A Modest Proposal

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi Prior to the US civil war there was an USS United States. Presently there is a USS America.

In 1955 or so, there was a proposed Super Carrier named United States

[SoulBlazer]

I did'nt know that about the Constiution. I just could'nt think of a ship since then that was named that.

Yes, the proposed super carrier was called USS United States. I have to agree it would be a bad idea to name a ship that, though.

I believe the last carrier launched was the Nimitiz class USS Ronald Regan I think the oldest carrier in active service in the US Navy currently is the Enterprise.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by XPav

Midway.... the Midways wouldn't have been able to launch their massive (144 planes) airgroup as fast as smaller fleet carriers. Sure, post-war, they were the only ships large enough to launch the bigger aircraft, but a massive 1944-era air group would have been unwieldy.

IIRC the Air Group plan for the Midway CVB's was for 3 VF/VMF groups (about 75 aircaft) 2 for CAP, one for escort, and 3 strike groups (SB2C's and TBF's) totalling about 60 aircraft. That would have given them roughly the same strike capabililty as an Essex in 1943.

Anyway, this is a WitP discussion... not UV.

[XPav]

Why the Midways weren't as useful as their spec suggest.

[CynicAl]

One thing at a time, and I'll try to keep them all in order.

Tanjman:
First, one question: What's a "zenkaku?" I don't have a problem with "Ryukaku," which (I think) translates to "Dragon and Crane Together." Might I suggest "Hikaku" ("Flying Crane" - I think) for a fourth Shokaku?

Consider that the Unryu class were very similar to the Hiryu, which is in the game... As for the WitP editor, I don't think there's any chance that they will not include Unryu and Taiho. And Shinano. And several others that aren't present in UV, for the good and simple reason that they weren't available in the timeframe covered by UV.

In light of XPav's post, yeah, I can see a need for at least one intermediate step between the Lexington and Essex classes. The problem is, we're going to need to either greatly expand the treaty limits on total carrier tonnage, or start the experimentation process pretty late - or free up Treaty tonnage by not building Connie and Connie (obviously the most realistic thing to do, but also the least interesting). Let me think this one over for a while.

Admiral Dadman:
I don't think renaming existing airgroups is going to be that big a problem. Remember that the CVs that CI-III and DI-III were historically attached to aren't going to be present in this scenario. Alternatively, you could just make brand new airgroups with brand new ID codes.

Yamamoto:
I thought I was clear enough before: if it were possible, I'd swap out all the smaller IJN carriers from Junyo down. Ryuho for sure, since I want to use her name for a second Taiho, the rest because... well, you know.

I was mostly being facetious about the advanced aircraft. I was serious about not giving either side 1945 (or later, for the Kikka) aircraft types and leaving the other side with 1942 types.

XPav:
Good point about the need for, at the very least, one intermediate stage for experimentation between the Lexington and Essex classes.

I had a couple of thoughts about the CVBs. One possibility might be splitting the air groups into day (~2/3rds) and night (~1/3rd) divisions, which would keep strikes down to a manageable size. The other would be to simply have all the extra 30 or so aircraft (relative to the Essex class) be fighters - they wouldn't launch more powerful strikes, but it'd be harder to get through their CAP. It would amount to operating an extra fighter squadron aboard, but it might be considered cheating as it uses hindsight to anticipate the events of 1945 and jump ahead of the historic trend toward ever-larger fighter complements.

Admiral Dadman, again:
I agree with you on the pilot and aircraft replacement rates - they are definitely going to be a limiting factor, as they should be. However, removing six smaller IJN flattops (Junyo, Hiyo, Ryujo, Zuiho, Shoho, and Ryuho) should go part of the way toward compensating for the addition of four new fleet carriers.

SoulBlazer, Mogami, et al:
USN ship naming conventions are a hoot, aren't they? Best of all, they keep changing 'em! But not always for the worse: there are rumors that the next generation of carriers (CVN-78 and on) are going to revert to "classic" ship names - Lexington and Saratoga are supposed to be high on the list.

[XPav]

What would make sense is just making lots of Yorktown-class carriers and forgetting about the Essex class.

For Yorktown gets commisioned in 1942, it'd have to be laid down in late 39 probably. It would make sense then, that all the wartime fleet carriers would be produced to its design, with small variations.

So ditch the Essex-class completely. I'd try and get Ranger or Wasp in their in its historical design, just so you would have proper justification to say that larger carriers were superior.

Now, Midway... splitting the airgroup isn't a bad idea, but you know users would just end up using the night fighters in the daytime anyway, and you're going to have to come up with some sort of penalty.

[tanjman]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Anyway, this is a WitP discussion... not UV.

Admiral DadMan,

Actually I've been talking about how to modify scenario 17 in UV using the editor.

