The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Since you are looking at redeploying units. What about the two Canadian Bn being deployed to Malaya instead of Singapore?

Do you mean Hong Kong?

That raised a thought. HK might actually be useful for while pending on where we start China action with the IJA.

Sorry, my bad. Yes, I meant to Malaya instead of Hong Kong. They knew that Hong Kong would never last a real assault.

[Terminus]

It still had to be defended. Political imperative.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
It still had to be defended. Political imperative.

Not really. "Fortress Singapore" HAD to be defended..., but not even a civilian thought that Hong Kong was defensible under the circumstances. All that was needed there was a color guard and a Governor with a stiff upper lip and a suitable title to handle the surrender with dignity.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Yeah, the lack of available superchargers led to the decision to build the P-39's without them.

Not disputing this statement, as it is accurate in that there were not enough superchargers for all of the fighters that the Army wanted to build. However, it is also a fact that there was a lot of politics surrounding the P-39. My opinion, is that it was political decision within the DoD whereby the P-39 did not get supercharged. Just my opinion though ...

As the P-39 was orriginally ordered as a high-altitude interceptor it's hard to see what "politics" could have been involved in deciding not to supercharge the engine. Do you know of something specific?

First, all weapon programs are highly political. Serious politics. Way too much money involved. I'm quite sure there are several others here in this forum that can validate that and share their first-hand experiences. My experience is with DARPA, the least political of all of them in my opinion and it is still VERY political. The War Dept was no different.

Working off of memory here, and Rev Rick (or someone else) can prolly fill in some specific and blanks. The designer had a bit of an ego and had several run-ins with the War Dept staff. The program got cancelled at one point, the designer used his political pull to get it put back in. That kinda PO'd the War Dept even more as they didn't like having projects dictated from the "outside". Anyway, long and short of it is it was a bit of a unique design, War Dept staff didn't like the look of it, and chose the P-40 as it used 50cal as the main weapon and looked like a "proper" fighter. Problem was, P-39 was a good aircraft and there was a fair amount invested in it. Things (politically) got worse when the Russians got it and then used it so effectively. By giving it to the Russians, it was supposed to prove it was no good and they were given because they couldn't be used by USAAF outfits. Ya-di-da-di-da. Say what you will about the Russian kill statistics, the fact remains that the P-39 earned the respect of the Luftwaffe.

Anyway, the Russians started to have success, a supercharger was installed (P-400) and it was better. Problem was by that time the base engine (a modified Allison IIRC?) was already not really front line but the main gun (through the crank cannon) would have required a lot of investment to change engines. By then they already had the Mustang coming down the pipe and the rest is history: greatest prop fighter ever P51.

BTW, I wouldn't want to suggest that the P-39 was an uber-fighter that got side-tracked into oblivion. It did have issues and it was a unique design. Could these have been corrected/addressed giving the USAAF a better interim fighter until the Bolt comes on board? I think so, but that's just my opinion. Would that have been the better decision? That's not so obvious.

The key armament difference was the main c/l cannon. That is the good and the bad. The whole US logisitics strategy was based upon commonality to the largest degree possible. To suggest this was not a good strategy is ludicrous as the historical evidence is rather overwhelming. So, choosing the aircraft using 50 cal is a very GOOD reason and may very well have been the best choice.

In hindsight we can look at the logistics and say that the US could easily have fielded this weapon and kept it supplied. However, in 40/41 when these decision were being made the outlook was far from clear.

Anyway, these are my recollections of the P39 story. Food for thought, and nothing more. Just as the P40 had its moments of glory with the AVG, the P39 earned its distinction on the Eastern Front. Less well known to western readers, but well known to any Soviet educated historian.

[oldman45]

Just as an aside, it was the Russians that got Bell to correct the flat spin problem it had.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo



Not disputing this statement, as it is accurate in that there were not enough superchargers for all of the fighters that the Army wanted to build. However, it is also a fact that there was a lot of politics surrounding the P-39. My opinion, is that it was political decision within the DoD whereby the P-39 did not get supercharged. Just my opinion though ...

