Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[John 3rd]

4. The ultimate IJN carrier fighter, the A7M Reppu ("Sam") was delayed because the Mitsubishi design staff was too occupied with improving the A6M and developing the J2M Raiden ("Jack"). If you want to enhance the IJN carrier fighters over OTL, dump the J2M, basing the J2 design instead on the Heinkel 100 which the IJN had already bought in 1939 lock, stock, and barrel (if all had gone according to plan, the He 100 could have been in series production in mid-1941), imagine that Jiro Horikoshi had got his way and put a more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine in the A6M5 (which in OTL happened only with the A6M8) and you have something like the A6M8 in late 1943 and the A7M in August/September 1944.

Skipping Jack and moving into these designs is exactly what I envisioned from the start. 
 
One could look at a Zero deployment of:
A6M3  Jan 42
A6M3a  March 42
A6M5  October 42
A7M/A6M8 along the lines you describe.
 
Japan decides to bank ALL Naval Research on the Zero airframe.  Damn the Hellkittens...Firewall that throttle!
 

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

What isn't being talked about is what the IJA Doesn't get to equal the budgetary costs of what the IJN does. The amount of GDP spent on defence was bankrupting japan in reality, which leads me back to being able to change what they built, but not nescesarilly how much they built.

Pretty much agree here esp in the critical 38-41 period when the Yamatos were rushed ( witness the reduction in tonnage durring some years in this period and a massive increase in budget ,yet both before and after production was higher) . IMHO you could build 7-8 Ibukis /Mogamis or 4-5 Soryu for each Yamato class ship in terms of resources they put in , not that you can get away with that politically. Its not a question of slips but more steel ( esp plate is a problem) , workers and budget. Notice the lack of plate in ships while Yamato was being build ( Just the 2 Tones and these came before the Yamatos demand for plate) so a BC , CA or more armoured deck CV durring the 39-41 period is not really possible. Late 41 you have more options.

In my mod i sort of do it this way the Japanese knew the US was eves dropping on them in the Washington Conference and they end up getting 70% instead of 60% this allows the 2 Kaga BBs ( which were already launched) to be built , add in 2 cheap BBs later from Fuso turrets from a rebuild and Japan has a fleet superior to a reinforced US pacific fleet of 39 , this delays the Yamatos which are not layed down till 41 while 20" research continues. (Note in my mod the US realize this and are more aggresive in there build up , guaranteeing Indo China , assisting China and increasing the army earlier anyway this is not the thread to discuss this i just wanted to point out the Yamato resource problem issue and how i got around it.

This argument makes a lot of sense to me. This is an enhanced FLEET Scenario. Why not weaken--realistically--the Army? Yamamoto's personality as NavyMinister carries the day against the Army and he DODGES assassination!

What about starting the Army plane production, armament and vehicle plants lower on Dec 7th? The Japanese player COULD build it up but it would be expensive.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

There would probably be no technical reasons (besides engine availability, which could be prohibitive in reality) not to design and build the A6M5 early, but I doubt you could have convinced the Yokosuka Airgroup to pass on a shorter range, less maneuverable version of the zero. The Japanese fighter pilots got the plane they wanted in the A6M2, and fought the changes introduced in the M3, let alone the M5. Now, having the Air staff decide at the M3 they needed an Allied style fighter, and discontinue A6 development may have got you the N1K2-J and J2M 6 months to a year earlier.

You wouldnt get them to agree to whole sale replacement but a fast diving / fast climbing plane with heavy arnament (or zero modfication) would be excepted as a Chutai for CAP duties where range and maneuver are less important. If this goes well in action Pilots would demand the new plane , note if introduced in early 42 you would have no chance but after mid 42 when they encounter better and faster allied planes such a CAP chutai would slowly expand. To prevent expansion too quick i would introduce 3 such chutai as reinforcements in mid 42 with some reserve planes but not make the plane available till late 42. You could change all those dates by +6 or +12 months.

