Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
And now for something completely different: As the IJN bought the He100 program deemed surplus to requirements by the Luftwaffe lock, stock, and barrel, the Army might also purchase a German orphan, the FW187 in its original single-seater form; it could be powered by the Kawasaki inline engines used on the Ki-32, thus providing the Army with a fairly high-performance interceptor several years before the Ki-61 could be ready.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
- It is not inconceivable that some senior designer might have taken his slide rule, calculated the stability margin of the new designs, and taken a serious fright, thus nipping some of the major excesses in the bud before the designs made it to the slips. So the Hatsuharu DD are either reduced to 2x2-127mm or the ships are bigger from the outset; in that case they might as well be a continuation of the Fubuki(III) type. If treaty limits mandate smaller DDs, go with a reduced Hatsuharu type.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
- One of the reasons why the Tone CAs had their heavy armament concentrated forwards was the inconveniently large dispersion occurring with earlier designs. One of the perceived reasons for that was misalignment between the forward and aft turret groups due to flex in the hull. Put the turrets close together and that effect is eliminated. That also gave a lot of free deck space for an extended aviation component. One might instead use that deck space for a significantly more numerous AA suite (this is one of my pet projects).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Accounts according to which He 100 was a combat-worthy plane can be traced to biased sources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

FW 187 was so tightly designed around its original engines than using anything else required massive rebuild.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Alot of hindsight here, better spend it on more valuable ships :).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Can you explain more about this idea? I'm not sure how exactly your proposal should look like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

1)Rearm Aoba and Furutaka with 9x155mm cannons, instead of 6x203mm (Aoba class already underwent a reconstruction with turret changes IRL, so not that much extra expense) in early 30s. I admit, there is no small element of hindsight about the later prevalence of close range night combat here, but the supposed rationalization is the purpose of these ships either as scouts or elements of the newly-forming night fighting force.
Under the London treaty this, combined with extra allowed tonnage, will allow to build Mogamis as normal CAs, without any big rebuilds later (correct me if I'm counting wrong), in fact, it will allow to avoid excessive experimentation with the CA projects, sticking to the development of Takao class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


I am REALLY torn as to CVs so we go one of two directions:
A. Build the Shokaku-Class as designed (costing 180 Points)

OR

B. Build 3 Hiryu-Kai CVs costing the same (183 points)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
Well, this comes from posting off the top of my head. I checked, and apparently the stability issues with Hatsuharu and Nenohi were so obvious that four more ships from the 1931 program were completed to the modified design the first two ships ended up with, and six more were completely redesigned as the Shiratsuyu class. Your proposed modification sounds good provided the IJN regards the air threat as significant enough to convert six of their modern destroyers (which were in short supply anyway) to such a specialized variant,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
I've made a little picture:

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A note on pre-London warship building, John: the key limitation for building carriers and light forces was money, given to IJN, not tonnage.

So, on the second thought, I'm against adding new capital ships in that period, except for the two extra battleships. Instead:

1)Rearm Aoba and Furutaka with 9x155mm cannons, instead of 6x203mm (Aoba class already underwent a reconstruction with turret changes IRL, so not that much extra expense) in early 30s. I admit, there is no small element of hindsight about the later prevalence of close range night combat here, but the supposed rationalization is the purpose of these ships either as scouts or elements of the newly-forming night fighting force.
Under the London treaty this, combined with extra allowed tonnage, will allow to build Mogamis as normal CAs, without any big rebuilds later (correct me if I'm counting wrong), in fact, it will allow to avoid excessive experimentation with the CA projects, sticking to the development of Takao class.
Take most 5500 tons CLs out of the fleet post-London, rebuild the oldest ones as auxliaries, trainders and fast minelayers, conserve some for later war emergency rebuild as cruisers with heavy torpedo or AA armament (I'll post the details I have in mind later). Meanwhile, use remaining CL tonnage post improved London to build a pair Oyodo-like CL, starting with 1933, with increased seaplane capabilities that initially will be supposed to serve as the new generation of scout cruisers, and eventually will be used for running with the carrier fleet. No need to sacrifice combat potential of CAs for that role. Alt_nav had the right idea here, by using a single design with small deviations for all heavy cruisers build in 30s, and extra tonnage limits will even allow to build all four post-London cruisers with 203mm armament from the beginning.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself...

2)Build one bigger Ryujo. In reality Japanese did not use up all the allowed carrier tonnage at that time. Just make project more rational. Official 12.5k of displacement you propose for it will be sufficient. With no rebuild it will not cost more money in the end.

I again propose to go through the fleet class by class, top-down. It is really hard to track all the proposals here.
So returning to post-treaties battleships. I take it, you still want to build two Yamatos and two B-65 cruisers for 6 25-27 knots BBs and 6 BCs, as in RA? That probably will be more expensive than reality, considering the need to develop armament for two new warship classes and with all expansions to shipyards and factories needed to build Yamatos, a mere two-ship series is hard to justify economically. I propose building 4 30-knots BBs with new 9x410/50 guns instead, as replacements for Fuso/Ise classes (which won't be sent to the scrapyards due to imminent war), as a compromise between the gun club and the carrier faction, slightly stronger than IRL, hepled by concerns about rearming and servicing Yamato-class ships on forward island bases during a projected extended campaign.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


I am REALLY torn as to CVs so we go one of two directions:
A. Build the Shokaku-Class as designed (costing 180 Points)

