The Evil Empire Option: Standard Merchant Ships

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Still, it didn't see action in Manchuria.

No, it didn't (and I never said it did). It is even possible that it was formed at Chiba and remained in Japan. This is not completely clear, my sources disagree somewhat when it comes to the 4th Tank Division. The only really hard facts are that is was formed in July 1944 and that it was in Japan when the war ended.

My information is that 4th Tank Brigade formed before the war began (from our point of view - it began for Japan in the 1930s) - and that it expanded in 1942. Certainly it shows up in the OB in July of that year - I think this is clear in US Army materials as well as IJ Army ones.

However, since the Tank Corps was disbanded, and many elements and units in Kwangtung Army were transferred to other theaters, it may be there was more than one 4th - and that the first one was disbanded back into its "regiments" (battalions) for separate assignment.

[el cid again]

In any case, in the "strictly historical" CVO and BBO families of scenarios, Japan begins the war with no tank divisions, but four brigades - two of them woefully understrength - and only one committed forward (in Malaya - where it really was). These four brigades expand automatically to full strength - and between June and August 1942 - they are supplimented by all the other assets for the four new "tank divisions" - since I cannot disband the brigades - we create another brigade - which is mainly infantry, artillery and engineers.

In the EOS family, the process of organizing these units continues a while longer, and a 5th Division is formed - but on the same model (for simplicity) - a tank brigade and a motorized brigade.

Supplimenting these formations are motorized brigades unrelated to the tank divisions. Apparently an experimental one existed when the war began - and some materials indicate a few others formed later. I put the one in all scenarios and add the others only in the EOS family. Interestingly this type of brigade had a tank regiment (meaning battalion) of unique organization - more or less one medium tank company and three light tank companies - the reverse of normal practice.

In EEO I do not find either the industrial capability nor the training capability to form up any more major armor formations for the initial operations phase. But the process could have continued instead of stopping at the end of the summer of 1942 - so we continue it. But since there are no longer tank regiments, engineers, etc to assign - we cannot form so many units so fast - so instead we get only one tank division every few months. This process continues through 1943 and into 1944 - at which time there are 9 total = 18 brigades (combat commands). And the infantry and some other elements (e.g. mortar battalions) required are removed from the OB (that is, folded into these units). This because it is reasonable and because we lack slots NOT to do it! [In EEO there are ZERO 'curved gun battalions' with 81mm mortars - although there still are curved gun regiments with heavier mortars. ALL these mortars are now organic to one kind of formation or another. In addition to tank units - which I find surprising for their focus on 81mm mortars - you find them in certain infantry formations (often those with garrison duties - but also some with offensive missions and a need to be light - e.g. airborne and amphib) and even in engineer units. In EEO we took infantry groups of various kinds and supported them to the point they become proper brigades or divisions - using mortars and light artillery and obsolete 37 mm guns - for defensive missions.]

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Still, it didn't see action in Manchuria.

No, it didn't (and I never said it did). It is even possible that it was formed at Chiba and remained in Japan. This is not completely clear, my sources disagree somewhat when it comes to the 4th Tank Division. The only really hard facts are that is was formed in July 1944 and that it was in Japan when the war ended.

Along with practically every AFV the Japs could lay their hands on.

[el cid again]

I have been reviewing the escort ships for EEO - and found some problems with the other scenarios at the same time.
The basic hull for a Japanese DE type vessel is a Shumushu class DMS - later modified to DE standards when the sweeping gear was removed. Similar to a USN Spruance class destroyer hull, several classes were made on the same foundation (e.g. for USN the Kidd class and the Ticonderoga class). In IJN we have the later Etorofu - so similar that in RHS we treat it as identical - followed by Mikura and Ukuru (alternate power plants and simplified construction). But the same hull was also utilized by the Hashidate class "gunboats." And the Shimushu itself is essentially a modified Otori class "torpedoboat" - really a light destroyer - with less horsepower and not torpedo tubes.

In the strictly historical scenarios, the Hashidate (and her sister Uji) start as PG - and convert to PC type vessels. In EOS and AIO, the same ship starts in PC form (the sweeps are removed and DC count and light AA increased) - but converts to DE form. In EEO - because we start earlier - the decision was taken to build these two vessels as sisters of Shimushu.