[Kitakami]

Question... would it make sense to start with less tank regiments and/or heavy artillery regiments?

[John 3rd]

We would be moving into Japanese Army OOB stuff which I know little about but cutting several of each type could REALLY affect the DEI--Burma--Darwin Thrust.  It would certainly offset a few of the advantages given to the IJN.
 
This is a fascinating idea...
 

[bklooste]

1.Please see my post 46 above , i document the minimum size of all cruiser+ slipways.  It shows no merchant ship yards which had built  cruisers or even destroyers but yards that built APs did build warships.
 
I suggest if these yards Shanghai and Korea were used it would be for more DE and SC class ships.
 
2. What is the point of building a BC that after trials will be there in 44 surely it would have been build as a CV or prob better put the resources on aircraft. ?
3. Improved scout cruisers ... Whats the point  ? If you want a cruiser get the Ibukis and build them earlier which shoudl be possible without the SHinano and H111 . For scouting get a merchant build AV (or maybe even CVS) so it doesnt tie up a naval ship yard. If you get them at May/JUne your looking at August on station which is your maximum expansion. So AVs at dot bases should be enough.  
4. Rather have 10 moon class and 0 Oyodo CLAA at least your not tying up a cruiser yard ( though should not be as big an issue for a CL). Note any yard which can build a Cruiser , BC could be making a CVL or CV which is a high opportunity cost which is why historically all capital ships built by Japan were carriers..which is smart however they lost track with a lot of  silly conversions.
 
Some figures for slip
 
CA Suzuya ( Mogami class was on the slips for 344 days )  not much data on a BCs ,  Akagi was 1598 days on slip ( due to treaty) , 2 of the Kongos were about 630 days on slips
 [/align]As a reference for some CVs
Soryu was 400 days on slip.
Ibuki 250 days.
SHokaku 536 days
 
BTW here is the data i use it shows all ships built at a  yard slip times etc eg
 
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/63610x63293/229170/a0.htm
 

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Question... would it make sense to start with less tank regiments and/or heavy artillery regiments?

Most of these date from the pre Yamato period or even WWi for some of the heavy arty so ship production wont have much of an impact.

Type 45 240 mm howitzer 1912
Type 4 150mm gun 1915
Type 38 15 cm howitzer 1905

AFV
35 404
36 410
37 347 Yamato laid down
38 317
39 570
40 1138 Yamato launched

[ny59giants]

What are you going to do about ASW warships?? More and/or better what??

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: mikemike
1. . According to Whitley, Shimakaze's boilers, which were of a new high-pressure type, operated at 400 C (752 F) and a pressure of 38,9 atm (about 550 psi, if my conversion is right), and this was rather more than usual, so I'd guess the usual type of boiler on all other ships was in the region of 24-28 atm (or kg per sq cm), say 340 - 400 psi. AFAIK, really high-pressure boilers were only used on Amatsukaze of the Kagero class and on Shimakaze, probably because of cost and production problems. Even so, this was just two thirds of the working pressure of standard USN plants and about half the pressure of German Navy plants (70-110 atm).

This is true but higher pressure boilers often needed to be heavier and more reinforced so while space efficient they were not neccesarily weight efficient.
Authors will always pick a stat that suits there point , sureley its the total weight of the machinary that matters not just the boilers ? The Japanese seemed to have done quite well with weight savings in the actual machinary . This lighter construction would also have made the higher pressure boilers problematic. This would present a bigger advantage in destroyer compartmentalization and potential bunkerage to the HP boilers . As shown in the post above the Japanese war built cruisers (Tone & Ibuki) at 63 hp/ton almost equaled the Summer M. class destroyers at 70 hp per ton yet with cruiser fuel economy and reliability. That said except for expensive 1 offs i dont think they could equal or beat the Fletcher class.