As the P-39 was orriginally ordered as a high-altitude interceptor it's hard to see what "politics" could have been involved in deciding not to supercharge the engine. Do you know of something specific?

First, all weapon programs are highly political. Serious politics. Way too much money involved. I'm quite sure there are several others here in this forum that can validate that and share their first-hand experiences. My experience is with DARPA, the least political of all of them in my opinion and it is still VERY political. The War Dept was no different.

Working off of memory here, and Rev Rick (or someone else) can prolly fill in some specific and blanks. The designer had a bit of an ego and had several run-ins with the War Dept staff. The program got cancelled at one point, the designer used his political pull to get it put back in. That kinda PO'd the War Dept even more as they didn't like having projects dictated from the "outside". Anyway, long and short of it is it was a bit of a unique design, War Dept staff didn't like the look of it, and chose the P-40 as it used 50cal as the main weapon and looked like a "proper" fighter. Problem was, P-39 was a good aircraft and there was a fair amount invested in it. Things (politically) got worse when the Russians got it and then used it so effectively. By giving it to the Russians, it was supposed to prove it was no good and they were given because they couldn't be used by USAAF outfits. Ya-di-da-di-da. Say what you will about the Russian kill statistics, the fact remains that the P-39 earned the respect of the Luftwaffe.

Anyway, the Russians started to have success, a supercharger was installed (P-400) and it was better. Problem was by that time the base engine (a modified Allison IIRC?) was already not really front line but the main gun (through the crank cannon) would have required a lot of investment to change engines. By then they already had the Mustang coming down the pipe and the rest is history: greatest prop fighter ever P51.

BTW, I wouldn't want to suggest that the P-39 was an uber-fighter that got side-tracked into oblivion. It did have issues and it was a unique design. Could these have been corrected/addressed giving the USAAF a better interim fighter until the Bolt comes on board? I think so, but that's just my opinion. Would that have been the better decision? That's not so obvious.

The key armament difference was the main c/l cannon. That is the good and the bad. The whole US logisitics strategy was based upon commonality to the largest degree possible. To suggest this was not a good strategy is ludicrous as the historical evidence is rather overwhelming. So, choosing the aircraft using 50 cal is a very GOOD reason and may very well have been the best choice.

In hindsight we can look at the logistics and say that the US could easily have fielded this weapon and kept it supplied. However, in 40/41 when these decision were being made the outlook was far from clear.

Anyway, these are my recollections of the P39 story. Food for thought, and nothing more. Just as the P40 had its moments of glory with the AVG, the P39 earned its distinction on the Eastern Front. Less well known to western readers, but well known to any Soviet educated historian.

From www.joebaugher.com
The most serious change, however, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger. This change was a result of a shift in philosophy on the part of the USAAC. The USAAC believed that the widths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the USA virtually immune from high-altitude attack by enemy bombers. Therefore, the development of high-altitude interceptors was curtailed in favor of strike fighters optimized for low-level close support. The 1150 hp V-1710-17 (E2) of the XP-39 was replaced by a V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated 1090 hp at an altitude of 13,300 feet. The carburetor air intake was mounted in a dorsal position just behind the cockpit, where it was to remain throughout the Airacobra production run

[JeffroK]

If you are also going to mod LCU.

Some thoughts I had on a mod which I thought was good.
(Presupposes a Brit victory in Nth Africa, given some of the above thoughts not a mad idea)
British/Indian Army
Indian units in Malaya & Burma are not drained of troops for the Mid East - keep their stats at a medium level, similar for their leaders
Add an extra Brigade to 9th & 11th Indian Divisions.
Move 23 Australian Bde, 2/4 Pioneer and 2/4 MG Bn to Singapore.
7 Armoured Bde is at start in Burma
4 & 5 Indian Divs are available in Jan 1942
Indian Armour units are partially equipped with Crusader & M3 Stuarts
RAF
Replace Buffalo with Hurri IIA/B, Vildebeeste with Beaufort I, Blenheim IF with Beaufighter IF, Blenheim I with Blenheim IV.
Release Spitfires to the Far East earlier, the RAF didnt have to have them in the UK, saves wasting them over France in 1941/42
I also put in a small number of Boston/Maraurder/Maryland & Baltimores to replace the Blenheim & Hudson, I also sent some Stirlings to replace the Wellington.
RN
You have plenty of thoughts

