The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

[DOCUP]

Nice AC.  Dixie what is it?

So since the Japanese naval board are moving along, lets get the Allied one moving. 

US could of built some more DDs in the early 30s I think around 15 or so.  What class or classes.

They can also build some more SSs.  What about making them an intermediate range with the working mk 18 torp?

How about building a few more CAs and CLs in response to the evil empire of Zerg oh I mean Japan.

I'd like to see and 18 in Montana never heard of the Iowas being 18in.

With all the naval AC thats going to be produced why not bring the F4s in earlier with a higher production rate.  This should also go along with P40s, since there will be a few more of them on Dec 7th.  What about a full squadron of P38s? 

So what is the decision on the Guam forces?

What about putting in the Bathhurst corvettes?

doc

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Nice AC.  Dixie what is it?

So since the Japanese naval board are moving along, lets get the Allied one moving. 

US could of built some more DDs in the early 30s I think around 15 or so.  What class or classes.

They can also build some more SSs.  What about making them an intermediate range with the working mk 18 torp?

How about building a few more CAs and CLs in response to the evil empire of Zerg oh I mean Japan.

I'd like to see and 18 in Montana never heard of the Iowas being 18in.

With all the naval AC thats going to be produced why not bring the F4s in earlier with a higher production rate.  This should also go along with P40s, since there will be a few more of them on Dec 7th.  What about a full squadron of P38s? 

So what is the decision on the Guam forces?

What about putting in the Bathhurst corvettes?

doc

Hawker Sea Fury.

[Smeulders]

I think we need to remember that the goal isn't to simply give the Allies and Japanese more toys to play with. There should always be a good rationale why the extra ships/planes were built. I find it very interesting how the plans for the Japanese shipbuilding programs are made in the other thread, with ships getting cut or redesigned to free up funds for other stuff. The Allies might have slightly more room for pure extra expenses (especially later in the war), but I'd like to see more than just additions to the OOB. I really like Mike's posts (in the other thread I think) about different strategies employed in the PI and Malaya, little to no extra expenses that will strengthen the Allies.

It seems like the Japanese BB design is being finished up; could this have influenced Allied BB designs or lead to another sort of reaction ?

[DOCUP]

Going along the lines of what Smeulders said above.
 
The US watches its transports get sunk on the west coast by u-boats.  They start building DEs and outfitting other ships with better ASW gear earlier.  Also while watching the German tanks run all over Europe, the US starts to build better tanks. 
 
The US don't lolly gag around and start getting on a war footing earlier than they did.  Say there is less of an isolantionist view in America. 
 
Operation Catapult instead of the British attacking the French fleet, the French decide to sail out of port and join the Free French.  They could of then been transfered to the Pacific AO.
 
Question.
Ships are built in slips but they are also repaired in these same slips if they have major damage right.  If that is true wouldn't there be few slips off and on thru out the war.  Or would this be to hard to put into the game now that I think about it. 
 
doc

[Dixie]

The UK was cash strapped in reality, so massive building projects are unlikely really. If they could afford to build two Class A (County) cruisers then they couldn't afford to build half a dozen extra battleships. For the Brits it's going to be mostly a case of substituting designs rather than adding them to the existing forces, perhaps a couple of extra ships here and there if you're feeling generous.

The most likely reason for Japan building the ships proposed is that the naval treaties did not occur. In that case unrestricted submarine warfare is not banned, thus the Admiralty realises how vulnerable the UK is to U-boat warfare. This causes an investment in ASW that did not happen historically. This could result in more escort ships being sent East for the start of the game.

Sure, it's not as much fun as running around with extra big ships but hey-ho. The increased emphasis on convoy protection would mean more RAF maritime aircraft as well; Sunderlands, Halifax, Beauforts, TorBeaus, Warwicks perhaps even Shackletons and Brigands later.


Perhaps later in the war there could be more CVs available. The RN decides not to focus on the smaller Colossus carriers and somehow manages to get some of the Audacious class finished. The RN carriers could finish up with Sea Furies, Wyverns, Sea Hornets.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I think we need to remember that the goal isn't to simply give the Allies and Japanese more toys to play with. There should always be a good rationale why the extra ships/planes were built. I find it very interesting how the plans for the Japanese shipbuilding programs are made in the other thread, with ships getting cut or redesigned to free up funds for other stuff. The Allies might have slightly more room for pure extra expenses (especially later in the war), but I'd like to see more than just additions to the OOB. I really like Mike's posts (in the other thread I think) about different strategies employed in the PI and Malaya, little to no extra expenses that will strengthen the Allies.

It seems like the Japanese BB design is being finished up; could this have influenced Allied BB designs or lead to another sort of reaction ?

