Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The decisions to be made must be done in the context of the late-30s:

1. Warships---We are placing a retrospective look back at what the Japanese 'should' have done. This applies to AA Cruisers, the uselessness of BCs, the Scout Cruiser concept, etc... The bottom line is decisions must be made from the time with the 4th Circle Plan.

a. The BCs have to be built as a compromise with the Big Gun Admirals. These are built to act as 'Scouts' for the Yamato pair and Japanese Battleline for the 'decisive battle.' To placate this faction they get a pair of modern, fast capital ships.

Why do they need to be placated more than historically...You are building the Yamatos , Tones etc . from the launch date of the BC you are almost looking at a 5th circle ship.. By this time ie 39-40 start air was better for searching ( whether CVS , AV , CV or Tone type CA is a factory by degree) . I cannot see such a hull in the yards on Jan 42 not being changed to a CV ... like SHinano. I repeat Every Capital ship over 8K tons which was in the docks at Dec 41 was completed as a CV , CVL or CVE. Even BBs and CAs were converted to monstrocities how can you be more air minded ?

Actually Yamato and Musashi were both still in the docks in Dec 1941, and they were completed as BBs, so not EVERY ship was converted.

I actually made a mod once that put all of the 4th, 5th and supplemental circle programmes in, and the player had to decide what to build and what not to. There is no way with the available shipyards you could build them all, but if you really had to have that 20" gun Yamato Monster...well you could turn off something more important and build all 3 if you wish. I also added in 8 more Unryu's that were planned but never laid down...you could choose to build them at the start and end up with 8 more flight decks at the expense of other ships.

Of course it only works for PBEM or Player vs Allied AI. If the AI gets that build queue, it pretty much gets em all...

And my point to all this is, in a mod like that, its OK to leave it up to the player. And if they decide to really expand shipyards and spend the HI and supply on it, they might get to build more than historical. A scenario like that isn't going to be historical anyway.

I don't really feel the modder needs to justify his mod either historically or by any other measurements.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

I really, really don't find IJA reduction plausible if we assume that the political atmosphere - required for the Pacific War to start roughly as it started in RL - stays the same. Having the entire Gun Club to perish in an accident thus avoiding Yamatos entirely, or assuming much greater Army-Navy cooperation in aicraft production (some army planes, like Ki-15 or Ki-67 were adopted by Navy in RL, so the greater cooperation is not unimaginable) is much less of a stretch.


Barring that, the more plausible source for goodies required for new carriers and stuff, besides limiting the Yamato class to two ships is not proceeding with converting some/all shadow fleet ships until well into the war (the conversion options for the originals can be locked until a certian date).


EDIT: This way Japan won't have more carriers at the start, and its carrier arm might be even slightly weaker throughout 1942, lack of CVLs/CVEs and operational flexibility they provide compensating increases in quality of IJN planes and other areas. But Japan will be able to hold up much better in 1943-early 1944.

Escort production might deserve a second thought, because it's one of the areas where plausible improvements are possible, with enough foresight. On the other hand, Yamamoto might operate under the RL assumption that if the conditions required for the sub campaign to become crippling occur, Japan is screwed either way, so if you don't want to bother, don't.

The thought of making the Army--Navy get ALONG never had occurred to me. Perhaps there might be some good thinking there. Could Yamamoto's popularity and influence have assauged the Army to allowing some priority shifts? Interesting thought.

Having the entire Gun Club die in an 'unfortunate accident' might be a thoughtful idea. Course I laughed and nearly spewed my tea when I read this idea! [;)]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

I was under the impression the armor and aircraft changes were as much about engineers and machine tools as steel, thus the reductions in production and delays in improved models? As for Naval changes, I think we need to be careful and build the things Japan might have wanted in a more air oriented fleet in 38 or 39, and try not to be influenced by either what they did after scrapping Circle 5 post Midway, nor what might have been a best case build with 20/20 hindsight. I actually think Kaigun covers the realistic alternatives rather well.