RAAF
Wirraway replaced by P43 and P66, not required by the USAAF but better than the Wirra!
Bring the Aussie versions of the Beaufort, Beaufighter & Mustang forwards, these were the first modern aircraft produced and there were many delays in getting them going.
Australian Army
(The rump of 8th Div has gone to Malaya)
A Militia Bde moves from Melbourne to Darwin.
A Militia Bde goes from Sydney to Pt Moresby
A Militia Bde goes from Brisbane to Rabaul.
A Militia Bn to Tulagi
A Militia Bn to Lae, move the NGVR to Milne Bay
I am thinking about anoother AIF Bde, there were enough recruits to form one which then goes off to Timor, Dili, Amboina.
The 6 Armd Bns are formed as 1st & 2nd Armoured Bdes with M3 Stuarts & Lees.
6,7 & 9 Divs are available in Aden in Jan 1942

Phillipines
Due to an earlier mobilization, the Phillipine Army starts at average stats, artillery is closer to 100%TOE(even if only 75mm guns).
Another (maybe Marine) RCT starts at Manila, 4th Marines gets filled out.
Put a Regiment into Legaspi!

Pacific Forces
Def Bns and an Inf Bn at Guam, Wake, Midway, Johnston, Christmas & Palmyra.
Unmak & Dutch Harbor also get a BF as well as above and Unmak is already a L1 Airbase.

USAAF
Everyone gets a step up-
P26 & P35 to P36
P36 to P40B
P40B to P40E
You could do this from P40E to P38F if you wished.
B18 come as B25C
B17C as B17E

[kfsgo]

Well, ok. The consensus seems to be that everyone wants to see the French take a role; my wonder at that is that if you posit a non-Vichy France the North African campaign is going to be very short, which has a lot of side-effects. Conceptually that frees up an enormous brick of Stuff to throw at Japan...the argument against that being that it'd actually just get thrown at Germany. Still - there's nothing wrong with side-effects, right? So, in the spirit of Blackhorse China (but less eloquently, given that I'm not much of a writer, and without diving very deeply into specifics, given that it ain't exactly my area of expertise), I guess an alternative 'timeline' might be engineered to go generally, vaguely like this:

Our June 1940: Following the fall of Paris and the evacuation of the French government to Bordeaux, an armistice with Germany is sought. On a personal level, morale in the army is high, but those few formations that are still going are short of equipment and greatly outnumbered by the Wehrmacht. The PM, Reynaud, is opposed to an armistice, believing that the war effort can be carried on from North Africa; the Cabinet disagrees, and demands Reynaud put the idea of an armistice proposal to the British (both parties having undertaken not to accept one without the approval of the other); the British agree, on condition that the French Navy sail to British ports, after which France gets an armistice that is jussst about permissive enough that they feel obliged to accept it. Historical trainwreck follows.

I don't think the 'Franco-British Union' idea really has a lot of merit, although it sounds great; best to just imagine some sort of governmental continuity for France. So:

June 1940 Mk. II: Following the fall of Paris [...] the Cabinet disagrees, and demands Reynaud put an armistice proposal to the British; the British don't agree, suggesting instead that the Government and as much of the Army as can be evacuated be sent to North Africa to continue resistance. The Cabinet splits; the greater part of the civilian government favours evacuation, while the military authorities are broadly in favour of an armistice. With the German army bearing down on Bordeaux, there's no time for arguments, however, and the Government sails for Algiers on the 21st. German and Italian forces occupy the entirety of France by the end of the month, availing themselves of large quantities of equipment and production facilities of all types. Amid the chaos, Japan demands the closure of the Yunnan railway and Burma Road; the former is agreed to locally by Indochina, with the French governmental situation in chaos, but the latter is not; Japan is permitted to base small forces at Haiphong and Kwangchouwan.

