Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR and BK:

Nice thinking.  I like the development line with FatR but really like the creation of an improved interceptor as outlined with BK.  Why don't you two hammer that out between you.  Everything must be reasonable and based on the 'history.'  I'm of the opinion that the Fleet goes with FatR deployment for Carrier-Based Air.  The land-based side needs the work and can see the envisioned 'interceptor.'

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I thought George sucked away from the Zero in terms of R&R.  If it did not then should it still be allowed or do we ONLY go with the Zero for ALL Navy Chutai/Daitai PERIOD?  This seems to be the direction chosen.

George was created by Kawanishi as a private initiative. This and the fact that Kawanishi worked on other (abandoned in relatively early stages, after George shown promise) projects of land-based fighters for the Navy contributed to its slow develoment and deployment (the prototype flew more than four months earlier than the Ki-84 prototype, but Ki-84 was produced in numbers and deployed in combat much earlier). until one of the main reasons for its slow development, although the engine teething troubles

Honestly, George should not only be left in (as pointed out was a private Kawanishi project, not Mitsubishi), it should probably become the mainstay of the land based interceptor fleet. American test pilots that got to fly it were fairly impressed with its performance, and had the Japanese had better fuel available it would have been on par with late war Allied fighters in the hands of a capable pilot.

[John 3rd]

Thanks Terminus and Juan.

Since the first two will have over 50% of their construction time during peace and not war, we won't shorten them very much. The 3rd one will, however, be pushed forward due to knowledge gained in the previous two as well as wartime construction pace. New timeline would be:

Shinano: 1st Sho laid down in May 1940---May 1943---36 Months
111: 2nd Sho laid down in August 1940---June 1943---34 Months
Taiho: 3rd Sho laid down in April 1941---Nov 1943---30 Months

These three CV as well as the CVL conversion possibilities would make Japan highly competitve through 1943 and into early-1944.

The Unryu's would be on their normal pacing since they were added only after Midway.

[John 3rd]

Juan--Your Kawachi design has a durability of 131. I like the specifications you've come up with for these cruiser-killers (actually FINE escorts for the CVs!) and think we might as well simply go with them.

Should we make them sisters and have them due at the end of 1943 (Nov or Dec)?

There won't be enough points to get them out at that time so, if someone wants to build them, they will have to trade that off against something else. You like the pretty BCs? GREAT! Suspend the CVs for a while or stop all SS Construction or stop DD construction or...

I am going to assume a pair of CA/CV-Sized slips being added to Japanese Naval Construction. These will probably be (for indentification purposes) in Shanghai, Sasebo, and/or Yokosuka. Since Kaigun said that the latter two were possible for building Yamato's there, I will ASSUME a smaller slipway would be possible.

This brings us to the CA Scout Cruisers. The simple idea (going on Keep It Simple Stupid again) is to make them Tone-Class CAs. These CAs will be the first ships built on the new slipways. Construction would begin in late-39/early-40. How long to build Tone/Chikuma? We can use that as a guide just like the Sho's.

[John 3rd]

I just answered my own question regarding the Tone and Chikuma. Chikuma was completed in 39 months. Wikipedia can be useful at times.

If we figure the CAs being laid down in November 1939 then they are complete in February 1943. This is at a peacetime construction rate. Logically it would pick-up when war occurs in Dec 41. Perhaps they could knock off about 3-5 months from that earlier date. Could we look at October or November of 1942? The Japanese end up getting them produced in 35-36 months. This might be a fairly reasonable assumption...

[JuanG]

Tone was laid down Dec 1934, Launched Nov 1937 and Commissioned Nov 1938. Thats 35 months to launch and 47 to commission.

Chikuma was laid down Oct 1935, Launched Mar 1938 and Commissioned May 1939. Thats 28 to launch and 38 to commission.

A better comparison again would probably be Ibuki, though she was incomplete when the war ended. She was laid down in Apr 42 and launched May 43, that being 13 months to launch. However, I would guess at half that again for completion and say 8-10 months more to commission. So perhaps 29-32 months is in the right ballpark.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

I don't think that the idea of having chutais on a different type of plane can work. And on carrier CAP, particularly if we talk about Japanese in 1942-43, you want planes that can fly patrols for extended lengths of time anyway. Otherwise, that's a good proposal too, more radical than mine in proposed changes but less so in the times of arrival.

They still can loiter for a reasonable time but the idea is more one of scrambling and having faster climbing planes who can climb to a higher altitude before the Sweep gets there. The normal zeros try to engange the fighters the i types while they could take on the fighters ignore them and go after the bombers ( which is why they need armour) .

[John 3rd]

Juan and Shark---I like the thoughts regarding Mr. George. Since it is Kawanishi-Produced then it makes perfect sense to leave in place as a possibility for the IJN Land-Based Daitai.

As to the suggestion of a new interceptor made by Juan and BK:

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

BK---How much information do you have on this? Seem to remember you saying that this was an ACTUAL design but never produced in any form of quantity. Is that correct?

If we went with it, the Japanese player would have real choices between George, the new fighter, and the A6M8.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hah!  We were not too far apart in our design thinking Juan.