The book does cover the options fairly well. Just spent some time re-writing notes from about 150 pages of Kaigun.

Let us start with Yamamoto's Career timeline:

30-33 Chief of Technical Department within the Naval Aviation Department
33-36 Chief of ENTIRE Naval Aviation Department
36-39 Navy Vice-Minister
39-41 Navy Minister (in this Mod) NOT C-in-C Combined Fleet

He has six years to ramrod his aircraft design and procurement ideas through and then continue to support them through 1939. As Minister his power would be even greater to MAINTAIN and EXPAND his earlier choices.

He would become Navy Minister in August 1939. The 4th Circle is accpted in September 1939. Kaigun speaks to how design conflict led to several classes of ships being delayed: Taiho-Class by minimum 18 months and Agano-Class by 2 Years.

When surveyed for expansion, only four Shipyards were deemed to have enough room to handle the Yamato's: Kure (Yamato built there), Nagasaki (Musashi built there), Yokosuka, and Sasebo. (PP 369-70 Kaigun) Two massive drydocks were then built to handle the Yamato's: Yokosuka got its finished in 1940 and Sasebo never did. As Vice-Minister Yamato was involved with this decision process so we could do more.

How about we assume that Kure and Nagasaki is maxed out for Shipyards and instead add to Yokosuka and Sasebo (beyond the drydocks)? Additionally, I think we'll add a Naval Shipyard at Shanghai's large harbor.

To lessen congestion and indecision we can assume that Yamamoto would have come to the 4th Circle Plan FULLY prepared and ready to move. He, above all others, knew that time was of the essense. With this in mind, we see a couple of new possibilities:

1. CV Construction:
a. Instead of building the expensive Taiho with an entirely new design, why not INSTEAD build 3 Shokaku-Class CVs? Throw Taiho out for the proven and already known (in terms of construction) class that preceded her. This is an interesting thought that makes some sense. Zuikaku was built on the slipways in only 21 months (I read that on the Forum somewhere). It might be somewhat realistic to see the 3rd/4th Sho in Jan/Feb 1943 and the 5th in July 43.

b. Flip A and go with 3 Taiho-Class CVs that would come in a year earlier (no argument for their design) starting in August 1943 with Taiho, and bring in a pair of Sister in Jan/Feb 44.

2. Shadow Program:
a. Yamamoto was a believer in getting it done ASAP. We go with what has been stated and bring Nisshin in as a CVL.

3. CLs
a. The Agano's begin immediately in 1939 instead of 1941. The Japanese START the war with Agano and Noshiro operational while the others are added quickly at the beginning of the war (Yahagi 12/29/41, Sakawa 6/1/42).

b. The Oyodo's can come in in a variety of options:
b1. A conventional 3x3 6.1" CL and 2x4 TT Tubes (turrets came from the conversions of the Mogami's by the way). Cost less (35 instead of 41) and deploy in Feb and May 1943.

b2. A Scout Cruiser with 2x3 6.1" in front and carry 4 Float Planes. This would be a smaller Tone costing 41 points, and deploy at about the same time.

b3. An AA Cruiser with a 2x3 6.1" up front and EIGHT 3.9" Turrets for AA. CV Ring Defense Leader, cost 46 points, and deploy May and Aug 1943.

b4. Throw out the design entirely and go with two more Agano's to deploy 12/42 and 5/43.

4. CAs
a. The Ibuki and her sister come in as Tone-Class in late-42/early-43 (8 8" Guns, Torps, and 6 Floatplanes).

b. They are built along the lines of the Mogami-Class (10 8" Guns, Torps, and 3 FP).

5. Ikoma-Class BC
a. Pure chrome! If you want them then you can try to build them. Would be anful pretty and serve as damned fine CV Escorts and/or Allied Cruiser Killers.

