Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dali101

In ART missing top jap and allies (+ alpha)

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Vipersp

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

How do you handle NATO? It was an artifact of the European war, and every nation would be obligated to help the US.

How do you handle the MASSIVE US economy coming out of WWII, versus Japan's?

How do you handle the presence of hydrogen bombs in the hands of the US alone?

Hi Bulwinkle;

BillBrown gave the the right answer already, since in my AH view with Japan remaining neutral, USA never engaged in the war in europe;
The scenario history depicts a quick german victory in the west and a hell of a war of attriction in the east against the soviets and thats why Germany was up to seduce Japan with technology to enable the militarist party to increase the pressure over the emperor and the pacifists to ally themselves with Germany, which in the mod happened in 1947 and placed Japan into the road of war in 1949;
So in such way NATO never existed, the atomic race was delayed till late 55 with both Japan and US/Brits yet researching the A bomb;
This is the history background for this mod;
In game terms I basically shiffted everything from 41-46 into 49-56, of course upgrading land, air and naval forces to their historical TO&E when possible;
I admit I am still a rookie regarding modding AE so I hope more experinced players can contribute with ideas or bug reports in order I can improve this one [:)]

If the Nazis had won in the West there is no way the US sits still. If we had, there's no way the USSR survives, and then Hitler doesn't need Japan for anything at all. In fact, he probably acts to eject Japan from Asia and cripples them economically. The Axis was a useful artifice for Hitler, until it wasn't.

My major point though is that without the PTO 1941-45, the USN doesn't have the OOB you want to use in 1949-155. No Fletchers, no Essexes, no Balaos. No B-29s. Etc., etc. And from a standing start the USA could still massively out-produce Japan.

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
If Japan stays neutral, does the USA even enter WW2? If not, there would be no major building programs at all.

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
If Japan stays neutral, does the USA even enter WW2? If not, there would be no major building programs at all.

Actually...

1 February 1939: Specification for heavy bomber with 2,000 mile range, 300+ MPH top speed issued. (B-24)

Sep 1, 1939: Germany Invades Poland. War is declared shortly on Germany by UK and France.

2 December 1939: VLR Bomber (B-29) specification work begun.

January 1940: VLR Bomber (B-29) formal requirements issued.

May 10, 1940: Battle of France and the Low Countries begins.

May 16, 1940: FDR calls for Congress to support construction of 50,000 combat aircraft each year by US Factories.

June 14, 1940: German Troops Enter Paris. Third Vinson Act Signed LINK authorizing 79,500 tons of Carriers, 66,500 tons of cruisers, 21,000 tons of submarines, authorizing a naval air strength of 4,500 aircraft.

June 19, 1940: Two Ocean Navy Bill signed. LINK Authorizing 385,000 tons of capital ships, 200,000 tons of carriers, 420,000 tons of cruisers, 250,000 tons of destroyers, and 70,000 tons of submarines. Authorization of a naval air strength of 15,000 aircraft.

September 11, 1941: United States secretly publishes the "Victory Plan". It somehow leaks to the press, leading to internal witchhunts over who leaked it (I've read the documents [:D] about "who the hell leaked this" at the National Archives).

Victory Plan Links:
http://alternatewars.com/WW2/VictoryPlan/JointBoard.htm
http://alternatewars.com/WW2/VictoryPla ... ements.htm
http://alternatewars.com/WW2/VictoryPla ... ements.htm
http://alternatewars.com/WW2/VictoryPla ... ements.htm

The Navy Requirements in the Victory Plan (see above links) called for a fleet by December 31, 1946 of:

32 BB
24 CV
10 CB
26 CA
75 CL
444 DD
258 SS

The big difference is if there's no Pearl Harbor; then everything gets built at a slow, leisurely pace -- I recently ran across in US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics Confidential Correspondence, a paper detailing the original scheduled commission dates for the ESSEX class -- and they're late 1944 and early 1945.

That...got sped up after Pearl Harbor.

As for what could happen in the Original Poster's Scenario:

After a few years of no immediate apparent threats to the US, the USA's paranoia would dial down back a bit, and some of the later ships of the Two Ocean act are cancelled before they're laid down, or some of the older ships get scheduled for retirement -- for example, after BB-66 Kentucky enters service, why keep BB-35 Texas in service, as she's 30 years old and hopelessly obsolete?

