A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

[oldman45]

If nothing else, it gives me some idea's for my mod, thanks.

[DOCUP]

Names Vixen and Viper don't go well.  I like the traditional names.
 
Wdolson: has some good points. Balance was mentioned in the beginning.  IJN have to keep an advantage at the beginning.  So the extra older cruisers would be good for them.  I think.  With the extra Allied toys it might throw off the balance in the early months.

[wdolson]

To throw the early balance Japan's way, some of the Allied toys could be in the Atlantic until later. Another way to cripple the Allies early on would be to limit the available aircraft for the extra carrier decks. If the cruiser carriers were failed designs, the Allies might have converted them to some other use as the US did with the Langley or stripped them of their air groups as was done with the Long Island.

Bill

[John 3rd]

Damn. Bill you threw out a whole bunch of ideas in just a little Post. Well done!

I tend to like your premise of more boldly cheating. Need to look up the 1938 Appropriations Bill to see what was ordered and how that might get shifted. Interesting thought to ponder.

The building of more Shokaku's is the central premise of Reluctant Admiral. The Big Gun Navy gets a pair of the dratted Yamatos but that is ALL. In FatR and I's work on Perfect war we premised the building of several new BBs but as much more realistic designs requiring less materials (3x3 16" Guns). Juan and JWE helped with that set of development ideas. I think we have spent more typing/keyboarding time on the subject of CLs then any other part of Japanese warship building! Just re-read all of the Perfect War thread and it gave me a headache. A lot there was discussion on what type of CL (if any) was to be built.

Will continue to think on your ideas. PLEASE toss out more if you come up with any little tickles in that noggin of yours!

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

To throw the early balance Japan's way, some of the Allied toys could be in the Atlantic until later. Another way to cripple the Allies early on would be to limit the available aircraft for the extra carrier decks. If the cruiser carriers were failed designs, the Allies might have converted them to some other use as the US did with the Langley or stripped them of their air groups as was done with the Long Island.

Bill

The premise is for two experimental CVEs to be allowed at the start. I will assume the Langley and her new sister will both be AVs while the Japanese will start with a pair of Hoshos.

Already been thinking about what might be in the Atlantic and crossover into the Pacific once war occurs.

My mind is buzzing with ideas for the ships to be built as additions by the Japanese. Already know there will be a bunch more Claude's and older TB on decks when the war starts!

Carriers
G.6 Design was intended to carry 48 plane Air Groups. Those would be early-30s vintage. Perhaps they will carry 36 by war's start. The CVLs added by Treaty will be interesting. Do the Japanese build the failed Ryujo Design or go with a pair of more modest, faster CVLs that carry 33-36 planes and set the evolutionary stage for the Soryu/Hiryu? If they are good, working CVLs then do the Japanese go straight to the Hiryu without the half-sister Soryu?

Do you allow for a full conversion of the CLVs to that of a flush deck when war starts and allow them to have 48--54 planes on a fast cruiser hull?

Light Cruisers
Build the four Mogamis and leave their 15 6" guns. Take the earliest four CAs (Aoba, Kako) and when the gun conversion historically takes place (late-30s) change out their armament for the triple 6" turrets of the Mogami Class. Japan would start the war with 8 capable CLs and have their follow-on (3rd Circle/4TH Circle) CLs follow the same design (3x3 6" Guns) on an 8,000T hull. Take the Tone's and build them with the original 6" guns as well. OR Since you have a pair of Scout Cruisers (CLVs) do you even NEED the Tones? The shifting of tonnage would mean that the Japanese take the oldest CLs (Tenryu--Tatsuta, Kuma--Tama) and convert them to ML. Kitakami, Oi, Kiso then become the Training Cruisers (so the useless Natori's are not needed).

Heavy Cruisers
All the above shifting around leaves Japan with only 8 real CAs. Tonnage opened allows for at least three to be honestly built. Perhaps--going along with Bill's idea--the Japanese allow for more then that...say 4-6? That would certainly alarm the Allies. If you don't build the Tone's as Scout Cruisers then you gained two real CAs there as well.

In line with concern of slipways, the point of having the space available in the early-30s but not late-30s is accurate. This possible blueprint basically plans for the addition of the two CLVs, one CVL, and how many ever CAs would be allowed for.

This Post is a stream of brainstorming and is not meant to be THE PLAN. Just ideas...

[Paladin1dcs]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I like Brandywine, I always use that name to rename any "II" carrier I get. 

Does SOUND really nice doesn't it? Didn't the US name an Aegis Cruiser the Brandywine? Sounds right.

