The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

[John 3rd]

Pretty fun idea Sir!

This is the first attempt I have made to create a timeline based on stuff we've been talking about. Can you expound on your thoughts some more?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
According to your parameters methinks a more plausible (and interesting!) scenario is that the Japanese control Manchuria and Korea, as you describe, but the rest of China is controlled by the Chinese, and Chiang Kai-Shek has 20 high-quality German-trained divisions at the heart of his army. IRL, only 8 of these divisions had been trained before fighting broke out in 1937 -- and they were destroyed in the fighting around Shanghai, but it took the Japanese over three months to crush them.

. . . just a thought. [:)]

Not sure that would work in terms of the game parameters, Joel. Having Japan do invasion and amphib ops against China might break the shipping and troop availability model. Think Japan needs a foothold on the coastal areas of China before opening day. This gives them the shipyards and factories they need to keep the Econ model from breaking down, but also forces them to use that China Expeditionary Army for actual ops, rather than a cheap source of reinforcements.

The IJ Army coulda been slapped hard, but never totally suppressed. And Hakku Ichiu was endemic in the culture. And Japan really, really, really thought it had certain rights in China.

Maybe the 'Marco Polo Bridge' thing happened somewhere else or a bit later (put a pressure cooker on med and it will still explode after a longer time). Maybe they didn't whack Zhang Tso-Lin when they did, but poisoned the swine a year or two later, after Chiang Kai-shek got beligerent in Beijing and he did nothing. And then, for lack of anything better to do, they went after Peanut. So there's Beijing, and it's entirely plausible for Japan to go after the industrialized coast, even down to Canton.

Heck, that would be the political sharpie in the butt that would tick off the US China lobby and get things moving. People tend to learn how to live with slowly rising levels of crap. Today ain't that much worse from yesterday, so ... Ok, then rather than the slowly rising ramp of tension, Japan gets a longer time frame in which to develop infrastructure a bit more. Then, when the fewmets finally do hit the windmill, it has the same "prompt" impact on the West's bleeding heart's as Nanking.

Just trying to find a plausible scenario where Japan starts in roughly the same circumstances, but has a hiatus in which to develop industry and discover efficiencies.

Love to hear more from you on this as well. You can always find enough corn for a side dish in a big enough pile of Cavalry horse manure [:D]

[ed] redleg devil made me say that. Garry Owen, bro.

[Terminus]

Of course, Mr. Allison could have been KILLED, rather than just slapped. That'd frost over relations for a bit.

[oldman45]

Something else to think about, if China is too quite it will be harder for Congress to be convinced to build more ships.

[DOCUP]

I know your prob tired of hearing my thoughts and questions.
 
A quote comes to mind now.  "This is your BBQ, and it sure tastes good"
 
A thought.  If there wasn't a nasty China would the AVG have been formed?
 
Questions
 
If you build the Alaska class CB, how would you justify building it with the tonnage aloud by the treatys.  If you do build it build atleast 2 of them.  One would just become lonely without a sistership.
 
I know you don't like the idea of modernizing the Big Five.  May I ask why.  I don't have the knowledge of you guys and want to know to expand my knowledge base.
 
The conversions to the CLAA (Clemson Class I think).  What AA guns are you thinking of putting on it.  I think I heard on this forum that there was a shortage of 5 in DP guns before the war. 
 
So did the Japanese dropout of the last treaty or did they go thru with it, in this mod, I'm lost on that one.
 
doc

[bigred]

C. Washington Treaty allows for the Japanese to build-up to 3.5 instead of 3.0.

The above assumes no US asignet.

My understanding is the US state dept. had the jap delegation wire tapped and knew the IJ bottom line in the negotiations. This 5-5-3 deal pissed off the IJN staff and created a rift between the IJ state department and the Naval general staff when the delegation returned home. Japs were afraid too not cut a deal.

Would it be fun to scrap the whole WNT starting in 1920. Then let us see what would happen. Lets have a real gunfight.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I know your prob tired of hearing my thoughts and questions.

A quote comes to mind now.  "This is your BBQ, and it sure tastes good"

A thought.  If there wasn't a nasty China would the AVG have been formed?

Questions

If you build the Alaska class CB, how would you justify building it with the tonnage aloud by the treatys.  If you do build it build atleast 2 of them.  One would just become lonely without a sistership.