2. The 100/65 Type 98 was used on the Akizukis Taiho, Oyodo, and was planned for the battlecruisers. The 80/60 was used only on the Agano class and on the Ibuki CVL conversion. If you want a larger-caliber DP gun with enhanced performance, there was the 127/50 Type 1 (or 5) with a ballistic performance comparable to the US Mk 16 (as used on Midway) or Mk 42. Granted, the Type 1 shipboard twin mount never got beyond the drawing board, and there was only one land-based prototype of the Type 5, but this is a more plausible alternative than a 120/60, the IJN already had severe barrel life problems with the 76 mm (600 rounds) and 100 mm (350-400 rounds) guns, and a 120/60 would probably have had a life of just 250-300 rounds, quite impractical.

The desire is not to get a gun with better Balistics that the existing 127/50 but one that is a better DP weapon the 100/65 fires slower in game than a 5"/38 and has half the shell weight. So the semi automated loading of the 100/65 and 80/60 is attractive on a larger weapon. the standard 127/50 Type 3 barrel with a 100/65 semi automated loading (which requires catridges) would be more than adequate in a DP mount though still inferior to a 5"/38.

What info do you have on this Type 1 and 5 ?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

There would probably be no technical reasons (besides engine availability, which could be prohibitive in reality)

A6M5 used the same Sakae 21 engine, except exhaust stacks were modified to provide thrust augmentation. Again, this is a modification that requires devoting engineering resources to it, but does not require drastic changes on production lines.

I believe, even A6M8 can be plausibly pushed significantly forward, assuming that, unlike RL, the failure of Sakae 31 will be correctly predicted and switch to Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 will be ordered early. This also probably means an earlier and better divebomber Zero version (an improved equivalent of A6M7).

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
not to design and build the A6M5 early, but I doubt you could have convinced the Yokosuka Airgroup to pass on a shorter range, less maneuverable version of the zero.

The army was even more extreme in their demands for maneurability, yet the first army E-fighter (Ki-44) went into mass production in 1942. The fleet wanted an interceptor as well, so if there is no Jack, a shorter-range version of Zero easily can be greenlighted, to be produced in parallel with equivalents of early A6M5 (which still had range and maneurability). As Japan shifts to defense and protection + good armament become more important for survival than long range, the interceptor version will eventually become the defining one and evolve into pinnacle models of Zero. The similar process happened in reality, but far too late.

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
The Japanese fighter pilots got the plane they wanted in the A6M2, and fought the changes introduced in the M3, let alone the M5.

Not entirely true, M3 was not well-liked, partially due to the nature of air combat at the time of its introduction (mosty long-range missions against enemy bases), but M3a and M5 were seen as true successors to M2.

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
Now, having the Air staff decide at the M3 they needed an Allied style fighter, and discontinue A6 development may have got you the N1K2-J and J2M 6 months to a year earlier.

I doubt this. The problems with these boiled down to engines availability/peformance, the hardest to solve sort of problems.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mikemike
4. The ultimate IJN carrier fighter, the A7M Reppu ("Sam") was delayed because the Mitsubishi design staff was too occupied with improving the A6M and developing the J2M Raiden ("Jack"). If you want to enhance the IJN carrier fighters over OTL, dump the J2M, basing the J2 design instead on the Heinkel 100 which the IJN had already bought in 1939 lock, stock, and barrel (if all had gone according to plan, the He 100 could have been in series production in mid-1941), imagine that Jiro Horikoshi had got his way and put a more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine in the A6M5 (which in OTL happened only with the A6M8) and you have something like the A6M8 in late 1943 and the A7M in August/September 1944.

I believe that He-100 was a poor plane that got good post-war PR, and that the fate of Ki-61 shows that producing inline-engine fighters wasn't a good idea for Japan. Otherwise, I agree with this.

[FatR]

An unrelated note: if we stick to reality, except with better choices, 25mm/60 gun stays. A better small-calibre AA weapon is not economically or techically (at the beginning of the war it was above average, compared to what other fleets had; later Japan doesn't have industrial power to switch models) plausible. However, with more carrier-minded fleet composition, IJN can have more of them. (In RL most IJN ships got massive small-calibre flak batteries only in late 1943-1944, while USN ships started receiving similar improvements in 1942.)

