Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[FatR]

I don't think that the idea of having chutais on a different type of plane can work. And on carrier CAP, particularly if we talk about Japanese in 1942-43, you want planes that can fly patrols for extended lengths of time anyway. Otherwise, that's a good proposal too, more radical than mine in proposed changes but less so in the times of arrival.

[John 3rd]

Here is Shokaku on Dec 7th.

With the Japanese were well on the way to having the original pair completed at the time the next trio would be ordered, we can assume some reasonable changes within the ship. Since they would deploy in late-42/early-43

1. A slight increase in tonnage
2. Same for durability
3. Going with the 3.9" for heavy AA
4. They could also start with more of the 25MM guns as well.

Would it be reasonable to slightly raise their plane complement to 75 or 81? Don't know about that.

[John 3rd]

FatR and BK:
 
Nice thinking.  I like the development line with FatR but really like the creation of an improved interceptor as outlined with BK.  Why don't you two hammer that out between you.  Everything must be reasonable and based on the 'history.'  I'm of the opinion that the Fleet goes with FatR deployment for Carrier-Based Air.  The land-based side needs the work and can see the envisioned 'interceptor.'
 
I thought George sucked away from the Zero in terms of R&R.  If it did not then should it still be allowed or do we ONLY go with the Zero for ALL Navy Chutai/Daitai PERIOD?  This seems to be the direction chosen.

[Shark7]

Have you thought about making Taiho as an enlarged Shokaku? Also, since there were actually 6 Yamatos planned in total, it would not be so great a stretch to conceive of building 3 additional Shinano like carriers with higher capacity, less armor, and without the repair facilities. Shinano's was able to hangar around 140 aircraft, but the majority of these were just stored replacements...figure if you dedicated all that space to actual flight ready planes there is no reason why 90 to 100 isn't conceivable.

I might have to throw some ideas into Springsharp 3 when I get home from work and see what I can come up with. [:D]

[John 3rd]

Fiddling Around with the Editor:





EDIT: Thinking on it, I don't need to raise the endurance side. The tonnage increase should reflect compartment changes, heavier mounts for the 3.9" AA, and two sponsoons for the 25MM Guns.

[John 3rd]

Hmmmm...wanted to see what the above design would look like within the game but cannot get the scenario to turn up as an option.  I saved it as Scenario 100 in the Editor but it doesn't come up when I pull the Scenario Selection up on Game.  Did I miss something?
 

[Shark7]

Did you make sure to name it? Its a simple miss, but that would case the scenario to not show up.

[JuanG]

Here are my proposals for the B65 equivalent, and the Shokaku-Kai classes;

Kawachi (B65) - slightly smaller than in my mod.


Shokaku-Kai - 2400tons larger, slightly better endurance and slightly better fuel efficiency, durability increased, plane complement increased to 78 (24/27/27 or 26/26/26).

[John 3rd]

Hah!  We were not too far apart in our design thinking Juan.
 
LIKE Kawachi.
 
If we do raise plane complement with the Sho Kai then it could be as simple as going 27-27-27 for 81.  I like keeping things simple.
 
I've got to go to church and lunch so won't be able to reply for a bit.
 
Was thinking on the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle with 4th Circle and perhaps we should simply go with 6 Agano-Class cruisers with the last two named Oyodo and Niyodo?  Why reinvent the wheel when we know what the Japanese had for new DLs?
 

[John 3rd]

Thinking on this (as I go out the door), the Sho's will deploy after battle lessons have been learned by the Japanese.  Fighters are NEEDED so the air group ought to be 33 Zero, 24 Val, 24 Kate.  Strong punch with more fighters...
 

[ny59giants]

Was there any development of folding wings to increase the number of planes allowed on a CV?? If so, then the Daitai of this particular model can be re-sized to take this into account and the overall air capacity of the CV can go up after its next upgrade.

[JuanG]

Well, some of the A6M's had folding wingtips, though I think this was abandoned after the model 5 designs. The A7M also featured these, though it was more than the tip that folded for these to make up for larger wingspan.

While theres no issue increasing capacity, I'm not sure if 81 is realistic. 78 would work if you wanted to go fighter heavy with 30/24/24 however.

