a bit more �

Anyway all this is just my IMHO�

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 310

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 3:21:45 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

With the extra ships and airplanes being constructed, the Jap ability to build tanks and artillery actually gets worse than IRL, i.e. it goes into negative territory.

To put it in simple terms, the Japs can't go around building new heavy hardware or the industry to build it. NO. WAY.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 311

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 3:34:11 PM

Dibbura

Posts: 11
Joined: 11/15/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

With the extra ships and airplanes being constructed, the Jap ability to build tanks and artillery actually gets worse than IRL, i.e. it goes into negative territory.

To put it in simple terms, the Japs can't go around building new heavy hardware or the industry to build it. NO. WAY.

Yes

, but war can't be win only by ships ...

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 312

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 3:44:47 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

This war is lost for the Japs when the first bomb is released. The end.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dibbura)

Post #: 313

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 3:48:56 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

With the extra ships and airplanes being constructed, the Jap ability to build tanks and artillery actually gets worse than IRL, i.e. it goes into negative territory.

To put it in simple terms, the Japs can't go around building new heavy hardware or the industry to build it. NO. WAY.

That's why the whole idea of delaying beginning of the big war in China by a less than blindly aggressive Japanese policy was conceived, to give Japan two more peacetime economy years for building up heavy industry and infrastructure... But you're right, that all the extras will be consumed by aviation and fleet, in that order. Tanks are just far down on the list of priorities, particularly during the actual war, most of which Japan will spend on the defensive.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/20/2011 3:50:52 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 314

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:10:47 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I think the key here is in what the Japanese do in Manchuria and Korea. Those two years of 'peace' are a godsend for the economy. New factories (Heavy and Light Industry) could be built, the Oil Plant at Anshuun (Sp?) could be expanded like what we did in RA, aircraft factories could be moved into the area, and shipyards expanded at Port Arthur, Fusan. and Shanghai (if captured). The question with this would be what, where and by how much?

The fun part of what we're looking at is Blackhorse's historical vision of the China War. Think on the fact of opening with a full blown wild-and-crazy war going on in China. What a blast! By the way does a full scale, new war in China aid Dibbura's arguments regarding tanks?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 315

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:30:50 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

So, the updated OOB of IJN's capital ships:

BatDiv1--Nagato, Mutsu, Kaga, Tosa
BatDiv2--Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro (None of them modified past the first modernization, and adding a couple of AAMGs, conversion options present from the start)
BatDiv3--Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, Kirishima
BatDiv4--Available: Owari, Satsuma. In construction: Musashi (7/42), Shinano (4/43). As discussed above.

We have all needed art for the battleships.

CAs/CLs
CruDiv1: (Myoko-Class) Myoko, Nachi, Haguro, Ashigara
CruDiv2: (Takao-Class) Takao, Atago, Maya, Chokai
CruDiv3: (15x155 Mogamis, built to displace 10k standard from the beginning): Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano
CruDiv4: (Old CAs, armed as IRL) Aoba, Kinugasa, Kako, Furutaka
CruDiv5: (12x203mm super-CA class) Available: Niitaka, Iwaki. In construction: Hikari (3/42), Kurama (10/42).

Leaders of torpedo divisions: Yubari, Naka, Sendai, Jintsu, Isuzu. The latter four are slightly modernized.

Training cruisers: Kuma, Tama, Kitakami

To be assigned to carrier divisions as recon/AA defense/command center ships there are four CLAAs in construction: Yahagi (6/42), Agano (12/42), Sakawa (2/44), Oyodo (8/44).

In reconstruction as CLAAs/torpedo cruisers, whatever the player prefers: Nagara, Kitakami, Natori, Yura, Kinu, Abukuma.

Reconstructed as AS: Oi, Kiso

Reconstructed as CM: Tenryu, Tatsuta.

Art needed: for both classes of new cruisers, reconstructed ASs and reconstructed CMs.

