Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How are the ship building costs (build rate) established in AE? The Building Screen shows the following:

84 Junyo/Hiyo
103 Taiho
233 Yamato/Musashi
41 Oyodo
13 Moon-Class DD
10 Yugumo-Class DD

Just going by numbers, I would foresee (guess) the following values:
95 Imp. Shokaku-Class
150 BCs
60 CA Scout-Cruisers
35 Oyodo as a regular CL

I'm just throwing those out. Is there an actual system to figuring this out?

Theyre just the ship's durability, which is proportional to tonnage.

To throw some suggestions out based on stock values;

Improved Shokaku Class CVs - 28500tons - 100
Type B65 BCs - 32500tons - 130
Improved Tone Class CAs - 14000tons - 55
9x9 Oyodo Class CLs - 8500tons - 35

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

2. AA Gun---It is my understanding that the only true successor for a heavy AA Gun that the Japanese had in realistic development was the 3.9 that went on the Moons. Unless there is a cogent argument towards another gun that COULD have been deployed in reasonable numbers in mid-to-late 1942 then this is the gun of choice and happenstance. It is frustrating to know that there were BETTER guns to work with but you've got to work with what you got at start.

There was the 12.7cm/50 Type 1, but development was abandoned and then restarted for land based AA use. If you move its design forward by a year or two and scrap the 10cm/65, you could probably have this weapon in '42/43. The question is if its better choice than the 10cm/65.

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

<wyrmm>

I really like this line of thought. Horse cavalry would do it, I think. i would also delay the appereance of new armored formations, or keep the date, but make them upgradeable cavalry too.

<John 3rd>

The scout cruiser concept... to me, that is what the CVS are for, but I will concede the point. I have nothing against the concept per se... I just seem to recall in the back of my forgetful mind that follow-on IJN cruisers would have been modelled on the Mogami, not the Tone.

Regarding the 3.9 AA gun I am in total agreement with you

---------

A thought just crossed my mind. One way to simulate IJN naval building problems is to have more ships on queue than can be built with naval yard points available. So I would not mind seeing all the ideas presented above, without much (if any) increase in naval yard size. In fact, it would provide with an interesting strategic puzzle...

Just my 2 cents.

1. Horse Cavalry is GREAT! We allow for the units to convert when/if there are enough armored vehicles available. We essentially take out most of the IJA's armor to provide more 'steel' for the Fleet.

2. Scout Cruisers---As soon as you said they were to be patterned upon the Mogami's my mind went THUD. Perhaps you are right. I'll recheck sources and see if we can find something definitive on that.

3. 3.9"!

4. We expand shipyards some but it won't be enough. My concern is essentially a slipway or two and then the player must pick and choose. The massive congestion really won't clear (in terms of points) until both Yamato and Musashi are complete. Allowing the player choices I think would be a lot of fun and it would be interesting to see what IS chosen.

There was the 12.7cm/50 Type 1, but development was abandoned and then restarted for land based AA use. If you move its design forward by a year or two and scrap the 10cm/65, you could probably have this weapon in '42/43. The question is if its better choice than the 10cm/65.

Juan--Thanks for the cost suggestions on the warships.

Is the 12.7cm/50 the better weapon? Would it serve more adequately the needs of being a DP gun? When was the design abandoned and would it be practical as THE heavy AA gun of the Fleet?

Didn't click on the hot link until just now:

Designation 12.7 cm/50 (5") Type 1 (Model 1941)
12.7 cm/50 (5") Type 5 (Model 1945)
Ship Class Used On Type 1: Ships
Type 5: Land
Date Of Design 1941 / 1945
Date In Service 1945 (prototype, only)
Gun Weight 10,284 lbs. (4,665 kg) including breech mechanism
Gun Length oa N/A
Bore Length about 250 in (6.350 m)
Rifling Length N/A
Grooves 36
Lands N/A
Twist Uniform RH 1 in 28
Chamber Volume N/A
Rate Of Fire 13 - 18 rounds per minute

This is a single gun so the RofF would be 26-38 shots per minute if in a twin mounting.

The site says that only one was produced. Wonder what the issue was?

Seems like the 3.9" was their choice but then this 12.7CM was later in the war too...

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
Boy would I love to have to face the IJN - IJA conflict as a player...

You and me both, Bro.

In the meantime, here's some thoughts on Japanese shipbuilding, life, the universe, and everything.