EDIT: As about DP guns, 127/50 DP probably would be an ideal variant, but I cannot judge if it is technically feasible.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

An unrelated note: if we stick to reality, except with better choices, 25mm/60 gun stays. A better small-calibre AA weapon is not economically or techically (at the beginning of the war it was above average, compared to what other fleets had; later Japan doesn't have industrial power to switch models) plausible. However, with more carrier-minded fleet composition, IJN can have more of them. (In RL most IJN ships got massive small-calibre flak batteries only in late 1943-1944, while USN ships started receiving similar improvements in 1942.)

EDIT: As about DP guns, 127/50 DP probably would be an ideal variant, but I cannot judge if it is technically feasible.

Yes agree 25/60 only small to medium , you can expand the 80/60 as a small large or large medium AA gun for 44+. Im not a gun expert but the standard 127/50 barrel with a new mechanism and catridges has some merit... The catridges will reduce barrel life .

[John 3rd]

The decisions to be made must be done in the context of the late-30s:

1. Warships---We are placing a retrospective look back at what the Japanese 'should' have done. This applies to AA Cruisers, the uselessness of BCs, the Scout Cruiser concept, etc... The bottom line is decisions must be made from the time with the 4th Circle Plan.

a. The BCs have to be built as a compromise with the Big Gun Admirals. These are built to act as 'Scouts' for the Yamato pair and Japanese Battleline for the 'decisive battle.' To placate this faction they get a pair of modern, fast capital ships.

b. Air-Minded leadership gains the Improved Shokaku CVs and less haggling over Taiho.

c. The Scout Cruiser concept, while scorned by many people on the Forum, is useful. The Japanese were wedded to it. AE is all about recon and search. Having a pair of ships carrying 6 floatplanes while packing the punch of a CA is a worthwhile addition.

d. I am swung over in the argument to simply build the Oyodos as 6" cruisers carrying 3 turrets of 3 guns. This is a somewhat inconstistant position with what is said above but there was considerable argument over the design of these ships from the very beginning so we'll simply show the 'conventialists' winning the design battle.

e. If Shimakaze's power plants were so rough to build, then we'll simply add another pair of Moon-Class and Yugumo-Class.

f. Killing off the Army Subs makes great sense to me but they weren't started until after the war began--RIGHT?--so the player can simply choose NOT to build them.

g. Michael asks about ASW and unfortunately our good Admiral and the Plan had no provision for that threat. I agree with Kaigun in asking how could the Japanese NOT have foreseen their terrible vulnerability to SS Blockade.

2. AA Gun---It is my understanding that the only true successor for a heavy AA Gun that the Japanese had in realistic development was the 3.9 that went on the Moons. Unless there is a cogent argument towards another gun that COULD have been deployed in reasonable numbers in mid-to-late 1942 then this is the gun of choice and happenstance. It is frustrating to know that there were BETTER guns to work with but you've got to work with what you got at start.

The Upgrade that features this retrofit will, by neccessity, be much longer and we'll have to figure that one out. How long to change the original Secondary armament over to the new is a good question?

3. Naval Fighters---Here is where the most impact has been made in the Forum discussion. This Mod will definately throw out the Jack and concentrate everything on Zero. This will allow for research to realistically bring the later design forward where they have a chance of keep air parity with the American counterpart through early-43. After that all bets are off. I really like the proposals of moving the deployment dtaes WAY forward on the M5 and later models. This still needs to be settled time wise but it should be a positive factor.

4. Yards---Went around the map in the game looking at Shipyards and then went on-line to do some checking. I concur about the land-locked and highly limited possibilities of Naval Shipyard expansion in the Home Islands.

a. Think we can do some limited expansion and add some Merchant Yard conversions for a decent gain in shipyard points. We'll follow the advice of the Forum contributors and do a good-sized expansion of the Uraga (Yokosuka) area for a new slipway.