In the strictly historical Shimushu (which shoud read Shimushu/Etorofu) starts as a DMS and converts to a poor man's DE.
In EOS and AIO, the Shimushu starts as a DE with inadequate AAA (because this isn't understood before the war) - and progressively converts to a better DE - adding the ASW mortars and radar and AAA. In EEO these ships will start as DE but to the new standard - using the 3 inch 60 twins almost universally adopted (afloat and ashore) - although light AAA is still inadequate - the 1941 standard for a DD or DE being two triple 25mm. They progressively convert to better and better DEs, ending up with the 15 cm DC projectors in 1945 - as well as the good surface search radar and ESM in 1944. More than this, as many other hulls as possible are built in this form: not only the Hashidate and Uji - but at the same time the Otori are built to this form. [IRL a number of Otori's were canceled in favor of an equal number of ASW vessels - we just did something similar for the rest of them - 8 complete as DE and the other 8 as the PCs they really were built as]
This is a big step toward addressing the start of war escort problem: there are ten more Shimushus, and all the Shimushus start with better AA and AS armament (and no sweeps). Most of what follows will simply be building as many ships as possible to the improved derivitive of this hull (Mikura) - and not building either the DDEs nor the small DEs of the real war programs. [I believe in standardization on good hulls: it is easier to maintain and operationally use identical vessels.]

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Still, it didn't see action in Manchuria.

No, it didn't (and I never said it did). It is even possible that it was formed at Chiba and remained in Japan. This is not completely clear, my sources disagree somewhat when it comes to the 4th Tank Division. The only really hard facts are that is was formed in July 1944 and that it was in Japan when the war ended.

My information is that 4th Tank Brigade formed before the war began (from our point of view - it began for Japan in the 1930s) - and that it expanded in 1942. Certainly it shows up in the OB in July of that year - I think this is clear in US Army materials as well as IJ Army ones.

However, since the Tank Corps was disbanded, and many elements and units in Kwangtung Army were transferred to other theaters, it may be there was more than one 4th - and that the first one was disbanded back into its "regiments" (battalions) for separate assignment.

As I wrote before, there was a difference between a 'Tank Group' (= Senshadan) and a 'Tank Brigade' (= Sensha Ryodan). Tank Brigades did not exist in December 1941, but there were three Tank Groups in existence then:

1st Tank Group (with 3rd, 5th and 9th Tank Regiments) under 3rd Army in Manchuria
2nd Tank Group (with 10th and 11th Tank Regiments) under 5th Army in Manchuria
3rd Tank Group (with 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th Tank Regiments) under 25th Army/Southern Army

4th Tank Group did not exist (it is possible that a 4th Tank Group had existed earlier, but if this was the case, it had been disbanded by Dec 1941)

1st Tank Division was formed in Manchuria with two tank brigades under command, 1st Tank Bde with 1st and 5th Tank Regiments, and 2nd Tank Bde with 3rd and 9th Tank Regiments. The division absorbed 1st Tank Group.

2nd Tank Division was formed in Manchuria with two tank brigades under command, 3rd Tank Bde with 6th and 7th Tank Regiments, and 4th Tank Bde with 10th and 11th Tank Regiments. The division absorbed 2nd Tank Group. As you can see, it is no wonder that 4th Tank Brigade shows up in your July 1942 OOB as it was formed in July 1942.

3rd Tank Division was formed in North China with two tank brigades under command, 5th Tank Bde with 8th and 12th Tank Regiments, and 6th Tank Bde with 13th and 17th Tank Regiments. The division absorbed the Cavalry Group (wrongly identified by Niehorster and in stock WITP as 'Mongolian Cavalry Corps' or something like this) and used Tank Regiments that had been in China before (12th, 13th; don't know about the 17th, maybe formed from Tank Unit of 17th Division?) and the 8th Tank Regiment (unknown location on Dec 7th 1941, but nominally under 16th Army then).

4th Tank Division: See my discussion with Terminus. It had no (divisional) Tank Brigade structure (as this had been abandoned by 1944) and formed with 28th, 29th and 30th Tank Regiments (all formed in 1944).

