The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

[John 3rd]

The thinking wasn't about the Tosa's but pertained to the Japanese gaining 3.5 in their tonnage. This allows for the completion of the two ships and when the earthquake occurs Atago is substituted for the wrecked Amagi.

MateDow: If the Americans fought to retain Washington (like how the Japanese begged to keep Mutsu IRL) what would they concede to the Japanese? I am not adverse to adding a 4th 16" BB but need to stay within the Treaty parameters...

[Nikademus]

The only practical concession would have been to allow them to complete the Tosa.

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The thinking wasn't about the Tosa's but pertained to the Japanese gaining 3.5 in their tonnage. This allows for the completion of the two ships and when the earthquake occurs Atago is substituted for the wrecked Amagi.

MateDow: If the Americans fought to retain Washington (like how the Japanese begged to keep Mutsu IRL) what would they concede to the Japanese? I am not adverse to adding a 4th 16" BB but need to stay within the Treaty parameters...

In the original treaty, the Japanese were allowed to retain approximately 300,000 tons of battleships. If we allow them to keep Kaga and Tosa that will bring their total to approximately 382,000 tons.

The US was originally allowed approximately 525,000 tons (With the completion of Colorado and [/i]West Virginia[/i] and scrapping of North Dakota and Delaware).

Based on that number the Japanese would be allowed approximately 368,000 tons, meaning they are about half a battleship over.

If we add the Washington to the US side, this gives the US 558,450 tons of battleships. For the Japanese to keep their 70% strength (3.5 to 5 ratio) they would be awarded 390915 tons, so the 382,000 tons is within the treaty limits.

This keeps everything within the revised treaty parameters.


BTW - This could mean that the British get an additional Nelson-class battleship (Camperdown or Collingwood?) as the most likely alternative or keep a pair of King George V-class battleships (the WW1 version).

[John 3rd]

This might work. Sorry you had to do the math MateDow but I've been busy working with hot stuff and jars. This might work. Let me check a couple of other things and we could be OK.

If this was to take place then we would have Colorado, Maryland, Washington, and West Virginia on the West Coast finishing their upgrade while the remaining BBs are at PH. This would put Oklahoma, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, Mississippi, California, and Tennessee in Port on the 7th.

How does that sound?

[DOCUP]

Sounds good to me John.  Now would this refit encompass the Jan refit for the Colorado class ships also?

[John 3rd]

All four of these are the Colorado-Class.

This refit will go fairly far beyond the Jan 42 upgrade. Anything not included within the refit that is in the upgrade shall be added.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: MateDow

ORIGINAL: RevRick

What I postulate in the AltHist I have worked up is that in the early 30's, some of the old beasties are retired because of age, and a few ships are allowed to maintain the balance of both ships and tonnage, and to keep things more or less equal. Since I had to increase max ship size to accommodate the Tosa's, it becomes 40K tons. That would also seem to mandate an increase in total capital ship tonnage, but that is not in this particular AltHist Universe in this thread.

That is where I came up with the modification to the South Dakota 1919 class. The IJN was unaffected except they did not get to continue the 8-8 program, which they probably could not have finished anyway. I ignore the earthquake (different shipyard, or some such) and have the Tosa and Kaga finished as Tosa class BB's, and the Akagi and Amagi finished as sisters, which does not slow down the KB with Kaga's deficiency in speed and range, and give the IJN two fast(er) 10-16" gun ships. you would probably have to have one less ship in the fleet (14 vice 15) but... with the last two ships to be let go being the New York class,in this case... that would not be a bad trade off. Less gunfire support for more capable ships for doing other things... like escorting CV's or hunting Bismarcks.. Springsharp says they'd be wet boats, but they would be sturdy, and 9 kt faster than the existing battleline.

I don't know if the US would have wanted a faster ship in 1922. There were already plans to convert the battlecruisers into carriers in place before the WNT made it a necessity. My reading of the timeperiod is that the US would have gone with the slower, more heavily armed and armored battleship. Maybe made some sacrifices in speed to get the South Dakota's down to a 40,000 tonnage, or they might have used the 3,000 tons for improvements exemption that they used while converting the Lexington and Saratoga.

Heck, if they want a 30 kt fast ship, just complete the Lexington and Saratoga while converting the two later ships to carriers. That would be a much more simple plan than trying to adapt the South Dakota design for higher speed.

