TM, RA, and BTS Re-Write

[John 3rd]

With a different number of battlewagons, the US Fleet would probably be deployed differently in 1941. Proposal:

Atlantic Fleet
Arkansas 26,000
Texas 27,000
New York 27,000
Mississippi 32,000
New Mexico 32,000
Idaho 32,000

Pacific Fleet
Nevada 27,500
Oklahoma 27,500
Pennsylvania 31,400
Arizona 31,400
Tennessee 32,300
California 32,300
Maryland 32,600
West Virginia 32,600
Colorado 32,600
Washington 32,600
Constellation 43,500
+1 New Capital Ship to be built 30,000 T

Deployment on Dec 7th:
Two Colorado-Class BBs upgrading on the West Coast: Colorado and Washington
The Scouting Force is at sea near Jarvis Isle: Constellation and the new BC
At Pearl Harbor: the Original EIGHT Targets

[John 3rd]

On the Aircraft Carriers at Washington I made a mistake. When we added a CVL each (Ryukaku and King's Mountain), it unbalances the tonnage numbers.

Original Washington Treaty
USA 135,000 T Japan 81,000 10:6/5:3 Ratio

US CVs: Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp (Wasp-Class)
Japan CVs: Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Soryu, and (kind of) Hiryu



Adding Ryukaku and King's Mountain gives Japan too much. We could go with Ryukaku (no change of Soryu to Hiryu-Class) and allow the Americans King's Mountain and Wasp as Yorktown-Class. That would be about right.



The problem is the solution is based on 10:6/5:3. The plan is for Japan to go to 10:7.



Re-Worked Washington Treaty
Option A
USA 135,000 Japan 94,500 Japan gains 14,500 T.

US CVs: Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp
Japan CVs: Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Ryukaku, Soryu (as Hiryu), and Hiryu

USA No King's Mountain
Japan Add a CVL and make Soryu into Hiryu-Class


If we want to add King's Mountain back in then we could simply bump up the tonnage by 10,000 T

Option B
US CVs: Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, King's Mountain, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp (as Wasp-Class)
Japan CVs: Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Ryukaku x2 OR 3 Hiryu-Class, Soryu (as Hiryu), and Hiryu

At 10:7 + 10,000T
USA gains a CVL
Japan gains 1 CVL (for 2 Ryukaku-Class) or loses CVL Ryukaku but gains a Hiryu-Class CV with Soryu also being built as Hiryu-Class


What do you like for choices here?

[Kitakami]

Hmm...

Regarding BB/BC tonnage, what if Constellation is replaced by a smaller ship? That would balance the numbers some towards 10:7. Perhaps two of the 12x 12in/50 ships are built instead of only one?

As for CVs, I think a third Hiryu-class would be more useful than two Ryukaku-class, so I'd add the USN King's Mountain and the DNTK Seiryū.

Just my two cents.

[John 3rd]

We have a vote!

That is an interesting idea. Build two of the either the 6 14" ships or 12 12" ships.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Spent some of the night, after the above Post, examining real BB designs drawn up between 1928 and 1933. The choices I come up with are true designs made by the navy that are detailed in Norman Friedman's book U.S. Battleships.

This is where you the player get to make a choice. There are two possibilities:


Option A
Page 231 Option 8

Tonnage 31,000
Speed 30 Knots
Armament: 12 12"/50 guns in four twin turrets, twelve 5"/38 in twin mountings
Cruising Radius 13,250 NM at 15 Knots
Aircraft 6 Planes
Armor Deck 5", Belt 13", Barbettes 14"


Option B
Page 231 Option 11

Tonnage 28,500
Speed 32.5 Knots
Armament: 6 14"/50 guns in three twin turrets, twelve 5"/38 in twin mountings
Cruising Radius 12,000 NM at 15 Knots
Aircraft 6 Planes
Armor Deck 5", Belt 13", Barbettes 14"

Option "B". It's the Tonnage. I can fix this thing at OZ. Better speed as well....GP

[John 3rd]

The London Conference of 1930 is a far easier subject to work on. With the Treaty ratio set at 10:10:7 the math works fairly well.

ORIGINAL London Treaty

USA
CA 180,000
CL 143,500
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

GB
CA 146,800
CL 192,200
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

Jpn
CA 108,400
CL 100,450
DD 105,500
SS 52,700

CAs were set at the following numbers:
USA 18
GB 16
Jpn 12


Working on the percentage moving to 10:7, we would see:


USA
CA 180,000
CL 143,500
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

GB
CA 146,800
CL 192,200
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

Jpn
CA 126,000 +17,600T
CL 100,450 No Change
DD 105,500 No Change
SS 52,700

CAs would change to the following numbers:
USA 18
GB 16
Jpn 14 A net gain of 2 ships.


