Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[Kitakami]

John, a few comments that you may throw to the trash:
 
1. If you want to add a pair of CAs, make them Mogamis, not Tones.
2. I would have Junyo and Hiyo as transports at the start of the war, especially since you want to add other CVs.
3. With Chitose and Chiyoda launched in '36, Mizuho in '38, and Nisshin in '41? I would leave them all as CSs. In fact, I would not allow them to convert. It would make an interesting scenario. CVL conversions were made out of necessity, not out of previous strategic planning. The scout cruiser was a big part of Japanese air naval doctrine.
4. 4x Aganos and 4x Oyodos, are ok.
5. Shinano should definitely not be built.
6. 2x BCs, 3 additional CVs (2x imp. Shokaku & 1x Taiho) may be a bit to much for Japanese naval industry. Even in exchange for not converting Junyo, Hiyo, and the 4x CSs, plus not building Shinano. But it's your mod... and I would definitely give it a try
7. If Yamamoto had such control, he probably would not allow army subs to be built. I have not checked if they appear in AE, but it is a thought.
 
Regarding carrier planes, if the A6M3 and the B6N1 are accelerated, that would give the IJN a HUGE advantage. I believe both would have been possible.
 
My 2 cents

[bklooste]

Wasnt I saying build standard DDs instead of cruisers ? These DDs can be build at merchant yards or smaller places Uraga Dock (which had spare capacity). The #1 issue Japan had was not labour ( as in those days it was a semi skilled job you can get people rivoting up to speed in days which is most of the work , just as the US quickly built its capcity using Woman also) but steel and armour plate. The Yamatos , which IMHO were historically rushed , consumed huge amounts of man power and resources . This is why once they finished production sky rocketed despite being bombed in 44 they built 8* the merchant tonnage fron 3 years earlier.

And DD power plants are not ‘cheaper’ than CL power plants. Power plants depended on the technical specifications of temperature and pressure. Japan could not get even close to where the US got. Apart from that it was scale, it was not cost. A hi-T, hi-P plant for a DD could transfer over by tonnage scale to a CL on a Deadweight ton percentage. But hi-t, hi-p engines used trunk and turbine materials not available in Japan so those are useless for guesses. And it is totally worse for anything bigger, so there go your fast CVLs down the dumper.

This is confusing if you are replying to me who made the DD comment , that was specifically based on the standard 50Kshp plant that Japan had been putting in their destroyers since the 1926 Fubuki's this would be much cheaper than the custom cruiser plants. If you are refering to the Super Akitzuki (37-38 knots) (75Kshp) you are correct and this can be discussed as an option ( and im only saying build say 12 of them using some of the hp ht stuff for the cruisers ) , im certainly not advocating the 45Knots destroyers but not building 3 classes and 10 or so Cruisers buys us quite a bit , at the least it means you have 3 170m slips free .

Lastly Japan had some capacity to buiild Hi-T and Hi-P boilers as these were used on most capital ships ie the Mogamis , Tones ,Aganos , IBukis , Oyodo, Shimakaze etc and some of these ships were built durring the war. Note the machinary on these ships was suprising light by western standards so im asumming they are Hi-T and Hi-P.

If you were replying to Johns comments on fast conversions I agree such expensive equipment would be wasted on conversions.

[John 3rd]

I've had a long day today and have only just gotten the chance to read this prior to going to beddy-bye. Excellent commentary.

Spent time yesterday working on the Order-of-Battle and will type it out tomorrow to place here. My prime concern is with staying reasonably true to the vision of the original 4th Circle through Yamamoto's eyes and perspective. This shall serve as the governing directive in the Mod.

The discussion above reflects smart thinking and I appreciate it. Want to go through my sources tomorrow morning and will then post my thoughts and vision for what is to be built. Once that has bee decided then we can enter into nuts and bolts for building. Remember that a KEY factor in this alternate history is Yamamoto getting several shipyards expanded and Japanese building more specialized. Doing some of this shall require Kaigun. Which yards chiefly produced DDs? CLs? CAs? BBs? CVs? That information will then dictate a few more steps in the decision process.

Hope that helps a bit. Going to crash and get some very needed sleep. Keep up the good work!