I know you don't like the idea of modernizing the Big Five.  May I ask why.  I don't have the knowledge of you guys and want to know to expand my knowledge base.

The conversions to the CLAA (Clemson Class I think).  What AA guns are you thinking of putting on it.  I think I heard on this forum that there was a shortage of 5 in DP guns before the war. 

So did the Japanese dropout of the last treaty or did they go thru with it, in this mod, I'm lost on that one.

doc

DOCUP: Keep it up!

1. Interesting AVG Comment. They certainly would not have had enough time to get set-up as they were IRL if we go by the scenario we're talking about.

2. Gotta build some if not all of the Alaska's (2 built IRL with 4 more planned). Pretty ships and great escorts for the CVs.

3. Modernizing the Big Five is actually a pretty nice idea that is fairly simple and could be done before Dec 7th.

4. It is the Omaha-Class CL for CLAA Upgrade.

We're assuming, other then the improvement in ratio, that the treaties stay in effect for the regular duration prior to the war (1935-36).

As to other thoughts:
A. Really LIKE the China War not starting until 1939. JWE's comment about a pot on medium still boiling over is perfect and makes tons of sense. I say they wait until then and then DROP THE HAMMER! The Japanese must have most of the coast but I say the hinterland stays Chinese and the Japanese must take it. Does anyone have an idea of what the lines looked like year-by-year in China as the Japanese expanded?

B. Bigred: The no WNT was done as a Mod in War Plan Orange. It was quite the brawl!

C. Heavier Fortifications and work done in 1941 would be GREAT! Wasn't it the Hepburn Report that outlined the needs? Can we find that Report and implement it? Wouldn't that rock!

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A lot depends on what kind of "improvements" are made on the Japanese side. The least "wild hair" would be for the Japs to simplify their design specs to build more ships in general. Say they stopped building the "Special-type DD's" in 1930 and went to a more "Volkswagen" design philosophy.

Never. That basically requires Japan dropping the idea of ever actually contesting naval power of either US or GB in 1920s. (If the idea is on the table at all, Japan has to face reality of facinng a numerically superior enemy fleet, because the treaties, which persist as long as they did IRL in this alternative, ensure that, never mind actual difference in the economical power; the only plausible way to beat superior numbers is superior quality; by the time the treaties break down, over half of pre-war modern DD construction is already completed, so why anyone would want to downgrade from a tried and true design at that point?). The same applies to design of bigger Japanese warships, except arguably carriers.

THE POINT WAS HOW COULD JAPAN HAVE PRODUCED MORE USEFUL ARMAMENTS MORE QUICKLY GIVEN HER LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AND RESOURCE BASE. SIMPLER, MORE BALANCED DESIGNS IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE WAY. AS TO "SUPERIOR QUALITY", THAT'S THE PATH JAPAN TRIED TO FOLLOW IRL..., AND THE RESULTS WEREN'T THAT GREAT.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1What if instead they had gone with a more balanced CA design from the start (like the British)?

In AE, Japanese heavy cruisers generally mop the floor with equal numbers of British ones. This is not accidental.

POSSIBLY TRUE, BUT IRRELEVENT. POINT WAS HOW CAN JAPAN GET MORE CA's, NOT NECESSARILY "SPECIALIZED" FOR SURFACE COMBAT BUT MORE BALANCED FOR MULTI-ROLE USAGE.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1One of the reasons KB didn't use it's heavy support vessels for close in AAA protection (like the US did) was that they were lousy AAA platforms.

Japanese didn't notice that, however. Or at least I don't remember Lacroix/Wells reporting if they did. They stopped doing that in 1942, because there simply weren't enough AA guns available to make capital ships sufficiently threatening, and by time there were enough AA guns in 1944-45, American air superiority became, so overwhelming that any sort of AAA fire was guaranteed to be insufficient.

BUT HAD THEIR CA"S BEEN BETTER AAA PLATFORMS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPTION TO DO IT. FAR TOO MUCH JAPANESE DESIGN EFFORT WENT TO SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF "THE DECISIVE (SURFACE) BATTLE". LESS SPECIALIZATION WOULD HAVE LED TO MORE AND MORE USEFUL SHIPS.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1Before you can discuss "Western response", you need to determine what they are responding to...

