Matrix Games Forums

FatR, a few questions;

Your CV list has Akagi rated at 81 and Atago at 64 aircraft...why the difference? Unless this is some other ship, not another of the Amagi class BCs.

Regarding the BB design, my impression was you were looking for something in the 40-45kton range, which is why I thought the A-140 designs might be a little large. As to why one would go for a new 410mm versus a 460mm, I can think of several reasons, the foremost being weight savings and easier logistics (both Nagatos and Kagas using 410mm guns).

Regarding AA, the 10cm/65 twin weighed in at around 34tons, the 12.7cm/40 with shield at 29tons. Estimates put a 12.7cm/50 DP at around 45-50tons, versus 33tons for the 12.7cm/50 Type 3, and 47-70tons for the twin 5in/38 Mk12 (though note that the heavier end of these are the BB mounts including armour). Easy to see how much extra weight powerful ramming and train/elevation gear adds.

Regarding Fuso/Ise art; The stock artwork shows them after the second rebuild, which added more platforms to the superstructure (forgot that in my first post), so a 'trimmed' version of these should be doable. Im more concerned about how to handle them as mixed coal/oil burners, as the game does not really support that.

Well, stay away from this for a few days and you're swamped. Jeez. Things moving fast.

A few remarks: Somebody a few pages back thought it could be better to stay with the 155mm guns on the Mogami design instead of switching to the 203mm guns. While this would be true using US guns, with RL Japanese guns, not so. The reason for that is that the 155mm fired hardly faster than the 203mm, five instead of four RPM. So, calculating "throw weight" per minute, you have 15x5x56 = 4200 kilograms for the 155mm, and 10x4x126 = 5040 kg for the 203 mm. No contest, especially if you bear in mind the greater penetration of the larger shells.

Now, the US 6in/47 Mk16 fired 10 rpm, compared to 4 rpm for the 8in/55 Mk15. With "super-heavy" AP shells, you have

9x4x152 = 5412 kg for the Baltimore class CA and
15x10x59 = 8850 kg for the Brooklyn class CL.

Even with a gun arrangement like on the Japanese CAs, you have a weight per minute of 6080 kg for the 8in gun. Here, the 6in gun is clearly superior. But for the Japanese, the larger calibre is actually better (the same would also be true for Italian and British guns).

The picture would be different if the Japanese had come up with something better-performing than the 155mm/60 gun they had in RL. As they had already essentially copied some of the latest German submarine cruiser designs of WWI as the I-1 and I-122 types, they could also have gotten their hands on the 15 cm/45 Ubts + Tbts KL/45 gun those subs were originally equipped with. These guns inspired the French to the very satisfactory 138.6 mm/40 Model 1927 used on their newer super-destroyers; they could also have seduced the Japanese away from Vickers style guns for medium calibres to designs (140 or 152 mm) with cased propellant, sliding-block breech and a higher ROF (8-10 RPM for 152mm, 10-12 RPM for the 140mm). Both the French and the Italians received one of the big S113 type destroyers that also mounted these guns as war booty, another one of them might have gone to the Japanese (although in RL, the Japanese AFAIK simply let the ships that were their share simply be scrapped, perhaps because they felt they could learn nothing worthwhile from them).

While I initially proposed BB with 410/50 main guns (old 410/45 is no longer adequate), if we need to develop a new main gun anyway, why not go for 460mm?

According to navweaps.com, the construction of the 46cm/45 was very complicated probably because the Japanese had trouble keeping such a heavy gun in one piece when being fired, and because of that the gun could probably not have been relined when shot out, but would have had to be replaced by a completely new gun. I think that alone would be a good incentive to stay with the smaller calibre. Add to that the very much higher recoil forces and overpressures that made the 46cm gun a rather more problematical piece of equipment. I also think that a 46cm twin turret would still have been heavier that a 41cm triple turret. On the whole, a new-design 41cm gun would IMHO have offered better value-for-money than the 46cm.