[wyrmmy]

Table 10-1 pg 362 Kaigun

Yokosuka Navy Yard: Battleships, Fleet Carriers, Heavy Cruisers, Submarines

Kure Navy Yard: Battleships, Heavy Cruisers, Submarines

Sasebo Navy Yard: Light Cruisers, Destroyers, Submarines

Maizuru Navy Yard: Destroyers, Submarines

Mitsubishi(Nagasaki): Battleships, Cruisers

Mitsubishi(Kobe): Submarines

Mitsubishi(Yokohama): Special Ships

Kawasaki: Carriers, Cruisers, Submarines

Ishikawajima: Destroyers, Smaller craft

Uraga: Destroyers, Smaller craft

Fujinagata: Destroyers, Smaller craft

Mitsui: Submarines, Smaller craft

Italics show that more ships of this category were built at the particular shipyard than any other yard or that the first of a class of ships was built at that yard, which then had the responsibility of establishing uniform blueprints and procedures for other yards constructing ships from the class.

[wyrmmy]

Japan settled on 426lbs @ 662 degrees F for most ships post Chidori class

[bklooste]

Shipyards and what they historically built and noteworthy slips. Here is teh data i put together based on launched dates.

I only show a second ship when there is more than 2 months overlap with an existing larger ship before either is launched. Im not a masocist so didnt do DDs and AKs (unless converted) . Note some shipyards were shutdown in the depression and reopened and i have not covered dry dock capacity which was heavily used in conversions. IMHO the data shows ship building capacity is a myth which should be obvious when you consider they put nearly 2M tons in the water in 44 under bomber attack compared to 400K in 41 , its a question of money and resources..

Sorry about the format. Note if you dont build Shinano and 11 you have 2 60K slips available from August 1940.


Yard Slip Main Builds ( C = cruiser)
Yokosuka* 1 4BB 2BC 5CV 11C 30DD 30Sub ++
2
Slip 1 CA (Kumano) sized , (build larger ships so must be bigger)
slip2 Agano


Kawasaki Kobe 1 1BB 1BC 4CV 9C 2AV 21DD 49Sub 6DE+
Slip 1 . Shokaku
Slip 2 AP Idzumo Maru (Hiyo) built

Mitsubishi Nagasaki 1 2BB 1BC 3CV 7CA 21DD 31DE +liners
2
Slip 1 Musashi
Slip 2 CA (Chikuma)


Kure 1 5BB 3BC 3CV 5C 16DD +Lots
2
Slip1 Yamato
Slip2 CA sized ( Mikuma)
Slip3 AK Hinho(Taiyo) ?



Harima & Co 1 4DD 10DE 2GB 5MSW 1CL ++
2?

Slip 1 Akitsu Maru (12K)
Slip2 Nigitsu Maru (12K)


Mitsubishi Yokohama 1 1CV 4 CL 1 DD
2
Slip1 Taiyo/Katori/CV Ryujo
Slip2 Katori

Sasebo Dockyard 1 11C ,27DD ,36 Sub
2
Slip 1 Agano
Slip 2 Agano

Maizuru 65 DD + Escort
Lots of DD

Mitsubishi Kobe 54 Subs ,10 DE , Aps
DE and Subs

Uraga Dock 2CL 39DD 11 DE++

Tokyo Ishikawa 11DD 5 DE 9MSW

Fujinagata Shipbuilding 38DD, 4DE 4MSW


Mitsui Tamano 6Sub 11DE 5 MSW

Hitashi Sakurajima 2GB 3DD 15DE

Hitachi Mokojima 11AK

Hitachi Innoshima 4 Sub chasers

Hitachi Hikoshima 5 MSW

Kawaninami Koyagi 4 sub chasers , 1 AP

Kawinami Urasaki 22 AK

NKK Tsurumi 1CV , 43DE , 11subchaser,3 ML

Naniwa Dock 1ML , 4DE

Osaka Shipbuilding 13AK

Seaof Japan Dock 6 DE

Niigata Iron Factory 4 DE , 7 chasers

Hakodate Dock 5 Sub chasers

Mitsubishi Shimoneski 1 AP

Kawasaki Tanagawa 5 Subs

Kawasaki Senshu 4DE

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

Table 10-1 pg 362 Kaigun

[wyrmmy]