LIKE Kawachi.

If we do raise plane complement with the Sho Kai then it could be as simple as going 27-27-27 for 81.  I like keeping things simple.

I've got to go to church and lunch so won't be able to reply for a bit.

Was thinking on the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle with 4th Circle and perhaps we should simply go with 6 Agano-Class cruisers with the last two named Oyodo and Niyodo?  Why reinvent the wheel when we know what the Japanese had for new DLs?

Id go 27 Zero 18 Val 36 Kate at start and later swap Zero and Kate

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan and Shark---I like the thoughts regarding Mr. George. Since it is Kawanishi-Produced then it makes perfect sense to leave in place as a possibility for the IJN Land-Based Daitai.

As to the suggestion of a new interceptor made by Juan and BK:

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

BK---How much information do you have on this? Seem to remember you saying that this was an ACTUAL design but never produced in any form of quantity. Is that correct?

If we went with it, the Japanese player would have real choices between George, the new fighter, and the A6M8.

Actually I believe that was FatR and Shark, I've not jumped in on the air debate since they seem to have it covered.

However, I do agree with keeping the N1K, it was probably one of the best IJN aircraft to fly during the war.

The first 30mm cannon armed A6M that comes to mind is the A6M3b or Type 0 Model 22b, it was a modification of the A6M3a and was evaluated and then abandoned. I think the changes were only to weaponry and did not feature any more armour than the other zeroes at the time.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Tone was laid down Dec 1934, Launched Nov 1937 and Commissioned Nov 1938. Thats 35 months to launch and 47 to commission.

Chikuma was laid down Oct 1935, Launched Mar 1938 and Commissioned May 1939. Thats 28 to launch and 38 to commission.

A better comparison again would probably be Ibuki, though she was incomplete when the war ended. She was laid down in Apr 42 and launched May 43, that being 13 months to launch. However, I would guess at half that again for completion and say 8-10 months more to commission. So perhaps 29-32 months is in the right ballpark.

Juan--I like the thinking here, however, these ships were built in peacetime until war starts. Bring them in historically faster makes great sense but I don't think they completely compare with that of a CA built at 100% wartime construction speed.

Do you think 3-6 months faster is appropriate?

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan and Shark---I like the thoughts regarding Mr. George. Since it is Kawanishi-Produced then it makes perfect sense to leave in place as a possibility for the IJN Land-Based Daitai.

As to the suggestion of a new interceptor made by Juan and BK:

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

BK---How much information do you have on this? Seem to remember you saying that this was an ACTUAL design but never produced in any form of quantity. Is that correct?

If we went with it, the Japanese player would have real choices between George, the new fighter, and the A6M8.

Actually I believe that was FatR and Shark, I've not jumped in on the air debate since they seem to have it covered.

However, I do agree with keeping the N1K, it was probably one of the best IJN aircraft to fly during the war.

The first 30mm cannon armed A6M that comes to mind is the A6M3b or Type 0 Model 22b, it was a modification of the A6M3a and was evaluated and then abandoned. I think the changes were only to weaponry and did not feature any more armour than the other zeroes at the time.

Oooops...you are correct about FatR and BK. Got my notes screwed up. BK and FatR what are your thoughts here?

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Tone was laid down Dec 1934, Launched Nov 1937 and Commissioned Nov 1938. Thats 35 months to launch and 47 to commission.

Chikuma was laid down Oct 1935, Launched Mar 1938 and Commissioned May 1939. Thats 28 to launch and 38 to commission.

A better comparison again would probably be Ibuki, though she was incomplete when the war ended. She was laid down in Apr 42 and launched May 43, that being 13 months to launch. However, I would guess at half that again for completion and say 8-10 months more to commission. So perhaps 29-32 months is in the right ballpark.

Juan--I like the thinking here, however, these ships were built in peacetime until war starts. Bring them in historically faster makes great sense but I don't think they completely compare with that of a CA built at 100% wartime construction speed.

Do you think 3-6 months faster is appropriate?

Yes, if theyre started before the war that makes more sense. I thought you would only lay them down in '42 like Ibuki, but if they get started before the war then a total build time of say 34-38 is more reasonable.

[John 3rd]

If this settles the two Scout Cruisers for construction then let us return to the Kawachi's:

Juan--Your Kawachi design has a durability of 131. I like the specifications you've come up with for these cruiser-killers (actually FINE escorts for the CVs!) and think we might as well simply go with them. Should we make them sisters and have them due at the end of 1943 (Nov or Dec)?

If laid down in Spring 1940 this would have a completion time of roughly a little short of 4 years (44-48 months). Decent? Too Long? Too Short?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Honestly, George should not only be left in (as pointed out was a private Kawanishi project, not Mitsubishi), it should probably become the mainstay of the land based interceptor fleet. American test pilots that got to fly it were fairly impressed with its performance, and had the Japanese had better fuel available it would have been on par with late war Allied fighters in the hands of a capable pilot.