Changes to Japanese Building:
Mogami-Class goes to six cruisers with the first two (Mogami and Mikuma) being CAs and the remaining four (Suzuya and Kumano adding Tone/Chikuma to the class--as planned) come in as originally built with 15 6.1" guns.

[Admiral DadMan]

The basis of the total tonnage was Japan's stated desire to build three carriers @ 27,000 tons, totaling 81,000 (and included Hiryu). The 135,000 US/UK number was extrapolated from the 81,000.

Also, Akagi and Kaga were reported at 26,900 so that they could both mount the full ten 8-inch guns as provided by treaty for carriers under 27,000 tons (if converted over 27,000 but under 33,000 tons, they could only mount eight 8-inch as with Lexington.)

The Japanese were "shorting" their tonnage by 20-30% in terms of carriers and cruisers. Giving them 13,500 more would be the equivalent of a larger Hiryu (as tonnage reported). It would take some mental gymnastics to include King's Mountain, like modifying or not closing the sub-10,000 ton loopohole. That in itself would free up another 7,100 tons for Japan, totalling 21,600 with which they could build an additional two Soryu/Hiryu class. King's Mountain would have to be built on less than 10,000 tons.

[John 3rd]

The revised description of the London Conference for the Mods:

The London Conference
Moving on to the London Conference (1930), the subject of Cruisers is re-worked:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). Japan is authorized to build a total of 14 CAs.

2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs. This brings no change to the Treaty since Japan was already at 70% in this category.

3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser—CVs and they force Great Britain, following the example set with the Washington BC—CV Conversions, to allow for two hybrids each to be built in the early-30s. The nations are allowed with ONLY these two vessels to place 8" guns on them. USA builds CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville (3x3 6" and 18 Planes), GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies with 2x2 8" and 15 Planes), and Japan finishes up with CAV Kushiro and Tokachi (3x2 8" and 27 Planes). These hybrids are not true, useful CVLs not are they true, useful cruisers but they have a unique niche in 1941 and ALL of them can be converted into carriers later in 1942.

***It should be noted that to take maximum advantage of the revised Treaty tonnages, Japan converts several of the oldest CLs into fast ML, builds additional Myoko-Class CAs and keeps the last four Mogami Class as 6” CLs.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The basis of the total tonnage was Japan's stated desire to build three carriers @ 27,000 tons, totaling 81,000 (and included Hiryu). The 135,000 US/UK number was extrapolated from the 81,000.

Also, Akagi and Kaga were reported at 26,900 so that they could both mount the full ten 8-inch guns as provided by treaty for carriers under 27,000 tons (if converted over 27,000 but under 33,000 tons, they could only mount eight 8-inch as with Lexington.)

The Japanese were "shorting" their tonnage by 20-30% in terms of carriers and cruisers. Giving them 13,500 more would be the equivalent of a larger Hiryu (as tonnage reported). It would take some mental gymnastics to include King's Mountain, like modifying or not closing the sub-10,000 ton loopohole. That in itself would free up another 7,100 tons for Japan, totalling 21,600 with which they could build an additional two Soryu/Hiryu class. King's Mountain would have to be built on less than 10,000 tons.

In Scraps of Paper, Hyde really goes into detail about the Japanese cheating and how the Allies simply turned a blind eye to it. STUPID! It was disarmament through HOPE and rosey-colored sun glasses!

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The basis of the total tonnage was Japan's stated desire to build three carriers @ 27,000 tons, totaling 81,000 (and included Hiryu). The 135,000 US/UK number was extrapolated from the 81,000.

Also, Akagi and Kaga were reported at 26,900 so that they could both mount the full ten 8-inch guns as provided by treaty for carriers under 27,000 tons (if converted over 27,000 but under 33,000 tons, they could only mount eight 8-inch as with Lexington.)

The Japanese were "shorting" their tonnage by 20-30% in terms of carriers and cruisers. Giving them 13,500 more would be the equivalent of a larger Hiryu (as tonnage reported). It would take some mental gymnastics to include King's Mountain, like modifying or not closing the sub-10,000 ton loopohole. That in itself would free up another 7,100 tons for Japan, totalling 21,600 with which they could build an additional two Soryu/Hiryu class. King's Mountain would have to be built on less than 10,000 tons.

In Scraps of Paper, Hyde really goes into detail about the Japanese cheating and how the Allies simply turned a blind eye to it. STUPID! It was disarmament through HOPE and rosey-colored sun glasses!