Brandywine is ok. Was a defeat though, bith tactical and strategic, but Sullivan and Greene were both superb.

I like victories, either tactical or strategic (preferrably both). So King's Mountain and Guilford.

King's Mountain was a double trump by backwoods militia against Ferguson. The turn of the tide in Britain's Southern Campaign. October 7, 1780; which led to another double trump at Cowpens, January 17, 1781, which finally led to Guilford CH, March 15, 1781.

Greene (oh, my, Greene again) was worsted tactically, but gained a strategic victory, that allowed him to maneuver into and recover the Southern Region for the Continental Congress.

So King's Mountain and Guilford.

I'll second the vote for King's Mountain, I had an ancestor who was there and it's a little known but strategically important battle, as Symon pointed out.

USS King's Mountain and USS Guilford both get my vote.

[John 3rd]

I need a link to the building details for the 1938 US Building Program.

[John 3rd]

Wrote CR last night telling him that his home might be represented within the campaign and he wrote back:

Ah, thanks for the tip of the cap! I do live near Rome, but to get it just right, you'd have to install the USS Armuchee (my hometown being a Cherokee Indian name).

If you want some southern American Revolution battle sites, here are some suggestions. These were all significant patriot victories.

Savannah (major patriot victory)
Kettle Creek (knocked the Tories out of interior Georgia)
Snow Campaign (patriot victory against the Cherokee nation, a Brit ally)
Overmountain Campaign (same as previous)
Ninety-Six (was this name actually used in WWII? I forget)
Moore's Creek (stinging defeat for Tories in coastal North Carolina)
Camden (South Carolina - I don't think this has been used, or at least the South Carolina version)
Waxhaws (important clash in South Carolina)
Eutaw Springs (same)
Brier Creek (in Georgia)

[ny59giants]

Ninety-Six (was this name actually used in WWII? I forget)

This was also the name of the town next to Greenwood, SC where I lived for over 5 years.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Wrote CR last night telling him that his home might be represented within the campaign and he wrote back:
..
Camden (South Carolina - I don't think this has been used, or at least the South Carolina version)
..

I wouldn't use Camden. It was a complete defeat for the Continental forces; maybe defeat is not the right word, it was a rout; maybe rout is not the right word, it was an utter catastrophe and humiliation. Gen Horatio Gates ran away so hard, he didn't stop for 60 miles. The only silver lining in this completely pathetic episode is Horatio Gates finally got investigated, cashiered, and replaced by Nathaniel Greene.

No, Camden was a nightmare. Bad name for a ship unless it's for the town in New Jersey (no relation). Please don't use (Battle of) Camden. JWE

[Skyros]

I agree with JWE, Camden is bad JUJU. Its a nice site to visit, they do a reenactment in November every year. Ninety Six is another nice site, although not a Colonial victory. The siege itself failed and the Patriots withdrew, but the loyalists later burned the town and abandoned the back country.

From Wiki-
In 1780 the British fortified the strategically important frontier town with a star fort. From May 22 to June 18, 1781 Major General Nathanael Greene, with 1,000 American Patriot troops, besieged 550 American Loyalists who were defending Ninety Six. General Greene's chief engineer at the siege was the world-renowned Polish hero Colonel Tadeusz Kościuszko, who was wounded at the siege. The American Loyalists survived the siege and relocated after the war to Rawdon, Nova Scotia, Canada, with support from the Crown for resettlement.

[moore4807]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Wrote CR last night telling him that his home might be represented within the campaign and he wrote back:
..
Camden (South Carolina - I don't think this has been used, or at least the South Carolina version)
..

I wouldn't use Camden. It was a complete defeat for the Continental forces; maybe defeat is not the right word, it was a rout; maybe rout is not the right word, it was an utter catastrophe and humiliation. Gen Horatio Gates ran away so hard, he didn't stop for 60 miles. The only silver lining in this completely pathetic episode is Horatio Gates finally got investigated, cashiered, and replaced by Nathaniel Greene.

No, Camden was a nightmare. Bad name for a ship unless it's for the town in New Jersey (no relation). Please don't use (Battle of) Camden. JWE

From Wikipedia;
1)USS Camden (AS-6) was the first ship of the United States Navy to bear the name Camden, after Camden, New Jersey the city that lies on the Delaware River across from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cargo ship 1917-1918, Submarine Tender 1919-1931, Barracks ship 1940-1946.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Camden_(AS-6)

Useless tidbits of info - the second USS Camden was the last ship built by the New York Shipbuilding Co. in Camden NJ. (hence the honor) The NY Shipbuilding Co. site in Camden was also primarily responsible for two out of only eight Mutual Ownership Defense Housing complexes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Own ... g_Division built nearby Camden to handle the workers brought in for 24 hour operations.