OR

B. Build 3 Hiryu-Kai CVs costing the same (183 points)

If we are talking about real life and not about game conditions, I'd say go for the Shokakus. They are more robust, more seaworthy, carry more aircraft, and can handle bigger aircraft, which will become significant later with aircraft like the B7A or A7M. Two Shokakus operate about 160 planes, three Hiryus about 180 - not that big a difference. True, you have just two platforms instead of three, but on the other hand you also have two sets of machinery instead of three, and I think a Hiryu-size plant would have cost about the same as a Shokaku-size plant (152000 HP against 160000 HP isn't that much of a difference). Engine building was definitely a bottleneck.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

If we are talking about real life and not about game conditions, I'd say go for the Shokakus. They are more robust, more seaworthy, carry more aircraft, and can handle bigger aircraft, which will become significant later with aircraft like the B7A or A7M. Two Shokakus operate about 160 planes, three Hiryus about 180 - not that big a difference. True, you have just two platforms instead of three, but on the other hand you also have two sets of machinery instead of three, and I think a Hiryu-size plant would have cost about the same as a Shokaku-size plant (152000 HP against 160000 HP isn't that much of a difference). Engine building was definitely a bottleneck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

3. Battleships: You misread my comments Posted above. NO YAMATOs! Instead we should build a pair of 3x3 16" BBs (3rd Circle) as designed to replace Fuso and build the two fast CB in 4th Circle OR a matching pair of BBs to go with the 3rd Circle design. Japanese could have either 2 BB and 2 BC OR 4 BB. I can go either way on this for it doesn't really matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

3. Battleships: You misread my comments Posted above. NO YAMATOs! Instead we should build a pair of 3x3 16" BBs (3rd Circle) as designed to replace Fuso and build the two fast CB in 4th Circle OR a matching pair of BBs to go with the 3rd Circle design. Japanese could have either 2 BB and 2 BC OR 4 BB. I can go either way on this for it doesn't really matter.

I'd prefer 2 more BBs (arriving in second half 1942 - early 1943). That way IJN will have another neat battleship division). And will start with 10 high-speed BBs as in the stock, but of considerably higher quality, and with 4 old hulks in the second line as a bonus. And expenditure on battleships won't be glaringly beyond the RL expenditure (thanks to the more lenient treaty and not scrapping partially ready hulls of course).

Art needed here:
- For the extra pair of pre-treaty BBs.
- For the post-treaty BBs (let's name them Satsuma-class I think). But I think I've seen art for various
- For fast Fuso/Ise conversions
- For non-rebuilt Fuso/Ise BBs.

And somehow pictures that fit all but the last entry fairly well already were in my Art folder. I honestly don't know how so many alt Japanese shipsides ended up there. Take a look at the attachment.

We still need art for Fusos/Ises as they originally looked (I'll try to find pictures later).

The last point: Allied response. There were some good suggestions for RN before, we should take a look at them later. As about USN, just actually build Illinois and Kentucky, and all six of the planned Alaska-class BCs, with availability in 1944-45. It's easy to make plans when you can just throw more resources into your shipbuilding program.

The next stop - carriers, I'll try to take a thorough look at our options tomorrow.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Didn't the IJN have a 6" cruiser similar to the brooklyns that they rearmed with 8"? Why not keep the 6" guns and give them a modern CL?

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Only issue is no Illinois or Kentucky because the Americans don't get the boost in BBs. We're assuming 5:5:3.5 with just the Japanese getting a slight gain. I like the idea of all six Alaska's being built!

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Instead of designing a new CL, why not go with the Mogami's?

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

We still need art for Fusos/Ises as they originally looked (I'll try to find pictures later).

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to FatR)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Gents,

I'm a little late to this party, but if you're looking for balance ideas for the Allies, here are some:

1. Build up Guam and Wake a bit better, as budgets to build the bases were originally planned to be higher but got cut.
2. Put a few more base forces and slightly improve AF and/or port levels on the path from Hawaii to Australia, representing better anticipation of hostilities.
3. F4U Corsair doesn't have so many problems in the prototype stage. Move up production of all models by X months (say 4).
4. Like the idea of having the option to use PPs to add aircraft factories.
5. Also like the idea of requiring a ramp up in Stateside factories.
6. Add some training squadrons at start, especially USN.

Cheers,
CC

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Some more of my thoughts on this.  I could be wrong, so if I am let me know.

In the early 30s, I believe the US was below the actual treaty tonnage.  I don't know in which class though.  I do know it wasn't the BB's or carriers.  So that gives some room for a few more cruisers, destroyers and subs.

Some of the older destroyers could of been replaced by the newer ones built in the 30s.  This could give the US a chance to convert older destroyers into DE, APD etc. earlier. 

The Big Five could have been mondernized during the 30s.  Yea I know about the money issues, but if the japaneese were out of the treaty and building ships the US could of stayed within the treaty and updated some of there BBs.   Heres a curve ball what if the US sold an old BB or two to the Philippines or some other country as a costal BB?  That would free up some treaty tonnage.  And it would change the early moves. 

With the esculation in Japaneese ship building the US would of held more war games.  Adding to the chance that the faulty torp's would of been discovered earlier.  I believe that the US would of still lagged behind the Japaneese some but would of been a bit better prepared.

I don't know but would say that the US army, USAAF and Marines would of been updated and dispersed in a better defensive positions. 

With the esculation the M1 garand could of been supplied to the grunts a little earlier.  Improving there firepower.

Just my thoughts

doc

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

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