This is a lot to ponder. It is the 3 Shos or the 3 Taihos that make for interesting thought. By throwing out design delays (attribute to Yamamoto's leadership) this is a possibility. Which would be better to use? Certainly 3 72 plane CVs would massively help but is it better to get them earlier with a known design or a little later with a design to stymie those SBDs and Helldivers?

ORIGINAL: bklooste

While reasonable the IJN would still need an interceptor at least for base defence but also CAP. The A6M3 could evolve into one eg less fuel = lighter = faster climb . You could have the A6M3 X with heavier weapons and armour.

Actually looking up they did do this ...installing 30mm in some .

A6M3:
A6M3 Model 32 : Had square tip wings.3,5 More ammunition for the guns.3,5 The engine was larger and reduced the fuel carried by 21 gallons.4,5
A6M3 Model 22: Had folding wing tips.3,4,5 More fuel.3,4,5 Increased by 24 gallons.4,5
A6M3a Model 22a, A6M3 Model 22KO: Long barrel cannons.3,5 2 or 3 20 mm Type 99.5 Some had a 30 mm installed and were tested at Rabaul.5

The model 32 is 15% lighter...despite the larger engine. Introduce a varient model for CAP and base defence at the right time and it would be accepted and would be the first to carry armour/self sealing tanks. It certainly would not take a lot of resources to carry less fuel and to have a few bigger guns , being lighter it would have a greater climb.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

4. The ultimate IJN carrier fighter, the A7M Reppu ("Sam") was delayed because the Mitsubishi design staff was too occupied with improving the A6M and developing the J2M Raiden ("Jack"). If you want to enhance the IJN carrier fighters over OTL, dump the J2M, basing the J2 design instead on the Heinkel 100 which the IJN had already bought in 1939 lock, stock, and barrel (if all had gone according to plan, the He 100 could have been in series production in mid-1941), imagine that Jiro Horikoshi had got his way and put a more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine in the A6M5 (which in OTL happened only with the A6M8) and you have something like the A6M8 in late 1943 and the A7M in August/September 1944.

Skipping Jack and moving into these designs is exactly what I envisioned from the start. 

One could look at a Zero deployment of:
A6M3  Jan 42
A6M3a  March 42
A6M5  October 42
A7M/A6M8 along the lines you describe.

Japan decides to bank ALL Naval Research on the Zero airframe.  Damn the Hellkittens...Firewall that throttle!

Very interesting idea. There is no armor in any Zero until A6M5c in 10/44. A 'point defense' Zero (in lieu of Mr. Jack) might be very useful and somewhat practical.

Is this a nuts idea?


My Zero Deployment thinking (using established planes) is:

1/42 A6M3
3/42 A6M3a
10/42 A6M5
2/43 A6M5c ARMOR and Better Guns

After this I am all awash as to A6M7, A6M8, A7M2 and time frame. Remember NO JACK (should we have George?) so all research pours into Zero Research.

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The desire is not to get a gun with better Balistics that the existing 127/50 but one that is a better DP weapon the 100/65 fires slower in game than a 5"/38 and has half the shell weight. So the semi automated loading of the 100/65 and 80/60 is attractive on a larger weapon. the standard 127/50 Type 3 barrel with a 100/65 semi automated loading (which requires catridges) would be more than adequate in a DP mount though still inferior to a 5"/38.

What info do you have on this Type 1 and 5 ?

There is good data on NavWeaps: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_t1.htm

This gun used fixed ammunition (weight of round: 48 kg/106 lbs, weight of shell 27 kg/59.5 lbs) which would probably have been hard to handle for Japanese loading numbers.

NavWeaps is a great source of data about all kinds of naval weaponry.

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The desire is not to get a gun with better Balistics that the existing 127/50 but one that is a better DP weapon the 100/65 fires slower in game than a 5"/38 and has half the shell weight. So the semi automated loading of the 100/65 and 80/60 is attractive on a larger weapon. the standard 127/50 Type 3 barrel with a 100/65 semi automated loading (which requires catridges) would be more than adequate in a DP mount though still inferior to a 5"/38.