Exactly. Like Hyde described the Kellogg/Briand Pact was a sort of "peace through incantation". Outlawing war - to keep the peace.

Funny, I'd always attributed that analysis to Samuel Eliot Morison.

[John 3rd]

Love Adm Morison's work.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies with 2x2 8" and 15 Planes)

I have real misgivings about the usefulness of these. Do you want a light carrier, or a cruiser? I suppose it has to be accepted that that RN guy who, to be fair, sunk this sort of half assed thinking, was a junior officer in 1922 and mistakes would be made.

But, I'm looking at this design, and thinking in game that whatever groups you give it (9 Fulmars, 6 Swordfish, in a trade protection role?) get dumped off ASAP, and least the fighter group is resized to 15 x 115% = 17, switched to Seafires tasked with point defence, and they just become a useful consort to USN air combat TFs in the SOPAC area.

Actually that's not so bad.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies with 2x2 8" and 15 Planes)

I have real misgivings about the usefulness of these. Do you want a light carrier, or a cruiser? I suppose it has to be accepted that that RN guy who, to be fair, sunk this sort of half assed thinking, was a junior officer in 1922 and mistakes would be made.

But, I'm looking at this design, and thinking in game that whatever groups you give it (9 Fulmars, 6 Swordfish, in a trade protection role?) get dumped off ASAP, and least the fighter group is resized to 15 x 115% = 17, switched to Seafires tasked with point defence, and they just become a useful consort to USN air combat TFs in the SOPAC area.

Actually that's not so bad.

I have opened a line of NZ/Aust carrier-based planes to give options. These two vessels can convert to CVLs and have a much more useful life.

The Americans move to Independence-Class CVLs.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd




I have opened a line of NZ/Aust carrier-based planes to give options. These two vessels can convert to CVLs and have a much more useful life.

I can see the RNZN FAA flying whatever the USN is using, and maybe even transiting to F4Us ahead of them. The RAN is more questionable. Eventually, post war, when they fielded carriers they started with FAA aircraft - but they soon changed to USN sourced machines.

I would suggest that RAAF and RNZAF FAA squadrons should follow USN aircraft upgrade paths.

[ny59giants]

When it comes to CV options, I like them coming as pairs rather than have a third.

For the hybrids, I think the Brits have some FB type airframes that can be used in different roles. They would like them to carry some sort of bombs, but also be able to used as fighters over their own TFs.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When it comes to CV options, I like them coming as pairs rather than have a third.

For the hybrids, I think the Brits have some FB type airframes that can be used in different roles. They would like them to carry some sort of bombs, but also be able to used as fighters over their own TFs.

So you would prefer 2 CVLs and a pair of Hiryus instead of 1 CVL and 3 Hiryus?

[Admiral DadMan]

If you continue the sub 10,000 ton exemption, Japan's carrier lineup could look like this (as under-reported)"

Akagi 26,900
Kaga 26,900
Ryujo -
Soryu 10,175
Hiryu 10,175
Hiryu 10,175
Hiryu 10,175
Total 94,500

[ny59giants]

We are going with the premise of a Japanese CarDiv being 2 CVs and a CVL. The CVL will remain fighter heavy to provide CAP over the TF. We have discussed this many times and think it is a good concept. If you choose to vary this, will future builds bring this back into line??

Edit - Will a fourth Hiryu be built? If so, will a pair of CLs not be built?

[John 3rd]

Good Thinking MISTER MICHAEL!

OK. Let us go by speed and Division

December 7, 1941

CarDiv1
Akagi--31 Knots
Amagi--31 Knots
Ryukaku--32 Knots

CarDiv2
Hiryu--34 Knots
Soryu (as Hiryu-Class)--34 Knots

CarDiv5
Shokaku--34 Knots
Zuikaku--34 Knots
NEW CVL--32 KNots

CAVs
Tokachi--34 Knots
Toshiro--34 Knots

CarDiv3
Ryujo--29 Knots
Shoho--28 Knots
Zuiho--28 Knots

CarDiv4
Shoho--25 Knots
Ibuki--25 Knots
Taiyo--21 Knots

Adding the 2nd Ryukaku-Class CVL to CarDiv5 makes a bunch of sense.

The CAVs--until the option to convert occurs--could be attached to CarDiv2 then all three CarDiv would be able to move at 32+ Knots. Sounds pretty good to me...

[DOCUP]

John are you going to let 15k of capital ship tonnage go to waste. I think NOT. There has to be a plan for a cruiser size ship with big guns, in one of your books about IJN.