I would venture the data is right, but the conclusion is not. Japan's shipyard production was as close to totally maxed out as to make no difference. To be anywhere near reality, I would think that you could do a 1 for 1 swap of ships not built for 'new' construction, limited by the freed slip size and launch date. Shipyard expansion would almost have to be at Uraga or the other smaller yards, and limited to destroyer size and below. The lack of room for slip expansion is gone over in some detail in Kaigun. As for aircraft, There is much more velvet for changes, the limiting factor being designers and factory space. (See Sunburst, the Kaigun companion volume on Naval Air) What isn't being talked about is what the IJA Doesn't get to equal the budgetary costs of what the IJN does. The amount of GDP spent on defence was bankrupting japan in reality, which leads me back to being able to change what they built, but not nescesarilly how much they built.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. My original supposition was to work out to the final models of the Zero for use in the Mod. Perhaps this is a bad idea and we display more forethought but going ina new direction. How about The Japanese build the M2, M3, and M3a and END Zero production while researching the Jack and a CV-BASED version of it for the duration? Would that be NUTS?

I don't believe this is plausible for a relatively realistic mod.

First of all, among all participants, only USA managed a successful switch to radically new designs of fighters during the war, owing to their industrial edge. Britain, Germany and USSR used the deep modifications of fighters they had at the beginning of the war as the mainstay of their air forces throughhout the war. Japan attempted to change generations, but largely failed, new planes were too few, too unreliable and too late to change anything, even IJAAF continued to use Ki-43s until the end.

Second, both Jack and George were unsuited for carried use in their mass-produced forms. George was, theoretically, modified for carrier use in the end, but it still probably was too heavy to be used from light or escort carriers. So, IJN couldn't ever entirely replace Zero.

Finally, maybe that's my lack of knowledge speaking, but I don't see why late versions of A6M5 were impossible to mass produce much earlier than they were produced in RL. As far as I know, they did not feature anything radically new and impossible to manufacture, they were just the results of fine-tuning earlier Zeros. If there is no Jack, more enineers and researchers will be available to work on them. And I think, that early introduction of Zeros with stronger armament, pilot protection, self-healing fuel tanks, ability to follow most of Allied planes into steep dives, somewhat better speed and so on, would have had a significant impact on RL defensive battles in Solomons, and possibly even later. In the game scenarios, where Japanese usually do not suffer Midway-like early crippling defeats, the impact can be even greater.

And in-game A6M5c is about on par with F6F-3. Its main flaw is being introduced more than a year later. Change its production date, to say, 43/8 (with appropriate changes for earlier models) and IJNAF suddenly starts looking much more formidable.

[wyrmmy]

ORIGINAL: FatR


Finally, maybe that's my lack of knowledge speaking, but I don't see why late versions of A6M5 were impossible to mass produce much earlier than they were produced in RL. As far as I know, they did not feature anything radically new and impossible to manufacture, they were just the results of fine-tuning earlier Zeros. If there is no Jack, more enineers and researchers will be available to work on them. And I think, that early introduction of Zeros with stronger armament, pilot protection, self-healing fuel tanks, ability to follow most of Allied planes into steep dives, somewhat better speed and so on, would have had a significant impact on RL defensive battles in Solomons, and possibly even later. In the game scenarios, where Japanese usually do not suffer Midway-like early crippling defeats, the impact can be even greater.

And in-game A6M5c is about on par with F6F-3. Its main flaw is being introduced more than a year later. Change its production date, to say, 43/8 (with appropriate changes for earlier models) and IJNAF suddenly starts looking much more formidable.

There would probably be no technical reasons (besides engine availability, which could be prohibitive in reality) not to design and build the A6M5 early, but I doubt you could have convinced the Yokosuka Airgroup to pass on a shorter range, less maneuverable version of the zero. The Japanese fighter pilots got the plane they wanted in the A6M2, and fought the changes introduced in the M3, let alone the M5. Now, having the Air staff decide at the M3 they needed an Allied style fighter, and discontinue A6 development may have got you the N1K2-J and J2M 6 months to a year earlier.

Edit: I don't want to sound pessimistic, I am fascinated by the concept and will definately play the finished product. Another note to John though, Yamamoto would probably have been assasinated prior to the war starting if he was Navy minister as opposed to CinC Combined Fleet. [8D]

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

Japan settled on 426lbs @ 662 degrees F for most ships post Chidori class

Is this on TBs , DD or all ships ? Those small TBs reached very high presures. For the cruisers though Japan used pretty high pressure units.