What info do you have on this Type 1 and 5 ?

There is good data on NavWeaps: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_t1.htm

This gun used fixed ammunition (weight of round: 48 kg/106 lbs, weight of shell 27 kg/59.5 lbs) which would probably have been hard to handle for Japanese loading numbers.

NavWeaps is a great source of data about all kinds of naval weaponry.

Don't discount the 12.7cm/40 Type 89. Despite its low muzzle velocity, it was actually a very decent AAA weapon due to good elevation, training and a quick ROF. If this weapon could be rechambered to accept a larger powder charge, its main shortcomings might have been solved.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-40_t89.htm

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
Thats just it, It was the Navy, not the army that wanted to go south, and whichever way we extrapolate the politics, the emperor would not have intervened, he was personally antiwar as exposed in some studies on Japans prewar politics, but the most he ever said about it was a poem on the brotherhood of the oceans. As to interservice rivalry, the Japanese case is the posterchild of it, even as far as having factories divided in two, with armed gaurds seperating the army and navy sections. The differnces between them and any rivalries in the west are orders of magnitude, not even the Germans or Soviets coming anywhere close.

Its true the Navy wanted to go South in 37-39 , this was there great South policy and involved Hainan island and Canton , have some authors overused this to mean the DEI ? Yamamato was not happy to go into the DEI or even attack PH , he said he did not expect his oil demands to be granted and it was bluff . I think the rivalries were the same just more public , You dont think the US Army , Navy and Airforce Or the SS , Army and Luftwaffe bitched over oil and budget ? There is one example of the branches not willing to share a factory which is overdone , most of the planes they shared were produced in the same factory. If the rivalry was as great as most people make out then there was little opportunity for the excellent cooperation , 37, 41 and even Guadacanal show this is not true. Except for one case where they wanted a seperate factory next door ( which had a lot to do with the existing factory prioritisng planes for the original services which awarded the contract) how many examples are there, and is it really relevant since some planes were produced at multiple plants anyway.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bklooste
I repeat Every Capital ship over 8K tons which was in the docks at Dec 41 was completed as a CV , CVL or CVE. Even BBs and CAs were converted to monstrocities how can you be more air minded ?

Actually Yamato and Musashi were both still in the docks in Dec 1941, and they were completed as BBs, so not EVERY ship was converted.

I actually made a mod once that put all of the 4th, 5th and supplemental circle programmes in, and the player had to decide what to build and what not to. There is no way with the available shipyards you could build them all, but if you really had to have that 20" gun Yamato Monster...well you could turn off something more important and build all 3 if you wish. I also added in 8 more Unryu's that were planned but never laid down...you could choose to build them at the start and end up with 8 more flight decks at the expense of other ships.

Of course it only works for PBEM or Player vs Allied AI. If the AI gets that build queue, it pretty much gets em all...

And my point to all this is, in a mod like that, its OK to leave it up to the player. And if they decide to really expand shipyards and spend the HI and supply on it, they might get to build more than historical. A scenario like that isn't going to be historical anyway.

I don't really feel the modder needs to justify his mod either historically or by any other measurements.

Splitting hairs on the Yamatos they were both already launched and in the final stages of finishing. Wasnt Yamato was on her trials in Dec 41. Anyway 111 was scrapped to make way for a CV and Shinano was a CV and these were being built from 1940.

Honestly i think there should be more ships in the queues , if Japan did better at convoys and protecting her resources in 43-44 then more planned ships would have been built.

Its a good point to just have different options .