One of the things I've decided to do is increase the base forces for both sides as follows:

Currently in scenario 17:
4th Base Force (IJA) (Truk): 30 x engineers, 150 x aviation support & 90 support.

Modified scenario 17:
4th Army Base Force (IJA) (Truk): 27 x engineer, 162 x aviation support & 60 support.
4th Naval Base Force (IJN) (Truk): 18 x engineer, 108 x aviation support & 40 support.
For a total of: 45 x engineer, 270 x aviation support & 100 support.

The 8th Base Force at Rabaul would be the same. With maybe two more sets like this to support a total of four large bases.

The other small Japanese base forces would be:
Army Base Force:9 x engineer, 54 x aviation support & 24 support.
Naval Base Force:6 x engineer, 36 x aviation support & 16 support.
For a total of: 15 x engineer, 90 x aviation support & 40 support.

The Allied base force mods would be simular.

I'm also thinking of increasing the IJAAF by adding units and moving up the arrival dates were possible.

I'm also thinking of increasing the amount of CVs on both sides.

I was just looking for input and suggestions when I began posting on this thread. Of which I've gotten some good ones.

[Admiral DadMan]

tanjman,

I just re-read that line, and it seems it came out backwards. I was refering to the Midway debate and that it didn't fit the time line of our little microcosim of UV.

The US would never have been able to get them ready in the UV timeframe and so not a discussion we should have devolved to here:). I didn't want our little hijacked thread to get hijacked again:D.

Anyway, back to our (yours, mine, and those in the UV timeframe), I like what we've come up with here, and I'm going to take a lot of the ideas we've thrown out here. Keep on truckin'

___________
CynicAl:

I actually did just was you were suggesting, but I took care to make sure I didn't duplicate what was already in the database. Either I changed what I was creating, or I changed what existed.

___________
SoulBlazer:

I actually had to look up who the H3LL John C. Stennis was for the CVAN he got his name on.

___________
XPav:

I figure that the Essex Class was far enough away that even in 1939, the US would still have laid down at least 2 of the Yorktowns and then moved to Essex

[SoulBlazer]

Yes, well, I only knew that because of my degrees. I agree I don't much care for naming CV's after people these days....save that for other ships.

The CombinedFleet website, in the Underdogs article, makes very good educated guess on what US and Japanese carriers would have joined the fleet from 8/45 to 12/46. Just in case anyone is interested.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
XPav:

I figure that the Essex Class was far enough away that even in 1939, the US would still have laid down at least 2 of the Yorktowns and then moved to Essex

Why? Hornet was laid down to the Yorktown design because it was done and they wanted the carrier, not because it was the best solution. You can't design the Essex-class unless you have experience with the Yorktown class, and when the brown fecal matter hits the rotating blade, you've got to go with what you go.

In your scenario, the carrier design that you've got as the "latest and greatest" is the Yorktown, so its reasonable to believe that all wartime construction CV design would be to that design.

It takes a long time to design something as big as a carrier, and its unreasonable that you'd have two seperate design groups working on two seperate designs for fleet carriers of similar displacement.

Modifications? Yes -- see long hull vs short hull Essex class. Figure out an "improved" Yorktown class carrying more AA. That's what would make sense.

[Admiral DadMan]

XPav:

The premise that I'm working on is that Yorktown Class was being developed during the early thirties, but the committment to finish the Lexington Class hulls pushed Yorktown out to the late thirties.

I reason that as Yorktown is an early thirties design and only 2 were orders, the natural progression would then be to Essex. As Hornet was a modified Yorktown, and Essex was ready to be laid down, I simply assigned the name to the next class. It works in my mind

I'm merely putting my own theoretical spin on things in my own little world...

[XPav]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
The premise that I'm working on is that Yorktown Class was being developed during the early thirties, but the committment to finish the Lexington Class hulls pushed Yorktown out to the late thirties.

Wouldn't it make more sense to finish the later Lexingtons to modified designs? See the RN -- all of its post-war carriers (save Victorious) were ships that were suspended at the conclusion of WW2 and restarted 5-10 years later in various differing configurations. The situation is 100% analagous to what you're talking about.

I reason that as Yorktown is an early thirties design and only 2 were orders, the natural progression would then be to Essex. As Hornet was a modified Yorktown, and Essex was ready to be laid down, I simply assigned the name to the next class. It works in my mind

I'm merely putting my own theoretical spin on things in my own little world...

But my point is that there isn't any "natural progression" from one design to the other. You get from Lexington to Yorktown to Essex with large chunks of time in between them to digest the operational experience of the previous class. Skipping steps is not permitted! Go to the end of the lunch line!

[Admiral DadMan]

No soup for me! Next!

It may be pretzel logic, but it works for me.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
No soup for me! Next!

It may be pretzel logic, but it works for me.