In Okayama, you got (W to E) Inoshima, Fukuyama, Mizushima, Kojima, Maejima, Ako, Aioi, and a die roll whether Himeji is part of Okayama or Osaka. These places hosted quite a few minor shipbuilbing facilities owned by rather significant players.

These yards built ‘dinkys’ for the big boys, but were recognized as useful and expanded during the war period to build <DD (DE) class vessels. The same should hold true for the merchant yards in China, although Shanghai might could do some DDs with an infusion of cash, but the advantage of Okayama is its proximity to the Osaka labor force, and road/rail communication.

Japan really was sorely limited with respect to capital ship capability. No amount of wishing can ever allevialite that. But “plausibly”, Japan could have done up some “DE” yards a bit sooner than she did (no DDs, because those require moderately serious naval fitting-out facilities). Thing I have noticed most about Japanese yard utilization is their slavish dependence on the ‘so-called’ shadow fleet.

I can develop several pages of documentation as to how this ‘shadow fleet’ was a crock of buffalo dung. It was nothing more than what the Allies did from ’42 on, but the Japanese version was developed in 1928 and was consequently pathetic in comparison to any equivalents.

So kill the ‘shadow fleet’. Open the yard space. But do the frikkin math and make sure it all works ok. That is, of course, if you want a “historically” based scenario.

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

IJA and IJN represented two socio-political extremes in Japanese society. While the IJN was very popular due to their victories, The IJA was much more grounded in the peasantry. It raises the spectre of (once again) class warfare.

To implement this, I might roll the dice and give the Diet a somewhat <50% chance of saying ok (they weren't stupid). Then roll again and give an IJA inspired uprising a somewhat >50% chance of assasinating the Diet (they weren't stupid, either). The rolls work, you get lucky. Don't forget that in a time of great economic turmoil, the IJA was the only institution that represented hope and a 'leg up' for a huge (ok, majority) segment of the Japanese population. If the die rolls work you are gonna have one mightily pissed IJA, so any and all cooperation with the IJN will likely be utterly impossible for the far forseeable future. Not goodnik imho.

Boy would I love to have to face the IJN - IJA conflict as a player...

Man--I agree with BOTH of you! Could you imagine the fighting between the sides. Heck there might have been more blood spilled BETWEEN the services then with their 'enemies!'

Army--Navy Give and Take:

1. If we made 50% of the Japanese 'armored' regiments Cavalry and scale amored vehicles WAY back that would open some things up.

2. Drive down the number of Army planes in production and slighly move back the deployment dates on IJA aircraft that might further serve to help.

For the Mod the Japanese would have good news--bad news:

A. Good News: a slightly stronger navy at start with slightly more aircraft, a stronger navy in the mid-run of the war, better Base Forces, and faster Naval Air deployment of better designs.

B. Bad News: Next to no armor for the IJA, less modern aircraft, and a delayed production of advanced aircraft models.

Would be a rather interesting scenario because (unlike Scenario 2) it would not be ALL peaches and cream for the Japanese player!

Will those IJA Cav units have the option to upgrade to full armor units if the player wishes and can afford it?

I believe that would be the intention.&nbsp; Having choices and trade-offs would be a BLAST.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Would you push through the BCs?&nbsp; Might you accelerate the two Shos and get them in late-1942?&nbsp; Does the Japanese Army need tanks?&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Fun...
&nbsp;

I wish to try and bring to a close the first portion of the Mod by summarizing the actual Japanese Warship building for 4th Circle.&nbsp; These are the notes and changes I have logged down:
&nbsp;
The 4th Circle Plan, based on the cancellation of the 3rd and 4th Yamato, will add the following additional construction to the que:

2 Improved Shokaku-Class CVs (Due in May and June 1943)
2 Modern Battlecruisers (Ikoma-Class w/12.1" Guns due in Dec 43)
2 Improved Scout Cruisers (Patterned off&nbsp;the Mogami's&nbsp;and due in Sept/Oct 42)
2 Oyodo-Class CL (3x3 6" Guns due Summer 43)&nbsp;
8 Moon-Class DD&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 Yugumo-Class DD

Changes to existing Construction Time:
CVs:
Junyo&nbsp; Feb 1942
Hiyo&nbsp;&nbsp;May 1942
Taiho&nbsp; October 1943

CVLs:
Shoho&nbsp; Present on Dec 7th
Nisshin&nbsp;&nbsp;March 1942
Ryuho&nbsp;&nbsp;Sept 1942

All 4th Circle warships shall come in with the 3.9" AA for their secondary armament.