Nothing seriously changes until late 1939 in the earliest, when two extra CVs, built in place of shadow fleet ships, enter the service. As by this time the American naval buildup is already aimed at completely outproducing everyone else anyway... don't see how this can "alert" anyone more. Its acceleration, particualrly during the war, is not impossible of course

SAYS WHO? THIS MAY BE YOUR "VISION" FOR THE GAME, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS BEING FLOATED AS WELL. PERSONALLY I'M NOT THAT INVESTED. "SPECULATIVE SCENARIOS" AREN'T REALLY MY "CUP OF TEA". BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, THEY MIGHT JUST AS WELL HAVE SOME RATIONAL BASIS OTHER THAN "WISHFULL THINKING".

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

C. Heavier Fortifications and work done in 1941 would be GREAT! Wasn't it the Hepburn Report that outlined the needs? Can we find that Report and implement it? Wouldn't that rock!

This is a start [;)]

Chapter V

This shows suggested deployments and bases. Tons of information.

This is the link for the whole set.

Army Air Forces in World War Two

[John 3rd]

Well done. This gets the ball rolling!

Anyone got game term ideas based off of this?

[Dixie]

A few ideas:

Royal Navy
1) With the treaties non-factors the RN needs to build new warships (not sure where the money will come from though). They get some shiny new toys that were planned in the inter-war years. The last two Counties, Lions, B3 & G3 class, new carriers etc. The Aussies and Kiwis spend more on ships in an effort to combat the aggressive policies of Japan.

2) The RN takes the lessons of the First World War on board, with no treaties submarine warfare is not restricted so the UK puts more effort into protecting her trade routes. More escort vessels, Black Swans/Rivers/Hunts/Flowers/Shorehams/Grimsbys.

3) The RN puts extra effort into trade protection cruisers, but limited funds mean they cannot build everything they want. They get either more 6" cruisers or more of the Exeter/York 8" cruisers.

4) The historical outcome.

5) The Royal Navy realises the potential of carrier airpower, means extra carriers and better aircraft for the FAA. Initially means the Sea Hurricanes and Seafires are available earlier. Later it could mean that Sea Furies/Wyverns/Sea Hornets/Mosquitos see service during the war.

The RAF:
1) The historical outcome, the 'Bomber Barons' continue to rule the roost leaving the situation as it is in stock.

2) The Bomber Barons are still the major factor in RAF planning, but at a reduced influence. Instead Coastal Command gains additional influence after intensive lobbying from the Royal Navy (probably includes idea 2 for the RN). Shorts do not build the Stirling instead building more Sunderlands. More CC squadrons (mostly in the 2XX range as they were 'traditional' naval squadrons). More Beauforts available for anti-shipping duties.

3) As above, but Army Co-operation Command reaps the benefits. Means either more Blenheims available (handed on from Mid-East squadrons), Audax aircraft are replaced by Lysanders or even Tomahawks.

4) The Bomber Barons fail to excercise the control they had historically. The RAF instead operates along the lines of the Luftwaffe as a tactical air force with the addition of a stronger Coastal Command. Strategic bombers are delayed, but fighter and light/medium bomber availability is brought forward. No Tiger Force, but more tactical air power.


British Army
1) Historical outcomes.

2) Jungle warfare is taken seriously as Japan rattles the sabre. Whilst the best Indian Divisions are still packed off to the desert some remaining forces train for warfare in Malaya.


By the time the Pacific war kicks off the Commonwealth situation could be very different depending on how things have progressed elsewhere. Perhaps the government realises that Singapore is too exposed and that it is not possible to supply enough force to hold the island. Instead the money is spent on improving the fleet facilities in Ceylon/India and providing troops in India.

[Smeulders]

One interesting topic is China. If the war in China starts later in this time line, what would have happened to China ? They had more time to prepare themselves for war, so does this translate into a better army/air force and along which lines ?

[ny59giants]

When it comes to China, what improvements will be made in industry and what improvements would be made to rail and road networks??

[DOCUP]

Read the Hepburn report, the two Vinson acts, some stuff about the army.   Very interesting and boring .
 
First Guam
They wanted to make it a major sub base with float plane capablities. They also wanted to make it withstand everything short of a major assualt. 
My thoughts on Guam.  Add some forts to it, with a decent port with and AS and AV.  AF 2 or 4 somewhere in that area, with a squadron of Float Planes and a squadron of fighters (prob a weakend one but maybe not).  Add a USN base force, a Marine CD unit, AA unit and maybe a INF RCT.  Also have some subs in port or patroling around it.
 