July-October 1940: A relatively quiet period. The French Govt establishes itself in Algiers. The Navy is broadly intact; the Air Force has been able to evacuate a reasonable number of aircraft to North Africa, though biased towards older and longer-ranged types; the Army has been able to evacuate a substantial number of men, but virtually no heavy equipment. North Africa has only minimal military production, however, and most military equipment has to be imported from Britain or (mostly) the USA. Virtually no movement in Libya; believing themselves outnumbered on both fronts, and with shipping into Tripoli difficult, the Italian army remains on the defensive, occupying only southern Tunisia as far as Mareth. (That may not be realistic, but then they'd probably be completely screwed rather than just eventually screwed if they don't...) Battle of Britain goes off approximately as historical, I'd imagine.

November-March 1941: British forces from Egypt occupy Cyrenaica; French forces reoccupy lost areas of Tunisia. A raid by carrier aircraft on Taranto sinks one Italian battleship and damages two heavy cruisers; the Italian navy mostly avoids offensive operations thereafter, but manages to avoid significant further losses.

April-June 1941: Allied advances further into Libya halt in favour of the dispatch of forces to Greece, which the Wehrmacht has invaded; resistance in Greece collapses, with the survivors evacuating to Crete without most of their equipment. A German attempts to seize Crete by parachute assault fails. Enough equipment has reached French forces in North Africa that these are able to push on to Tripoli. Absent any real ability to resupply the forces left in Libya, resistance by the Italian army there effectively ends. The Mediterranean is open for shipping, though attacks by Italian air and naval forces continue to be a menace.

July-December 1941: Allied operations against the Dodecanese likely to go reasonably well in the long term; from here on out one might guess at invasions of Sardinia, Sicily, Corsica (if occupied in the first place) being on the cards for 1942, though I imagine there is at least the potential for amphibious ops that early to go very badly wrong. (A Kasserine in Sicily?)

So, where might that scenario leave you in the Pacific?

- French forces in Indochina will probably not be significantly more numerous than their Vichy equivalents, though they will probably be a little better off as regards heavy equipment. I would think that by end 1941 the Algerian etc forces will have a basic set of American kit but there will be an awful lot of work left to do - that equipment that makes it as far as Saigon might be French rather than American. Maybe think Renaults and Morane-Saulniers rather than Dewoitines and P-39s!

I would make Indochina a serious job for Japan rather than trying to turn it into a trivial exercise - resist the temptation to engineer things, like battleships at Manila, which are only put there for the Japanese to destroy without loss. Of course value of things w/r/t the points system would need to change, so there'd be more in Indochina for Japan than is usual.

- Libya falling early has very significant effects as far as transportation - the Med will be open from Day 1! It'll still be dangerous - the Axis air and naval forces don't just disappear overnight - but shipping will be possible and flying will be trivial. Removal of the need to put enormous efforts into resupplying Malta will also free up a lot of semi-modern equipment, not to mention potentially give you warships not sunk in the process.

I'm aware the Aden base is hardcoded not to permit movement until 1943; I wonder at the possibility of adding another offmap base not subject to that restriction - 'Alexandria', if you like. I suspect it's possible, but don't know for sure. Do you want to get into editing the map?

- UK and Indian land forces are likely to differ in detail but probably not in at-start numbers. In fact you might suppose they'll be weaker on the ground - I can't see anything that'd prompt a more serious evaluation of Japanese land forces than was historically conducted and I suspect the temptation would be there to say 'well, if anything happens the French will buy everyone enough time'. The complacency prevalent pre-1941 isn't going to go away; it might well be worse. Once things heat up you're likely to get a greater number of reinforcements coming from the UK (arrivals beginning March-April or so) and the Middle East (?, but sooner), but in any case somewhat less experienced as they've had a comparatively easy ride so far. There may not be an 18th Div or similar immediately on hand, though - might you end up with a South African Div as the "oh god, need something" force?