A comparison 1930s ships

Output Of Machinery Horsepower Per Ton of machinary
48.651Takao
61.34 Mogami
62.889 Tone
*63.323 Ibuki
*54.623 Agano
*57.871 Oyodo

UK
49.454 Southhampton
52.47 HMS Arethusa

US
53.435 New Orleans
53.429 Atlanta
53.208 Cleveland
*58.647 Baltimore

As can be seen the Japanese war built cruisers in terms of power to weight are about the same or even slighly superior to the US built ones , the war built ships did not seem to suffer excesively esp Ibuki and Oyoda. Im not saying their boilers are higher pressure as this can also be due to more light weight machinery.

I wish i had the details on the Japanese destroyers , anyone have the details on the weight of machinary for the Japanese Destroyers it is not in Jap Dest. Of WWII.

US destroyers ( like all destroyers) reached higher power to weight figures but also dropped durring the war , the Otori ( post Chitori) must be pretty high prob higher ( 19kshp on a 840 ton hull) though not as high as the Chidori and the Shimakaze must be significantly higher. I still think from the cruisers its reasonable that the Japanes could produce a destroyer plant with 10% more power to weight than they have been building for the last 18 years. You can also make the machinary 30% larger ( at the cost of bunkerage in those 2900 ton ships which are a lot larger than the 1750 ton Fubuki ) giving a 75shp figures . 8,300 nmi (15,400 km) at 18 kn is a LOT of bunkarage for a destroyer change it to 7,000 nm at 15 knots and you got the extra power. Speaking of which a non escort Akizuki doesnt need the range , besides the leader version mention what is a good use of reduced bunkarage. ( Fubuki 475 tons , Akizuki 1 097ton ... thast 37% of its standard weight in bunkerage...instead of 27% for the Fubuki)

Benson 70.921
Fletcher 75
Allen M Sumner 70

[bklooste]

 
I wouldnt base it on scenario 2 as there is no reasoning behind it and some of the change may be over the top esp where it is most important resources and pilots.
 
After reading wyrmm comments here are my recommendations for CL and DDs.

Build all 16 planned Otori , i love these they are half the size of a destroyer but that means 2 targets, they have real DP guns and they can have full ASW late in the war and can sink a sub add to your DD flotillas to bulk them out.  (3 Shiratsuyu do not get built)  , production goes till 41 when the Matsu is produced as a war upgrade ( ie Otori with cheap engines)  build it throughout the war.
 
Dont build ANY light Cruisers ( or CAs or BC)
 
Instead of the Light Cruisers build
6 more Yagumos ( be good if you get some better DP)
6 Akizuki Destroyer Leaders with 3*2*6.1" + 1 spot plane these are your CLs .
6 Super Akizuki with slightly higher pressure boilers (+10%) and enlarged engines at the cost of bunkerage good for 37-38 knots. ( half the range or 75% at 14 knots)
 
Introduce a smaller Akizuki 2500 tons with less bunkarage slightly larger engines and fast turns should be good for 35-36 knots . These should help escort 43 convoys. ( half the range or 75% at 14 knots) Build 14  of these, or if you get better DP arnament of the Yagumos  build 6  normal Akizuki and 8(= +14) more Yagumos.
 
You get flexability , CLs , CLAAs , Destroyers and  escorts.
 
In some ways a smaller navy but one which is better able to escort will be better as it means more HI for the airwar.
 
 

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

Table 10-1 pg 362 Kaigun

Yokosuka Navy Yard: Battleships, Fleet Carriers, Heavy Cruisers, Submarines

Kure Navy Yard: Battleships, Heavy Cruisers, Submarines

Sasebo Navy Yard: Light Cruisers, Destroyers, Submarines

Maizuru Navy Yard: Destroyers, Submarines

Mitsubishi(Nagasaki): Battleships, Cruisers

Mitsubishi(Kobe): Submarines

Mitsubishi(Yokohama): Special Ships

Kawasaki: Carriers, Cruisers, Submarines

Ishikawajima: Destroyers, Smaller craft

Uraga: Destroyers, Smaller craft

Fujinagata: Destroyers, Smaller craft

Mitsui: Submarines, Smaller craft

Italics show that more ships of this category were built at the particular shipyard than any other yard or that the first of a class of ships was built at that yard, which then had the responsibility of establishing uniform blueprints and procedures for other yards constructing ships from the class.