3rd Tank Group was demobilized after the Malaya campaign.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen






As I wrote before, there was a difference between a 'Tank Group' (= Senshadan) and a 'Tank Brigade' (= Sensha Ryodan). Tank Brigades did not exist in December 1941, but there were three Tank Groups in existence then:

1st Tank Group (with 3rd, 5th and 9th Tank Regiments) under 3rd Army in Manchuria
2nd Tank Group (with 10th and 11th Tank Regiments) under 5th Army in Manchuria
3rd Tank Group (with 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th Tank Regiments) under 25th Army/Southern Army

I agree - with the term tank group in 1941 - and I am translating it as tank brigade on the following logic:
We can never undo a unit in WITP. And a "tank group" - a multiple battalion unit - is a tank brigade in WITP terms.
Further - the tank groups were officially tank brigades eventually. So - for simplicity and clarity - I use the term from the start - except in unissued EOS - where I use an English translation of the Japanese translation of Kampgruppe. Again - this was not really the case in 1941 when the war begins - but it becomes the case when the divisions form: the tank brigade, the infantry regiment, and artillery unit and all the other units - were supposed to contribute assets to operational kampfgruppe - and usually only two of these. Since we cannot let players control this - I just create standardized ones of the average size they would really be.

I do not agree there are only three tank groups - and when I worked out the OB - I was able to identify the assigned elements. Note that the tank group in Southern Army seems not to have had one of those regiments - which was independent - and it is so shown in RHS - you get a tank brigade (representing 3 tank regiments) and an independent tank regiment. I didn't know until I did RHS that all four had formed in 1941 - that information came from Japan when I first listed it incorrectly.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


[

Never get old - or at least never depend on memory to be perfect. You are correct. My notes, emails, data base, everything says 4th Tank Brigade does not form until September 1942. That is probably an operational date rather than a first formation date.

[el cid again]

Obviously, WITP only has landing craft NOT assigned to ships. Those on ships - any ship (AK/AKA, AP/APA, LSD, LST, APD, AGC or any other ship beginning with L or a number of others beginning with A) - are abstracted for use when the ship lands/embarks over the beach. The LC units in the game - which are multiple LC in RHS - are what I am discussing here.

For EEO I decided that all normal IJA shipping transportation regiment LC should be standardized on the Toku-Dahiatsu type LCM. These vessels were - as the name implies - enlarged Daihatsu LCMs. But in the configuration adopted, they actually have slightly less capacity. The rest of the capacity is used for armament - and fuel - so the vessel may go farther. But landing craft are already marginal naval units on this scale - and the longer range units are more flexable - while the better armed ones are slightly more survivable. There also were a few army or navy named Dahatsu companies associated with base forces of the same name: these are now renamed TDahhatsu - and upgraded to TokuDaihatsu craft.

There are two other changes related to what are more or less landing craft. One concerns the "AG" category in RHS - which is rarely used compared to other flavors of WITP. In other scenarios we had some named "Shipping Transportation Companies" and one of those had a unusual craft armed with 25mm guns and able to carry a fair number of troops at a somewhat higher speed than a typical landing craft. They were also more fuel efficient due to having a less boxy hull form. Technically classified as gunboats, they are unusual because they carry a significant number of men and/or cargo - and are classified as AG so they can do both. In EEO all named Shipping Transportation Companies have these vessels.

The other category is "air boats" (in US parlance) or "river boats, class 3" in Japanese. These are really landing craft, able to carry 100 men, but very specialized and very fast - the fastest landing craft of all time. Developed in China before the war from tour boats on inland rivers, I was taught they were a US innovation of the 1960s for use in the Florida Everglades. [That is, this is a typical case of we give Japan no credit for its innovations, and allege we really did it.] These vessels use aircraft engines - complete with propellers - for motive power - have very shallow draught - and can even cross flat land or swamp too marshy to move in by conventional displacement hull. Only one company of one Shipping Transportation Regiment has them in other RHS scenarios (because only 48 were built, and we put 48 in a company - which probably isn't how they were used). Since they were built from 1937-8, we build many in leiu of regular landing craft, but only assign them to some of the regiments in interior river systems - about half of those. The speed means they offer some potential tactical advantages, particularly on longer river systems. These vessels might appear other places if Japanese players do not let landing craft appear naturally - those headed for the interior of Burma might appear any time a "create landing craft" button is pressed - wherever the player is doing that. I don't recommend that button be used - and it is not particularly wise to use them on the open ocean. But no landing craft are - and IJN in particular (also RAN and US Army and Navy) DID use flat bottomed craft even for fairly long voyages in the open ocean - so I can live with it if a player can.