While reasonable the IJN would still need an interceptor at least for base defence but also CAP. The A6M3 could evolve into one eg less fuel = lighter = faster climb . You could have the A6M3 X with heavier weapons and armour.

Actually looking up they did do this ...installing 30mm in some .

A6M3:
A6M3 Model 32 : Had square tip wings.3,5 More ammunition for the guns.3,5 The engine was larger and reduced the fuel carried by 21 gallons.4,5
A6M3 Model 22: Had folding wing tips.3,4,5 More fuel.3,4,5 Increased by 24 gallons.4,5
A6M3a Model 22a, A6M3 Model 22KO: Long barrel cannons.3,5 2 or 3 20 mm Type 99.5 Some had a 30 mm installed and were tested at Rabaul.5

The model 32 is 15% lighter...despite the larger engine. Introduce a varient model for CAP and base defence at the right time and it would be accepted and would be the first to carry armour/self sealing tanks. It certainly would not take a lot of resources to carry less fuel and to have a few bigger guns , being lighter it would have a greater climb.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

4. The ultimate IJN carrier fighter, the A7M Reppu ("Sam") was delayed because the Mitsubishi design staff was too occupied with improving the A6M and developing the J2M Raiden ("Jack"). If you want to enhance the IJN carrier fighters over OTL, dump the J2M, basing the J2 design instead on the Heinkel 100 which the IJN had already bought in 1939 lock, stock, and barrel (if all had gone according to plan, the He 100 could have been in series production in mid-1941), imagine that Jiro Horikoshi had got his way and put a more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine in the A6M5 (which in OTL happened only with the A6M8) and you have something like the A6M8 in late 1943 and the A7M in August/September 1944.

Skipping Jack and moving into these designs is exactly what I envisioned from the start. 

One could look at a Zero deployment of:
A6M3  Jan 42
A6M3a  March 42
A6M5  October 42
A7M/A6M8 along the lines you describe.

Japan decides to bank ALL Naval Research on the Zero airframe.  Damn the Hellkittens...Firewall that throttle!

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The decisions to be made must be done in the context of the late-30s:

1. Warships---We are placing a retrospective look back at what the Japanese 'should' have done. This applies to AA Cruisers, the uselessness of BCs, the Scout Cruiser concept, etc... The bottom line is decisions must be made from the time with the 4th Circle Plan.

a. The BCs have to be built as a compromise with the Big Gun Admirals. These are built to act as 'Scouts' for the Yamato pair and Japanese Battleline for the 'decisive battle.' To placate this faction they get a pair of modern, fast capital ships.

Why do they need to be placated more than historically...You are building the Yamatos , Tones etc . from the launch date of the BC you are almost looking at a 5th circle ship.. By this time ie 39-40 start air was better for searching ( whether CVS , AV , CV or Tone type CA is a factory by degree) . I cannot see such a hull in the yards on Jan 42 not being changed to a CV ... like SHinano. I repeat Every Capital ship over 8K tons which was in the docks at Dec 41 was completed as a CV , CVL or CVE. Even BBs and CAs were converted to monstrocities how can you be more air minded ?

b. Air-Minded leadership gains the Improved Shokaku CVs and less haggling over Taiho.

These prob would be built on teh BC hulls.

c. The Scout Cruiser concept, while scorned by many people on the Forum, is useful. The Japanese were wedded to it. AE is all about recon and search. Having a pair of ships carrying 6 floatplanes while packing the punch of a CA is a worthwhile addition.

Im not against them but would rather have a 10 gun CA with 3 FP , and a cheap AV or CVS for the scouting that way im only risking an AV ...

d. I am swung over in the argument to simply build the Oyodos as 6" cruisers carrying 3 turrets of 3 guns. This is a somewhat inconstistant position with what is said above but there was considerable argument over the design of these ships from the very beginning so we'll simply show the 'conventialists' winning the design battle.

Note your building a CL with 7 main arnament turrets and arcs may matter . I think the IJN prob thought something like 3*3 + 5*2 * 3.3"/60 or 2*3 + 4* 4"/100

Compare weight
Triple 6.1" Mogami /Oyoda 125 ton
Twin 6.1" Agano 45 tons
Twin 4" Oyoda/Moon class 34ton

Total turret weight atm is 2*125+ 4 * 34 = 386 tons. Proposed is 511 which is equivalent of 11 Agano style twin 6" mounts. Its certainly possible though since Mogami carried 7-800 in turrets.

