RHSEBO concept amplified? 7.792 and 3 microupdates for EBO ONLY

[el cid again]

CA USS Wichita was laid down in 1935.

NO cruisers were laid down after that until 1940.

In our hypothetical world - I think that it is possible there would be repeat sisters of Wichita every year until 1940 -
that is four more ships - replies to Japanese construction.

The next class was the Cleveland. As designed, it was to be a CLAA with six inch guns. This was a second try - the
Brooklyns were originally to use their 60 degree mounts for AAA. The Cleveland was to get a new six inch gun - in twins -
the 6 inch 47. That took a long time - and turned out too well - so instead of going with it - they developed an 8 inch AAA gun
and the Worcester were designed for EIGHT inch AA guns. But that took so long ultimately the first four units were ordered
with "only" 6 inch 47s - and the rest got cancelled when the war ended. As designed the Cleveland had three twin 6 inch
and also 5 inch DP mountings in approximately the normal arrangment.

What if somebody got practical? "We cannot wait years for a new gun. We HAVE a six inch that we could put in twin mounts that could turn and elevate fast enough. Lets use the OLD six inch 47 - with 1/3 the ROF - but no heavy autoloading gear - and put it in twins ???

Only two of the twin mount Clevelands were originally ordered. But if not delayed - these could have been built from about 1937. The Brooklyn pattern was 2 per year. So that would be 8 CLAA ordered by 1940 - completing from 1939 to 1942.

Then we get the Two Ocean Navy - and the later Clevelands are ordered - and we just use unused names from farther down the list for the extra ships we need.

In this case - the Atlantas might then be ordered as six inch type CLAA as well. Atlantas were treaty ships - built below the treaty definitions - and if there was no treaty - they might have had six inch guns. This would make them somewhat comparable to British six gun CLs - Arethusa - with RN type heavy DP guns (RN CA 8 inch were DP guns - and effective - but only twins).

[el cid again]

If there were no treaty, four Wichita would have likely been ordered prior to the 1940 fleet expansion: I am naming them

Albany, Columbus, Rochester, Oregon City and Des Moines.

Curiously - I long served alongside Columbus in the Atlantic - and I come from a Rochester - although not the one for which the ship name was chosen.

I found that CL in years after 1936 - when the last two Brooklyns laid down - would also be Brooklyns - and this would go on until 1939 - because in 1940 you get the wartime Clevelands.

These would be called Wilmington, Buffalo, Newark, Miami, Wilkes-Barra, Oklahoma City, Little Rock and Galviston

[Historiker]

What about more CLs as CVLs?

[el cid again]

You already have them - there are six additional CLs as Independence and a converted CA as an early Siapan class - not counting
the actual six Independence - that is 13 total USN CVLs.

[Historiker]

Wouldn't it be more useful not to convert CAs to CVLs while converting CLs instead? This might save some firepower...

[el cid again]

Maybe - not sure what you have in mind here - but it is not an option. USN didn't get around to designing a CA hulled CVL in time -
and then it turned out not to work as such - so they did a whole new design to a similar hull. See The Independence Class Aircraft Carriers
for details.

[el cid again]

These changes are uploaded as a microupdate for Scenario 72 only - it is optional - and there is not likely to be a change in the installer program to deal with it. This is microupdate 7.792 and is only for anyone wanting these ships AFTER doing 7.791 installation.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

If there were no treaty, four Wichita would have likely been ordered prior to the 1940 fleet expansion: I am naming them

Albany, Columbus, Rochester, Oregon City and Des Moines.

That's five...[:)]

[el cid again]

true - I finally figured out that the Baltimore does not lay until 1941 - so the 1940 ship is also included - and then I did not correct the number in the post when I added the name - you are a detail reader


Do you want to play with these ships? It might be a battle Royal - both of us are known as Mr T in some circles.

[el cid again]

I have identified one moderately significant EBO eratum - and several tiny ones.
These will be corrected in microupdate 7.793 - tomorrow. Post any eratta detected here for inclusion - as I don't intend to update again.

The significant one is that the first update for Yamato has 31 cm guns. Only if you wait to update until the third update - or if you never update it - can you avoid this in an ongoing game. [The third update for Yamato class occurs after 4/44 - so upgrading twice after that date means you will bypass the problem]

Aside from correcting eratta - 7.793 will complete implementation of the Japanese planning - and replace both the Kongos and the later Ise/Fuso ships - yielding a uniform weapon for all Japanese battleships - the 16 inch gun of Nagato class. I found that the cost in terms of yard time and labor to tear down the ships enough to increase even internal deck armor - and to deepen the turret foundations (except for the after pair on Ise class - which is why they were converted to semi-carriers - those guns don't have the elevation = range or the rest) - is the same as building a new ship. The boiler work on the old ships was actually more expensive than new ones - because of the need to get access - and then repair what you just did. And the old ships can provide the steel for the new ones - if you treat the scrap as a substitute for iron ore. This program would have required all the time from 1932 until the Yamato class lays down - and it does not permit any steel, funding or engines to do much else. I assume that the planning for Yamato class did include later units - but the war does not last long enough for units 4 and 5 to produce - and 3 is a bad idea (in terms of production cost and what you cannot do if you spend the HI points) - but I let you have Shinano if you want it - and if you shut down enough other production - you might even get it on time. This is Shinano as BB - EEO and EBO assume only economical carriers are built - and even Taiho is cancelled in favor of faster building and more cost effective smaller units. In EBO in particular, it is hard to believe battleship admirals do not have significant sway - so Shinano would be wanted as a replacement or reinforcement unit.

[Mifune]

The latest version and update for RHS EBO is now available on the RHS web site. The new ship art is in the RHS EBO scenario as well.