[Herrbear]

I have a question regarding the dates you are completing/commissioning these 3 new Shokaku's? The original 2 took an average of around 43 months to complete. I assume that the extra three are based replacing the Shinano, the other laid Yamato type (111) and the Taiho. Aren't you accelerating their construction some? Using their laid dates I would show the completion dates as follows:

Shinano: Laid May 1940 - Completed Nov 1943
111: Laid Nov 1940 - Completed May 1944
Taiho: Laid July 1941 - Completed December 1944

Have you thought of having the Unryu (improved Hiryu) class plans and they they were agreed upon in 1940 instead of 1942? They took only an average of 23 months.

Shinano: Laid May 1940 - Completed April 1942
111: Laid Nov 1940 - Completed October 1942
Taiho: Laid July 1941 - Completed June 1943

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Well, some of the A6M's had folding wingtips, though I think this was abandoned after the model 5 designs. The A7M also featured these, though it was more than the tip that folded for these to make up for larger wingspan.

While theres no issue increasing capacity, I'm not sure if 81 is realistic. 78 would work if you wanted to go fighter heavy with 30/24/24 however.

A 78 plane group would work. Still adds some fighters. Don't really think we need to worry about re-sizing after that. Would be nice to have 3 Strike Carriers carrying a heavier Sunday punch throughout 43-44.

Notice I don't bother saying 45...

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I have a question regarding the dates you are completing/commissioning these 3 new Shokaku's? The original 2 took an average of around 43 months to complete. I assume that the extra three are based replacing the Shinano, the other laid Yamato type (111) and the Taiho. Aren't you accelerating their construction some? Using their laid dates I would show the completion dates as follows:

Shinano: Laid May 1940 - Completed Nov 1943
111: Laid Nov 1940 - Completed May 1944
Taiho: Laid July 1941 - Completed December 1944

Have you thought of having the Unryu (improved Hiryu) class plans and they they were agreed upon in 1940 instead of 1942? They took only an average of 23 months.

Shinano: Laid May 1940 - Completed April 1942
111: Laid Nov 1940 - Completed October 1942
Taiho: Laid July 1941 - Completed June 1943

I was looking for the original completion time and couldn't find it. Yes---I plan to accelerate them some due to KNOWING the design and figuring increased efficientcy. Will look at specific dates (based on the slips) in a little bit.

[John 3rd]

We have the three large Slips.  I'll go by how HerrBear listed them:
 
Shinano:  1st Sho laid down in May 1940---May 1943---36 Months
111:  2nd Sho laid down in August 1940---July 1943---35 Months
Taiho:  3rd Sho laid down in April 1941---Feb 1944---34 Months
 
If I remember correctly wasn't Zuikaku brought into service at an incredibly fast rate?  Herrbear states that they 'averaged' 43 months.  Which one was faster?  I would bet that these rates would be about right based on the speed improvement from Sho to Zui.  Does anyone have a site with this info? 

[DuckofTindalos]

Shokaku was laid down Dec 12th, 1937. She was launched on June 1st, 1939 and commissioned on August 8th, 1941. Zuikaku was laid down May 25th, 1938, launched November 27th, 1939 and commissioned on September 25th, 1941.

[JuanG]

Regarding the building times, I think a more reasonable comparison could be made with Taiho which was built under wartime conditions unlike the Shokakus. Taiho was laid down July 41 and commisioned March 44 - this is 32 months. Give this, I think your suggestions for the Shokaku's are fine, and might even be shortened by a month or two.

[Shark7]

Did some stuff reguarding Shinano with found out some interesting stuff.

If the source is accurate, hangar deck was 535' long by the beam of the ship with is about 36'. That gives you roughly 19200 square feet of hangar deck to play with. Shinano could have been far better used as a fleet carrier instead of as a replinishment carrier as it was designed.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR and BK:

Nice thinking.  I like the development line with FatR but really like the creation of an improved interceptor as outlined with BK.  Why don't you two hammer that out between you.  Everything must be reasonable and based on the 'history.'  I'm of the opinion that the Fleet goes with FatR deployment for Carrier-Based Air.  The land-based side needs the work and can see the envisioned 'interceptor.'

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I thought George sucked away from the Zero in terms of R&R.  If it did not then should it still be allowed or do we ONLY go with the Zero for ALL Navy Chutai/Daitai PERIOD?  This seems to be the direction chosen.

George was created by Kawanishi as a private initiative. This and the fact that Kawanishi worked on other (abandoned in relatively early stages, after George shown promise) projects of land-based fighters for the Navy contributed to its slow develoment and deployment (the prototype flew more than four months earlier than the Ki-84 prototype, but Ki-84 was produced in numbers and deployed in combat much earlier). until one of the main reasons for its slow development, although the engine teething troubles