Wake, Christmas, Canton, PP, Midway islands would of prob been slightly fortified with a fully equiped and strengthed Marine CD units. AFs 2 or so.  Wake would of porb been better prepared thand the others.
 
PI was suppose to have alot more AC of all types by the reports that I read.  I can't fully remember them and I wasn't able to save the websites at work last nite.  They wanted more advance fighters in the PI and HI islands.  More bombers (med and heavy) were wanted and from what I read were going to be sent to PI. 
 
My thoughts on PI.  Bump up the P 40s some, give the PI groups more of the older ACs.  If the US gets Granad rifles send excess US equip to the PI army.  Maybe the US sees the need for med tank instead of the light tanks already in svc.  One of the tank units get the Grants/Lees before the invasion. 
 
From what I read the US Army would not have got much.  At most the existing units would have been filled out and some new toys but those would havestarted to come in 39 or 40.  Maybe some more CD units to cover the islands in the Pacific and PI.  The Air Force could have gotten some more P 40s and begun producing 2nd gen fighters earlier than in RL. 
 
The Navy was seen as the first line of defense more money would of went its way.  In 1930 the US was 150,000 tones under treaty limits.  I don't know which ship classes could of been produced to fill out the quota.  The first Vinson Act wanted to bring the Navy up to 372 shipsby 1937.  It was suppose to add 65 DDs.  I can count 51 being built around that time frame.  It also wanted 30 subs, 1 CV (Ranger), 6 cruisers, and 1184 AC.  The Ranger was built and didn't have any dedicated AC for it when built.  1937  2,000 AC were suppose to be built and 1938 3,000 AC.  Theres more to this but I can't remember it all and I"m tired.
 
I'll leave this for now
 
doc

[John 3rd]

DOCUP: I truly understand your pain at having read all that. Had the read the Vinson Acts when writing my Thesis. BORING!

Good notes regarding the islands and Philippines.

1. Concur with building up and fortifying Guam more.
2. Wake would get more attention.

Philippines
1. Slightly more fighters.
2. What about 1-2 2EB squadrons?

Got to go to the zoo in Denver so cannot run farther then that!

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: JWE

If ya want, can get ya'll a much more detailed Dutch OOB and deployment from the DEI scenario we made for ourselves. Has everything (almost) that Jo van der Pluym and Harald Velemans have been mentioning, too.

For the Perfect War mod have I the following suggestion for the NEI as reaction on the Japanese building programms

Here suggestions for the NEI land oob:

I have read a article from the Militairy Spectator (A magazine for militay personel) that in 1941 is to start to reorganize there forces on Java. The plans where that on the end of 1942 the forces on Java exist out 6 Brigades, each 2 Infantrybataljons mechanized on Overvalwagens, 1 Gevechtswagen bataljon with 90 AFV's (Light Tanks, Armored Cars) and 1 SP Artillerybataljon. And this then from start of the scenario.

Also you can add the 1st Para Commando Battle Group. This is made after the war from Korps Insulinde and Dutch 2nd Troop 10 Inter-Allied Commando and the 1st Paratroop Company in the NEI. This can mayby added medio 1942?

Strengthed the Coastal and air defense units


Here suggestions for the NEI air oob as reaction on the Japanese:

To add a Fighter Airgroup at the start equipped with Fokker G-I Jachtkruisers
To add to each fighter group at the start s squadron equipped with hurricanes or P-40


Here suggestions for the NEI Naval oob as reaction and the Japanese building programm

To add 2 or 3 cruiserser of the following Eendracht Class at the start of the war
Names are: Zeven Provinciën, Eendracht and Kijkduin

http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Eendracht.htm:

To add the other 3 destroyers of the Callenburgh class at the start of the war and convert the Isaac Sweers of this class as design. Names are: Gerard Callenburgh, Isaac Sweers, Tjerk Hiddes and Philips van Almonde

http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Callenburgh.htm

To add the Destroyer Van Galen of the Admiralen class. As they was never sunk in Rotterdam by the Germans

http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Admiralen.htm

To convert Jacob van Heemskerck of the Tromp class as design at the start of the war
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Tromp.htm

To add a CVE or CVL

[oldman45]

Here are some excerpts that might add some insight.