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Having the entire Gun Club die in an 'unfortunate accident' might be a thoughtful idea. Course I laughed and nearly spewed my tea when I read this idea! [;)]

Type 99 Navy special Nija squad [:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


To lessen congestion and indecision we can assume that Yamamoto would have come to the 4th Circle Plan FULLY prepared and ready to move. He, above all others, knew that time was of the essense. With this in mind, we see a couple of new possibilities:

The real problem with 4th Circle was the Yamatos sucking all the budget Historically , In game terms you have 4 ships at 233 ( thats 2330 days =6.4 years so must be accelerated for most of her production ) , So in 37-40 thats 700 Naval points per day just for these ships and prob 1000-1200 when the other 2 get started for 40-41 . So those 4 ships alone will take 1200 Naval points. Histroically you can see the drop in tonnage produced durring these years compared to a much larger budget.

Now obviously without Shinano and 111 you have a lot more options from 1940 but in 1937 -1940 i dont think that many esp few craft with armour plate so favour CVs with no deck armour , Destroyers over CL over CA over BC. The armoured plate shortage will continue till end 1941.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: bklooste

While reasonable the IJN would still need an interceptor at least for base defence but also CAP. The A6M3 could evolve into one eg less fuel = lighter = faster climb . You could have the A6M3 X with heavier weapons and armour.

Actually looking up they did do this ...installing 30mm in some .

A6M3:
A6M3 Model 32 : Had square tip wings.3,5 More ammunition for the guns.3,5 The engine was larger and reduced the fuel carried by 21 gallons.4,5
A6M3 Model 22: Had folding wing tips.3,4,5 More fuel.3,4,5 Increased by 24 gallons.4,5
A6M3a Model 22a, A6M3 Model 22KO: Long barrel cannons.3,5 2 or 3 20 mm Type 99.5 Some had a 30 mm installed and were tested at Rabaul.5

The model 32 is 15% lighter...despite the larger engine. Introduce a varient model for CAP and base defence at the right time and it would be accepted and would be the first to carry armour/self sealing tanks. It certainly would not take a lot of resources to carry less fuel and to have a few bigger guns , being lighter it would have a greater climb.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

4. The ultimate IJN carrier fighter, the A7M Reppu ("Sam") was delayed because the Mitsubishi design staff was too occupied with improving the A6M and developing the J2M Raiden ("Jack"). If you want to enhance the IJN carrier fighters over OTL, dump the J2M, basing the J2 design instead on the Heinkel 100 which the IJN had already bought in 1939 lock, stock, and barrel (if all had gone according to plan, the He 100 could have been in series production in mid-1941), imagine that Jiro Horikoshi had got his way and put a more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine in the A6M5 (which in OTL happened only with the A6M8) and you have something like the A6M8 in late 1943 and the A7M in August/September 1944.

Skipping Jack and moving into these designs is exactly what I envisioned from the start. 

One could look at a Zero deployment of:
A6M3  Jan 42
A6M3a  March 42
A6M5  October 42
A7M/A6M8 along the lines you describe.

Japan decides to bank ALL Naval Research on the Zero airframe.  Damn the Hellkittens...Firewall that throttle!

Very interesting idea. There is no armor in any Zero until A6M5c in 10/44. A 'point defense' Zero (in lieu of Mr. Jack) might be very useful and somewhat practical.

Is this a nuts idea?


My Zero Deployment thinking (using established planes) is:

1/42 A6M3
3/42 A6M3a
10/42 A6M5
2/43 A6M5c ARMOR and Better Guns

After this I am all awash as to A6M7, A6M8, A7M2 and time frame. Remember NO JACK (should we have George?) so all research pours into Zero Research.

You can see they played around with it , such an aircraft would have heavier weapons ( and less fuel) initially eg the 30mm at Rabaul in 42 and would later develop armour. This would be natural .

A6M3i 10/42 ( based on the A6M3 not A) , less fuel 2 30mm cannon as tested historically at Rabaul but with more investment from teh Jack team.
A6M5i 2/43 As the A6M3i even less fuel but adds armour. Uses the Mitsubishi Kinsei engine for fast climbing. Note such a point interceptor would not need great high altitude performance ( as bomber attacks come in under 20K feet) making the engine work easier.

