3 Saratoga's and 1 Shoukaku

[MineSweeper]

Time for my usual beef about the respawning allied CVs in both CHS and stock.....killed 3 Saratoga's within 2.5 years(I think I am safe from a 4th Saratoga....LOL[X(]).....the respawning Allied CV rule needs a change IMO.....only allow the historic 4 allied CV replacements......if not, allow respawning Japanese CVs....[;)]

[Halsey]

It's only a name...[:o][:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

It's also less than truthful... Not possible to spawn that many CV's that quickly...

[MineSweeper]

Yes it is too.....[:)]check the manual....

With Reinforcements Variable Dates +/- 60days it did happen[;)]

Saratoga 1 sunk 12/41
Saratoga 2 sunk 4/43
Saratoga 3 sunk 9/44

From the manual

- Sunk Ships Replacements - Some sunk ships are provided as replacements, with arrival date of 550 days from sunk date:
- American CVs sunk prior 1.1.1944. - replaced with Essex class CV (position 240),
- American / Australian CA sunk prior 1.1.1944. - replaced with Baltimore class CA (position
195), or Cleveland class (position 208) CL (replacement class is chosen at random).
- Minesweeper of any navy sunk - replaced by a similar minesweeper.


- Variable Reinforcement Dates - Reinforcement arrival dates for LCUs, air Units and ships will vary for set amount of days
from historical, fixed arrival date.
- Can be set to Fixed, +/- 15 days, and +/- 60 days.
- In PBEM games, neither player can view reinforcements during first turn of any scenario.

[spence]

It is only a name as was mentioned.
 
More importantly the US Government was cancelling ship building contracts before the war was even over because they weren't needed.  If they needed more to beat Japan they wouldn't have done that.   
 
On the other hand the Japanese government was decommissioning (transferring to the Reserve Fleet with skeleton crews) damaged ships because they couldn't repair them.
 
What are you proposing to do?  Win, as in really WIN, the war?  Get real. 

[MineSweeper]

ORIGINAL: spence

It is only a name as was mentioned.

More importantly the US Government was cancelling ship building contracts before the war was even over because they weren't needed.  If they needed more to beat Japan they wouldn't have done that.   

On the other hand the Japanese government was decommissioning (transferring to the Reserve Fleet with skeleton crews) damaged ships because they couldn't repair them.

What are you proposing to do?  Win, as in really WIN, the war?  Get real. 

The United States Navy only cancelled ONE CV (CV 35 Reprisal) and that cancellation was on AUG 12 1945and it was 52% complete.......just trying to be more accurate.....get real yourself[:D]

[treespider]

CV-50
Cancelled
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

CV-51
Cancelled
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

CV-52
Cancelled
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

CV-53
Cancelled
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

CV-54
Cancelled
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

CV-55
Cancelled
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

CV-56
Cancelled
Midway-class
Canceled

CV-57
Cancelled
Midway-class
Canceled

[treespider]

CV-35
Reprisal, canceled August 11, 1945
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled
 
 




CVB-44
Cancelled
Midway-class
Canceled
 




CV-46
Iwo Jima, canceled August 11, 1945
Long hull Essex-class
Canceled

[treespider]

From Global Security .org
 
CV-50 to 55 were cancelled on 28 March 1945 never having been laid down. Reprisal (CV-35) and Iwo Jima (CV-46) were cancelled 12 August 1945 partially completed.
 
The USS Midway was commissioned on September 10, 1945. Named for the Battle of Midway, the carrier was the lead ship of her class, three of which were completed, with another three ships cancelled.

[MineSweeper]

Thanks for the correction.....I only thought that CV 35 was cancelled....[;)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

It is only a name as was mentioned.

More importantly the US Government was cancelling ship building contracts before the war was even over because they weren't needed.  If they needed more to beat Japan they wouldn't have done that.   

On the other hand the Japanese government was decommissioning (transferring to the Reserve Fleet with skeleton crews) damaged ships because they couldn't repair them.

What are you proposing to do?  Win, as in really WIN, the war?  Get real. 

Spence is quite right. Many ships - and in particular the Midways - were built for the post war world - when funding would be tight. USS Midway was modified to handle jets DURING construction (the captain of the Princeton was in a hospital in sight of her construction and improperly ordered yard workers to change things - later he became the first pilot to land a jet on a carrier - in spite of not being qualified to serve due to loss of a leg - an ancient law was involked to return him to duty - he was promoted to an admiral during the Korean war and slated to have a high Navy job when he finally did resign - to go into the Veteran's administration - which eventually he led). These ships should not have been built as part of war strategy - Midways would have finished sooner - and wartime operational methods could not efficiently use their decks.