I would be tempted to say that the Indian Army would not get as much in the way of US equipment, at least to begin with - it'll be needed by France in the Med and Europe. Matildas rather than Lees, A-15s rather than Stuarts? Certainly enough were made...

CW aircraft timetable would no doubt be accelerated somewhat; remember that aircraft defined as 'Commonwealth' nationality can be used by UK, AUS, NZ, CAN, IND which is something I think could be useful. Merge and bump up a 'CW' Hurricane and Blenheim production, bring a short-legged 'CW' Spit in in mid-late 42 and suddenly you've got options - this is a different war, after all...

I don't know if you can really justify huge naval releases until mid-1942 or so; the Italians aren't going anywhere. Once they do go somewhere there are likely to be more ships to release, however.

- The wildcard here is the Soviet Union - without the Italians ruining things for everyone Fascism is likely to have a fractionally less painful war in Russia. I don't know if the Manchurian garrison requirements can be modified; certainly you could add space-filling Manchu units to practically lower them, and Soviet forces facing Japan would probably end up being less formidable.

Erp. That's enough to think about for now, I guess...

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Terminus
It still had to be defended. Political imperative.

Not really. "Fortress Singapore" HAD to be defended..., but not even a civilian thought that Hong Kong was defensible under the circumstances. All that was needed there was a color guard and a Governor with a stiff upper lip and a suitable title to handle the surrender with dignity.

And that's what it had.

[mike scholl 1]

Sorry. This is what I read.

Herrbear - "Yes, I meant to Malaya instead of Hong Kong. They knew that Hong Kong would never last a real assault."

Termi - "It still had to be defended. Political imperative. "

Scholl - "Not really. "Fortress Singapore" HAD to be defended..., but not even a civilian thought that Hong Kong was defensible under the circumstances. All that was needed there was a color guard and a Governor with a stiff upper lip and a suitable title to handle the surrender with dignity."

Termi - "And that's what it had."

Scholl - No. What it had was six batallions of good troops being needlesssly sacrificed... Thew would have been of much more value almost anywhere else in the Pacific.

[John 3rd]

Jeff and kfsgo: Thank You for the detailed Posts! Need to chew on them some but I think there are great ideas within them. Both entries took some serious time, a bit a research, and effort. Greatly appreciate that.

Mike: Concur on the waste of those troops at Hong Kong. What were the Brits truly thinking? Bet Canada was NOT happy.

[Herrbear]

Thank you Mike. From the Official Canadian history:

At the beginning of 1941 the newly-appointed British Commander-in-Chief in the Far East (Air Chief Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham) pressed his superiors to reinforce the garrison of Hong Kong. Mr. Churchill had no sympathy with these representations, and he has published3 a memorandum which he wrote on the subject:

Prime Minister to General Ismay 7 Jan. 41
This is all wrong. If Japan goes to war with us there is not the slightest chance of holding Hong Kong or relieving it. It is most unwise to increase the loss we shall suffer there. Instead of increasing the garrison it ought to be reduced to a symbolical scale. Any trouble arising there must be dealt with at the Peace conference after the war. We must avoid frittering away our resources on untenable positions. Japan will think long before declaring war on the British Empire, and whether there are two or six battalions at Hong Kong will make no difference to her choice. I wish we had fewer troops there, but to move any would be noticeable and dangerous.

Granted, by December 41 they had changed their mind, but it was thought initially that it would be a useless gesture.

[JeffroK]

Re Singapore Fortress

It was only begun in 1924, many decisions mentioned above took place around the same time.

Other contenders were Hong Kong, Trincomalee & Sydney.