Seems very practical , share parts , Pilot training etc I would destinguish it from the historical line and not blend it into the c since the roll is point defence while the c is a more traditional zero. It should have more armour then the c.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The desire is not to get a gun with better Balistics that the existing 127/50 but one that is a better DP weapon the 100/65 fires slower in game than a 5"/38 and has half the shell weight. So the semi automated loading of the 100/65 and 80/60 is attractive on a larger weapon. the standard 127/50 Type 3 barrel with a 100/65 semi automated loading (which requires catridges) would be more than adequate in a DP mount though still inferior to a 5"/38.

What info do you have on this Type 1 and 5 ?

There is good data on NavWeaps: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_t1.htm

This gun used fixed ammunition (weight of round: 48 kg/106 lbs, weight of shell 27 kg/59.5 lbs) which would probably have been hard to handle for Japanese loading numbers.

NavWeaps is a great source of data about all kinds of naval weaponry.

Don't discount the 12.7cm/40 Type 89. Despite its low muzzle velocity, it was actually a very decent AAA weapon due to good elevation, training and a quick ROF. If this weapon could be rechambered to accept a larger powder charge, its main shortcomings might have been solved.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-40_t89.htm

Japan has many good AA weapons , the 12.7cm/40 Type 89 and 8cm/80 are BOTH excellent and can /were mass prodced but not great DP guns.

But it doesnt solve the DP problem ,the fact that US destroyers in game have 4-5 times the gun power of IJN destroyers. The 5-50 Type 1 would get it to the point where the US guns are only 50% better . The US guns would be 150% better than mass adopting the 100/65 and are 3-400% better than the type 3 5/50. The US guns would prob be 50-100% better than the 5"/40.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

1/42 A6M3
3/42 A6M3a
10/42 A6M5
2/43 A6M5c ARMOR and Better Guns

After this I am all awash as to A6M7, A6M8, A7M2 and time frame. Remember NO JACK (should we have George?) so all research pours into Zero Research.

Put the interceptor version is a separare factory/unit upgrade path, starting with A6M3. The main branch then will look like A6M2 -> (maybe -> A6M3a) -> A6M5 -> A6M8. The interceptor branch will go A6M3 -> (either A6M3a or a shorter-range, unarmored but more durable, with better weapons - reflecting fuel tank protection but no pilot protection - version, say, A6M3b) -> A6M5c -> A6M8. Sen Baku is produced separately and upgrades to A6M7, which, like A6M8, benefits from a better engine and is improved accordingly. If you think this is too perfect to be plauisible, make A6M5c non carrier-capable, like A6M3, AFAIK, already is (short range makes it even less than suited for naval operation) and do not insert A6M3a into the main branch.

EDIT: That's assuming you stay largely with the models of Zeros already present in the game. Bklooste mentions good RK-based alternatives for the interceptor brach.

Also, this might be just my personal favoritism, but I think that improved Shokakus is a better idea than Taihos, particularly considering the above mentioned deficit of armor plating. British experiences during the war demonstrate that armored carriers were a dubious idea at best.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
makes a good argument against including armor on carriers.

ORIGINAL: FatR

Also, this might be just my personal favoritism, but I think that improved Shokakus is a better idea than Taihos, particularly considering the above mentioned deficit of armor plating. British experiences during the war demonstrate that armored carriers were a dubious idea at best.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
makes a good argument against including armor on carriers.

This is what crossed my mind as well. The Shokaku's were--in 1940--well underways and would be quicker builds as well as not requiring the use of any armor plate. I think 3 Shokakus is a much more practical and interesting thoughtline to persue from the building angle.

Building DDs and the CLs would require very little armor as well. This would show in the advancement of the Aganos sincde they were--to say the least--lightly armored.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

1/42 A6M3
3/42 A6M3a
10/42 A6M5
2/43 A6M5c ARMOR and Better Guns

After this I am all awash as to A6M7, A6M8, A7M2 and time frame. Remember NO JACK (should we have George?) so all research pours into Zero Research.

