A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

[oldman45]

Actually, instead of naming the first one Charlotte, perhaps calling the pair Viper and Vixen might be better.

[DuckofTindalos]

Those are destroyer or torpedo boat names.

[pws1225]

I once knew a Vixen who had a bit of Viper in her too.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

I once knew a Vixen who had a bit of Viper in her too.

TMI [:D]

[John 3rd]

For Light Cruisers the USA will add a second pair of St Louis Class CLs. They will be named the LaSalle and Elizabethton and are completed in 1940. [:D]

Sorry Oldman but the more I think about it the more I do not like Vixen and Viper. Have tried to avoid those types all my life. Married one and and that vixen sure became a viper! Sure prefer the Mark TWO version of the wife class.

Having said that we're still looking for a CVL name. Is there an 1812 or Revolutionary War Battle NOT taken? We could also look at early American warship names from the same time period for an option.

Michael and I gabbed for quite a while and decided that in the pure vanilla version of the Mod, the two BCs will start with Enteprise's TF. The two CAs that are freed up, as well as the LaSalle and Elizabethton, will then move to San Diego to be with Saratoga so her TF is a solid Battle Group from Day ONE.

[John 3rd]

The CLVs will have an air complement of:

USA 24 Planes: 12 F and 12 SBD
Japan 21 Planes 12 F and 9 TB
GB 18 Planes 12 F and 6 Swordfish

These CLVs are a failed design so I want to make them fairly so-so for use. The Japanese and British will have exactly ONE load of TTs on them. Sorties shall be OK but not incredible.

[John 3rd]

I need the following ship art work:

Japan
Amagi-Class
Original Mogami-Class (5x3 Turrets)
G6 CVL

USA
Lexington-Class BC

GB
CVL baed off Hawkin's conversion

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Japan's OOB would gain:

Add another Hosho Type 'experimental carrier.' (CVE)

BB/BC CVs:
Akagi
Should we keep the earthquake and go with Kaga OR run with the next Amagi in line: Atago?

Amagi-Class BC:
BC Ashitaka

Add a CVL closer to the CVLs of the war carrying 33-36 aircraft. Perhaps a scaled back Ryujo?

Add two CAs

Add two-four CLs (Japanese being probably smaller then the big American CLs)

Add two G.6 Aircraft Cruisers

Any commentary here?

[ny59giants]

Pick one from the list.

http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles.aspx

I like White Plains or maybe West Point. Another would be Brandywine.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Pick one from the list.

http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles.aspx

I like White Plains or maybe West Point. Another would be Brandywine.

I really like Brandywine. Think it has a cool sound. Like White Plains too... Will continue to take nominations...


No other naming comment with the CLs Sir????

[ny59giants]

I will offer to change my 'name' here to honor our dear friend in northern Georgia to CL Chattanooga. The WW1 version (CL 18) was sold in 1930.

OR

Going back to my birthplace...Burlington, VT.


Avoid the earthquake and go with next in line. I like the fact that CV Kaga was a BC in her earlier life, but like the idea of a second Akagi CV to have the greater speed. Always hate having Kaga speed below 30.

[Lecivius]

I like Brandywine, I always use that name to rename any "II" carrier I get. 

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I will offer to change my 'name' here to honor our dear friend in northern Georgia to CL Chattanooga. The WW1 version (CL 18) was sold in 1930.

OR

Going back to my birthplace...Burlington, VT.


Avoid the earthquake and go with next in line. I like the fact that CV Kaga was a BC in her earlier life, but like the idea of a second Akagi CV to have the greater speed. Always hate having Kaga speed below 30.

Wouldn't that be the USS Rome then??? CR lives in Rome, GA--RIGHT?

The USS Burlington doesn't sound bad. Maybe, since there is a USS La Salle (notice the space between but not with my town) already in the game, we could go with the Burlington and Rome. Hmmm...

I'd like her as a BC as well. Would love 9 planes without it being Kaga but the speed compatibility would be much nicer... That would be COOL BS Ishitaka escorting CVs Akagi and Amagi! Same can be said for The Lexington's all grouped together. NICE!

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I like Brandywine, I always use that name to rename any "II" carrier I get. 

Does SOUND really nice doesn't it? Didn't the US name an Aegis Cruiser the Brandywine? Sounds right.

[Peever]

Would having these experimental CVL's had any impact on the construction or design of the CVE's during the war?

