Page 4 of 48
IJN Ryukaku
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:11 am
by John 3rd
Here is the successor to the failed Ryujo creation. A single deck variant of Ryujo which becomes the prototype for all later Japanese CVL.

HMAS Melbourne
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:22 am
by John 3rd
As per our conversation yesterday I made separate British and Australian versions of the their CAV: HMS Vindictive and HMAS Melbourne.
USS King's Mountain
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:38 am
by John 3rd
...and here is the American attempt at a CVL after the failed Ranger. She will become the prototype for all American CVLs:
The Air Group could be 12 F4F, 12 SBD, 12 TBD OR 18 F4F and 18 SBD. I provided the CVL with 12 TTs.

RE: G.6 Conversion
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:53 am
by Kitakami
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Here is the G.6 Conversion. The ship still reflects her Mogami 'roots' but makes a jump in the Soryu's direction. Not quite Soryu's Air Group but still substantial.
Hmm... I like what I see, just have two comments:
1. I am not sure, but maybe 8x2 12.7cm /40 turrets is a bit too much? Someone with more actual naval knowledge than me should take a look. Maybe 6x2 would be more plausible?
2. Taking into account that it is Japan, are 150 days enough time for the conversion? Again, someone more knowledgeable than I should take a look.
Just my 2 cents

RE: USS King's Mountain
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:55 am
by ny59giants
The Independence CVLs have 24 fighters and 9 TBs. So, I would go with more a 2 to 1 fighter to DB/TB ratio.
RE: USS King's Mountain
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:06 pm
by John 3rd
Kitakami: I was thinking the same thoughts regarding the 8x2 vs 6x2 issue. I lean towards 6x2 due to weight concerns. As conversion time I think you are spot on with that thought. Perhaps we follow the standard year or 270 Days as options.
Michael: How about 24 F4F and 12 TBD for King's Mountain?
RE: USS King's Mountain
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:21 pm
by ny59giants
That sounds good.
RE: Sea Gladiator
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:55 pm
by RedLancer
Here's the Sea Gladiator art - let me know if you need anything else. Just sorry that my work on War in the West is keeping me away from WitP:AE.
(Files in next post)

RE: Sea Gladiator
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:58 pm
by RedLancer
Sea Gladiator Files (Side/Top/Alpha)
RE: Sea Gladiator
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:47 pm
by John 3rd
GREAT! Good to see your skills at work again RL. Could we also have an Aussie Swordfish?
Take a Lookie
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:25 pm
by John 3rd
They DO exist!

Take a Lookie
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:28 pm
by John 3rd
...and these...

Take a Lookie
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:56 pm
by John 3rd
LOOK. No slow KB CVs! Everyone shows up including that lovely Ishitaka...

RE: Take a Lookie
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:01 pm
by Kitakami
Man! Is this mod looking good!

RE: Take a Lookie
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:01 pm
by oldman45
Very nice, thanks Red.
RE: Take a Lookie
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:52 pm
by John 3rd
I figure, once I have finished with adding the new ships in, that we can seriously start talking location of the new ships within a few days. I figure Ishitaka and Amagi with KB. The Ranger and Constellation with Bill Halsey and Enterprise. After that we can talk ideas...
Remember that this is not RA it is vanilla DB-C so everything has to be reasonable in a historic mindset for deployment.
RE: Aussie Swordfish
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:19 am
by RedLancer
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Could we also have an Aussie Swordfish?
Of course - Mk I, II or III ?
RE: Aussie Swordfish
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:36 am
by John 3rd
How about Swordfish I, then Albacore, and finally Avengers? That would cover the TB line for the Aussies.
Ought to go from Sea Gladiators to Martlets. Could we have an Aussiefied variant of the Martlet?
RE: Aussie Swordfish
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:51 am
by ny59giants
Remember that this is not RA it is vanilla DB-C so everything has to be reasonable in a historic mindset for deployment.
I know we have discussed this multiple times already, but most ships that may be available at start should go to either existing TFs or for the Australians at Sydney.
1) CL Boise gets a division (4) of either Porter or Somer Class DDs. This will make a very good small SC TF.
2) Since Australia gets her new CLV, then she will need a division of DDs. What class of British DDs would that be based on??
3) The American BCs go with Enterprise and along with 2 CAs. Lexington and Saratoga each have 2 to 4 CAs with them. Maybe the CLVs start as pair with Pensacola at Darwin and have the separate 4 DD TF (402) that is deployed at Balikpapan. If not at Darwin, then the CLV starts at San Diego with Saratoga.
4) Philippines - I have suggested this to John in a recent phone call. Move one of three AS from Manila to Cebu with about 6 to 9 subs along with 10k fuel and another 1000 in supply deducted from Manila's at start. Possibly move the small BF and P-26s from Batangas (1 SW of Manila) down here. Admiral Hart was able to disperse some of his assets prior to outbreak of war.
5) If the British hybrid CAV or CLV is at start, then I can think of two possibilities. One with Hermes in Ceylon or with the 18th UK Division TF leaving Cape Town.
I'll leave possible Japanese deployments to their fanboys. [;)]
RE: Aussie Swordfish
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:14 pm
by btd64
What about putting one BC with each US CV to at sea? GP