Actually, in this time frame, the ships would have been started in 1930-32, vice 1922. That would have given them a lot of time with the Lex and Sara operating at a higher fleet speed, and the CC's would not have been built in accordance with the original WNT. Four Colorado's would be nice, but in the 30's even BuShips was getting somewhat concerned that every other battlewagon afloat (almost) could show their heels to the USN Battle Line. By 1935 this was becoming obvious with the new French and Italian ships under construction.

So what I postulated was not using the original design from the South Dakotas, but ten years later using some of the guns (which were lying around) and the engineering plants from the Lexingtons (180,000 hp.) I don't know how far along the plants might have been, but the plans were certainly around.

[US87891]

Perhaps a small off topic diversion but Skyland seems to understand things French thus my question.

In the time just before the First War, the colonial service was regarded by the Staff College types as "le tourisme", notwithstanding it's production of men like Lyautey and Gallieni. Was this still a prevelent view at the time of the Second War? Thank you.

Matt

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: MateDow

ORIGINAL: MateDow

Of course, if money is no option, there were always Jellicoe's ideas for a Pacific Fleet composed of colonial squadrons based around the battlecruisers Australia and New Zealand. That would have required a change to the WNT to allow their retention, but hey... they are such insignificant ships. [;)] [8D]

No one commented on this one way or the other.

Any thoughts?

In my mod I did something along those lines which had Sydney increase its shipyard and moved one of the big floating docks from Singers. I forgot which class of old BB I picked for the "Dominion Squadron" but it was the BB's that were scrapped and/or not built because of the first treaty. It worked in my world because I am in Nov 42 and all but 1 are in US yards with heavy torp damage. [:(]

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

With the new code for sharing of CW aircraft - you could designate some aircraft to be CW nationality allowing all CW nations to use them and maybe amalgamate some types so they have more pool density.

e.g. Change Beaufighter Ic to CW would allow all CW nations to use it, amalgamating production of Beaufort, Beaufighter X, Beaufighter Xc, Hurricane IIb and IIc maybe Kittyhawk I's (i.e. do away with NZ, Aus and Canadfian and make them all one pool with higher replacements and just make it all CW allowing any CW nation to use it) - to keep it simple for the AI pick one of the types and set it to a higher level of production as nation CW and set others to 0 production so you dont need to mess about with re doing upgrade paths

maybe add Fairey Battles as a cross CW training and light bomber

Andy, I don't follow how in the editor you would do this. Could you expand a little?

[Terminus]

Er, you just switch the aircraft's nationality... It's a drop-down menu, like the rest...

[oldman45]

I get that part, maybe I am making this harder than it is.

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: US87891

Perhaps a small off topic diversion but Skyland seems to understand things French thus my question.

In the time just before the First War, the colonial service was regarded by the Staff College types as "le tourisme", notwithstanding it's production of men like Lyautey and Gallieni. Was this still a prevelent view at the time of the Second War? Thank you.

Matt

I think that the tourism argument has been used for recruitment campaign. "Join the Coloniale and you will discover the World". Something like that.
But of course it was never so peaceful.

[John 3rd]

I went through and updated the Colorado-Class BB as we have discussed. This is what I did (following PLan D (as in DOG):

Raised Tonnage by about 4,000 to 37,590
Raised Durability by 16
Added 50MM of Deck Armor to a total of 158MM
Axed all single 5" guns and replaced them with 4x2 5" Mk 12 EBR turrets
Added 1.1" Mountings as described

These BBs are now joined together as a single class that will upgrade in 11/43 and 1/45. Above changes carried through those two upgrades.

On December 7th the BBs are:
1. Colorado and Washington in Seattle
2. Maryland and West Virginia in San Francisco

They start Dec 7th with a combination of roughly 40 Sys and Engine Damage. Each are different in numbers but the total is around 40 in total damage. Should take 2-3 months for repairs...

ISSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! [:'(]

[ny59giants]

Maryland and West Virginia in San Francisco

Moved them to Alameda. If they are going to take up space in the repair shipyard long term, I would have sent them there.

That is where they keep the nuclear wessels, Admiral. [;)]

[John 3rd]

w..e..s..s..e..l..s

Will move them SIR!

[DOCUP]

ISSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! [:'(]

 
How about John 3rd, for its name.[&o]

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

ISSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! [:'(]


How about John 3rd, for its name.[&o]

TERRIBLE!

[John 3rd]

Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th.

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th.

That's easy - remove the guns from the base class and add them in with a (60-100) day upgrade available 12/41. Don't think you'll see many people skip that. Or just bring'em in 60-100 days from scenario start. Potato, potahto...