The proposed OOB clearly goes past the historical Japanese budget for capital ship construction in the areas of pre-treaty BBs completed according to the modifed Washington treaty (2 extra BBs are completed), and post-treaty cruiser construction (10 ships are replaced with 8 of comparable combined tonnage and with considerably more expensive armament). Hopefully, pre-treaty BBs being well on the way to completion and absence of expensive Mogamis rebuilds and rearming will keep these deviations small enough to be plausible (particularly with the overall better economic situation we're engineering for late thirties).

Comparison with RL:
10 modernized old BBs available + 2 new BBs in construction IRL. 8 modernized old BBs, 2 new BBs, 4 unmodernized old BBs available + 2 new BBs in construction in the mod.

4 small CAs, 14 large CAs available IRL. 4 small CAs, 10 large CAs, 4 large CLs available + 2 large CAs under construction in the mod.

18 old CLs available + 5 CLs under construction IRL. 5 old CLs available + 6 old CLs under reconstruction + 4 CLAAs under construction in the mod.

We see a stronger battleline, little change to A-grade cruisers, and considerable reduction of B-grade cruiser strength before beginning of the war. Arguably that is the logical results of greater battleship tonnage allowed, but still, Japanese light forces are actually weakened. The need for building more large destroyers is pressing.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/25/2011 6:38:21 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 316

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:32:24 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the key here is in what the Japanese do in Manchuria and Korea. Those two years of 'peace' are a godsend for the economy. New factories (Heavy and Light Industry) could be built, the Oil Plant at Anshuun (Sp?) could be expanded like what we did in RA, aircraft factories could be moved into the area, and shipyards expanded at Port Arthur, Fusan. and Shanghai (if captured). The question with this would be what, where and by how much?

The fun part of what we're looking at is Blackhorse's historical vision of the China War. Think on the fact of opening with a full blown wild-and-crazy war going on in China. What a blast! By the way does a full scale, new war in China aid Dibbura's arguments regarding tanks?

What resources are there to build these new factories, shipyards and what not? We can't just pull them out of our orifice of choice.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 317

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:36:42 PM

Dibbura

Posts: 11
Joined: 11/15/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the key here is in what the Japanese do in Manchuria and Korea. Those two years of 'peace' are a godsend for the economy. New factories (Heavy and Light Industry) could be built, the Oil Plant at Anshuun (Sp?) could be expanded like what we did in RA, aircraft factories could be moved into the area, and shipyards expanded at Port Arthur, Fusan. and Shanghai (if captured). The question with this would be what, where and by how much?

The fun part of what we're looking at is Blackhorse's historical vision of the China War. Think on the fact of opening with a full blown wild-and-crazy war going on in China. What a blast! By the way does a full scale, new war in China aid Dibbura's arguments regarding tanks?

Even more crazy thing � The Germans were actively interested in the Japanese aircraft carriers in the late 30s. And indeed why not sell one with all planes. For technology and machinery.
Moreover why sell L�tzow Russian, when it can be sold to Japan ...
And even more crazy idea ... Promise the Germans back to their colonies after the war . (German New Guinea, Qingdao�)
If we need a reason for German to help.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 318

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:37:47 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The fun part of what we're looking at is Blackhorse's historical vision of the China War. Think on the fact of opening with a full blown wild-and-crazy war going on in China. What a blast! By the way does a full scale, new war in China aid Dibbura's arguments regarding tanks?

Not very much. Chinese still have only limited numbers of tanks and AT weapons. They had more than IRL, but by late 1941 these are gone anyway. The game is already pretty lenient to Japanese as far as ability to equip the troops with new tanks and AT guns is concerned - I think that most of IJA in my Ocean of Blood game is rearmed with Type 1 medium tanks by May of 1943...

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 319

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:43:33 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The fun part of what we're looking at is Blackhorse's historical vision of the China War. Think on the fact of opening with a full blown wild-and-crazy war going on in China. What a blast! By the way does a full scale, new war in China aid Dibbura's arguments regarding tanks?