You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes. Speaking for the US, unless we are willing to change the will of Congress, nothing much can be added to the OB. That also means no money for base expansion. There are a couple of things that would be easy to justify, conversions for several classes to CVE and CVL. Lets face it, there is information out there that shows the US military was way undermanned and we didn't even meet the minimum tonnage of the treaties and Congress still refused to fund ad expansion.

I think the main question should be, how far are the designers willing to go when it comes to changes in core politics of the US and UK.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Dixie


.....

Hawker Sea Fury.

Post a bmp, willya?

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

The US watches its transports get sunk on the west coast by u-boats.  They start building DEs and outfitting other ships with better ASW gear earlier.  Also while watching the German tanks run all over Europe, the US starts to build better tanks. 

The US don't lolly gag around and start getting on a war footing earlier than they did.  Say there is less of an isolantionist view in America.

There might be less isolationism in the US, but that's up to the scenario designers. Even with isolationism something could be done for ASW if there is a decision to start making SC earlier. This can't really be criticised as an offensive move so might be a bit more feasible. This would free up destroyers for other duties.

ORIGINAL: DOCUP
Operation Catapult instead of the British attacking the French fleet, the French decide to sail out of port and join the Free French.  They could of then been transfered to the Pacific AO.

That's a big decision, one that should again be made by the scenario designers. I do confess I'd like to see some french ships appearing.

ORIGINAL: Dixie
The most likely reason for Japan building the ships proposed is that the naval treaties did not occur. In that case unrestricted submarine warfare is not banned, thus the Admiralty realises how vulnerable the UK is to U-boat warfare. This causes an investment in ASW that did not happen historically. This could result in more escort ships being sent East for the start of the game.

As I understand it the naval treaties only break down as historical. You could still argue that the British learn a lot of lessons from WWI submarine warfare and prepare a bit better to this. Might be interesting to wait until we have a bit more information on the Japanese submarine program, though the Germans were probably a primary concern here.

ORIGINAL: Oldman45
You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes. Speaking for the US, unless we are willing to change the will of Congress, nothing much can be added to the OB. That also means no money for base expansion. There are a couple of things that would be easy to justify, conversions for several classes to CVE and CVL. Lets face it, there is information out there that shows the US military was way undermanned and we didn't even meet the minimum tonnage of the treaties and Congress still refused to fund ad expansion.

I think the main question should be, how far are the designers willing to go when it comes to changes in core politics of the US and UK.

If many extra large ships aren't likely for the US, how about different designs ?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I think we need to remember that the goal isn't to simply give the Allies and Japanese more toys to play with. There should always be a good rationale why the extra ships/planes were built. I find it very interesting how the plans for the Japanese shipbuilding programs are made in the other thread, with ships getting cut or redesigned to free up funds for other stuff. The Allies might have slightly more room for pure extra expenses (especially later in the war), but I'd like to see more than just additions to the OOB. I really like Mike's posts (in the other thread I think) about different strategies employed in the PI and Malaya, little to no extra expenses that will strengthen the Allies.

It seems like the Japanese BB design is being finished up; could this have influenced Allied BB designs or lead to another sort of reaction ?

You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes. Speaking for the US, unless we are willing to change the will of Congress, nothing much can be added to the OB. That also means no money for base expansion. There are a couple of things that would be easy to justify, conversions for several classes to CVE and CVL. Lets face it, there is information out there that shows the US military was way undermanned and we didn't even meet the minimum tonnage of the treaties and Congress still refused to fund ad expansion.

I think the main question should be, how far are the designers willing to go when it comes to changes in core politics of the US and UK.

You definitely need to be careful about making drastic prewar changes to US strength. There was no political will to spend a lot of money there.

[oldman45]

That's the point Terminus, with out major changes to the political will of the US, there are not a lot of changes the US can do. The biggest and easiest change would be an influx of French navy into the Theater. To a lesser extent, we could find tweeks in the UK aircraft production and perhaps some changes in ship construction. Was reading Munson last night and gave me a couple of idea's for some air craft changes.

[John 3rd]

Have been reading Silent Victory and forgot how good of a book it is. Just went through the TT Chapter where he talks about the Americans figuring out that the TTs run WAAAAY deep. Wonder if we could raise the TT dud percentage from its normal to...say...50% in Sept 1942. TTs still have issues (such as the exploder) but would be more efficient and sometimes work.

How is the Torp Dud rate set in the Editor? Can it be changed from (what is it? 80%) the normal through January 1, 1943 to normal, 50% 8-42 to 1-43, and then OK after that?