[el cid again]

Once again I tried (and failed) to add a late war US submarine design. While a design was worked up after the war, and it began in 1944, it was never produced. It was not a particularly good design - reflecting the fact US submarine design and practice was trapped in its own success. These vessels would not offer any advantage over conventional fleet boats comparable to the significant increase in their cost. In the form finally settled on, they were only two knots faster on the surface, 0 to half a knot faster underwater, and added only two stern tubes and six external small tubes disliked by submariners. Their nominal additional gun was actually mounted on a fleet boat (her hull was just found near Bangkok - I didn't realize we fielded a sub with two five inch guns until that happened) - so this can be done without a new submarine design. In the first six designs, those of 1944, the sub is faster still - 24 or 25 knots - but no one liked them - and 5 of the six retained the original armament. To achieve this required 50% more engines - 6 instead of 4 - and the added length adversely affected maneuverability and underwater speed (greater wetted surface is the underwater speed determinant). Only a proposal to use GM "pancake" engines might achieve the power required in a reasonable package - and this engine ultimately failed - long after the war. Admiral Lockwoods proposal of a gas turbine might have worked - but I need to research that.

I will take a look at the "return to limited dimensions" made during the war. Admiral Hart - and all pre war thought - assumed we would mass produce medium sized vessels - and early in the war fears of defending Hawaii and the West Coast made that seem possibly attractive. In EEO that is more likely to happen than IRL - so we will look at it again. This idea IS implemented already - in the BBO family scenarios. Two prototypes were built - Mackeral and Marlin - and it turns out a variation of Marlin was studied in 1942 - and ultimately a variation of that was built after the war for Peru (a Latin American country with a surprisingly strong submarine tradition).

[el cid again]

1) The Ju-87 Review Thread was expanded (by me) to include horizontal bombers. This didn't result in anything better than the Ki-68/G5N3 for heavy bomber use in the EOS family. However, it DID cause me to understand that the Ju-88 is a better two engine dive bomber than the Ki-48 II - which also is a dive bomber - which has the same range - but which has less payload. The Ju-88 could be imported well before PTO erupts into war - and it would be available to forces in 1942 - possibly 1941 in EEO. Some opposition to its inclusion has been expressed. It is up for consideration today - this review closes today.

2) The above caused me to realize that in EEO the Me-109 can be phased in sooner - because the planning for the war begins much sooner.

3) The above also caused me to wonder if Japan might not want to buy the Graf Zeppelin? Assuming its ambassador to Germany - an admiral close to Hitler - knew of its use as a ferrit in 1939 - and assuming Japan wanted a sort of AEW platform. We have blimps for the US of equal duration - 48 hours - but this one will move at 54 mph vice 40 mph - giving it slightly more range. It would be pretty vulnerable to "air attack" - just as blimps are - but might provide significant air search and surface search capabilities - using both the radar and ESM devices already in the system. It is pure chrome - not very useful except with imagination in very low threat areas - but the question is: is there interest in this concept for EEO only?

[Mike Scholl]

Hey Cid.   While you are conducting adventures in fantasy land, how about giving the US the blueprints for the Mosquito?  Be fun having a few thousand of those roaming the Pacific.

[el cid again]

I see no big problem with that - except a slot to put it in. But there are very different kinds of Mosquitos - what kind have you in mind? And what is wrong with P-38???????

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I see no big problem with that - except a slot to put it in. But there are very different kinds of Mosquitos - what kind have you in mind? And what is wrong with P-38???????

All kinds. And the Mosquito has a greater bombload/range than a P-38. But I brought it up because most of the changes "proposed" seemed to be on the Japanese side..., and I thought the Allies deserved some consideration as well.

[el cid again]

I have not really begun to work on the Allies - except for the biggie: a massive change in allocation of aircraft to PTO. EEO gets about 50% more for planes that are multi theater - 25% more for planes that mainly went to PTO in the first place - but of course no more when 100% went (really 90% because I charge you 10% for attrition due to accidents, diversions, training, etc). I also have posted requests for ideas - and got zero suggestions. But EEO has all the ship ideas used in EOS already - and isn't short on things like carriers (there are more Independence type CVLs, more Essex type CVs) or useful gunships (there are extra CAs sooner vice Alaska type CBs later, a nice CL vice Vanguard, stuff like that).

RHS has three different kinds of Mosquito - and there is no way to get three more slots for US marked aircraft. If/when we ever get the Allied universal marking scheme art done we might be able to use them in the existing slots though.

But remember the whole POINT of EEO is better JAPANESE planning - not better ALLIED planning. Allied enhancements are assumed to be reactions - not plans - and reactions AFTER something has happened they know about. Thus - a stronger opening campaign might change priority of PTO - and that is why more planes are sent that way. Units transferred in 1945 won't be coming - I have yet to weed them out - because ETO lasts longer due to that airpower NOT sent that direction. Which is to say not all Allied reactions are positive developments for force levels.

