Between the Storms

[wdolson]

You probably should try to get into the mindset of the admirals of the day. In December 1941, the Japanese had Kongos along with the KB to protect against surface threats. Experience in the Atlantic/Europe did not support the concept of using battleships for carrier escort. The US would have likely used RN doctrine which put the BCs in the battleline, not with the CVs.

The US fast BBs (North Carolina and South Dakota classes) were designed to operate on the end of the battleline and counter threats from Kongos doing an end run. The US had badly underestimated the top speed of IJN battleships after refit. It was thought the Kongos could only do 26 knots, so the new US BBs were built for 28 knots.

In all likelihood in a Pacific inhabited by BCs, the BCs the doctrine would mostly be to put the BCs on the end of the battlelines to operate as naval cavalry. Look for an opening to charge in and otherwise stay on the edges and prevent the other side from doing the same thing. US fast BBs probably would have been built, but their intended use would be to be better at countering Japanese BCs. As a result, they may have been a bit faster. The US may have traded off some armor protection to get the speeds up. The South Dakotas on the other hand could probably have been given a couple of extra knots by simply extending the bow a bit. They had the raw horsepower.

Bill

[Connfire]

Is there a possibility one of the US BCs would be overhauling on the West Coast? They would have entered commission about the same time as the Colorado class, and BB Colorado was getting overhauled during Pearl Harbor.

I recall reading that while the British (and by extension Japanese) BCs started out as an evolutionary step past Armored Cruisers, the Lexington class would have been quite different. They were compared to an evolutionary step above light cruisers. The Lexington's maximum belt armor was 7". That is only 1" more then British BCs Invincible and Indefatigable, and 2" less then the Queen Mary, all 3 of which were sunk at the Battle of Jutland. Lexington's maximum deck armor would have been less then all 3 of the British BCs.

Considering these ships were designed after the battle, it does not appear that the US intended their BCs to serve in the battle line. It appears that their original mission, like the Omaha CLs, would be for scouting, as well as hit and run attacks on weaker ships. Considering the US used their fast CAs and CLs as CV escorts, I would think by 1941 the Lexingtons would have evolved into the same role.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

You probably should try to get into the mindset of the admirals of the day. In December 1941, the Japanese had Kongos along with the KB to protect against surface threats. Experience in the Atlantic/Europe did not support the concept of using battleships for carrier escort. The US would have likely used RN doctrine which put the BCs in the battleline, not with the CVs.

The US fast BBs (North Carolina and South Dakota classes) were designed to operate on the end of the battleline and counter threats from Kongos doing an end run. The US had badly underestimated the top speed of IJN battleships after refit. It was thought the Kongos could only do 26 knots, so the new US BBs were built for 28 knots.

In all likelihood in a Pacific inhabited by BCs, the BCs the doctrine would mostly be to put the BCs on the end of the battlelines to operate as naval cavalry. Look for an opening to charge in and otherwise stay on the edges and prevent the other side from doing the same thing. US fast BBs probably would have been built, but their intended use would be to be better at countering Japanese BCs. As a result, they may have been a bit faster. The US may have traded off some armor protection to get the speeds up. The South Dakotas on the other hand could probably have been given a couple of extra knots by simply extending the bow a bit. They had the raw horsepower.

Bill

I've always thought of them as part of the Scouting Force so felt they would be folded into the role played by the CVs as guarding the flanks and lookin' ahead. The thing I think of is when Kimmel asked Halsey if he wanted to take any of the BBs with him and he said no their to damned slow. Would he have said that if those two BC were present and available?

[John 3rd]

Got to thinking about the Hybrid CA/CLVs and decided I wanted to them to actually be modeled as a 'failed' design concept. Terminius and Symon pointed this out and it has sat in the back of my mind for two days as I mulled it over. The ships are not cruisers and they are not carriers. They don't carry enough planes or have enough guns/magazine space for ammo. SO...this is what I decided to do:

G.6: Lowered air group from 36 to 24 planes (15 F and 9 TB). Lowered the ammo amount of the ship to only 9 main gun rounds of ammo available. Sorties cut in half.
Charlotte: Lowered air group from 24 to 18 planes (12 F and 6 SBD), ammo reduced to 10 salvos, and sorties cut in half.
Vindictive: Lowered from 21 to 15 planes (9 F and 6 TB), main gun rounds set at 10, kept TTs, and sorties cut by 50%.

Still interesting ships but not very capable. Players will WANT to convert them into carriers and get a nice ship in return!

[John 3rd]

Worked on the layout of the new ships with where they start:

Japan
Amagi--Ishitaka in KB
Ryukaku plus Zuiho and Ryujo at Babeldoap
CAV Tokachi and Kushiro at Cam Rahn Bay

USA
CVL King's Mountain arrives with Yorktown in late-December 41.
BC Ranger and Constellation with CV Enterprise
CA Burlington and Rome at San Diego with Yorktown and King's Mountain
CL Anchorage the same as above and CL Dallas joins her sister Boise in the Asiatic Fleet
CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville added to convoys (the one east of Lunga and the Pensacola TF)
ADDED: 2 Porter DDs to Houston TF and 2 more Porter DDs to Boise-Dallas TF, two more Benham arrive with Yorktown TF
MOVED: CA Northampton and Chester to San Diego joining Saratoga Battle Group, placed CA Chicago with Houston in Philippines, and AS Otis to Cebu.

Empire
HMAS Melbourne at Sydney
HMS Vindictive with CVL Hermes in Ceylon


As can be seen, the Asiatic Fleet gets reinforced by the Pacific Fleet at the prodding of HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS Commanding the Philippines. Starting Forces in the Asiatic Fleet are 2 CA, 3 CL, and 12 DDs (they add 4 newer DDs). Japan had better watch out for this!