ORIGINAL: JuanG

FatR, a few questions;

Your CV list has Akagi rated at 81 and Atago at 64 aircraft...why the difference? Unless this is some other ship, not another of the Amagi class BCs.

Argh. That was a brain bug. John was right and both of them probably should carry 75 planes. This does not change the totals much.

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Regarding the BB design, my impression was you were looking for something in the 40-45kton range, which is why I thought the A-140 designs might be a little large. As to why one would go for a new 410mm versus a 460mm, I can think of several reasons, the foremost being weight savings and easier logistics (both Nagatos and Kagas using 410mm guns).

Looking again at difficulties associated with logistics and production of these guns you are probably right. I don't think that anything worth building might be squeezed into 45k, though.

The mental problem I'm struggling with here is that in terms of real life efficiency and probably cost/efficiency as well (mistakes in their (non)use in the actual war nonwithstanding), Yamato project was the best possible option at the moment these ships were laid down (not accounting for war starting before the production run was completed and general decline of battleships). Being able to penetrate enemy's citadel, while your own still can withstand enemy's hits is the one true way of winning battleship duels. And Yamato, by the most conservative estimate, could have perforated Iowa, while remaining in her own safery zone, in a 4-km belt; while any of the treaty battleships were pretty much chew toys. Yamato and Musashi also proved to be very resistant to damage from air attacks. And Japan is too poor to affort cheap ships that can at best match the enemy. Besides, combat value increases faster than cost with the growth of displacement.
Here I'm essentially trying to refute RL train of thought using hindsight (battleships's days soon will pass in general; the most likely form of engagement is a close-range night battle, where a post-treaty superdreadnought can demostrably be disabled by a much inferior opponent; we need ships that can all be completed in time) and game logic (a ship taking a dozen+ torpedo hits in a single phase to sink will break the game engine in several ways). So, I'm sorry if I sometimes fall back into thinking like the Japanese admirals and designers[:)].

I think, while John is absent I'll need to think harder on the premises on this mod and the train of thought that can lead to an alternative battleships design.

EDIT: And this leads to another problem. Truly significant changes for the better require national leadership with exceptional vision and foresight, capable of keeping armed forces under tight control and restoring proper subordination through the ranks.

But such leaders wouldn't have taken the decisions leading to war with most of the world, if not out of more restrained imperial ambitions, then out of realization that any conflicts in Europe should be used to concentrate on conquering China without major interference, not to try grabbing something else when you already have your hands full with a difficult war. They also would have kept Japan in the naval treaties, particularly with the situation in China heating up and the treaties being more favorable for Japan in this alternative.

We pretty much need a major political upheaval after treaties break down but before major decisions related to building the armed forces are taken, to put the new faction in power. (Point of no return in China is passed by that point regardless of changes in Japanese leadership, and the big war can be only delayed - any stable national Chinese government, and even an unstable one, as it happened, will inevitably have to confront the Japanese, after their occupation of 1/3 of the country.)

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Regarding AA, the 10cm/65 twin weighed in at around 34tons, the 12.7cm/40 with shield at 29tons. Estimates put a 12.7cm/50 DP at around 45-50tons, versus 33tons for the 12.7cm/50 Type 3, and 47-70tons for the twin 5in/38 Mk12 (though note that the heavier end of these are the BB mounts including armour). Easy to see how much extra weight powerful ramming and train/elevation gear adds.

You're probably right, and DDs with these guns will be considerably larger. Weight considerations will further slow down their adoption, particularly on ships which won't be expected to participate in surface battles, like carriers.

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Regarding Fuso/Ise art; The stock artwork shows them after the second rebuild, which added more platforms to the superstructure (forgot that in my first post), so a 'trimmed' version of these should be doable. Im more concerned about how to handle them as mixed coal/oil burners, as the game does not really support that.

If game abstracts planes in crates and canned beef as supply, let's it just abstract coal and oil fuel as fuel? Thanks for informing us about the superstructure changes.

ORIGINAL: mikemike

Well, stay away from this for a few days and you're swamped. Jeez. Things moving fast.