Well, pretzel logic is understandable, considering the dark glasses that happy face is wearing...

[CynicAl]

I still have some problems with the idea of finishing up the fifth and sixth Lexington class in the mid-30s. First, as previously mentioned, the WNLT specifically required that ships not allowed under the treaty be scrapped. That included ships under construction at the time. I just don't see the US being allowed to keep the keels around, slowly working on them until time for the "construction holiday" to expire - that's directly counter to the spirit of the treaty. (Yes, other nations cheated, some quite blatantly. But none of them had a pennypinching US Congress breathing down their necks to encourage treaty compliance and - more importantly - thrift.) Second, I'm not certain the USN would want the ships after they sat, incomplete, in drydock for 15+ years - time and the elements can be very unkind to exposed metal. (Think Charles de Gaulle.) No, I think any Lexingtons not converted by 1930 never will be. But that could be okay.

Try this:
The four Lexington class CVs enter service in the late 1920's (2 in 1927, 1 in 1928, 1 in 1929). So by 1930, with these four to play with, the Navy no longer has a great deal of interest in old, slow Langley. In an effort to make something useful out of her, they send her back to the yards for a more complete conversion. Strip her down to the waterline, lengthen and blister the hull, install a new machinery plant... rebuild her as a "real" CV (CVL?). (See some of the Italian BB rebuilds during this period - literally anything is possible. Bonus 1: it might well be easier to sell Congress on the idea of refitting Langley than on building an entirely new ship. Bonus 2: as an "experimental carrier," Langley didn't count toward US treaty compliance.) What emerges from the yards in about 1933-34 is somewhere between the RL Ranger and Independence in size and capability. She'll spend the war doing what Ranger did.

In late 1933, the US lays down its first carriers designed as such from the keel up: CV-6 Ranger and CV-7 Enterprise, the RL Yorktown class. (Note: IRL, CV-5 was laid down the month before CV-4 commissioned, CV-6 the month after. There wasn't a lot of time for "lessons learned" to be incorporated into the design phase, and not much more time during construction.) The two Ranger class CVs commission in 1936 and 37 respectively; by then, their successors are already being planned.

Three years of exercises with the Lexingtons and the refitted Langley led BuShips to the conclusion that when it came to carriers, bigger was better. So they decided to expand on the most modern design available to them - the brand-new Rangers. Work commenced immediately on a design for a super-Ranger displacing 30,000 tons, and the first of the new Yorktown (RL Essex) class was laid down at the start of 1940 and was destined to be completed in mid-1942.

But Newport News needed something to do in the years between 1937 and 1940, and warclouds loomed on the horizon east and west. So the Navy ordered two more Rangers, to a slightly modified design, to fill the gap after CV-7. These two ships became CV-8 Wasp and CV-9 Hornet, and entered service in early 1940 and mid 1941 respectively. (Deliberately skipping the RL Wasp - it was basically a stripped-out [iYorktown[/i], trying to get its weight down enough to squeeze one more flight deck in under the Treaty tonnage cap. That extra weight was badly needed, though; Wasp was significantly less effective than her cousins. Here, the US decides that going 5k tons over the total CV tonage limit is barely acceptable. Hornet is laid down when the outbreak of war in Europe invalidates the treaties.)

So on December 7, 1941, the USN has:
1 Langley class:
CV-1 Langley
Greatly improved by her extensive rebuilding, but still small, slow, and vulnerable.

4 Lexington class:
CV-2 Lexington
CV-3 Constellation
CV-4 Saratoga
CV-5 Constitution
Big, fast, and tough, but inefficient and in need of overhauls.

4 Ranger class:
CV-6 Ranger
CV-7 Enterprise
CV-8 Wasp
CV-9 Hornet
Fast, efficient, flexible, and in very good condition, but still vulnerable (especially to underwater damage). These ships will most likely be the core of the carrier fleet until the Yorktown and her sisters arrive.

The Yorktown will commission on July 4, 1942, the first of a new breed. Eight will arrive in the time period covered by UV:
CV-10 Yorktown (7/42)
CV-11 Essex (11/42)
CV-12 Bon Homme Richard (4/43)
CV-13 Intrepid (4/43)
CV-14 Kearsarge (6/43)
CV-17 Randolph (9/42)
CV-18 Bunker Hill (12/42)
CV-19 Oriskany (4/43).
Bear in mind that these dates refer to comissioning: the ships would still have to shake down, work up, and transit to the theater; that's likely to put the actual availability dates back by months.

BTW, I can't believe nobody's picking apart my alt-IJN building plan. What gives?

[tanjman]

CynicAl,

I like your ideas on the alt-USN CV classes. I take it you also mean to keep the real life Independences as is?