[Terminus]

You can always change the dud rate. The reduction in dud rate only checks to see how high it is and changes it if its higher than what it's looking for.

[starsis1]

What about UK choosing to continue building Ark Royal-class carriers instead of Illustrious-class? Quick check on Wikipedia indicates that Ark Royal was cheaper at over 3M pound sterling vs 3.8M for the first Illustrious. Lower cost could lead to having more units in service by 1941 and/or more carriers being built. With the money saved, there could be additional destroyers or escorts built, or a couple more squadrons of planes thrown in for RAF as well.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been reading Silent Victory and forgot how good of a book it is. Just went through the TT Chapter where he talks about the Americans figuring out that the TTs run WAAAAY deep. Wonder if we could raise the TT dud percentage from its normal to...say...50% in Sept 1942. TTs still have issues (such as the exploder) but would be more efficient and sometimes work.

How is the Torp Dud rate set in the Editor? Can it be changed from (what is it? 80%) the normal through January 1, 1943 to normal, 50% 8-42 to 1-43, and then OK after that?

What about the reverse John? In the Japanese partner to this thread, they are spending hundreds of millions on construction and upgrades. How about the US Navy gets an extra few million for testing and improving existing weapons, and discovering and fixing the problems with their new torpedoes?

[DOCUP]

What I was thinking about this mod and I might be wrong.  Is that this mod is suppose to be something inbetween Scen 1 and 2.  Give the Japanese a lil before the war and more during the war.  As to give the game a longer play time.  The allies get a little more at the begining and a little more during the war.  This would give both parties more flexibility and enjoyment throughout the game. Instead of Scen 2 where a few allied players are nervous to play due to all the toys the Japs get at the begining.
 
doc

[oldman45]

I have an idea for shifting US production back a year or two. I will lay it out when I get home. It makes sense in my head, we will have to see when I put it on paper. To a lesser degree some small changes to aircraft production that will make a small difference to at start units.

[oldman45]

This is going to be a bit long. Whats in italics is taken from this site: THE DECLINE AND RENAISSANCE OF THE NAVY

Following the Washington Treaty (1922), while other nations were rapidly building up naval ships in categories that were not forbidden and increasing the number of airplanes, the United States practically abandoned all naval construction. On July 21, 1930, in the debate referred to, it was pointed out to the Senate by Senator Walsh of Massachusetts that the United States was below its ratio in aircraft carriers allowed by the London Treaty; that we had submarines and destroyers built during the World War which were rapidly becoming overage; that all the destroyers the Navy possessed, except 16, and all the submarines, except 17, would be overage before the end of the 6-year period of the London Treaty, namely, December 31, 1936-the date fixed for the termination of the limitation period. The same Senator pointed out that during the 8-year period from 1922 to 1930, while the United States was relying upon the cooperation of other nations to make some real effort toward naval disarmament, the other four great powers, Great Britain, France, Japan, and Italy, who signed the Washington Treaty, had built or authorized 400 naval vessels to our 11.

The following is quoted from the Congressional Record of July 19, 1930:

"Following that conference [Washington] and up to January 1, 1929, the great Powers of the world laid down and appropriated for naval expansion as follows: Japan, 125 naval vessels: Great Britain, 74 naval vessels: France, 119: Italy, 82: and, to the everlasting credit of our own country, the United States, exclusive of small river gunboats, 11."

Following that speech this happened;

"Resolved, That the Senate of the United States, in the event this treaty is ratified, favors the substantial completion by December 31, 1936 (this was the date when the limitation treaty would terminate and did actually terminate although efforts were made to continue it), of all cruisers mounting guns in excess of 6 1/10 inches, all aircraft carriers, all destroyers, and all submarines permitted under the treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armament, signed at London on April 22, 1930."
This amendment was defeated, but not until after the Senators proposing the ratification of the treaty promised publicly on the floor of the Senate that they would assist and cooperate in helping to build the Navy up to its entitled treaty strength.

The reality is it took till 1933 for the Navy to get its money. Then this happened;

In 1933 President Roosevelt set aside for naval-defense purposes, from the large general relief fund granted him by Congress to provide employment during the depression, $238,000,000 From this sum of money in the years following, 32 naval vessels (mostly replacement) were built. In 1934, Congress passed the Vinson-Trammell Act, which authorized further new naval construction up to the full limit provided by the naval-limitation treaties. (Authorization by the Congress means approval, but does not necessarily mean the appropriation of the money to proceed at once with the construction.)