Put the interceptor version is a separare factory/unit upgrade path, starting with A6M3. The main branch then will look like A6M2 -> (maybe -> A6M3a) -> A6M5 -> A6M8. The interceptor branch will go A6M3 -> (either A6M3a or a shorter-range, unarmored but more durable, with better weapons - reflecting fuel tank protection but no pilot protection - version, say, A6M3b) -> A6M5c -> A6M8. Sen Baku is produced separately and upgrades to A6M7, which, like A6M8, benefits from a better engine and is improved accordingly. If you think this is too perfect to be plauisible, make A6M5c non carrier-capable, like A6M3, AFAIK, already is (short range makes it even less than suited for naval operation) and do not insert A6M3a into the main branch.

EDIT: That's assuming you stay largely with the models of Zeros already present in the game. Bklooste mentions good RK-based alternatives for the interceptor brach.

The two of you pose and propose an interesting thoughtline in Zero development with this combination idea. Could expand on this thinking?

Main Research Branch--
Interceptor Branch--

There would be CV Version and regular versions of Zeros. Please mark your Naval version within each development line.

I think the early interceptor branch should be not carrier-capable, as these planes initally serve as replacements for Jack. Later models... hard to say without knowing how the alt-war is going to develop. In RL A6M5b was, AFAIK, the last version that saw carrier use, and A6M5c was put into mass production only after Japan's carrier fleet effectively ceased to exist as a combat force was used only from land bases.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

1/42 A6M3
3/42 A6M3a
10/42 A6M5
2/43 A6M5c ARMOR and Better Guns

After this I am all awash as to A6M7, A6M8, A7M2 and time frame. Remember NO JACK (should we have George?) so all research pours into Zero Research.

Put the interceptor version is a separare factory/unit upgrade path, starting with A6M3. The main branch then will look like A6M2 -> (maybe -> A6M3a) -> A6M5 -> A6M8. The interceptor branch will go A6M3 -> (either A6M3a or a shorter-range, unarmored but more durable, with better weapons - reflecting fuel tank protection but no pilot protection - version, say, A6M3b) -> A6M5c -> A6M8. Sen Baku is produced separately and upgrades to A6M7, which, like A6M8, benefits from a better engine and is improved accordingly. If you think this is too perfect to be plauisible, make A6M5c non carrier-capable, like A6M3, AFAIK, already is (short range makes it even less than suited for naval operation) and do not insert A6M3a into the main branch.

EDIT: That's assuming you stay largely with the models of Zeros already present in the game. Bklooste mentions good RK-based alternatives for the interceptor brach.

OK. Let us put this into assignments if we can.

FatR and BK--Could you work up a formal set of proposals for deployment of the Zero Line? No Jack. No George. When should the deployment of each type be?

The interceptor needs to be formally fleshed out in a bit more detail as well.

I agree with the steel crisis leading to canceling the Taiho and the building of three Improved Shokaku. These new ships will need to be (DUH!) based on the Sho and Zui but some improvement could certainly be allowed. What would be reasonable in this case?

Juan--You already have the BCs built--correct? Could you place them on the Thread again so people can see?

Also, who might be able to come up with proposals for what has been described with the CAs and CLs?

Does anyone want to volunteer in this realm of topics?

Okay, that's how I would do it.

The main line: A6M2 starts with its normal plant in Maebashi. It skips A6M3 variation due to the engine situation and minorness of improvements, to maintain the tempo of production and save engineering resources, and upgrades to A6M5 around 42/10, then to A6M5b on 43/4. The pinnacle upgrade is A6M8 on 44/4. A6M8 is slightly better in this mod than it is in AE (in RL only prototypes were built, so the data on its performance is inevitably spotty, but its test pilots allegedly gave it high praise), and has one hex added to all of its ranges. Other planes remain unchanged from their AE stats.