A few remarks: Somebody a few pages back thought it could be better to stay with the 155mm guns on the Mogami design instead of switching to the 203mm guns. While this would be true using US guns, with RL Japanese guns, not so. The reason for that is that the 155mm fired hardly faster than the 203mm, five instead of four RPM. So, calculating "throw weight" per minute, you have 15x5x56 = 4200 kilograms for the 155mm, and 10x4x126 = 5040 kg for the 203 mm. No contest, especially if you bear in mind the greater penetration of the larger shells.

Now, the US 6in/47 Mk16 fired 10 rpm, compared to 4 rpm for the 8in/55 Mk15. With "super-heavy" AP shells, you have

9x4x152 = 5412 kg for the Baltimore class CA and
15x10x59 = 8850 kg for the Brooklyn class CL.

Even with a gun arrangement like on the Japanese CAs, you have a weight per minute of 6080 kg for the 8in gun. Here, the 6in gun is clearly superior. But for the Japanese, the larger calibre is actually better (the same would also be true for Italian and British guns).

The picture would be different if the Japanese had come up with something better-performing than the 155mm/60 gun they had in RL. As they had already essentially copied some of the latest German submarine cruiser designs of WWI as the I-1 and I-122 types, they could also have gotten their hands on the 15 cm/45 Ubts + Tbts KL/45 gun those subs were originally equipped with. These guns inspired the French to the very satisfactory 138.6 mm/40 Model 1927 used on their newer super-destroyers; they could also have seduced the Japanese away from Vickers style guns for medium calibres to designs (140 or 152 mm) with cased propellant, sliding-block breech and a higher ROF (8-10 RPM for 152mm, 10-12 RPM for the 140mm). Both the French and the Italians received one of the big S113 type destroyers that also mounted these guns as war booty, another one of them might have gone to the Japanese (although in RL, the Japanese AFAIK simply let the ships that were their share simply be scrapped, perhaps because they felt they could learn nothing worthwhile from them).

A very interesting comment. I should take a look at this. After all, if IJN is going to develop a new medium gun, why they couldn't take a closer look at available design possibilities.

Let me pick a few nits here. First of all: the support ship Kashino (AKE). This ship was tailor-made for the transport of the 46cm turrets for the Yamato BBs; parts for one turret including guns per trip. When not in use, this ship was hidden behind a curtain of sisal mats, just like the building slips for Yamato and Musashi. Obviously, if the RL Yamatos are not built, there is no reason for this ship.

Tone and Chikuma are rivers, too. Should be replaced by mountain names. (A shame, though. If there are new CLs anywhere in the plan, use these names there).

FatR's War Emergency DDs. If it's an emergency design, the Shiratsuyus are perhaps too elaborate. Something like a slightly enlarged Matsu class with 2x2-127mm/40 would IMO fit the bill better, especially if you want to derive an APD from it. The RL T1 class looks like a good enough template for the job, a design stripped to the minimum.

Armament for escorts. If you want to get rid of the 120mm guns, you don't need to switch to the 127/40 Type 89. There is also the 100mm/50 Type 88. This was in RL used only on the KD5 subs (I165 class), but there is no reason why this design shouldn't see wider use. It's a gun with fixed ammunition, a sliding-block breech and a cyclic firing rate of 20 rounds/min. A maximum range of just over 16 km should be enough for the escort job. It would need a new mount better suited for AA use, though, maybe something patterned on the mount for the 8cm/60 type 98 used on the RL Agano CLs. With a mount optimized for AA use, this gun might also be an alternative as heavy AA gun for CLs and auxiliaries.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Regarding Fuso/Ise art; The stock artwork shows them after the second rebuild, which added more platforms to the superstructure (forgot that in my first post), so a 'trimmed' version of these should be doable. Im more concerned about how to handle them as mixed coal/oil burners, as the game does not really support that.

If game abstracts planes in crates and canned beef as supply, let's it just abstract coal and oil fuel as fuel? Thanks for informing us about the superstructure changes.

