US CV "rebirth" rule

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

hithere
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: Well......

Post by hithere »

but i don't think that is what they are saying....they ack that the us gets its 4 essex carriers no matter what. what they have a prob with is that if the US losses pre-war carriers, they get additional carriers on top of the normal carriers. i see their point to a extent because i think it allows the US to play too aggressively (sp). i bet alot of the move that are made would not be if a US player knew that no real replacement was coming.

ON the other hand, personally, i do believe that the US could have laid down more carriers in 42. some people do not. that is fine. I do know that the US was pouring money into the shipyards and expanding them. I think that if needed, all it takes to turn a shipyard that makes DD to a shipyard that makes CV is lots and lots of money. I found a good site earlier on shipyards during WW2.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/u ... lsbldg.htm

I'm a linkin fool today!!

either way, i don't think it is going to change
Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3426
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Well......

Post by Admiral DadMan »

Look, to deliver a CV in '43, it would have had to have been laid down in early '41. The US was not on a war footing quite yet, and did not have the shipyard capacity at that time, even into mid-42. In Early 42, there were a Battleship (Kentucky of Iowa Class) and Battlecruiser (Guam of Alasaka Class, I believe), that were suspended for higher priority projects due to a limited steel supply.

CV-12 Hornet (ex-Kearsarge) was, "laid down early 1942, but work was soon stopped and keel lifted out of the dock to clear the dock for LST construction. Work resumed 3 Aug 1942."

The issue was as much shipyards as it was materiel and manpower as well.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
TIMJOT
Posts: 1705
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Well......

Post by TIMJOT »

ORIGINAL: RevRick


With all due respect, DANFS does not agree with your statement. Both Lex and Yorktown were in action in 1943.


Yes RevRick BUT Intrepid and Franklin were NOT in action in 1943. In the game they are pushed months ahead of schedule, arriveing on the same dates as LexII and YorkII did historically.

Just for the sake of those who seem to be a bit confused. Regardless if you lose US Pre war CVs or not. You will always still get at "LEAST" the historic number of Essex in 43 (FOUR) Essex, Intrepid, Bunkerhill, Franklin. PLUS any respawns. Same is true in 1944. You will always get a least the historic number of Essex (SEVEN) Hancock, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Randolph, BonHome Richard, Antietem, Shangrila. PLUS any respawns. The only hulls you lose as a result on non loss of pre-war CVs are the 6 late war Essex (Leyete, Kearsarge, Oriskany, Reprisal, Valley Forge, Tarawa) that historically were not completed in time to particapate in the war anyway.

JUST TO CLARIFY

Historic 1943 ***** Game 1943
___________________________

Essex---------------- Essex
LexintonII----------- Intrepid
YorktownII---------- Franklin
Bunkerhill------------Bunkerhill


Historic 1944 ***** Game 1944
__________________________

Intrepid----------------- Hancock
HornetII---------------- Randolph
Ticonderoga----------- Ticonderoga
Bennington------------ Bennington
WaspII----------------- Bon Hom Richard
Franklin---------------- Antietem
Hancock--------------- Shangri-La
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”