A Modest Proposal

[Yamamoto]

Do aircraft replacement rates change during the war? I know some planes that are not available become available but I'm not talking about that. I haven't really noticed but I'm assuming that they do not change from month to month.

Yamamoto

[tanjman]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Here's another thought for you:

Suppose that in 1923 the US did not cancel the four remaining Lexington Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. They were: Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, and United States. This pushes the three Yorktowns back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). As Wasp was a stopgap, she never gets built.

What do you think?

D@mn! I'd forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me. Its defenitely something to consider doing.

BTW guys I've created a .txt file and have been copy all of these suggestions to it so that I can use them. Once I've got some ideal of the changes I'm going to make I'll post them. Either way I'll be making this scenario and post it. Wether or not anyone but me plays it is another matter

[tanjman]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
Do aircraft replacement rates change during the war? I know some planes that are not available become available but I'm not talking about that. I haven't really noticed but I'm assuming that they do not change from month to month.

Yamamoto

Not that I've seen, heck if IIRC you still get obsolete aircraft (i.e. TBD Devestator) after production accually stopped. Not that I'm complaining about that. Maybe the player is getting recycled aircraft from other fronts?

[Admiral DadMan]

Wow, it took me so long to do the edit, that I'm gonna re-post:

***********************************************

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers... I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.

Yamamoto

Here's another thought for you:

Suppose that in 1923 the US did not cancel the four remaining Lexington Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. The first 4 Lexingtons would have come up to about 130,000 tons. The Washington Naval Treaty allowed for 135,000 tons of carriers. The remaining were: Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, and United States.

Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

This pushes the three Yorktowns back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). Ranger(CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. Wasp too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

What do you think?

[tanjman]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Wow, it took me so long to do the edit, that I'm gonna re-post:

***********************************************

Here's another thought for you:

Suppose that in 1923 the US did not cancel the four remaining Lexington Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. The first 4 Lexingtons would have come up to about 130,000 tons. The Washington Naval Treaty allowed for 135,000 tons of carriers. The remaining were: Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, and United States.

Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

This pushes the three Yorktowns back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). Ranger(CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. Wasp too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

What do you think?

Admiral DadMan,

I Like it.
Lexington class:
Name Hull # Commissioned
USS Lexington CV-2 14 Dec 27
USS Saratoga CV-3 16 Dec 27
USS Constellation CV-4 1929
USS Ranger CV-5 1930
USS Constitution CV-6 1936
USS United States CV-7 1936

Yorktown class:
Name Hull # Commissioned
USS Yorktown CV-8 May 42
USS Enterprise CV-9 June 42
USS Hornet CV-10 Sep 42
USS Wasp CV-11 Oct 42

With a 4 - 6 month workup the Yorktowns would be in Pearl Harbor Sep 42 to April 43.

I've added the Wasp as a forth Yorktown so that there are five CarDivs to play with.

When do you think the first Essex (CV-12) should arrive? The war in Europe was on and the was with Japan was already looming when the first three were athourized in fisical year 1940. With 10 CVs would the USN converted Cleaveland class CLs to Independence class CVLs? Or should they be commissioned as Cleavelands?

[Finnegan]

Originally posted by tanjman
With 10 CVs would the USN converted Cleaveland class CLs to Independence class CVLs? Or should they be commissioned as Cleavelands?

Keep the Independence class CVL's. The way some of us wear carriers out (sys damage), we're gonna need them.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan

Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

This pushes the three Yorktowns back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). Ranger(CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. Wasp too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

What do you think?

From a game standpoint, sounds ok, but....

From a historical standpoint, there are problems. Just in time for this thread , I recieved Friedman's Design and History of US Carriers. From reading about the early carriers, the thing that's evident is that they had no idea what would actually turn out to be a good idea.

In the 20s, they thought Lexington and Saratoga were far, far too big. That's the whole "a few big carriers" vs "lots of small carriers" argument that pops up a lot (and is always won by the big carriers).

Of course, as it turned out, they were the right size for WW2, while Ranger, the smaller alternative, was barely adequate. Wasp, the other smaller carrier was shortchanged in protection, and we all know how that turned out for her.

The problem is trying to come up with a good historical rational for the US to throw caution to the winds and spend lots of money on large carriers when they didn't have any real knowledge that they would work out.

[Admiral DadMan]

Hmmmm,

tanjman:

Now that I think about it, neither Wasp nor Hornet should get built.

Wasp was built to fit in the remaining 15,000 of Treaty tonnage in the mid-thirties.

Hornet was built off of the Yorktown design because the Essex class had not yet been approved, so I would remove her.

As far as the Cleveland CL's to Independence CVL's, I'd go forward with them, as they were a war-time decision based on losses.