[John 3rd]

I am going to try and pull together things we've decided on as promising areas for development so we have everything on one page. Now that the Japanese Kaigun appears to have been settled in the other thread we have a pretty clear idea of what's happening on that so so we can make better decisions on this side. Will try to synthesize a new timeline based on what we've talked about, decided to do, and are thinking about doing.

[FatR]

I'm back here. Sorry if I'm going to be answering to already-discussed ideas.

ORIGINAL: oldman45

As far as the French Navy, just don't have the creation of the Vichy French. Have the government flee to England and the fleet goes to Africa. Then you can figure out what stays in the Med, what goes to the Atlantic and what ever is left can come to the Pacific.

... On that note: this will overturn the entire political situation that led to the war.

[FatR]

As I'm lazy, and I see, that you, John, are planning to summarize the changes to USN you like, I'll wait until you do it, and comment only on political stuff and so on, until then.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: oldman45
You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes.

That always was my evil intent - to not introduce any major alarms for US until the date the historical buildup of USN begins already[:D]. Now, increasing and speeding up production immediately before and, particularly, during the war is another matter.

John, I do hope you remember this when thinking about improving the Allied OOB.

Do note, that the Allies, particularly British, thoroughly underestimated the Japanese capabilities historically. British intelligence, for example, had practically no idea about the new generation of Japanese carrier planes until the Indian Ocean raid, and considered IJN to be weak in night fighting techniques. This played a very major role in their unpreparedness. Of course, this arrogant attitude is not set in stone if we speak about alternatives... but it explained very much of the Allied decisions.
Also, take note that power of naval aviation was underestimated until the destruction of Force Z. Before that no battleships or carriers were sunk by air attacks, and it seemed that heavy AA armament can allow a fleet to operate for a time even under very persistent air raids (during the battle for Crete some British ships were sunk only after they ran out of ammo). Japanese and Americans were a level above everyone else in naval aviation by late 1941, but that wasn't realized yet. Even without arrogance, I doubt British will be able to truly realize this before meeting the enemy in action.

[John 3rd]

OK. Give me a bit and I'll compile everything into a single Post.

[John 3rd]

Here is a summary of Ideas put forth for the Allied Side. With thinking beginning to stabilize next door with the Japanese the question becomes which of these would be most practical, realistic, and useful. Think of it as a Christmas List where only ten things make it to being under the tree! [:'(]


Perfect War Mod
Allied Thinking

USA
1. A few more DDs of pre-Fletcher classes seem OK. Add something in the neighborhood of 8-12 DDs.

2. What about Wasp being the 4th Yorktown? Instead of a limited compromise using up the remaining tonnage, the US sees where things are going and simply builds her along Yorktown's proven lines.

3. Modernize the Big 5 BB. Whatever that might mean...
--Could that mean better AA?
--What else was planned for them? Juan???

From Rev Rick
Modernization of the Big 5...
Proposals:
--Blister the sides to raise the waterline between 20-24".
--Re Boiler the ships.
--New Mk 33 5" AA directors.
--Proposed twin 5"38 mounts in place of the 5"/51 and 5"25's on board. (Did not state whether they would be shouldered up onto the 01 level or kept on the main deck.)
--Would have increased displacement into the 38-39K ton range.


4. The overage issue is ships reaching 20 Years of age. These could then be replaced once demilitarized/decommisioned. Doubt if you could squeeze anymore cruisers out of the Congress prior to the Two-Ocean Bill.

5. Redeploy some of the Fleet as we have described with the 3 Idaho’s (and escorts) never moving to the Atlantic.

6. Philippines:
a. Slightly increase aircraft and squadrons in Philippines
b.. Due to an earlier mobilization, the Philippine Army starts at average stats, artillery is closer to 100%TOE(even if only 75mm guns).
c. Put a Regiment into Legaspi!
d. Add Forts to Bataan and increase supply there.

7. Air Pipelines
a. Def Bns and BF at Guam, Wake, Midway,
b. Con Bns at Johnston, Christmas & Palmyra.
c. Unmak & Dutch Harbor also get a BF as well as above and Umnak is already a L1 Airbase.