FYI the respawn is defeated in all RHS scenarios - and you can make any mod defeat it by moving the Essex class slot - or any other slot you don't want to respawn. Leave the former slots empty - label them "Essex respawn" etc - and you will not have the problem. RHS uses ORIGINAL ship names where possible - not renames - and it also makes up logical names when not possible using the system of the period. This may lead to confusion because some names ended up on different ships - our Franklin is the first one - not the renamed one.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

FYI the respawn is defeated in all RHS scenarios - and you can make any mod defeat it by moving the Essex class slot - or any other slot you don't want to respawn. Leave the former slots empty - label them "Essex respawn" etc - and you will not have the problem. RHS uses ORIGINAL ship names where possible - not renames - and it also makes up logical names when not possible using the system of the period. This may lead to confusion because some names ended up on different ships - our Franklin is the first one - not the renamed one.

Wish they would have done that in the first place. Glad your mod has that.

[MineSweeper]

Always liked RHS......[;)]

[spence]

Given the tenor of the times perhaps it is fitting and fortuanate that the USS Reprisal came to be cancelled.  If it had come to it my guess is that CV-57 might well have been named USS Exterminator.
 
 

[bradfordkay]

The Reprisal was a ship of the US Navy in the early years, as was the Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp and Ranger (and several others). Through WW2, the convention on naming carries was to name them after ships of the early US Navy or after battles in which US forces participated. The Franklin Roosevelt was the first carrier named for a political figure (the Franklin, Hancock and Randolph had all been ships in the navy back in the age of sail).

[spence]

I'm aware that Reprisal was a name of a previously distinguished ship of the USN. I was sort of just extrapolating about how that tradition might have changed had the Japanese had continued to resist and ships that were cancelled had actually been needed to continue the war. IRL in 1945 the USAAF had taken the official position that the Japanese civilian population was a legitimate target.

[el cid again]

I have worked with several authors - and joint US / Japanese studies of Japanese nuclear technology - and studied on my own condiserable Japanese CW and BW materials (which were long very hard to get). At the end of the war there was a somewhat surprising - and transinstitutional - and universal - decision set to not use, and usually also to destroy - all forms of NBC weapons in both Japanese military services. [Not always for the same reason - and some Americans are skeptical the reasons given were the real ones - machts nitchts - it was always the same choice]. This contrasts sharply with the US decisions to use firebombing of cities (which we regarded at that time as a war crime, and tried and convicted Germans for doing it), nuclear bombing, and chemical bombardment as part of Olympic and Coronet (only disclosed in the 1980s when the records were declassified). Nevertheless - there were enough projects - and enough completed to the point use was practical - of the CW, BW and RW sort - that it is possible to imagine their use by Japan on invasion forces or on cities in the US (the focus of several Navy projects). I believe - had that occurred - the mentality of the time might have indeed gone quite bezerk - and (quoting one US Army Lt Col) we might even have attempted to exterminate the entire population of Japan. Whatever the reaction - it would have been very large scale - and almost defenseless Japan would have suffered many times whatever it had inflicted. Here I again must agree with Spence in spirit.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This contrasts sharply with the US decisions to use firebombing of cities (which we regarded at that time as a war crime, and tried and convicted Germans for doing it), nuclear bombing, and chemical bombardment as part of Olympic and Coronet (only disclosed in the 1980s when the records were declassified).

Incorrect. No German was tried, much less convicted, for aerial bombardment of cities or civilians. I'm pretty sure the prosecuting authorities at Nuremburg were aware of the potential inconsistency.

In a similar situation Doenitz was prosecuted for waging unrestricted submarine warfare and for an alleged policy of executing survivors. He was found not guilty on that charge largely because the US and other nations behaved similarly. Doenitz was found guilty of crimes against peace for his prominent role in Hitler's regime. His crimes against humanity included allowing the commando order to stand and the use of slave labor.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/juddoeni.htm

Sorry for going off topic.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: spence

It is only a name as was mentioned.

More importantly the US Government was cancelling ship building contracts before the war was even over because they weren't needed. If they needed more to beat Japan they wouldn't have done that.

On the other hand the Japanese government was decommissioning (transferring to the Reserve Fleet with skeleton crews) damaged ships because they couldn't repair them.

What are you proposing to do? Win, as in really WIN, the war? Get real.

Coming in late on this thread...

The US canceled a lot of ships in late 1944 and into 1945 that weren't needed. However, if all 6 pre-war carriers had been lost in 1942, the capacity to replace them all by 1943 or early 1944 was not there. The Kentucky and Illinois were launched partially built to make way for more Essexes. The Illinois was scrapped right after the war and the Kentucky, which was further along was scrapped a few years after the war. A bit of trivia, the engines on the Kentucky were removed and installed in two post war ships which were just decommissioned a few years ago.

There were real limits to American ship production. Espcecially larger ships, which required capital ship yards for construction.

Bill

[YankeeAirRat]

More then just Battleships and Aircraft carriers were cancelled near the end of the war. If you want to check it out, head over to www.navsource.org and just scroll through some of the subjects. You can see that they canceled such things as Destoryer Tender, Repair Ships, Destroyers, Cruisers, Submarines, etc. So on a whole the fleet modernization plans from the inter-war period were being slowed down at the right time, just like they were supposed to be according to the Rainbow plans.