Oyodo does show up in 44 so what good is an extra 6.1" turret , wouldnt you change durring construction in 43 for another 4 Twin 4" ?

e. If Shimakaze's power plants were so rough to build, then we'll simply add another pair of Moon-Class and Yugumo-Class.

Note the historically planned Super moon class would have been easier and as is showed you can reduce bunkerage to build bigger engines. For destroyers tehy have massive range

f. Killing off the Army Subs makes great sense to me but they weren't started until after the war began--RIGHT?--so the player can simply choose NOT to build them.

g. Michael asks about ASW and unfortunately our good Admiral and the Plan had no provision for that threat. I agree with Kaigun in asking how could the Japanese NOT have foreseen their terrible vulnerability to SS Blockade.

Probably everyone thought it was someone elses job everyone wanted to be involved in the exciting stuff big guns , subs and CVs.. Leaving some junior Comodore stuck with ASW responsabilities.

2. AA Gun---It is my understanding that the only true successor for a heavy AA Gun that the Japanese had in realistic development was the 3.9 that went on the Moons. Unless there is a cogent argument towards another gun that COULD have been deployed in reasonable numbers in mid-to-late 1942 then this is the gun of choice and happenstance. It is frustrating to know that there were BETTER guns to work with but you've got to work with what you got at start.

The Upgrade that features this retrofit will, by neccessity, be much longer and we'll have to figure that one out. How long to change the original Secondary armament over to the new is a good question?

the 3.9"/65 was the only effective DP gun... There were other AA guns especially the Aganos 80mm/60 a scalled down 3.9"/65 with tripple the barrel life. It could easily be mass produced and single double and tripple mounts produced. Note Like the US 5"/38 non barbetted mounts would have a much lower fire rate ( 50%) but the game engine forgets about this ...

For upgrade time it depends if the secondary arnament is on barbettes its much harder and may require cutting the deck.

3. Naval Fighters---Here is where the most impact has been made in the Forum discussion. This Mod will definately throw out the Jack and concentrate everything on Zero. This will allow for research to realistically bring the later design forward where they have a chance of keep air parity with the American counterpart through early-43. After that all bets are off. I really like the proposals of moving the deployment dtaes WAY forward on the M5 and later models. This still needs to be settled time wise but it should be a positive factor.

4. Yards---Went around the map in the game looking at Shipyards and then went on-line to do some checking. I concur about the land-locked and highly limited possibilities of Naval Shipyard expansion in the Home Islands.

a. Think we can do some limited expansion and add some Merchant Yard conversions for a decent gain in shipyard points. We'll follow the advice of the Forum contributors and do a good-sized expansion of the Uraga (Yokosuka) area for a new slipway
QUESTION: While reading last night I came across comments about the size of Shanghai. This led to me wonder if a Naval Yard could have been established there?

I dont think converting merchant ship yards is viable in actual fact the problem is worse... See my post above about actual shipyard size and the problem is not that big ie there are 15 slips for ships of 10K tons , 2 of those slips were upgarded to 72Kton ships , another 2 build 35K ton ships

Im living in Shanghai at the moment and Shangahi could easily have been brought up to building large ships. It had a large workforce already with some technical skill and plenty of areas being an estuary . There are LOTS of places now that are shipyards or piers. Though over the last few years the shipyards are being demolished to make way for apartments. That said its a political decision to build a yard > 10Ktons requiring investment but could be started in 38.

b. The loss in Merchant Yards in Japan will be countered with expansion at Fusan, Port Arthur, and Shanghai. How is Woochang, China able to be a Merchant Yard??!! Didn't even know it was there until I was checking around. That is one big river!

You cant even see the other side of it. Its limited today to about 8000 tons.

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Compare weight
Triple 6.1" Mogami /Oyoda 125 ton
Twin 6.1" Agano 45 tons
Twin 4" Oyoda/Moon class 34ton

The twin mounts on the Agano's were 152mm (6"), not 155mm (6.1"). They were the same guns as carried by the older battleships in casemates, and much inferior performance wise to the newer 6.1".

NavWeaps list the weight of the twin mounting as 72tons, so I'm curious where this figure of 45 comes from since it seems much too low.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

There was the 12.7cm/50 Type 1, but development was abandoned and then restarted for land based AA use. If you move its design forward by a year or two and scrap the 10cm/65, you could probably have this weapon in '42/43. The question is if its better choice than the 10cm/65.

Juan--Thanks for the cost suggestions on the warships.