As far as your alt-IJN building plan goes, I'm sorry I can't make you happy by nitpicking it because I like that one too.

Anyone have any ideas on which sentai I could add for the IJAAF?

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by CynicAl
Consider that the Unryu class were very similar to the Hiryu, which is in the game.

The only thing is that Unryu had a capcity of almost 10 less that Hiryu. Does anyone know why that was?

In light of XPav's post, yeah, I can see a need for at least one intermediate step between the Lexington and Essex classes. The problem is, we're going to need to either greatly expand the treaty limits on total carrier tonnage, or start the experimentation process pretty late - or free up Treaty tonnage by not building Connie and Connie (obviously the most realistic thing to do, but also the least interesting). Let me think this one over for a while.

Ok, if you want to not sway so far into Fantasyland, here would be my thesis-

The WNLT limit on CV's is 135,000 tons, so we get 3 Lexington class converted:

• Lexington @ 33,000 in 1927
• Saratoga @ 33,000 in 1927
• Constellation @ 33,000 in 1928

which totals up to 99,000 leaving about 36,000

The small CV crowd gets Ranger @ 14,500 in laid down in 1930 and commissioned in 1934, leaving about 21,000 tons.

The way that I read history, the next class was being designed as the current one was being built. So you get Yorktown @19,900 laid down a month before Ranger (the waif) is commissioned in 1934 (which really happened IRL). Yorktown uses up the final tonnage allotment of the Treaty, and is commissioned in 1937.

When the Treaty expires in 1936, 2 more Yorktowns (Enterprise and Hornet) are laid down, comissioning in 1940 and joining the fleet later that year. (Historically, Wasp was built under the treaty tonnage remaining IRL, so because Yorktown is the "Treaty carrier" there's no reason to build Wasp).

That brings us to the next class on the drawing boards, which is Essex, which I think is fair to leave the arrival dates as they were. In the naming convention, the second in the class gets the name Wasp.

The waif Ranger doesn't figure in the Pacific becuase as in IRL she just doesn't measure up for Pacific duty, So here is the line-up:

• 3 Lexington class:
  Lexington CV-2 Comm. 1927
  Saratoga CV-3 Comm. 1927
  Constellation CV-4 Comm. 1928
  
  1 Ranger class:
  Ranger CV-5 Comm. 1934. (She serves in Atlantic only)
  
  3 Yorktown class:
  Yorktown CV-6, Comm. 1937
  Enterprise CV-7, Comm. 1941
  Hornet CV-8, Comm. 1941
  
  5+ Essex class:
  Essex CV-9 Comm. Jan 1943
  Wasp CV-10 Comm. Apr 1943
  Intrepid CV-11 Comm. Nov 1943
  Kearsage CV-16 Comm. Feb 1943
  Bunker Hill CV-17 Comm. May 1943

Essentialy, all that happens is that you build the third Lexington (Constellation) instead of little Wasp

Japan converts Tosa (Kaga class) to balance the third Lexington. Soryu is comm in 1937 and Hiryu is built 2 years later so none of this affects any of Japan's building.

Like? no Like?

[XPav]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Essentialy, all that happens is that you build the third Lexington (Constellation) instead of little Wasp
[/B]

Historically feasible, but now when you put it back to UV, you get... err... not a lot of changes.

Why don't you add a couple of the never built US XCV -- Hiyo/Junyo fast liner conversions?

[RevRick]

Are you referring to liner conversions as in the proposal for the conversion of the Normandie ( I believe)? An 80,000 ton CV in WWII.

The Hornet was completed to the Yorktown design because the Essex design hadn't been far enough advanced to begin pulling material together prior to laying the keel at the time it was felt another CV was going to be needed - and that time line was cut real fine as it was. Otherwise Hornet would have been the lead ship of the follow up class to the Yorktown.

I don't think that additional Lexington would have been built because the discussions about CV design was rather rancorous as it was between the big ship and little ship - and throw in Pratt's desire for a combination Cruiser/CV design into the mix, we were real lucky to get Ranger as a "prototype" Yorktown anyway. I would add a fourth Yorktown vice the Wasp, and add Wasp in place of the fourth Essex - the second was to have been Bon Homme Richard which would have commissioned between Essex and Bunker Hill. Wasp then would have come onboard somtime between Bunker Hill and Intrepid. .

[XPav]

Originally posted by RevRick
Are you referring to liner conversions as in the proposal for the conversion of the Normandie ( I believe)? An 80,000 ton CV in WWII.

Nope. I'm talking about the ~1930 plans to convert various liner (Californias, Mariposas, Manhattans, into ~20kt, ~30,000t carriers carring around 50 aircraft a piece.

By 1940, the plans were impractical, but some reason could be provided to have them put together in the mid 30's, you could have a couple sucky carriers to line up against Hiyo and Junyo.