Essex class should continue as scheduled, as nothing would have changed their delivery times. As a matter of fact, two more could be added as I mentioned earlier for delivery to PH mid 1943
Name one Hornet and the other Wasp

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by XPav


From a game standpoint, sounds ok, but....

Killjoy:D. We're supposing that the big carrier side of the isle won.

You're exactly right with the points you make. I remember reading about the appropriations fights

The argument here would be a cost-saving one to build on existing hulls as opposed to scrapping and then building from scratch.

[SoulBlazer]

The name USS Constiution would not have been used....and never WILL be used. The name is so special in the annals of American naval history that only 'Old Ironsides' herself in Boston will bear that name.

One of my favorite Pacific War games is Koei's PTO II, either SNES or PC version. I often would name new carriers in the game for civil war battles, but sometimes others....

USS Camden
USS Kings Mountain
USS Bennington
USS Gettysburg
USS Bellau Wood
USS Battan
USS Monitor

Essentily, any battle that was a American victory or is named for a famous ship is what a WWII CV would have been named. Now, of course, we use people, but those are some rough guidelines for WWII ships.

I also would always name a battleship USS New Hampshire for my home state.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers. I named the Shokaku ones Ryukaku, Zenkaku, Kikaku, and Dankaku.

What should the air groups be called for the 4 new Shokakus?

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
The name USS Constiution would not have been used....and never WILL be used. The name is so special in the annals of American naval history that only 'Old Ironsides' herself in Boston will bear that name.

USS Constitution was decommissioned in 1882 and then recommissioned in 1931. But on September 25, 1920, she was not in commission in the US Navy and therefore her name was available, and it was assigned to one of the Lexington-class battlecruisers laid down on that date. 'Old Ironsides' was renamed to USS Old Constitution in 1917 specifically to allow her name to be reused. She was then renamed again, back to just USS Constitution, after the battlecruiser was scrapped under the Washington Naval Limitations Treaty. The 1854 USS Constellation, the last all-sail ship built for the USN, went through exactly the same renaming and re-renaming process.

***************************************************

Now then, to the matter at hand. If the IJN gets to start with N1K2s, A6M5s, B6Ns, and D4Ys, then it's only fair that the USN should get to start with F4U-4s, F6Fs, TBMs, and SB2Cs. If the IJAAF gets to start with Ki-84s, then its only fair that the USAAF should get to start with P-47Ds. If the Japanese are going to get Kikkas in 1942-43, then it's only fair that the US should get the P-80 in the same time frame, and the FH-1 a few months later.

But if we're going to be serious about our AltHist here, then here's a scheme:

USN: Add 2 extra Lexington CVs (probably Constellation and Constitution, as they were farther along than the other two; not all 4 because the WNLT required signatories to scrap all new construction that would have exceeded the Treaty limits), ditching the historical CV-4 through CV-8, and using those names for the first units of the Essex class (now named Ranger class, of course) which will be coming into service in 1939-40. Might still get the Independences converted - I can see the Navy deciding they need lots more fast flight decks in a hurry as soon as war breaks out. (Interesting thought... With the building program sped up this much, the Midways might be coming online in 1944. Mmm... Midway... )

The rationale: assuming a modification to the treaty to allow CVs of any size (IRL a loophole was made specifically to allow the Lexingtons to be converted, as they were larger than the treaty allowed), the USN might complete four battlecruisers as carriers. The navy would still get to evaluate large vs small CVs using Langley and the Lexingtons, would reach the historical conclusion that bigger is better, and would therefore skip the small and intermediate designs to go straight for the larger ships as soon as the Treaty expires. The Essex design was essentially a scaled-up Yorktown, so there's no technical reason I know of why they couldn't have made the jump once a) they were certain thelarger ships where what they wanted, and b) they didn't have to worry about the WNLT anymore.

IJN: In the same vein, give the IJN a second Akagi (Amagi), and a second Kaga (Tosa). Follow Hiryu immediately with the Unryus (two should commission in summer of 1941, two in spring or summer of 1943, and two in spring or summer of 1945). Either skip the Shokakus entirely, or substitute them for Yamatos on a two-for-one basis if you really want to go off the deep end, perhaps with two Taihos - call the second one Ryuho - instead of Shinano. But definitely skip the Junyos and assorted oddball CVLs - they just don't contribute enough to justify the time and resources spent (besides, you can use the airgroups and ship names freed up to fill out your new fleet CVs). The rationale is similar to that for the US: the same treaty modification allows Japan to complete 4 dreadnaughts as CVs, after which they get a head start on what historically became their wartime production schedule.

BTW, It's easy to name Japanese CV air groups, especially early in the war. Here's a clue: Akagi hosted three air squadrons: the Akagi Fighter Squadron, the Akagi Bomber Squadron, and the Akagi Attack Squadron. See what I mean?

