RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:06 pm
They might have retained another Colorado class. The Colorado's appear to be a better ship than the Tosa.
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: JWE
I would love to see some Morane-Saulnier 406s. Maybe a squadron or two could get some Dewoitine 520s sometime? The Bloch 170s and Amiot 350 series weren't bad 2E light bombers either.ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?
Didn't the French have a nice naval dive bomber? A Loire-Nieuport?

ORIGINAL: MateDow
I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.
My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.
This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).
This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.
It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ORIGINAL: MateDow
I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.
My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.
This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).
This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.
It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.
This is correct. The Japanese argue successfully at Washington for a ratio of 5:5:3.5 as they hoped for. Essentially figure a failed codebreaking situation OR Secretary Hughes showing flexibility (as he did IRL) to get the Treaty completed.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Skyland: How are things coming along?
ORIGINAL: oldman45
I think we have the same book in our library's. [8D]
ORIGINAL: DOCUP
Is anyone else getting itchy to play this besides me.
ORIGINAL: Skyland
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Skyland: How are things coming along?
I have sent a pm to FatR : navy things are done. I have yet to add the air stuff.
It may be ok for this week end.
Count me in!Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.
ORIGINAL: khyberbill
Count me in!Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.
ORIGINAL: xwraith
I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:Some potential (a)historical justifications:
- Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
- Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
- Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
- Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
- Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific
Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