The interceptor line: A6M3 plant opens on 42/1. A6M3a arrives on 42/5, and is not like AE' A6M3a (you can call it A6M3b, to avoid confusion). It is created as a reaction against the threat of new Allied bombers, and instead of improved range, it features durability 27 and replaces one of of 7.7mm MGs with a 13.2mm MG. The next model is A6M5a arriving around 42/9: the same armament, the range of A6M3 (maneurability may be 1-2 points lower) and the speed of A6M5. Then A6M5c (as it is in AE) on 43/5 and A6M8 on 44/4. No risky experiments with installing heavier cannons and such - the focus is on getting decisions that worked IRL to work as soon as possible.
None of these planes can be carried-based. To avoid making them available only for a few units, lines of upgrade to them must be specifically openened for most/all of land-bases kokutais.

The fighter-bomber line: Has a separate plant and uses engines no longer required for the main line. Therefore Sen Baku goes into production on 42/10, and A6M7 replaces it on 44/4. They have their AE stats, atlhough A6M7 maybe should have a slightly greater range as well. Both must be made available for attack plane carrier squadrons, one way or another, as Sen Baku was created as a bomber, capable of flying from light carriers, in the first place.

If there is no George as well, that's probably because all reserves of Nakajima Ha-45/Homare engines are reserved for production of Ki-84, which, in RL, was available for production in numbers earlier and was simply a superior plane (IMO, the game overstates its Service Rating, at least for the early models, that weren't yet hit with the problems of maintaining quality of mass production in the last months of the war). In this case, Navy might want and get some of these planes for themselves (as happened with Ki-67). In fact, absence of George (which did not compete with Zero for engines or researchers) assumes that, due to a greater degree of cooperation in general, or one of the breaks of decent cooperation happening during laying the plans for a fighter production, Japanese leadership decides to concentrate all resources devoted to building the next generation of non-carrier based single engine fighers into the most promising model, with intention of dividing the production between the army and the fleet.

Here is what i would do with the Zero ... We can consolidate opinions next.  Let me start with this quote
 
Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight recalls how he was impressed when they tested the plane. “I don’t think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn of the Zero. The Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943"
 
Instead of the Jack or sharing the Tojo/Hien with the Army a point defence interceptor version is specified which also will be effective for CV CAP.
 
Development teams of teh Jack are spread out amongst the 3 zero projects  eg the A6M3 interceptor ( downgraded Jack Specifications)  , A6M3a ( upgrade of the Zero as a fighter)  and the A6M3b with the (1,820 hp) Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 23a 14.
 
The A6M3 is available in Jan 42 ( and has the Type-99mark-2model-3 guns with 100 rounds) , 6 newly raised chutais are available for CVs in March , the A6M3a arives Feb 42/4 , all Jack squadrons arive as A6M3.   The A6M3b is a failure but work continues on integrating the heavier engine . The A6M3 proves to have too small a gun to quickly kill US dive bombers and B17s  the A6M3i ( an upgrade of the A6M3) has 30mm cannon and self sealing fuel tanks ( but no other armour) .
 
The A6M4i comes in 4/43 it is an upgrade of the A6M3i with the Kasei 23A 14 and with armour the range is about 25% less than the A6M3.
 
The A6M5series  comes in 6 months earlier 4/43 ( I can see no reason why it cant be earlier except game balance) . 
The A6M6 Sakai series come in 6 months earlier and the Kinseis 12 months due to the earlier A6M4.
A6M8i  and A6M8 July 44 both with Kinsei engines. The i carried more armour and 30mm cannons at the expense of range.
 
Should the interceptors have J designations ?
 
Agree skip the George.
 
Upgrade paths
 
A6M2 -> A6M3 ->A6M3i  ->A6M4   ->A7M8i
        -> A6M3a -> A65M (a, b & c) ->  A6M6 -> A7M8
                                                           -> A6M7 (FB)