Is the 12.7cm/50 the better weapon? Would it serve more adequately the needs of being a DP gun? When was the design abandoned and would it be practical as THE heavy AA gun of the Fleet?

Looks pretty good 1941 prototype .. 100mm in [] brackets

12.7 cm/50 (5") Type 1 (Model 1941)
13-18 rounds / minute [15-21]
HE round was 48kg , 27kg projectile . [28kg and 13kg projectile]
Twin mount
18 deg / second train [11-16]
18.6 ton for a single mount [35 ton]
Gun 4.6 ton including breach mechanism [ 3 ton ]
AA Ceiling 15200 -16200) [13000m]
Barrel Life ? [200]

Its a full DP gun . Can anyone not see a reason to switch to this gun from late 42 instead of the 100/65 ? The fact the barrel is the same/similar to the existing destroyers should make it easier upgrading the manufacturing / building process than ramping up 100/65 production.

To me it seems best to

Convert existing production of 5" guns to the Type 1 . ( replacing 5"/50 , 5"/40 and 4.7"/45)
Convert production of the 100/65 to the 80/60 (Agano and Ibuki) except for the run for the moon class .

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Didn't click on the hot link until just now:

Designation 12.7 cm/50 (5") Type 1 (Model 1941)
12.7 cm/50 (5") Type 5 (Model 1945)
Ship Class Used On Type 1: Ships
Type 5: Land
Date Of Design 1941 / 1945
Date In Service 1945 (prototype, only)
Gun Weight 10,284 lbs. (4,665 kg) including breech mechanism
Gun Length oa N/A
Bore Length about 250 in (6.350 m)
Rifling Length N/A
Grooves 36
Lands N/A
Twist Uniform RH 1 in 28
Chamber Volume N/A
Rate Of Fire 13 - 18 rounds per minute

This is a single gun so the RofF would be 26-38 shots per minute if in a twin mounting.

The site says that only one was produced. Wonder what the issue was?

Seems like the 3.9" was their choice but then this 12.7CM was later in the war too...

That choice was made in 1940-41 for the Moonclass and Taiho..That gun would not have been ready, its worth noting for the later Agano and Ibuki they did not use it , but quickly just made a scaled downed version since the 80/60 is prob 50% more effective as an AA weapon per ton of gun. the Oyodo seems to have been made from left overs ( which maybe the real reason why the Oyodo only carried 2 turrets) .... It was probably too expensive to retro fit old destroyers and few new destroyers were planned ( and too heavy fot the Mutsu ) and instead they chose the failed strategy of removing 5" turret and adding 25mm.

It is interesting , but AFV production is minimal eg 300 5 ton tanks ( their yearly prduction before 40) is not even enough steel for 1 destroyer. If you push the IJA planes back to far they would just adopt and rebadge Navy planes like was done later in the war.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Army--Navy Give and Take:

1. If we made 50% of the Japanese 'armored' regiments Cavalry and scale amored vehicles WAY back that would open some things up.

2. Drive down the number of Army planes in production and slighly move back the deployment dates on IJA aircraft that might further serve to help.

For the Mod the Japanese would have good news--bad news:

A. Good News: a slightly stronger navy at start with slightly more aircraft, a stronger navy in the mid-run of the war, better Base Forces, and faster Naval Air deployment of better designs.

B. Bad News: Next to no armor for the IJA, less modern aircraft, and a delayed production of advanced aircraft models.

Would be a rather interesting scenario because (unlike Scenario 2) it would not be ALL peaches and cream for the Japanese player!

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

I really, really don't find IJA reduction plausible if we assume that the political atmosphere - required for the Pacific War to start roughly as it started in RL - stays the same. Having the entire Gun Club to perish in an accident thus avoiding Yamatos entirely, or assuming much greater Army-Navy cooperation in aicraft production (some army planes, like Ki-15 or Ki-67 were adopted by Navy in RL, so the greater cooperation is not unimaginable) is much less of a stretch.


Barring that, the more plausible source for goodies required for new carriers and stuff, besides limiting the Yamato class to two ships is not proceeding with converting some/all shadow fleet ships until well into the war (the conversion options for the originals can be locked until a certian date).


EDIT: This way Japan won't have more carriers at the start, and its carrier arm might be even slightly weaker throughout 1942, lack of CVLs/CVEs and operational flexibility they provide compensating increases in quality of IJN planes and other areas. But Japan will be able to hold up much better in 1943-early 1944.