The Vinson-Trammell Act, and the moneys appropriated by that act, resulted largely in the very necessary replacement of overage vessels and did not contribute any material expansion in the strength of the Navy. It did result in modernizing the Navy by replacements of obsolete vessels. This act established a new naval policy, as it authorized the permanent maintenance of the Navy at treaty strength by providing that vessels could be replaced when they became overage. It authorized the President to procure the necessary naval aircraft commensurate with a treaty navy, and specified that all profits made by shipbuilding companies in excess of 10 percent of the contract price should be returned to the Treasury.

When the Washington and London Treaty of 1930 for the limitation of naval armaments expired on December 31,1936, the naval building race started in full speed throughout the world. All the other great powers had a decided advantage over the United States at that time, because our Navy was greatly weakened as almost no effort had been made to hold our Navy to the treaty strength to which our Government was legally entitled under the treaties and which the other powers maintained.



What I propose is, instead of waiting till 1933, Congress gets off its butt and authorizes spending to build the fleet up to the treaty allowances as stated in 1930. (That's where we get to have a concensus building party [;)] )

As a start, this is what was proposed in 1932 and later defeated in the House.

On May 3,1932, the then chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate, Mr. Hale, made a motion to have the Senate consider bill S. 51, to authorize the building up of the United States Navy to the strength permitted by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. This was largely to replace old destroyers and submarines, and to build four new aircraft carriers. At this time we had only two aircraft carriers.

The motion to take up the bill was carried by a vote of 46 to 25, and the final vote in favor of its enactment was 44 to 21. No action was taken on this bill in the House and the effort to strengthen the Navy thereby failed.

And some final food for thought;

THE NEW NAVAL POLICY OF 1937
The Navy Department and the Naval Committees of the House and Senate undertook early in 1937 to establish a new naval policy.
An expenditure of $50,000,000 was authorized by an act approved July 30, 1937, to build six auxiliary vessels. These vessels were urgently needed for the proper maintenance and operation of a treaty navy.

An act approved May 17, 1938, was the first step taken to increase the United States Navy above the strength permitted by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. This act increased the number and tonnage allowances of combatant vessels in the Navy by approximately 23 percent; increased the number of useful airplanes from 2,050 to a total of not less than 3,000; authorized the construction of 26 auxiliary vessels; and authorized an appropriation of $15,000,000 to be expended at the discretion of the President for the purpose of experimenting with light surface craft.

Further in this paper is the sections of the Admiral Hepburn report on why Guam should be fortified and why it was canceled. Its a important read to further this debate.

Sorry it's so long but I think we can use this approach to start our conversation on how to modify the US naval forces in the game.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been reading Silent Victory and forgot how good of a book it is. Just went through the TT Chapter where he talks about the Americans figuring out that the TTs run WAAAAY deep. Wonder if we could raise the TT dud percentage from its normal to...say...50% in Sept 1942. TTs still have issues (such as the exploder) but would be more efficient and sometimes work.

How is the Torp Dud rate set in the Editor? Can it be changed from (what is it? 80%) the normal through January 1, 1943 to normal, 50% 8-42 to 1-43, and then OK after that?

What about the reverse John? In the Japanese partner to this thread, they are spending hundreds of millions on construction and upgrades. How about the US Navy gets an extra few million for testing and improving existing weapons, and discovering and fixing the problems with their new torpedoes?

Just caught up reading the Thread.

Mike--Excellent thinking.

Starsis: Interesting idea. I would love to place Ark Royal into the Pacific on Dec 7th! Good, solid ship...

I just re-read the alternate history Posted on the other side where the China War doesn't starting until 1939. Had an interesting idea in reading it. The Imperial High Command keeps the Army checked until war breaks out there in 1939 and when it does their is an ORGY of violence based on a stronger Chinese defense of an urban location. The Japanese take it but are heavily bloodied and they wreak havoc upon the city. Imagine a Nanking event that gets widespread attention just as Hitler has thrown away Munich and is making noises about Poland. War is immanent in Europe and then Japan does this.

Vinson already has Congress building the Two Ocean Navy so sentiment might swing for a wee bit more $$$ for the Pacific. Would that be enough for Congress to pry open its wallet some?

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd



Vinson already has Congress building the Two Ocean Navy so sentiment might swing for a wee bit more $$$ for the Pacific. Would that be enough for Congress to pry open its wallet some?

Yes and no, if we do accelerate the time line, see above, then there would be 4 large carriers in the Pacific with the Ranger still in the Atlantic. And if we pass the act that brings the US up to world treaty standards we could see more DD's and Subs in the pacific. But over all it would not be a big increase I don't think. By 1940 a large part of the DD's would be in the Atlantic. I guess really it would have to be decided just how many and what type of ships could the US build to get into conformance with the 1930 treaty.

[John 3rd]

I was thinking it might provide the excuse for accelerated building the Central Pacific...