Fair enough, but at what ratio? I've got Fuso listed as carrying 5022t of Coal and 1026t of Oil, and Ise with 4706t Coal and 1411t Oil. Do we simply assume 1 ton coal = 1 ton fuel? Or do you apply some sort of fudge factor to represent the fact that coal was much more available (but also much less efficient, hence the doubling of SHP after conversion, and also likely harder to supply on the front lines or for at sea replenishment).

Would be interesting to know what the original designers did for coal burners, as there bound to be a few amongst the merchies and escorts. I may try to drop JWE an PM to see if hes got any insight into this.

ORIGINAL: mikemike


Let me pick a few nits here. First of all: the support ship Kashino (AKE). This ship was tailor-made for the transport of the 46cm turrets for the Yamato BBs; parts for one turret including guns per trip. When not in use, this ship was hidden behind a curtain of sisal mats, just like the building slips for Yamato and Musashi. Obviously, if the RL Yamatos are not built, there is no reason for this ship.

Tone and Chikuma are rivers, too. Should be replaced by mountain names. (A shame, though. If there are new CLs anywhere in the plan, use these names there).

Good points, thanks.

ORIGINAL: mikemike
FatR's War Emergency DDs. If it's an emergency design, the Shiratsuyus are perhaps too elaborate. Something like a slightly enlarged Matsu class with 2x2-127mm/40 would IMO fit the bill better, especially if you want to derive an APD from it. The RL T1 class looks like a good enough template for the job, a design stripped to the minimum.

I've already put up idea of building a DD and a dedicated APD on the same hull when we were discussing RA. Then it was pointed to me, that type 1 APDs were significantly large than Matsus. They are closer in size to Shiratsuyus. And APD of a pre-war design will inevitably be less downgraded for simplicity, particularly in terms of engine power and speed. Also, building destroyers so small makes litte sense, when you primarily need to increase the number of frontline combatants, not escorts.

ORIGINAL: mikemike
Armament for escorts. If you want to get rid of the 120mm guns, you don't need to switch to the 127/40 Type 89. There is also the 100mm/50 Type 88. This was in RL used only on the KD5 subs (I165 class), but there is no reason why this design shouldn't see wider use.

Seeing its stats there is a reason - its gun weight is about 10% less than of 120/45 10th Year, but shell weight is about 30% less, with the bursting charge being almost 50% less.

Seeing as 120/45 10Y and hand-operated Type 88 version of 127/40 were quite close in terms of weight (and their complete rounds had practically the same weight, making no difference in manual operation), I see no reason why 127/40 shouldn't be produced instead of 120/45 and used in all the same roles.

If there is a potential alternative here, it is using 120/45 tubes as a part of Type 89 flak system, and therefore utilizing 120/45 in all places where 127/40 was used historically. 120/45 has a little better ballistics and a little lesser weight than 127/40, while the bursting charge of their shells is practically equal. If placed in modern mountings, with modern fire direction equipment, it, in all likelyhood, could produce superior performance. But the increase is small enough, and I'm not convinced that it is worth using two calibres instead of one.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Fire AWAY! We love ideas...

ok [:)]

Part I
( of my rising sun dream [;)] . I assume that it all starts somewhere in 1936, possibly earlier. )


It’s impossible to make the Japanese High command genius, but we can assume that it is become more far-sighted, and that more important, have an ability to learn other nations experience.
Even the civil war in Spain saw more armor vs armor engagement then entire first phase of a Chinese company.

So, send a large number of military advisers to Germany.
Their task:

1. Analyze the experience of war. From Spain, Poland and so on… And for the first part of war, especially Battle of France and Battle of Britain.
2. Analyze economic, technological innovations.
3. Negotiate for purchase and closer collaboration.

And so – Land.