Not very much. Chinese still have only limited numbers of tanks and AT weapons. They had more than IRL, but by late 1941 these are gone anyway. The game is already pretty lenient to Japanese as far as ability to equip the troops with new tanks and AT guns is concerned - I think that most of IJA in my Ocean of Blood game is rearmed with Type 1 medium tanks by May of 1943...

I'd be cautious about investments in improved medium/heavy tanks. In 1941 the Chinese asked the US to send Stuart light tanks via lend lease. The Commanders of the US Lend Lease mission to China pointed out that the vast majority of roads and bridges in China could not support 13 ton tanks, and recommended that the Chinese take 7-ton Marmon-Herrington's, instead. Presumably the Japanese had to deal with the same weight limits. Blitzkrieg campaigns were not possible in China.

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 8/20/2011 4:47:26 PM >

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 320

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 4:49:45 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Hmmmm...good comment...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 321

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 5:05:12 PM

Dibbura

Posts: 11
Joined: 11/15/2010
Status: offline

Well, I want to give not only tanks to Japanese. But also better light arms.
By the way when in 45 Soviet tanks attacked in Manchuria there wasn�t any problems.
And the landscape of China is too different. And we need tanks not only for/in China

...
Not in any sources that I read, mention any super difficult condition.
But I may be wrong....

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 322

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 5:57:45 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

By the way when in 45 Soviet tanks attacked in Manchuria there wasn�t any problems.

The landscape in Manchuria is a lot different than in the majority of the area in which fighting took place, and the fighting in Manchuria lasted how many days?

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Dibbura)

Post #: 323

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 6:24:09 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Hey Bill! Just sent a turn to ya.

Tanks are something beyond my pay grade here. I'll defer to powers greater than I...

LOVE the warship planning and providing the choice for players to make to what gets built.

FatR--If we develop 4 AA/Air Search CL then what gun should they mount? Have to admit Terminus makes a solid point when it might just be easier to build 8-12 large DD for the cost of 4 CLs.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 324

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 9:28:38 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Goddamn forums erased my long and elaborate answer.

In short, John, take a look at my destroyer proposal upthread. All DD starting from Hatsuharus will have full AA capabilities. Special DDAA will make no sense, and with 120/55 DP gun postulated with this mod, 4x2 armament is unreal with a heavier gun anyway, Akizukis used the same engine as Yugumos.

I recently thought, though, that in this alternative the use of Chitose-class CS as Japanese CS are actually used in the game, i.e., attaching them as scout platforms to the fleet can be justified (I can elaborate why it wasn't IRL, if you wish, when I calm down a bit).

So there is no need for expanded aircraft complements on cruisers. We can build maximally cheap CLAAs doubling as leaders, with about 6000k displacement, or we can just build more DDs.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 325

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 9:48:40 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Just build DDs! Let us keep it simple then by doing that.

You are correct about the importance of the 4 Chiyoda-Class at that point. Would be a difficult choice for the Japanese commander to keep them as CS or make them CVL. Like that.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 326

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 10:44:20 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Okay. Torpedo divisions will be quite short on leaders (a normal DD can't house a DesDev HQ), though, with only 5 ships available. 6 old CLs under reconstruction hopefully will improve the situation, once they are ready. And I still think that some CLAAs would be really useful (as more stable platforms for AA fire), but it seems I'm alone in this opinion. I'll hopefully post the modified proposal for destroyers and other light forces tomorrow.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 327

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/20/2011 10:51:23 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Of course a normal DD can house a DesDiv HQ. Everybody did that during the war.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 328

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/21/2011 4:09:56 AM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

I posted this statement in the sister (good guy) thread. If Japan had occupied half of Indo-China, wouldn't that be an act of war? Also what about PPs being added since units are being moved, added and borders have changed.

My idea is have the Japanese Airborne units ready to go close by prepped for locations there, with some fast moving LCUs on land and loaded at sea ready to drop on Dec 7th.

doc

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 329

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/21/2011 5:46:18 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

It would be an act of war if Indochina was French. It was Vichy French and no western powers had any treaty's with them. Even if it was still French, again there were no treaty's between the party's that I am aware of.

_____________________________

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 330

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?