In spite of this, I was able to create several Allied plane slots, and put some new planes into them. The PBB is a case in point. This aircraft is available sooner - and it changes certain deals - so the USAAF gets more B-24s - and USN does not get them at all. Ultimately the air power changes mean the Allied squadrons will be able to sustain bigger attrition rates, and this seems to me to be a very American way to wage warfare in this era. [The number of B-24s is not only much higher at the factory, those diverted to the Navy don't divert - so it is higher still. That sort of thing.] The rates at which fighters appear - starting with the F6F - are so high the Allies can re-equip many units very fast - and then sustain their operational losses.

[Historiker]

The US might built Carrier Replacements for British losses as well. So the British Carriers must be defined as US?!

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
RHS has three different kinds of Mosquito - and there is no way to get three more slots for US marked aircraft. If/when we ever get the Allied universal marking scheme art done we might be able to use them in the existing slots though.

But remember the whole POINT of EEO is better JAPANESE planning - not better ALLIED planning. Allied enhancements are assumed to be reactions - not plans - and reactions AFTER something has happened they know about. Thus - a stronger opening campaign might change priority of PTO - and that is why more planes are sent that way. Units transferred in 1945 won't be coming - I have yet to weed them out - because ETO lasts longer due to that airpower NOT sent that direction. Which is to say not all Allied reactions are positive developments for force levels.

That's the reason I suggested the Mosquito. It's already designed and in production so the plans are available. And the US could make use of the same excess capacity in the woodworking industry that made the A/C so attractive to the Brits. We'd have to start producing Merlin Engines a bit earlier, but that's hardly a historic problem. It's a perfect "reaction" A/C....

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

The US might built Carrier Replacements for British losses as well. So the British Carriers must be defined as US?!

Not sure what you have in mind here?

Do you think carriers respawn in RHS? They do not. Nor do cruisers. No replacement carriers at all. Instead - you get ALL the carriers - none left out for that purpose (six Essex are left out of stock and CHS).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
RHS has three different kinds of Mosquito - and there is no way to get three more slots for US marked aircraft. If/when we ever get the Allied universal marking scheme art done we might be able to use them in the existing slots though.

But remember the whole POINT of EEO is better JAPANESE planning - not better ALLIED planning. Allied enhancements are assumed to be reactions - not plans - and reactions AFTER something has happened they know about. Thus - a stronger opening campaign might change priority of PTO - and that is why more planes are sent that way. Units transferred in 1945 won't be coming - I have yet to weed them out - because ETO lasts longer due to that airpower NOT sent that direction. Which is to say not all Allied reactions are positive developments for force levels.

That's the reason I suggested the Mosquito. It's already designed and in production so the plans are available. And the US could make use of the same excess capacity in the woodworking industry that made the A/C so attractive to the Brits. We'd have to start producing Merlin Engines a bit earlier, but that's hardly a historic problem. It's a perfect "reaction" A/C....

It is a lot of work - NO US units use the type and it won't appear as an upgrade option unless we program it that way - either assigned to a unit or an upgrade to one. And I fail to see the point: what capability is gained? The US has longer range recon, superb fighters of great range, fabulous bombers and fighter bombers. We are slot limited - you will get no more types of planes- and industry is also limited - it does not really produce MORE planes - we just send a different fraction to PTO. Whatever aluminum and engines are sent - are sent. How does recasting them as three more types to support logistically help at all? I am not sure you could sell this to US commanders of the time. As for selling me - you have to show why I should spend weeks reworking air units - and what planes I can get rid of to make the slots? And then why - after all that work - the Allies are better off?

[el cid again]

EEO replaces six T101 LSM pairs with six single Mikura DE - using the same engines and steel (with some left over steel and half the yard capacity not required).

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

The US might built Carrier Replacements for British losses as well. So the British Carriers must be defined as US?!

Not sure what you have in mind here?

Do you think carriers respawn in RHS? They do not. Nor do cruisers. No replacement carriers at all. Instead - you get ALL the carriers - none left out for that purpose (six Essex are left out of stock and CHS).

My fault.

You might let the Anson class BB hull convert to a heavy armoured AAA Escort in 2/42. Perhaps 20-30 heavy guns and 100 or more light ones.