What can be done simply by analyzing:

1. Assault Gun.
No turret so a bit technologically easy and cheaper than tank!
(StuG gone field test in 1937, and 40 of them fight during Battle of France and do it fairly well)
Can also evolve to tank destroyer.
So it’s possible to have:
41-42:
AS Gun 50mm armor 75mm short gun.
43 – early 44:
AS Gun 75mm armor 105 mm gun
TD 75 mm armor 75 mm long gun
Late 44 – early 45
AS Gun 85mm armor 105 mm short gun
and/or
AS Gun 60mm armor 150 mm short gun
TD 75mm long+ gun 85mm armor
Late 45+
TD 90mm long gun 90mm armor…

2. More and dedicated AT weapons
47 mm AT evolve to 50 mm evolve to 75mm and then to 90mm+
This can be done by buying same machine for production in Germany.


3. Flame tanks
Excellent vs fortification.
(In game data I saw flaming Sherman)
So, why not?
German uses them from the beginning of the war.
But even more, Soviets used 2 companies of FT Tanks on Battles of Khalkhin Gol, and they were successful.
It also can be done by conversion, so no new type from scratch. (good for industry)
Type 97 Te-Ke – Flamethrowing tank with 16 mm armor
And so on, till much heavy armored tank at the end of 1944.

The following things require cooperation from the German side and even the sale of technology.
And same industrial improvements (German can help a bit).

4. Tanks [;)]

Well Japan can make same improvement just from close observation of European War Theater.
But, if the cooperation was better:
Japan can buy all technology and maybe even 1 assembly line for Panzer III in 1941 and for Panzer IV in 1943.
And even create/purchase ‘normal’ heavy tank not this type 100 O-I monster..

5. Infantry
Cooperation with German instructors ... Licensed production of MG 34/MG 42…
So, something like in this post fb.asp?m=2743160
Maybe even a bit better, a kind of stat increase a bit every year across the board, even same late war increase of cav. and auxiliary troops. Middle and end war para., all SLN squads… (better equipment, and training). Late war HMG (MG 42).

Introduction of dedicated late war AT teams, or increase of same existence stats. (panzerfaust, panzerschreck).

A bit more half-tracks and maybe creation of small but real mechanized force, with specialized half-tracks (small AT guns, flamethrowers, small inf. guns etc.)

to be continued ...

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Would be interesting to know what the original designers did for coal burners, as there bound to be a few amongst the merchies and escorts. I may try to drop JWE an PM to see if hes got any insight into this.

I didn't get gnarly about coal burners. In that specific context, I considered coal as fuel and did a specific heat ratio. A metric ton of Oil is about 39.7 MBtu, a metric ton of coal is about 27.5 MBtu, so a metric of coal works out to about 69% of a metric of oil. Roughly. Then I worked out a K parameter that's a function of endurance and specific HP, made a bunch of curves and just plotted ships against them.

Coal is a shiboleth. In irl terms, it don't really matter doo doo. The fuel type has nothing to do with the engine specs. One can get big HP and high speed with coal just as quickly as with oil. So what's the benefit of oil you ask? Specific heat and simplicity of piping. You get a 30% push just on the raw heat content alone. And then there's compound boilers that burn oil saturated coal. Woof !!

If one does all the math, it turns out that a metric ton of coal is equivalent to 0.86 metric tons of oil in terms of fuel miles. Since this is so darn close, I didn't think it worthwhile to get down and dirty.

If ya absolutely have to be perfect, shoot me a pm.

Ciao. John

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Would be interesting to know what the original designers did for coal burners, as there bound to be a few amongst the merchies and escorts. I may try to drop JWE an PM to see if hes got any insight into this.

Yeah, we did consider that. Grainy, but think I can remember what I did. Drop me a pm.

oops, guess I already said most of it. oh well.

Ciao. John

ORIGINAL: FatR

I've already put up idea of building a DD and a dedicated APD on the same hull when we were discussing RA. Then it was pointed to me, that type 1 APDs were significantly large than Matsus. They are closer in size to Shiratsuyus. And APD of a pre-war design will inevitably be less downgraded for simplicity, particularly in terms of engine power and speed. Also, building destroyers so small makes litte sense, when you primarily need to increase the number of frontline combatants, not escorts.