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie


The Navy Requirements in the Victory Plan (see above links) called for a fleet by December 31, 1946 of:

32 BB
24 CV
10 CB
26 CA
75 CL
444 DD
258 SS

The big difference is if there's no Pearl Harbor; then everything gets built at a slow, leisurely pace -- I recently ran across in US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics Confidential Correspondence, a paper detailing the original scheduled commission dates for the ESSEX class -- and they're late 1944 and early 1945.

That...got sped up after Pearl Harbor.

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Re: original construction dates, via the FDR Library:

first two pages of

VESSELS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, UNITED STATES NAVY - REPORT OF PROGRESS AS OF JULY 1, 1941

are attached to this post inside a ZIP file so that I can attach more than one page as an attachment.

Basically completion dates are:

BB61 IOWA through BB 64 WISCONSIN: November 1943 to May 1944
BB65 ILLINOIS: 1 November 1945
BB66 KENTUCKY: 1 May 1945
BB67 MONTANA: 1 January 1946
BB68 OHIO: 1 November 1946
BB69 MAINE: 1 November 1945
BB70 NEW HAMPSHIRE: 1 May 1946
BB71 LOUISIANA: MAY 1946

CV9 ESSEX: January 1944
CV11 Intrepid: July 1944
CV17 Bunker Hill: August 1944
CV19 Ticonderoga: 31 December 1945

CB5 PUERTO RICO: 1 SEP 1945
CB6 SAMOA: 1 November 1945

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You can't man this fleet without a permanent draft. Nice dream, but it wasn't ever going to happen in peacetime. Support for the temporary draft was collapsing in 1941.

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You can't man this fleet without a permanent draft. Nice dream, but it wasn't ever going to happen in peacetime. Support for the temporary draft was collapsing in 1941.

http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_ ... 9-1997.htm

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... .html#1924

The Navy's manpower levels from about 1922 to 1935 hovered around 135-140,000 men (depending on the year). That force level was enough to support a 320~ ship navy in the mid 1930s (of which 15~ were battleships) (or about 440~ men per ship).

I've seen documents in the FDR library from IIRC 1934 stating that at that time, the USN had about 70-75% manning on battleships; giving you an idea of how degraded things were at the time.

By 1939 FDR's peacetime boost to the navy brought things up to 189,839 men and 394 ships (15 battleships) (or 480~ men per ship).

In 1940, it was up to 269,023 men and 478 ships (15 battleships) (or 560~ men per ship).

If we assume that the increase from 440 to 560 men per ship average is things being brought up to 100-110% manning levels; then the 869 ship navy that the Victory Plan called for by 31 December 1946 would consume 486,640 men.

That's a little bit too much for a semi-isolationist America to support for an extended period; so it's likely that by 1946 if no war hasn't broken out; they'd start dialing things down to maybe 285,000~ men; which would support a fleet of 500~ ships.

That means, a lot of the older ships would be gone; the 17 'new' battleships in service or under construction (North Carolinas+South Dakotas+Iowas+Montanas) would be more than enough to replace the entire battleline.

It's kind of an interesting scenario posit; both sides start out with pretty powerful, fairly modern forces from the start; allowing for full scale combat right out the gate, instead of some desultory swings with hammers in 1941, then wait wait until 1943 for everyone's production programs to result in ships or planes and resume swinging hammers.

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Here's an attempt at a new UV1024.bmp in the same vein as the original WITP:AE one.

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

ViperSP, for my original scenario concept, I got as far as these notes for the IJN -- I was trying to maintain as much historical plausibility as possible; and they kind of stop in 1945; because my initial scenario name was Philippine Sea 1945 followed by The 1945-49 Pacific War before the scenario went into the "inactive" file in my brain.

****************************************

Imperial Japanese Navy circa-ish 1945

Battleships on the Fleet List in Mid-1945:

Kongo-Class
Haruna (榛名)
Kirishima (霧島)

Fuso-Class
Fuso (扶桑)
Yamashiro (山城)

Ise-Class
Ise (伊勢)
Hyūga (日向)

Nagato-Class
Nagato (長門)
Mutsu (陸奥)

Yamato-Class
Yamato (大和)
Musashi (武蔵)
Shinano (信濃)
Kii (No 111)
Owari (No 797)

Notes:

During 1941-1945, Kongo and Hiei are withdrawn from service and scrapped to free up roughly 2,000 personnel for assignment to new construction and to inject roughly 50,000 tons of steel and other raw materials into the Japanese shipbuilding economy.