Britain
Here is an area that we could really have some fun with. Ideas that have been tossed out or on the burner:
1. A change within Force Z composition. Perhaps another BC? Add several CAs/CLs and DDs that start the war spreadout in the IO.

Terminus Force Z Recommendation:
I think we should start by allowing Indomitable to come to the party. No Caribbean grounding.

After that, Renown, Belfast (she gets rebuilt more quickly), and four K-class destroyers. After that, we assume that all the DD's in refit at Singers are available. PoW and Repulse deployed with almost no destroyer support, so it's not unrealistic to prioritize that.

This gives a Force Z like this:

BB Prince of Wales
BC's Repulse & Renown
CV Indomitable
CA Belfast
DDs
Jupiter, Electra, Encounter, Express, Stronghold, Kelvin, Kimberley, Kingston, Kipling


2. Improve Singapore's Aircraft composition to something more envisioned with the 335+ Front-Line Planes desired:
--How about a couple of Hurricane or, dare I say, Spitfire Squadrons?
--Completely fillout the Vilderbeest and Swordfish units.
--More Recon/Air Search assets

Air Comment: Replace Buffalo with Hurri IIA/B, Vildebeeste with Beaufort I, Blenheim IF with Beaufighter IF, Blenheim I with Blenheim IV.

3. A somewhat built defense line north of Singapore.

4. How about the 18th ID STARTING in Singapore or at sea in the IO and ready for the player to send it wherever?

5. Better Commonwealth dispositions in Malaya/Burma:
Add an extra Brigade to 9th & 11th Indian Divisions.
Move 23 Australian Bde, 2/4 Pioneer and 2/4 MG Bn to Singapore.
7 Armoured Bde is at start in Burma


Dutch
1. We had some ships thrown out for additional consideration earlier. What about them?

2. A few more modern planes for them?


French
Available Free French Ships
Richelieu Flag ship 1942 when it comes out of the US Yards.

2nd Cruiser Division - heavy cruisers DUQUESNE (Flag, Vice Amiral R E Godfroy, CV G E Besineau), SUFFREN (CV R J M Dillard), TOURVILLE (CV A J A Marloy), light cruiser DUGUAY TROUIN (CV J M C Trolley de Prevaux, CF P B J Benac from 10 Oct)

3rd Destroyer Division – LE FORTUNÉ (CC J E L Serres)

9th Destroyer Division - BASQUE (CC Y G M Caron), FORBIN (CC R C M Catellier)

2nd Large Destroyer Division - LÉOPARD (CF C A Loisel)

11th Large Destroyer Division - ÉPERVIER (CF J J G Bros)

Sloop - LASSIGNY (CC A P M Robillard)

Sloop - AMIRAL CHARNER (CF F M Faye)

Sloop - MARNE

Sloop - DUMONT D'URVILLE (CF P G Toussaint de Quieverecourt)

3rd Submarine Division - ACHÉRON (CC J J M Alliou), ACTÉON (LV J C G Clavieres), PROTÉE (CC J M L J Garreau)

10th Submarine Division - ESPADON (CC CF Sevellec), PHOQUE (Leader, CC J F M A P Laguarigue) DAUPHIN (LV B J J Petit)

Armed merchant cruisers - BARFLEUR (CF H J B Gizard), QUERCY (CF R Seriot), ÉSTEREL (CF M M M P Noel) ARAMIS

Australia
Would it be feasible to increase repair yards in Australia ?

Aussie Air/Land Ideas:
Wirraway replaced by P43 and P66, not required by the USAAF but better than the Wirra!
Bring the Aussie versions of the Beaufort, Beaufighter & Mustang forwards, these were the first modern aircraft produced and there were many delays in getting them going.
Australian Army
(The rump of 8th Div has gone to Malaya)
A Militia Bde moves from Melbourne to Darwin.
A Militia Bde goes from Sydney to Pt Moresby
A Militia Bde goes from Brisbane to Rabaul.
A Militia Bn to Tulagi
A Militia Bn to Lae, move the NGVR to Milne Bay

ECONOMY
Add Allied Economic Bases on the map for some flexibility.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
USA
1. A few more DDs of pre-Fletcher classes seem OK. Add something in the neighborhood of 8-12 DDs.