Good Morning. As my wife went to sleep last night I curled up with Kaigun and was prepared to put this EXACT Table onto the Thread! Wow. Nice work and contribution to what we're doing.

[John 3rd]

Got a bunch of ideas for throwing out onto the Thread and will do so in a little bit. Think I've reached a number of similar conclusions as you guys. We'll see if the debate and suggestions REALLY picks up after that. The work done on this page of the Thread has been great. Shipyards and Boiler Temps are really interesting to read and postulate about.

Wyrmm and FatR have pretty much reached the conclusion I did two days ago. We shall use the Zero Models but shift things around some.

Will get onto tossing stuff out in a little bit.

[John 3rd]

The 4th Circle Plan, based on the cancellation of the 3rd and 4th Yamato, will add the following additional construction to the que:
 
2 Improved Shokaku-Class CVs (Due in May and June 1943)
2 Modern Battlecruisers (Ikoma-Class w/ 12.1" Guns due in Dec 43)
2 Improved Scout Cruisers (Patterned off Tone and due in May/June 42)
2 Oyodo-Class CLAA (Summer 43)
6 Moon-Class DD
3 Shimakaze-Class DD
18 Yugumo-Class DD
 
Changes to existing Construction Time:
CVs:
Junyo  Feb 1942
Hiyo  May 1942
Taiho  October 1943
 
CVLs:
Shoho  Present on Dec 7th
Nisshin  Sept 1942
Ryuho  Oct 1942
 
To facilitate the possibility of these ships being deployed, Japanese Naval Yards shall be expanded by about 200 points.  Much of this expansion will happen in the smaller shipyards but Uraga (as suggested above) might serve to get the major boost of creating two new slipways for handling CV/CA-Sized ships.
 
OK.  Thoughts?  Feel free to pick this plan apart.
 
As to Naval Fighters I will address that later tonight.
 

[John 3rd]

These additions will be placed on a Scenario One template.
 
 

[wyrmmy]

Sounds plausible. I could imagine that it could be done on a realistically expanded shipyard base. As far as new slipways, if counted on as part of a Circle 4 expansion, they would be expensive in materials, and probably not ready til 39-40, thus delaying the construction in them further. The major problems will come w/ the aircraft, any major expansion there would directly affect IJAAF production, and if expanded would to a lesser extent negatively impact IJA tank production. (The engineers and machine tools would need to come from somewhere)

[JWE]

Well, this is your mod, and you may, of course, do as you wish. If you have any pretence as to historical plausibility, however, you might want to consider the following.

Japan was limited in her coastal architecture and labor pool distribution. She could not, and did not, magically add slipways big enough for additional capital ships. The cost (in Yen) for developing an additional capital ship building slip was approximately that of a CV. Japan was using about 50% of her entire national budget for the IJN building program, so for each new slip you get, you lose 1 CV to time lag. The same is true (class by cost) all the way down to Aganos.

The only Japanese Shipyards I would ping on, are those in Okayama Province. That’s where the majority of the development money went to, and that was the only place where the physical coastal architecture admitted to some additional slipways. These were (historically) limited to DE and smaller vessels.

Even today, Japan’s shipbuilding capacity is extremely limited by the same constraints. Mitsubishi’s vaunted tanker extrusion facility is built on a spoil island that was not possible to produce with 1930s-40s technology.

I understand it is fun to speculate about what Japan could have done, but the realistic answer is – not much more than what she did. Do you seriously think some wargamers can come up with a National imperitive better than a Nation that was actually at war and at risk?

Not to say “what ifs” aren’t good, they are. But please don’t attempt to give them an historical basis.

[John 3rd]

JWE--I've been waiting for you to jump in.  We discussed this back when the Thread was in WitP.  The cost of the slipways are something I remember and that is part of he reason I cancelled the 2nd and 3rd Taiho CV. 
 
That being said, there are several merchant shipyards in Korea and Manchuria (not to mention Shanghai).  Would it have been beyond the realm of possibility to develop Naval Shipyards over there?  Could be an entering idea...hmmmm...
 
Would that be heresy?
 