Anyway USS Camden is out of contention... [8D]

Obviously I HAVE to go with Moore's Creek (stinging defeat for Tories in coastal North Carolina) by a nose, with Jacksonville a close second.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I need a link to the building details for the 1938 US Building Program.

The US had multiple naval building acts passed from the mid-30s through 1940:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scn-1933-roosevelt.htm

The Two Ocean Act of 1940 was the biggest. The 1938 act authorized development of the Corsair, Avenger, and Helldiver.

My proposal was what if concern over Japan in the US pushed the spending for the 1940 act back to 1938? I believe the 1938 act authorized the Hornet, but the 1940 act authorized 18 Essex class carriers. Push that kind of spending back to 1938 and you will see the first Essex class start arriving in late 42. Possibly one or two ready by Pearl Harbor, or close to it. The Hornet would probably be completed as the first Essex class in that case instead of a repeat of the Yorktown class.

Bill

[John 3rd]

Love the Name Choice discussion!

Bill: I know the history just couldn't find a site that had the actual specifics of the Bill. Thanks. Got it and copied it for pondering and thought.

[oldman45]

This might help you John.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jrs9/BNY-Hist-ND3.html

[John 3rd]

Read through the American portion of the Naval Build-UP through the 1938 Vinson Bill. Have a pretty good handle on things now.

US Additions:
An additional CVL that will be a dialed back Ranger. The US builds Ranger. It doesn't work and they try again. We will call it a proto-Independance Class vessel. Built in early-to-mid-30s.

Two CLVs built in early-30s.

Two CAs are added to the New Orleans-Class: Arrive in 1936-1937.

Two Brooklyn/St Louis Class added taking this class out to eleven vessels: They arrive in 1940.

The 1938 Appropriation will see some acceleration of vessels. We'll determine how many and which once the Japanese side is settled.

[oldman45]

A little more food for thought, the US didn't build all the destroyers it could. I figured out the US cheated itself out of approximately 20 DD's. I will see if I can find the text that shows this.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I need a link to the building details for the 1938 US Building Program.

The US had multiple naval building acts passed from the mid-30s through 1940:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scn-1933-roosevelt.htm

The Two Ocean Act of 1940 was the biggest. The 1938 act authorized development of the Corsair, Avenger, and Helldiver.

My proposal was what if concern over Japan in the US pushed the spending for the 1940 act back to 1938? I believe the 1938 act authorized the Hornet, but the 1940 act authorized 18 Essex class carriers. Push that kind of spending back to 1938 and you will see the first Essex class start arriving in late 42. Possibly one or two ready by Pearl Harbor, or close to it. The Hornet would probably be completed as the first Essex class in that case instead of a repeat of the Yorktown class.

Bill

If they had bumped carrier procurment, they would have accelerated the Corsair, Avenger, and Helldiver developement AND production accordingly.

This may turn into a can of worms.

[John 3rd]

I intend to add some DDs as well as fix it that when Yorktown and Hornet they arrive with a FULL Battlegroup.

Saratoga's will be intact on the West Coast at start of the GC. This will add a lot of possibility to the Allied player.

Figuring a new deployment for both the Allies and Japanese will be fun.

Am wrestling with the Japanese Building. Want to leave the Mogami's as 6" cruisers and upgrade the four OLD CAs (Kako and Friends) to 3x3 6" CLs but this only leaves 8 Japanese CAs from the original OOB. Two Ideas:

1. They lay the keels of 4 successors to the Takao class in late-29/early-30 and fight to keep them at London.
2. They build an additional pair of CAs with each of the first two classes. Two more Myoko and Two more Takao.

I am intimately familiar with the Japanese slipways so the building MUST take place in the late-20s/early-30s. Simply isn't space from the mid-30s on...

All CA building is then suspended until they leave the Treaties and one gets new CAs by the pair in Circle 3 and Circle 4. If anyone has a different or better idea I am all ears...

[John 3rd]

CV Lexington
CV Saratoga

CVL King's Mountain

CLV-1 Charlotte
CLV-2 Jacksonville

CC-1 Ranger
CC-2 Constellation

CA Burlington
CA Rome

CL Anchorage
CL Dallas


Will add 4 more Somer's-Class DDs as well as an equal number of Benham-Class.

EDIT: Settled on CL names. Cannot imagine the US Fleet without Frigate USS Constitution so we'll not take her out of commision. The Ranger CV is renamed something ELSE.

Think we are good now.