Well, considering an stronger (more lenient treaties) Japanese fleet - OK. Probably should be spread out across various types.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. What about Wasp being the 4th Yorktown? Instead of a limited compromise using up the remaining tonnage, the US sees where things are going and simply builds her along Yorktown's proven lines.

While Japan already left the treaties by the time Wasp was laid down, US still didn't. And news about Japan going straight for two more carriers instead of shadow fleet ships won't leak immediately. And even then the full picture won't be clear until the news of Shokakus construction. If you want a bigger Wasp, it is hardly plausible without some more procrastination about what to build. While it will be ready by the onset of hostilities anyway, I suggest making it available with mildly reduced crew and airgroup experience (far from implausible, considering that Hornet airgroup was actually undertrained, when committed to combat), to reflect that.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. Modernize the Big 5 BB. Whatever that might mean...
--Could that mean better AA?
--What else was planned for them? Juan???

From Rev Rick
Modernization of the Big 5...
Proposals:
--Blister the sides to raise the waterline between 20-24".
--Re Boiler the ships.
--New Mk 33 5" AA directors.
--Proposed twin 5"38 mounts in place of the 5"/51 and 5"25's on board. (Did not state whether they would be shouldered up onto the 01 level or kept on the main deck.)
--Would have increased displacement into the 38-39K ton range.

1)This is not super-expensive, but still fairly expensive. You probably can construct a heavy cruiser on the money used to reboiler them alone. The driving factor behind the reconstruction? Note, that by the time USN expects to meet more than 4 battleships and 4 former battlecruisers (+4 unreconstructed old battlewagons, which might well be scrapped soon - and would have been if not for the approach of war), new, far superior battleships are already constructed in numbers. Deciding to maintain 1939-40 tempo of laying down three battleships per year for at least another year is a more plausible solution by that point.
2)Why radical increase in AA capabilities before the war? Note, the only Japanese battleships that have seriously better AA suites compared to RL by December 1941 in my proposals are the newest Owari-class BBs. And I used two excuses to sneak it there - not enough extra weight for medium calibre and the perspective of new DP guns supposedly as good at engaging DDs and other small surface targets as old 140mms.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
4. The overage issue is ships reaching 20 Years of age. These could then be replaced once demilitarized/decommisioned. Doubt if you could squeeze anymore cruisers out of the Congress prior to the Two-Ocean Bill.

What ships do you have in mind?

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
5. Redeploy some of the Fleet as we have described with the 3 Idaho’s (and escorts) never moving to the Atlantic.

Makes sense, considering that Japan has 2 extra BBs according to the better terms of the Washington treaty alone.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
6. Philippines:
a. Slightly increase aircraft and squadrons in Philippines
b.. Due to an earlier mobilization, the Philippine Army starts at average stats, artillery is closer to 100%TOE(even if only 75mm guns).

OK.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
c. Put a Regiment into Legaspi!

Does it matter? At least in the game terms. It could be me, but I don't think that Japanese actually need it.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
d. Add Forts to Bataan and increase supply there.

OK.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
7. Air Pipelines
a. Def Bns and BF at Guam, Wake, Midway,

Why? As I mentioned before, Guam is too isolated to serve any useful purpose, until the supposed Pacific offensive relieves it, and Wake/Midway aren't seen as immediately threatened.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
b. Con Bns at Johnston, Christmas & Palmyra.

OK, that's a plausible idea.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
c. Unmak & Dutch Harbor also get a BF as well as above and Umnak is already a L1 Airbase.

Why? It is not like the theatre had any actual strategic importance. Also, see the comments on Wake/Midway.

I want to sleep, so I'll comment on other Allied powers later.