Proposals to scrap the two remaining Kongos are rejected due to the U.S. Naval buildup and the need to maintain near parity with the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Specific Notes for the Super-Battleship Program:

There are three yards in Japan that can build ships on the scale of 65,000+ tons:

Kure
Mitsubishi
Yokosuka.

It takes about 1,000 days to build a Yamato class on the yards; and 90 days to prepare the dock for the next ship; based off historical data (Yamato and Musashi launchings), and the time it took to prepare the shipyard at Kure to lay down Battleship No.110 after Yamato's Launch:

This would be the specific dates for the Japanese Super-Battleship Program:

Yamato Class:

Yamato (Kure)
Laid down: November 1937
Launched: August 1940
Commissioned: December 1941

Musashi (Mitsubishi)
Laid down: March 1938
Launched: November 1940
Commissioned: August 1942

Shinano (Yokosuka)
Laid down: May 1940
Launched: January 1943
Commissioned: August 1944

No.111 (Kure)
Laid down: 7 November 1940
Launched: August 1943
Commissioned: February 1945

Note: Historically No.111 was cancelled in our timeline in December 1941.

No. 797 (Mitsubishi)
Laid down: January 1941
Launched: October 1943
Commissioned: April 1945

A-150 (Super Yamato) Class

No. 798 (Yokosuka)
Laid Down: April 1943
Launched: May 1946
Commissioned: September 1947

No. 799 (Kure)
Laid Down: November 1943
Launched: November 1946
Commissioned: March 1948

Carriers on the Fleet List in Mid-1945.

Akagi-Class
Akagi (赤城)

Kaga-Class
Kaga (加賀)

Soryu-Class
Sōryū (蒼龍)

Hiryu-Class
Hiryū (飛龍)

Shōkaku-Class
Shōkaku (翔鶴)
Zuikaku (瑞鶴)

Taihō-Class
Taihō (大鳳)

Ikoma-Class (Mod Taiho with less Armor)
Ikoma (生駒)

Unryu-Class
Unryū (雲龍)
Amagi (天城)
Katsuragi (葛城)
Kasagi (笠置)

Ryukaku-Class CVL
Ryukaku
Taikaku
Hikaku

Aircraft Ferries on the Fleet List in Mid-1945.

Ryujo-Class
Ryūjō (龍驤)

Zuihō Class
Zuihō (瑞鳳)
Shōhō (祥鳳)

Hosho-Class
Hosho (鳳翔)

Specific Notes for Aircraft Carriers/Ferries

When the full breadth of the U.S. Navy's expansion plans became known, the IJN's command staff was in shock. No less than eleven new fast fleet carriers (CV-9 to CV-19) were to be in service by 1944.

Against this, just three Taihos (one from the 1939 Circle Four program, and two from the 1941 Circle Five program) and one Unryu (from Circle Five) were projected to be commissioned by 1944/45.

The initial proposals for the Circle Six Emergency Program had no less than five Taihos to be built to restore parity in aircraft carriers. This fell afoul of the "gun club" in the IJN, who pointed out correctly that each Taiho built would consume at least three thousand tons of armor plate, for a total of 24,000 tons for the whole program.

After much wrangling, an agreement was reached. The Taiho herself would be allowed to proceed to completion, as significant amounts of machinery had been ordered as long lead items. The second Taiho would be reordered as a modified design with less armor; and the last Taiho would be cancelled and reordered as an Unryu class ship. Additionally, three more Unryus would be ordered.

More Unryus were pushed for by the Navy, but it was again correctly pointed out that even with sufficient armor plate, there were only so many slipyards in Japan which could work on ships in excess of 200 meters. After much more wrangling; it was agreed to switch over three Type A Cruisers (Heavy Cruisers) in the Circle Six Program to Light Fleet Carriers.

This class was designated the Ryukaku class. Conceptually, it’s similar to the conversion that was planned for the heavy cruiser Ibuki, but much more comprehensive – along the order of the Saipan Class in capabilities instead of the historical rush job we saw.

The converted ships can make about 32-33 knots instead of 29; and carry 40~ planes instead of 27. This is because the Japanese can now take their time to lay out a comprehensive set of plans with units that have not yet been laid down. This is much easier than having to start with a ship on the stocks substantially complete by the time the order to convert is given.

NOTE: Thank you to Terminus for the names that he came up with for Reluctant Admiral -- I'm borrowing them for this.