[tanjman]

CynicAl,

What do you think of the following IJN carriers?

Akagi (Akagi class) AI-1, AI-2 & AI-3
Amagi (Akagi class) AII-1, AII-2 & AII-3
Kaga (Kaga class) BI-1, BI-2 & BI-3
Tosa (Kaga class) BII-1, BII-2 & BII-3
Hiryu (Hiryu class) CI-1, CI-2 & CI-3
Soryu (Hiryu class) CII-1, CII-2 & CII-3
Shokaku (Shokaku class) DI-1, DI-2 & DI-3
Zuikaku (Shokaku class) DII-1, DII-2 & DII-3
Ryukaku (Shokaku class) EI-1, EI-2 & EI-3
Zenkaku (Shokaku class) EII-1, EII-2 & EII-3


The Unryu & Taiho classes aren't available in UV. I hope this won't be a problem with the WitP editor.

Now for the USN carriers:

Lexington (Lexington class) (CV-2) VF-2, VS-2, VB-2 & VT-2
Saratoga (Lexington class) (CV-3) VF-3, VS-3, VB-3 & VT-3
Constellation (Lexington class) (CV-4) VF-4, VS-4, VB-4 & VT-4
Constitution (Lexington class) (CV-5) VF-5, VS-5, VB-5 & VT-5
Yorktown (Yorktown class) (CV-6) VF-6, VS-6, VB-6 & VT-6
Enterprise (Yorktown class) (CV-7) VF-7, VS-7, VB-7 & VT-7
Essex (Essex class) (CV-8) VF-8, VS-8, VB-8 & VT-8
Ranger (Essex class) (CV-9) VF-9, VS-9, VB-9 & VT-9
Wasp (Essex class) (CV-10) VF-10, VS-10, VB-10 & VT-10
Hornet (Essex class) (CV-11) VF-11, VS-11, VB-11 & VT-11

Plus the seven Indepence class CVLs.

I don't thing we need more BBs. I'll keep the two Yamatos and the early USN Fast BBs.

As far as using more advance aircraft go, can't be done with this editor. So I will use what there is.

Any suggestions on how to improve the IJAAF, which sentai to add fly in which aircraft?

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by tanjman
CynicAl,

What do you think of the following IJN carriers?

Akagi (Akagi class) AI-1, AI-2 & AI-3
Amagi (Akagi class) AII-1, AII-2 & AII-3
Kaga (Kaga class) BI-1, BI-2 & BI-3
Tosa (Kaga class) BII-1, BII-2 & BII-3
Hiryu (Hiryu class) CI-1, CI-2 & CI-3
Soryu (Hiryu class) CII-1, CII-2 & CII-3
Shokaku (Shokaku class) DI-1, DI-2 & DI-3
Zuikaku (Shokaku class) DII-1, DII-2 & DII-3
Ryukaku (Shokaku class) EI-1, EI-2 & EI-3
Zenkaku (Shokaku class) EII-1, EII-2 & EII-3

Be careful naming those Air Groups. To do what you propose, you'll have to re-name some other IJN CV airgroups

I don't thing we need more BBs. I'll keep the two Yamatos and the early USN Fast BBs.

I took them out. I also removed the three New Mexico class, USS Nevada, and USS Indiana.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by tanjman
CynicAl,

What do you think of the following IJN carriers?

Akagi (Akagi class) AI-1, AI-2 & AI-3
Amagi (Akagi class) AII-1, AII-2 & AII-3
Kaga (Kaga class) BI-1, BI-2 & BI-3
Tosa (Kaga class) BII-1, BII-2 & BII-3
Hiryu (Hiryu class) CI-1, CI-2 & CI-3
Soryu (Hiryu class) CII-1, CII-2 & CII-3
Shokaku (Shokaku class) DI-1, DI-2 & DI-3
Zuikaku (Shokaku class) DII-1, DII-2 & DII-3
Ryukaku (Shokaku class) EI-1, EI-2 & EI-3
Zenkaku (Shokaku class) EII-1, EII-2 & EII-3

I used W, X, Y, and Z for the air groups I added. This way it doesn't conflict with other pre-existing ones that use D and E.

The Unryu & Taiho classes aren't available in UV. I hope this won't be a problem with the WitP editor.

If you could, theoretically, replace two ship classes in UV to 'make room' for the Unryu and the Taiho which two would you remove?

As far as using more advance aircraft go, can't be done with this editor. So I will use what there is.

Same question for the planes. Which planes would you replace and which ones would you add?