[Kitakami]

Lowering the capabilities of the hybrids makes sense, if what you seek is for the player to send them to the yards for conversion, that is.

One question... would it not make more military sense to deploy the IJN CAVs at Babeldoab with the others? I mean, the historical ones were deployed there and not in Cam Ranh for a reason. I think the reason still stands, even more so with the beefing up of the Asiatic Fleet.

Just my 2 cents

[John 3rd]

Good thought.

I felt placing the CAVs in CRB wasn't as provocative as bringing a carrier deck there. They would provide at least a bit of CAP over any Japanese landing on the Western DEI side. Perhaps having the two additional CVLs at Babeldoap could be seen as a reaction to the increased Asiatic Fleet?

[DOCUP]

Interesting placement of ships.  Playing devils advocate here.  Seeing all this naval build up in the area.  I believe that everyone in the area will mobilize some of their ground forces and move them around.
 
If 3 CVLs move to Babeldoap.  Might see some search planes being moved to cover that area from the PI and DEI.  Maybe some redistribution of AC, Ships, and ground troops by all in the area. 

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How about Swordfish I, then Albacore, and finally Avengers? That would cover the TB line for the Aussies.

Ought to go from Sea Gladiators to Martlets. Could we have an Aussiefied variant of the Martlet?

Do I need to make the Gladiator aussie too? I think most of what you need is already in Cathartes excellent rotating art mod. I'll still need to modify his Albacore though.

[wdolson]

The Aussie carrier squadrons could draw from British stocks, though having Aussie pools would better restrict how many of each they get. An Allied carrier with any halfway decent capability in the Coral Sea at start can cause a lot of damage.

Here are the production numbers on the SBD as promised. I scanned the PBY production figures, but the image may be too large to attach.

SBD production

SBD-3
174 French Spring 1942
410 USN -4518 to 4691 and 03185 to 03384 and 06492 to 06701

A-24 (SBD-3)
168 USAAF 41-15748 to 15823 and 42-6682 to 6771

SBD-4
780 USN/USMC 06702 to 06991 and 10317 to 10806
Oct 1942 to April 1943
170 A-24A 42-6772 to 6831 and 42-60772

SBD-5
2965 USN/USMC
615 Army


OK, it uploaded. Sorry for the weird warping, the page twisted a little under the scanner.

Bill

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Good thought.
I felt placing the CAVs in CRB wasn't as provocative as bringing a carrier deck there. They would provide at least a bit of CAP over any Japanese landing on the Western DEI side. Perhaps having the two additional CVLs at Babeldoap could be seen as a reaction to the increased Asiatic Fleet?

One question... what would be the strategic thinking they would be used under? I ask because if they are to be used as scouting ships, CRB would not be the best place to base them. But if they are considered convoy escorts, then 1x in CRB and one in Samah(sp?) might be a better deployment.

Just my 2 cents.

[John 3rd]

Agree in principle Kitakami, however, wouldn't the Zeros in Formosa be able (in theory) to provide that LR CAP where there is NOTHING in Borneo or--say--Southern Malaya OR Sumatra?

[John 3rd]

Going to work on new Air Groups tonight. Rather boring but needs to be done. Will Squadrons, Daitais, elements, and Chutai as well as FP groups for the new warships.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Agree in principle Kitakami, however, wouldn't the Zeros in Formosa be able (in theory) to provide that LR CAP where there is NOTHING in Borneo or--say--Southern Malaya OR Sumatra?

True! Perhaps Truk and/or Babeldoab are better bases for them if their role is convoy protection (wherever amphibious assault land units start in).

[ny59giants]

John and I just got the updated version of RA 7.0 from Symon/JWE that will be totally based on the latest and greatest version of DBB. [&o] He was able to integrate as much as possible what was done in RA into DBB. John 3rd had placed some units in the wrong slots, so he corrected this. Over the weekend, I'll try to go through the Location files to ensure they are correct as there are some things that are unique to RA that may be missing from John E's great work in helping us out. Hopefully, this will not take me too long so I can then get John 3rd to do the ships and new TF stuff. Then we can get it out for review for errata from some of you.

Thanks again Symon/JWE!!

[RedLancer]

The attached folder I think covers most of the aircraft options. Most of this is either a straight lift from Cathartes' work for ease of compilation or my modification of his excellent stuff. Post if anything else is needed - I'll pop by when I have time my friends.

[John 3rd]

As always RL: THANKS!

Am not going to get much done this weekend. We are hosting a church summer party tomorrow and I have my store's staff as well as Area Directors and Regional Director coming over on Sunday. Will get back to it in earnest Monday.

Michael and I are setting a tentative goal of July 15th for everything being complete.

[John 3rd]

Got up a little early so I could get some work done today and have a question. How do I handle adding a Daitai to the Japanese G.6 CAVs after conversion? I have the Fighter and Kate units coming back (a la Chitose) but I need to add a DB unit to the air group. Any idea how I add them to the converted ship?

THANKS!

[John 3rd]

Here is the screen shot with all added Japanese air groups. Everyone of these ships start with older planes (Claudes and old TB)...

As you can see, I have Tokachi and Kushiro's original Fighter and TB groups. They disband when the ship goes into conversion and return when the new CV is completed. The problem is adding the DB group (Tokachi-2 and Kushiro-2). Any input would be appreciated!

[Symon]

A quick and dirty way is like how it is done with, for instance, Chitose. Divide up the Claude’s and old TBs into 3 Chutai – Tokachi-1, Tokachi-2, Tokachi-3. Then -1 dies and returns as -1 Zeros, -2 dies and returns as -2 BDs, -3 dies and returns as -3 TBs. Be careful with your 9999s. New groups must have 9999 as the delay value, as well as have a link to the original by the original’s “return as” field.