[oldman45]

If they had any impact it would be to add catapults from the start. [;)]

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I like Brandywine, I always use that name to rename any "II" carrier I get. 

Does SOUND really nice doesn't it? Didn't the US name an Aegis Cruiser the Brandywine? Sounds right.

Brandywine is ok. Was a defeat though, bith tactical and strategic, but Sullivan and Greene were both superb.

I like victories, either tactical or strategic (preferrably both). So King's Mountain and Guilford.

King's Mountain was a double trump by backwoods militia against Ferguson. The turn of the tide in Britain's Southern Campaign. October 7, 1780; which led to another double trump at Cowpens, January 17, 1781, which finally led to Guilford CH, March 15, 1781.

Greene (oh, my, Greene again) was worsted tactically, but gained a strategic victory, that allowed him to maneuver into and recover the Southern Region for the Continental Congress.

So King's Mountain and Guilford.

[Symon]

I don't like Viper and Vixen. IMHO, the rule is a good one. "Distinguished" Naval vessels. Viper and Vixen didn't do jack. Just think about Intrepid; a Mediterranean barca longa purchased from Sicily, that distinguished itself.

The rule is as to Naval vessels of the US, so Continental Vessels aren't technically part of the program: too bad, although we did do a Bonhomme Rishard. If you want to go back there, there's tons of great ships that are worth listing: Neufchatel, Acasta, Rover, whatever.

Oh well, what the hey. Just my humble opinion. sure that many other opinions will swamp mine. So be it. Ciao. J

[btd64]

John Adams, Good patriotic name.
Cheers

[wdolson]

You could go back to the French-Indian War for names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:B ... Indian_War

Naming carriers after early presidents is another possibility, but I never liked the practice of naming carriers after people.

DDs and DEs were named after people. Mostly distinguished naval heroes. CLs and CAs were named after cities, CBs after US territories, and BBs after states. What about counties? There are a number of US counties which do not share a city name. These are hybrid cruisers you are talking about.

The whole practice naming carriers after battles and great ships of the past happened by accident because two BCs got converted to the first big deck carriers in the USN and they were named after past ships that happened to be named after two Revolutionary battles.

Just an idea I had for a variation: what if the Japanese cheated more boldly during the treaty and this came to light about the time the treaty expired? In the real war they managed to keep the Yamato program pretty much under wraps until very late in the program and those were pretty hard to hide. What if they were able to build a few more heavy cruisers and destroyers during the treaty period and hide them in the shuffle? This could have been done if they had extra ships of the same class and never put them all together in the same place.

When this comes to light, the US panics and the naval appropriations bill for 1938 is more the size of the 1940 Two Ocean Act? Most of those ships wouldn't be completed by the start of the war, but it would accelerate construction so more arrives earlier. The Japanese get an advantage in the early going with more warships, but the US catches up quicker too.

Japan's industry was pretty much maxed out by the late 30s, so they couldn't have built more than they did then, but they could have built more warships in the late 20s and early 30s if they could have, though it would have put a strain on the economy.

Japan would have been a lot better off if they had canceled the Yamatos before starting and used the industrial capacity to build Shokakus instead. During the treaty they couldn't build a carrier that big, and once the war starts the Unryus are built as the cheapest, quickest route to large carriers. During that window between the end of the treaty and the beginning of the war was the only time they could have built more Shokakus. The Allies would have been hard pressed if the IJN had two or more Shokakus. Those proved to be very tough carriers to sink.

The Shokakus would not have used anywhere near the steel as the Yamatos, but Japanese industry and the pilot training system would have been stretched hard to supply two more air groups when they were ready. It was widely thought the two Shokaku air groups were barely ready for prime time when the war started. Two more would have been even more poorly trained.

I suppose Japan could have used the extra steel to produce more surface ships. Japanese doctrine used CLs for many uses and there were never enough to go around. The advocates for smaller surface vessels were campaigning to get more CLs built, but they went on the back burner because the Yamatos were sucking up all the resources, then the war demanded more of everything else. With no Yamato program they could build two Shokakus and a handful of CLs. The war built CLs were delayed due to other priorities. If they hadn't been delayed they may have become available sometime in late 41 or 1942.

If you don't like this idea, that's fine. Just spitballing what ifs. I enjoy playing around with possible alternate histories.

Bill