Escort production might deserve a second thought, because it's one of the areas where plausible improvements are possible, with enough foresight. On the other hand, Yamamoto might operate under the RL assumption that if the conditions required for the sub campaign to become crippling occur, Japan is screwed either way, so if you don't want to bother, don't.

I was under the impression the armor and aircraft changes were as much about engineers and machine tools as steel, thus the reductions in production and delays in improved models? As for Naval changes, I think we need to be careful and build the things Japan might have wanted in a more air oriented fleet in 38 or 39, and try not to be influenced by either what they did after scrapping Circle 5 post Midway, nor what might have been a best case build with 20/20 hindsight. I actually think Kaigun covers the realistic alternatives rather well.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The thought of countering this Naval work with a limitation on the Japanese Army still interests me. With the limitatios of Japan, trade-offs seem to be a must when doing something along a plausible line of alternate thinking. Does anyone have any useful ideas on limits/losses that could be placed on the IJA to reflect a greater portion of expenditures going to the IJN?

I really, really don't find IJA reduction plausible if we assume that the political atmosphere - required for the Pacific War to start roughly as it started in RL - stays the same. Having the entire Gun Club to perish in an accident thus avoiding Yamatos entirely, or assuming much greater Army-Navy cooperation in aicraft production (some army planes, like Ki-15 or Ki-67 were adopted by Navy in RL, so the greater cooperation is not unimaginable) is much less of a stretch.


Barring that, the more plausible source for goodies required for new carriers and stuff, besides limiting the Yamato class to two ships is not proceeding with converting some/all shadow fleet ships until well into the war (the conversion options for the originals can be locked until a certian date).


EDIT: This way Japan won't have more carriers at the start, and its carrier arm might be even slightly weaker throughout 1942, lack of CVLs/CVEs and operational flexibility they provide compensating increases in quality of IJN planes and other areas. But Japan will be able to hold up much better in 1943-early 1944.

Escort production might deserve a second thought, because it's one of the areas where plausible improvements are possible, with enough foresight. On the other hand, Yamamoto might operate under the RL assumption that if the conditions required for the sub campaign to become crippling occur, Japan is screwed either way, so if you don't want to bother, don't.

I have to agree also ..the only reason the war started was the army wanted to go South..and the current PM was Army.

Also the current strategy seems to be less CV and more black shoe than historical . If the Navy settled their arguments on the Taiho they would have had her in the water in 42 and her 3 succesors on the slips. After Dec 41 every capital ship was a CV.

Im not an expert on Japanese polotics but personally im not convinced by some of the conclusions on inter service rivalry... Every nation has massive inter service rivalry issues eg the existance of the US Marine Corps , The Luftwaffe panzers , The German Sailors in WWI and the Revolution etc most of the arguments just stay behind closed doors at the equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff however in Japan it got raised at the more public political level. You dont think the USN And Army argued over who gets the Oil and whether the Marine Corps should run an Island ? Cooperation between the services for Japan was good enough for them to work very well together in the 37 landings and their 41 expansion ( which couldnt happen if teh rivalry was so great) and they did share planes , bases etc.. With regard to the IJA building there own ships well the US army has more ships than the Navy...Anyway cooperation could be improved quite easily with a nudge from the emporer.

ORIGINAL: bklooste


Im not an expert on Japanese polotics but personally im not convinced by some of the conclusions on inter service rivalry... Every nation has massive inter service rivalry issues eg the existance of the US Marine Corps , The Luftwaffe panzers , The German Sailors in WWI and the Revolution etc most of the arguments just stay behind closed doors at the equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff however in Japan it got raised at the more public political level. You dont think the USN And Army argued over who gets the Oil and whether the Marine Corps should run an Island ? Cooperation between the services for Japan was good enough for them to work very well together in the 37 landings and their 41 expansion ( which couldnt happen if teh rivalry was so great) and they did share planes , bases etc.. With regard to the IJA building there own ships well the US army has more ships than the Navy...Anyway cooperation could be improved quite easily with a nudge from the emporer.

Thats just it, It was the Navy, not the army that wanted to go south, and whichever way we extrapolate the politics, the emperor would not have intervened, he was personally antiwar as exposed in some studies on Japans prewar politics, but the most he ever said about it was a poem on the brotherhood of the oceans. As to interservice rivalry, the Japanese case is the posterchild of it, even as far as having factories divided in two, with armed gaurds seperating the army and navy sections. The differnces between them and any rivalries in the west are orders of magnitude, not even the Germans or Soviets coming anywhere close.