[mikemike]

Some remarks that force themselves on me after reading this thread:

1. According to Whitley, Shimakaze's boilers, which were of a new high-pressure type, operated at 400 C (752 F) and a pressure of 38,9 atm (about 550 psi, if my conversion is right), and this was rather more than usual, so I'd guess the usual type of boiler on all other ships was in the region of 24-28 atm (or kg per sq cm), say 340 - 400 psi. AFAIK, really high-pressure boilers were only used on Amatsukaze of the Kagero class and on Shimakaze, probably because of cost and production problems. Even so, this was just two thirds of the working pressure of standard USN plants and about half the pressure of German Navy plants (70-110 atm).

2. The 100/65 Type 98 was used on the Akizukis Taiho, Oyodo, and was planned for the battlecruisers. The 80/60 was used only on the Agano class and on the Ibuki CVL conversion. If you want a larger-caliber DP gun with enhanced performance, there was the 127/50 Type 1 (or 5) with a ballistic performance comparable to the US Mk 16 (as used on Midway) or Mk 42. Granted, the Type 1 shipboard twin mount never got beyond the drawing board, and there was only one land-based prototype of the Type 5, but this is a more plausible alternative than a 120/60, the IJN already had severe barrel life problems with the 76 mm (600 rounds) and 100 mm (350-400 rounds) guns, and a 120/60 would probably have had a life of just 250-300 rounds, quite impractical.

3. I've always liked the medium-sized CL's like the French La Galissonnière class, so I'm in sympathy with a CL derived from Oyodo, but with a third 155 mm turret aft. Concerning enhanced-AA cruisers, if you start with the Tone design (from what I've heard, the concentration of the 8-in turrets forward in this class was inspired by excessive misalignment of the fore and aft turret groups on earlier classes due to hull flexing) and throw out all the aircraft handling gear, you have all this beautiful free deck space aft which could be filled with another 6-8 twin 127 mm mounts. Seems a more plausible design than a CL packed with even more mounts than the Atlanta class. The RN armed two Dido class CL's with 4.5 in guns because the 5.25 in mounts were in short supply; those ships were nicknamed "toothless terrors", and one of them (Charybdis) was sunk by German torpedo boats armed with 105 mm guns, so this is surely not a type you'd want to involve in surface combat.

4. The ultimate IJN carrier fighter, the A7M Reppu ("Sam") was delayed because the Mitsubishi design staff was too occupied with improving the A6M and developing the J2M Raiden ("Jack"). If you want to enhance the IJN carrier fighters over OTL, dump the J2M, basing the J2 design instead on the Heinkel 100 which the IJN had already bought in 1939 lock, stock, and barrel (if all had gone according to plan, the He 100 could have been in series production in mid-1941), imagine that Jiro Horikoshi had got his way and put a more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine in the A6M5 (which in OTL happened only with the A6M8) and you have something like the A6M8 in late 1943 and the A7M in August/September 1944.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

What isn't being talked about is what the IJA Doesn't get to equal the budgetary costs of what the IJN does. The amount of GDP spent on defence was bankrupting japan in reality, which leads me back to being able to change what they built, but not nescesarilly how much they built.

Pretty much agree here esp in the critical 38-41 period when the Yamatos were rushed ( witness the reduction in tonnage durring some years in this period and a massive increase in budget ,yet both before and after production was higher) . IMHO you could build 7-8 Ibukis /Mogamis or 4-5 Soryu for each Yamato class ship in terms of resources they put in , not that you can get away with that politically. Its not a question of slips but more steel ( esp plate is a problem) , workers and budget. Notice the lack of plate in ships while Yamato was being build ( Just the 2 Tones and these came before the Yamatos demand for plate) so a BC , CA or more armoured deck CV durring the 39-41 period is not really possible. Late 41 you have more options.

In my mod i sort of do it this way the Japanese knew the US was eves dropping on them in the Washington Conference and they end up getting 70% instead of 60% this allows the 2 Kaga BBs ( which were already launched) to be built , add in 2 cheap BBs later from Fuso turrets from a rebuild and Japan has a fleet superior to a reinforced US pacific fleet of 39 , this delays the Yamatos which are not layed down till 41 while 20" research continues. (Note in my mod the US realize this and are more aggresive in there build up , guaranteeing Indo China , assisting China and increasing the army earlier anyway this is not the thread to discuss this i just wanted to point out the Yamato resource problem issue and how i got around it.