That is a pertinent objection. I've checked the data again, and, you're right, the T1 has roughly the same beam and draught as the Shiratsuyus, it's just about ten meters shorter, but definitely closer in size than to the Matsus. And, incidentally, all the British War Emergency destroyers were quite a bit bigger than the Shiratsuyus, at least in full load displacement, not so much in hull dimensions. So a repeat Shiratsuyu would seem to be a plausible choice if you want to go for numbers, provided they can really be built faster than a Kagero, where the yards would just extend a running program instead of retooling for a different design. If Shiratsuyus, what should the armament be? 127/50s, leaving away the awkwardly-placed single mount?

The APDs: The T1 design is already not that much smaller than a Shiratsuyu. On a platform of that size, if you switch to a two-shaft plant with more power than the T1 had, you would be cutting deep into the cargo space. In fact, just going to the full Matsu plant would probably eliminate most of it. Taking half the Shiratsuyu plant for a single-shaft design, you would need to use the Shiratsuyu size hull to get enough interior cargo space. How about a Shiratsuyu-sized hull with the kind of modifications the T1 had, especially that roller ramp at the stern for smooth launching of loaded Daihatsus, and a two-shaft plant with 15000-16000 HP, not in unit arrangement to save space. Should be good for about 25 kts.

ORIGINAL: FatR
Seeing its stats there is a reason - its gun weight is about 10% less than of 120/45 10th Year, but shell weight is about 30% less, with the bursting charge being almost 50% less.

Seeing as 120/45 10Y and hand-operated Type 88 version of 127/40 were quite close in terms of weight (and their complete rounds had practically the same weight, making no difference in manual operation), I see no reason why 127/40 shouldn't be produced instead of 120/45 and used in all the same roles.

If there is a potential alternative here, it is using 120/45 tubes as a part of Type 89 flak system, and therefore utilizing 120/45 in all places where 127/40 was used historically. 120/45 has a little better ballistics and a little lesser weight than 127/40, while the bursting charge of their shells is practically equal. If placed in modern mountings, with modern fire direction equipment, it, in all likelyhood, could produce superior performance. But the increase is small enough, and I'm not convinced that it is worth using two calibres instead of one.

The thing about the 100mm is correct. I hadn't looked at the weights. Strange that the 120/45 doesn't have better ballistics in comparison to the 127/40, with a longer barrel and 20% more propellant, although navweaps remarks that initially, the charge didn't combust completely before the shell left the barrel - which was remedied later by using a different grain to the powder. But really, the odd man out here is the 127mm/50 used on all the fleet destroyers - everything else has fixed ammunition and sliding breeches, while the 127/50 has separate ammo with bagged propellant and a Welin breech. Maybe somebody just scaled down a Vickers-type 6incher to the 127/50 design, while some other team designed the 120/45 10th year, the 127/40 Type 88/89, the 100/50 Type 88 ... If the navweaps data is precise, the two 127mm guns seem at least to have used the same shells. Anyway, the design date of the 127/50 is straddled by those of the 120/45, which was earlier, and the 127/40, which was slightly later. So why didn't they just design the 127/50 in the same style? Because it was intended as anti-surface, not as a DP gun like the others? Technically, I don't think there would be any obstacle to designing that gun with a sliding breech and cased propellant, fixed or separate. The longer gun would have needed a larger charge than the 127/40, meaning that the round for the 127/50 wouldn't have fitted the shorter gun. This way, the Type 1/Type 5 design would have been an evolutionary development from the original 127/50, and, using your intended timescale, I can't see much of a difficulty having it come into service around 1940. The sort of ballistic performance the Type 1 had would, of course, have made yet another new type of round necessary.

Wait a minute. You want to drop the 120mm Tenth Year, so the 127/40 would need to come out first, in 1926. Call it the Type 86. And then you want another gun for the Special Type DDs. As you have just lost one size of ammo, the DD gun (call it Type 88) could use a heavier shell. The Type 1 had a 27kg shell, the US Mk12 a 25kg shell, the German SK C/34 a 28kg shell. Go for 25 or 27 kg? A serious DP gun (Type 98) developed from this New DD gun could possibly use the same ammo.