The Hepburn Board. -- On June 7, 1938, acting Secretary of the Navy Charles Edison appointed a board consisting of Rear Admiral Arthur J. Hepburn, Commandant of the Twelfth Naval District, as senior member, and Rear Admiral Edward J. Marquart, Captain James S. Woods, Captain Arthur L. Bristol, Jr., Captain Ralph Whitman, C.E.C., as members, with Lieutenant Commander William E. Hilbert as recorder.

The board, which became known as the Hepburn Board, made an exhaustive survey of the strategic needs in connection with the naval defense of the United States and of existing facilities for meeting those needs. In an outstanding report submitted to Congress on December 27, 1938, the board recommended the establishment of new air bases and the expansion of existing bases to provide three major air bases on each coast, one in the Canal Zone, and one in Hawaii; with outlying operating bases in the West Indies, Alaska, and our Pacific island possessions. The board also recommended that the naval air training station at Pensacola be greatly enlarged and that possibly an additional air training station be established at Corpus Christi, Texas; new submarine bases be established in Alaska and the mid-Pacific area, and several existing stations be improved or retained. Some additional facilities were suggested for the existing destroyer bases at Philadelphia and San Diego. No new mine bases were considered necessary, but certain deficiencies were noted in existing bases. A general priority schedule was set up, based on the necessity for providing facilities when the ships and aircraft authorized by the Vinson bill would be completed. In addition, there was a list of projects, considered to be of immediate strategic importance, which should be undertaken at the earliest practicable date. These items were: (1) improvement of air facilities at Kaneohe Bay. Hawaii; (2) submarine and air bases at Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam; (3) air facilities at Johnston Island and Palmyra Island; (4) air and submarine bases at Kodiak and Sitka; (5) and submarine facilities at San Juan, Puerto Rico.3

In making its studies and formulating its report, the Hepburn Board drew upon the great mass of plans and projects that had been developed by the various bureaus of the Navy as being desirable. As Admiral Hepburn testified at the Congressional hearings on his report, "I would say that every item that the board has suggested has been considered in the past some time by one department or another or by the Joint Board involved, and they have been put down as projects to be attained when they can get the money."4 The board performed an invaluable service in taking all these proposals and, within the framework of definite strategic necessities and available facilities, formulating a comprehensive and coordinated plan for development, especially in the field of aircraft.

Although the estimated cost of the programs set up by the Hepburn Board report was $326,216,000, the first request for authorization from Congress to initiate the program was for $65,000,000 to cover a three-year program. However, events were mounting rapidly, and by the time this program was well under way it had been overshadowed by the need for even greater and more expensive developments. In the general defense program that was to begin a year later, practically all the board's recommendations, except those relating to Guam, were carried out and contributed materially to our position when war actually developed.

Yards and Docks "Bible". -- The Vinson-Trammell treaty-strength bill of 1934 and the Vinson 20 percent increase bill of 1938 had provided merely for increases in ships and aircraft, and, aside from a few minor items for replacement of tools and equipment, there was no corresponding increase in our shore facilities. It had been repeatedly called to the attention of Congress that the shore establishment was lagging behind the fleet and especially with the projected increases, there was real danger that the efficiency of the forces afloat would be impaired by the lack of necessary shore facilities. Although additional funds were being voted for new ships, little was being granted for expansion of the shore facilities which would carry on the ship building and maintain the ships when they were built.

Tough reading but here is the link building bases

All we need to do now is find a happy point to begin to change history for the US. Keeping in mind that Congress does not want to do anything till the treaty expires in '36. Unless the scope of the Allied response to Japan is modified in the 1920's its going to be hard to find the money to do a lot of changes.

[oldman45]

I really like the idea of Short making more Sunderlands instead of Sterlings. Always had a soft spot for the Sunderlands. [;)]

For those better informed about the naval treaties and British politics, what if the navies of Canada, NZ and Australia were given more heavy ships to get around the treaty. Was that possible at all? I know in my reading, NZ really didn't have a navy until after the war or late in the war, what if they were given that status before the war?

[Terminus]

Would be unlikely. There was no political will in the dominions to foot that sort of expense.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Love to hear more from you on this as well. You can always find enough corn for a side dish in a big enough pile of Cavalry horse manure [:D]

[ed] redleg devil made me say that. Garry Owen, bro.

Hmmm . . . horse-corn. Yum.