QUESTION: While reading last night I came across comments about the size of Shanghai. This led to me wonder if a Naval Yard could have been established there?

b. The loss in Merchant Yards in Japan will be countered with expansion at Fusan, Port Arthur, and Shanghai. How is Woochang, China able to be a Merchant Yard??!! Didn't even know it was there until I was checking around. That is one big river!

[John 3rd]

How are the ship building costs (build rate) established in AE? The Building Screen shows the following:

84 Junyo/Hiyo
103 Taiho
233 Yamato/Musashi
41 Oyodo
13 Moon-Class DD
10 Yugumo-Class DD

Just going by numbers, I would foresee (guess) the following values:
95 Imp. Shokaku-Class
150 BCs
60 CA Scout-Cruisers
35 Oyodo as a regular CL

I'm just throwing those out. Is there an actual system to figuring this out?

[John 3rd]

The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

[wyrmmy]

My first thought was a)Reduce some JAAF build rates, but not too much, b) delay Japanese armored upgrades, i.e. slowing the development of new tanks, making the stewart's much more formidable armored foes, and c) lowering the at start armored factories. Too show this in the IJA OOB, I would change some of the armored formations to horse cav, with the upgrade path to armored formations possible if the japanese significantly increase armored production. I would think that if the IJ player does not upgrade the tank factories, these formations would not convert to armored til '45 if at all.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

IJA and IJN represented two socio-political extremes in Japanese society. While the IJN was very popular due to their victories, The IJA was much more grounded in the peasantry. It raises the spectre of (once again) class warfare.

To implement this, I might roll the dice and give the Diet a somewhat <50% chance of saying ok (they weren't stupid). Then roll again and give an IJA inspired uprising a somewhat >50% chance of assasinating the Diet (they weren't stupid, either). The rolls work, you get lucky. Don't forget that in a time of great economic turmoil, the IJA was the only institution that represented hope and a 'leg up' for a huge (ok, majority) segment of the Japanese population. If the die rolls work you are gonna have one mightily pissed IJA, so any and all cooperation with the IJN will likely be utterly impossible for the far forseeable future. Not goodnik imho.

[Kitakami]

<wyrmm>

I really like this line of thought. Horse cavalry would do it, I think. i would also delay the appereance of new armored formations, or keep the date, but make them upgradeable cavalry too.

<John 3rd>

The scout cruiser concept... to me, that is what the CVS are for, but I will concede the point. I have nothing against the concept per se... I just seem to recall in the back of my forgetful mind that follow-on IJN cruisers would have been modelled on the Mogami, not the Tone.

Regarding the 3.9 AA gun I am in total agreement with you

---------

A thought just crossed my mind. One way to simulate IJN naval building problems is to have more ships on queue than can be built with naval yard points available. So I would not mind seeing all the ideas presented above, without much (if any) increase in naval yard size. In fact, it would provide with an interesting strategic puzzle...

Just my 2 cents.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

IJA and IJN represented two socio-political extremes in Japanese society. While the IJN was very popular due to their victories, The IJA was much more grounded in the peasantry. It raises the spectre of (once again) class warfare.

To implement this, I might roll the dice and give the Diet a somewhat <50% chance of saying ok (they weren't stupid). Then roll again and give an IJA inspired uprising a somewhat >50% chance of assasinating the Diet (they weren't stupid, either). The rolls work, you get lucky. Don't forget that in a time of great economic turmoil, the IJA was the only institution that represented hope and a 'leg up' for a huge (ok, majority) segment of the Japanese population. If the die rolls work you are gonna have one mightily pissed IJA, so any and all cooperation with the IJN will likely be utterly impossible for the far forseeable future. Not goodnik imho.

Boy would I love to have to face the IJN - IJA conflict as a player...