Wow. I come up to the mountains and get a chance to check-in and the first Posting I read deals with oil and coal conversion for fuel usage! Got to love the knowledge base of this group of people.

Will read everything recently Posted and see about stuff. The whole political upheaval does sound interesting FatR. In an initial reaction, could you do something crazy along an EXTREME RA line of thinking by having the NAVY stage a coup against the army in late-38? China is underway, war in Europe is months away and the die is pretty much cast and clock is ticking...

Like the idea of more observers going to Europe and seeing the war firsthand...could seriously explain a few of the changes.

Juan and JWE: Thanks for jumping in and contributing.

MikeMike and Debbura: Thanks for some interesting ideas and comments. Greatly appreciate your contribution to the discuss!

I followed the discussions and the development of the RA Mod quite close as i am always looking for a good scenario to play. This gives both sides challenge and fun. Currently i play a scen one game since a year which is currently in 3/44 but for the next game i would like to choose a custom mod.

And i have a proposal how a little bit customization at the price of PP for an allied player would be possible. What about the following idea.

Somewhere isolated on the map (SW corner for example, or in the Soviet Union, or deep in Canada) some sort of customizable production grid could be modded. The idea came during the last time i played Final fantasy 12 where you have some sort of grid for you skills and you choose them in any wanted order.

So now to the idea. At this area there are a amount of bases linked to each other. One base (the starting grid, is allied controlled with one (or any number of units) which consist only of enough AV to capture the following bases. This unit cannot be split so it only can be at one base at the same time. Then there are a number of Japanese controlled bases with allied aircraft production inside it separated from the allied base one hex naval. These Japanese controlled bases each have a specific garrison requirement and the Japanese units inside them are static and only consist of very weak combat units strong enough to meet the garrison requirements. Not engineers so no forts or base development is possible. In addition next to the Aircraft factories there are some LI industry and resources in each base to prevent the Japanese units from starving.

So for example at the beginning of the game the allied player has exactly one free unit to capture one of the Japanese controlled production options. He in addition has enough transports to move his free start unit to the Japanese production grid over the sea. All other starting units require PP to be bought out and cannot be shipped by sea. The allied player can garrison exact one base with his shipped unit so he won’t lose any VP and the factories start to produce. So the allied player can choose between a numbers of bases, each containing a different mix of factories. Some might have more army fighters, some more naval fighters, some more Dbs or TBs or 2E attack bombers. The bases should have some supply creation as you have to maintain your garrison there and possible repair a few damaged factories (not sure if a japanese garrision unit without engineers can damage a aircraft factory when the base is capture), but at least you little transport fleet between your start point and the production grid needs some fuel at the allied start base.

So now the allied player could take a second Japanese controlled base, but he can only garrison one of them. So the second base comes with a heavy price in victory points. This price could be very high for example (if you have a 400 AV garrison requirement) it hurts a lot if you just capture the base for fun and more or less this should not be done, except in extreme emergency (there you have your emergency support). In addition there could be some more units at the allied start area which have to be bought out with PP and then can be shipped to the Japanese controlled production grid and you can then capture a second base. This brings the PP price you need to pay to extend your additional production. This price should be quite high and you need a few 1000 PP to unlock one of the units. And other option would be to add at specific time points free units there (for example one each year).

The entire area should be surrounded by impassable terrain so not naval movement from outside can be done and the area should be far enough away from any other bases that you cannot move other units by air there.

This idea still has some "weaknesses" as for example if KB raids that GRID. But more or less this cannot really be avoided and should not be a problem in a PBEM. So that idea gives you first the option to select your base (bases) which you want to capture and so it gives you the possibility to choose which aircraft factories you want. And in addition it gives you the possibility to spend PP on "expanding" your aircraft production and third it gives you the possibility to call in "special reinforcements" at the cost of VP if you really need them and if you do not have the PPs ready. But more or less if you choose the third option you should save your PPs to buy out one of your garrison units quickly

Would such a more flexible production system for the allies be possible?