Yamamoto

[XPav]

Originally posted by CynicAl

But if we're going to be serious about our AltHist here, then here's a scheme:

USN: Add 2 extra Lexington CVs (probably Constellation and Constitution, as they were farther along than the other two; not all 4 because the WNLT required signatories to scrap all new construction that would have exceeded the Treaty limits), ditching the historical CV-4 through CV-8, and using those names for the first units of the Essex class (now named Ranger class, of course) which will be coming into service in 1939-40.

The rationale: assuming a modification to the treaty to allow CVs of any size (IRL a loophole was made specifically to allow the Lexingtons to be converted, as they were larger than the treaty allowed), the USN might complete four battlecruisers as carriers. The navy would still get to evaluate large vs small CVs using Langley and the Lexingtons, would reach the historical conclusion that bigger is better, and would therefore skip the small and intermediate designs to go straight for the larger ships as soon as the Treaty expires. The Essex design was essentially a scaled-up Yorktown, so there's no technical reason I know of why they couldn't have made the jump once a) they were certain thelarger ships where what they wanted, and b) they didn't have to worry about the WNLT anymore.

Langley sucked. It was slow, and not suitable for proper experimentation. They needed Ranger to figure out that smaller carriers didn't work.

The Yorktown-class was designed on the experience with Lexington. The Essex-class was designed based on the experiences with the Yorktown-class. I think a jump from Lexington to Essex without any other carriers being built to experiment is a bit of a stretch. Remember, they really didn't know what would prove to be the most effective.

It'll make the game more playable, sure, and I got no complaints with that, but the historical justification is a reach.

(Interesting thought... With the building program sped up this much, the Midways might be coming online in 1944. Mmm... Midway... )

Midway.... do you make the air strike show up late than due to the need to wait while the entire air group gets launched? Without the provisions for simultaneous launch, after all, the Midways wouldn't have been able to launch their massive (144 planes) airgroup as fast as smaller fleet carriers. Sure, post-war, they were the only ships large enough to launch the bigger aircraft, but a massive 1944-era air group would have been unwieldy.

[tanjman]

Admiral DadMan,

Why did you remove the Yamatos, the three New Mexico class, USS Nevada, and USS Indiana? I'm not criticizing, just curious.

Yamamoto,

I would replace the Junyo & Soryu with the Unryu and the Taiho. I would do this since the Junyo is a marginal fleet carrier and the the Soryu & Hiryu a a close match I would get rid of the Soryu.

The planes require some thought on my part. I'll try not to blow a fuse and get back to you on it.

[Toro]

Sorry to jump in late, but one comment on ship names:

I think using the United States would be inconsistent with ship naming protocol. Reason: warships are generally (key word) not named after the country as the sinking of the ship has allegedly profound psychological impact. I know there was a frigate in the early years, etc, but this doesn't happen much in "modern" days. Just a note.

[mogami]

Hi Prior to the US civil war there was an USS United States. Presently there is a USS America.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by tanjman
Admiral DadMan,

Why did you remove the Yamatos, the three New Mexico class, USS Nevada, and USS Indiana? I'm not criticizing, just curious.

No offense taken

I did it for balance, as I have often seen it written that Japan did not have the shipyard capacity to build those monsters and more carriers at the same time.

I decided to remove the US BB's not only as further balance, but also because the New Mexico Class was short on endurace and really not well suited to employment. And I felt guilty.

In my scenario, IJN receives 4 addional CV's:

• Amagi (Amagi/Akagi Class)
• Tosa (Kaga Class)
• Ryukaku (Shokaku Class)
• Zenkaku (Shokaku Class)

The last two Shokakus are delayed to fall '42, as the first two were only delivered in mid- '41, so this seems reasonable.

On the US side, I built all six Lexingtons, and had the first two Yorktowns enter service in mid-42. The Essexes kept their arrival dates, and I added two more that would have been available at that time in PH: Lexington II (CV-16); and Yorktown II (CV-10). I renamed them Hornet and Wasp

The US still gets six pre-war CV's but Japan gets eight and then 2 more in the first year of the war. The US get two more in the first year, and then five more thru '43. Japan gets hers as per the OOB.

My premise is that to keep the six Lexingtons, the US makes a deal with Japan, and they build the two Amagi/Akagi Class, the two Kaga Class to equal. The US agrees to stretch out the building of the last two Lexingtons, and use them to replace the first two (as the first two would be 15 years old by then. When Japan pulls out of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1934 (which ends in 1936), the US decides to time the building to be completed when the Treaty expires, so the last two Lexingtons commission in 1937 and 1938, respectively. By that time the two Yorktowns are on the ways already, and Essex is not far behind. Japan has realized this, and orders the four Shokakus. The first two deliver as history dictates in 1941 in time to strike Pearl Harbor, and the second pair arrive in 1942.

My only concern is pilot/aircraft replacement schedules and whether or not they can keep up. If they can't, more carriers are useless, as Japan found out in late 1943...