The big problem with George (just like with many Japanese planes) was extremely long transition from prototypes to mass production. Also, availability and reliability of the next-generation Nakajima engines remained the main bottleneck that couldn't really have been bypassed. Or, at least, my knowledge of Japanese engine development is way too shallow to offer a plausible-sounding solution here. Sticking to one next-generation land-based fighter with dividing the production run betwen IJN and IJNa would have been the best decision, but I'm afraid this is one of those decisions that that require 20/20 hindsight from everyone involved. The more realistic scenario involves Kawanishi not being burdened with stillborn projects (due to the focus on Zero in this mod, ironically) and rolling N1K1-J and N1K2-J out slightly earlier. I doubt that the acceleration beyond about 3 months is plausible, though, as the engine development holds N1K1-J back, and N1K2-J is a pretty thorough reworking of the airframe. In no case George can realistically replace Zero, because, yet again, of the engine availability.

[John 3rd]

FatR--What is your name Kind Sir?

I concur with your thinking regarding George and devilery dates.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan and Shark---I like the thoughts regarding Mr. George. Since it is Kawanishi-Produced then it makes perfect sense to leave in place as a possibility for the IJN Land-Based Daitai.

As to the suggestion of a new interceptor made by Juan and BK:

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

BK---How much information do you have on this? Seem to remember you saying that this was an ACTUAL design but never produced in any form of quantity. Is that correct?

If we went with it, the Japanese player would have real choices between George, the new fighter, and the A6M8.

Actually I believe that was FatR and Shark, I've not jumped in on the air debate since they seem to have it covered.

However, I do agree with keeping the N1K, it was probably one of the best IJN aircraft to fly during the war.

The first 30mm cannon armed A6M that comes to mind is the A6M3b or Type 0 Model 22b, it was a modification of the A6M3a and was evaluated and then abandoned. I think the changes were only to weaponry and did not feature any more armour than the other zeroes at the time.

Oooops...you are correct about FatR and BK. Got my notes screwed up. BK and FatR what are your thoughts here?

I think A6M3b was abandoned for a reason, as bigger guns likely were too heavy for its engine. As I said in the post #140, the solution I'd personally prefer is putting the 30mm-armed version late in the interceptor upgrade line and making it carry the Mitsubishi engine.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

If this settles the two Scout Cruisers for construction then let us return to the Kawachi's:

Juan--Your Kawachi design has a durability of 131. I like the specifications you've come up with for these cruiser-killers (actually FINE escorts for the CVs!) and think we might as well simply go with them. Should we make them sisters and have them due at the end of 1943 (Nov or Dec)?

If laid down in Spring 1940 this would have a completion time of roughly a little short of 4 years (44-48 months). Decent? Too Long? Too Short?

A little long - Yamato only took 47 months, and was much more of her construction was during peacetime than these BCs. I would throw 38-41 months out as a suggestion. So if you lay the first one down in say March '40, we'd see it in say June '43. The second one can follow half a year or so behind.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan--Your Kawachi design has a durability of 131. I like the specifications you've come up with for these cruiser-killers (actually FINE escorts for the CVs!) and think we might as well simply go with them.

Should we make them sisters and have them due at the end of 1943 (Nov or Dec)?

There won't be enough points to get them out at that time so, if someone wants to build them, they will have to trade that off against something else. You like the pretty BCs? GREAT! Suspend the CVs for a while or stop all SS Construction or stop DD construction or...

I am going to assume a pair of CA/CV-Sized slips being added to Japanese Naval Construction. These will probably be (for indentification purposes) in Shanghai, Sasebo, and/or Yokosuka. Since Kaigun said that the latter two were possible for building Yamato's there, I will ASSUME a smaller slipway would be possible.

This brings us to the CA Scout Cruisers. The simple idea (going on Keep It Simple Stupid again) is to make them Tone-Class CAs. These CAs will be the first ships built on the new slipways. Construction would begin in late-39/early-40. How long to build Tone/Chikuma? We can use that as a guide just like the Sho's.

You have 4 large slips 30K+ , one option for the 5th is to build the ship in the Drydock constructed in Sasebo while it failed for the Yamato ( I think the Yokosuka was successfull) it could still be brought up to a 30K standard. This will probably mean your repair yards there should be reduced until the yard is freed up. You dont need new slips for this as places like Kure built 2 CAs at once hence the 2nd slip can be used these were often building APs or AOs.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

If this settles the two Scout Cruisers for construction then let us return to the Kawachi's:

Juan--Your Kawachi design has a durability of 131. I like the specifications you've come up with for these cruiser-killers (actually FINE escorts for the CVs!) and think we might as well simply go with them. Should we make them sisters and have them due at the end of 1943 (Nov or Dec)?

If laid down in Spring 1940 this would have a completion time of roughly a little short of 4 years (44-48 months). Decent? Too Long? Too Short?

A little long - Yamato only took 47 months, and was much more of her construction was during peacetime than these BCs. I would throw 38-41 months out as a suggestion. So if you lay the first one down in say March '40, we'd see it in say June '43. The second one can follow half a year or so behind.

That sounds good. Let us go with June 43 for #1 and November 43 for #2 for the Kawachis.

[John 3rd]

FatR What you do regarding the Interceptor? Seems like you have a strong thought here. Can you extrapolate?