There could even be the possibility to add flexibly naval reinforcements for the allieds. with the same system.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is some solid thinking. Let me mull it over some before responding.

Anybody else got thoughts or reactions to what we've been chatting about?

I used to think about something like this..., postulating the Imperial appointment of "Albertu Speerakaku" as minister of Armaments in 1936 with authority to direct all (IJN/IJA) production programs. Some of the limiting factors even in this "pipedream" were:

1. Japan's economy was NEVER going to hold a candle to the potential of her opponants. She had no "consumer economy" to convert for war usage, resources were in limited supply, and the industrial base was rather small (especially compared to the US).

2. Given the above, the key for the Japanese would be simplification of production. Even then it would not be easy (The IJA began converting their standard infantry weapon in 1936---and had still not completed the task when the war ended 9 years later). But you could postulate agreement on commonality of parts (the IJA and IJN used to different and incompatable electric voltages for their A/C until 1944---requiring two seperate industrial bases). Japan had a critical shortage of machine tools and engineers, which made for difficulty in bringing new designs into production.

The answer to bringing Japanese production to it's highest potential levels is to simplify and reduce the number of "systems" in use to gain maximum numbers from the resources available. Germany cranked out hundreds of new designs during the war looking for "perfection". The Russians limited themselves to a few basic types and improved them whenever the opportunity arose. The numbers and results speak for themselves.

Realistically, the Japanese have to decide on a single (or at most two) "systems" to meet each neeed from what is available in 1936-37 for the most part to ramp up production. A/C can wait a little longer, until about 1939..., but they too will need to be limited in type. The truth of this is evident from the real war, where the Zero (in several "marks") fought on to the end simply because Japan couldn't afford the loss of production required to bring better A/C on line. The best that can be achieved is to produce more of fewer systems...., which they certainly could have done.

Beppi: VERY interesting idea. Is this something possible?

Mike: WELCOME to the contributions for building the Mod! I LIKE your idea regarding this. Your comment of an "Albertu Speerakaku" made me darned well spew my tea as I watched Paula make breakfast up here at 9,500Ft.

FatR---What do you think about this? BOTH ideas provide some serious potential along the lines of making both sides happy.

While all this is going on in Japan, what is the US, GB and maybe France thinking about all this?

Would they even care?

Would they start building up forces in the Pacific to counter this?

Oldman: Of course they would. But this is a JFB dream thread. [;)]

I had some balancing ideas earlier. I think some of JuanG's work in his variants should apply for the Allied side as well. One or two wonder aircraft (B-19?), maybe a carrier, a few more pre-war DDs/CAs/CLs (or a hastened delivery schedule of existing ships) and the like. I'm no uber-historian like the present company so I won't get specific.

Cheers,
CC

and on Brits...

Ark Royal survives to serve in pacific

Skua II remains in production/service as carrier DB only (maybe a Skua III can be dreamed up!)

RN gets enough F4F's to equip all carriers before December 7th

RN adopts deck parking in Med and Indian ocean in 42

RN agrees to send two carriers + extra escorts to Aus in early 42, as requested by King. Churchill regretted not doing this!

RN build 16" Lion's rather than 14" KGV's

Operation Crusader pushes Rommel back to Tunisia in '42 (bit far fetched that one!) - more spit Vs and wellingtons sent earlier - maybe some more Brit and Indian units from mid east in mid 42.

The two squadrons of Westland Whirlwind's in UK sent to Colombo to provide some long range air cover for Eastern Fleet.

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Oldman: Of course they would. But this is a JFB dream thread. [;)]

Cheers,
CC

I understand that, but while all this is going on the rest of the world is taking note and would be making certain moves to protect their interests. I am not sure what they could or would do but if this much effort is going into this mod, I feel things should be looked at from the western point of view also. I think it would make a better mod.