EEO Query (Allied)

[el cid again]

What if the Japanese threat were greater than IRL?

Would the US just respond by changing the % of things to PTO?

Or might it consider building different things?

[el cid again]

Both the US and the UK developed - but did not mass produce - seaplane fighters. The UK one - based on Spitfire - seems to be a better aircraft than the US one - based on Wildcat. 3 were built - and operated off a lake in Egypt - but none were ever operational.

IS there a role for seaplane fighters in Allied strategy? Is it better to buy planes tied to land bases than seaplane tenders? Might the US AVs been built in seaplane carrier from (as they were designed to be built)???

[el cid again]

The investment in bombers was at the heart of US strategy. Gen Marshall preferred a plan to build 100,000 aircraft to building the historically planned army. [The US Army was at all times - start to end - smaller then the IJA]

RHSEEO has already changed the Allied bomber planning in two respects:

1) a greater fraction of bombers are sent to PTO - generally 50% more unless special considerations apply

2) The PBB is built at Boeing Renton - as planned when it was built (the largest building or factory in the world) in 1942.
Instead of waiting for the B-29, it begins building the PBB as soon as possible - in 1943 - and switches to the B-29 - on the logic that something sooner is better than nothing. The start of B-29 production is (or should be) slightly later - as it was believed NOT making the PBB impacted the B-29 date favorably.

But might it change in other respects? If so how and why?

[el cid again]

EEO has changed Allied fighter policy only in one respect: a greater fraction is sent to PTO. Unless other considerations apply (i.e. all of them went to PTO already) - it is usually 50% more.

Might it be changed in other ways? If so, what and why?

IRL the production of so many kinds of US fighters was a decision made to ramp up numbers faster. A focus on fewer types also = fewer numbers early on. Under greater pressure it seems this would not have even been considered. FYI.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What if the Japanese threat were greater than IRL?

Would the US just respond by changing the % of things to PTO?

Or might it consider building different things?

The simple answer is yes. Had the Japanese posed a larger threat than historical the Western Allies would have had no choice but to use a greater degree of their economy might against Japan. If Japan had sank more US carriers the US would have built more given the limitations of dockspace and materials. In stock Witp the Japanese can increase their fighter production and then overwhelm the allies in a war of attrition early in the war when the US does not produce many fighters. With the permises you have used to build the EEO model, the allies would have responded in kind. More Japan capability would have forced more allied response.

[el cid again]

Might the US have considered - say - building more C-87s (at the expense of B-24s)??? Remember - there are 50% more of both types - but they come from the same factories. So the ratio might change. Would it? To what degree and why?

Another option might be to build fewer C-47s and more C-54s (on a 2:1 ratio - due partly to weight of metal and floorspace - but mainly due to engine requirements). Or more "pure" C-47s and fewer "combinations" of gliders and tugs - or vice versa?

Another option might be more (or fewer) two engine bombers vs four engine bombers (again, on a 2:1 ratio - for the same reasons). Or more (or fewer) two engine fighters vs single engine fighters (on a 1:2 ratio - for the same reasons).
Or possibly more (or fewer) transports vs fighters, or more (or fewer) bombers vs fighters - on a engine based ratio (1:1, 2:1 or 4:1, as appropriate). Yet another way to go might be more (or fewer) carrier planes vs landplanes - on a 1:1 ratio - rather than ramping both up as much as 50%.

What option(s) would produce more operational Allied power?

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Might the US have considered - say - building more C-87s (at the expense of B-24s)??? Remember - there are 50% more of both types - but they come from the same factories. So the ratio might change. Would it? To what degree and why?

Another option might be to build fewer C-47s and more C-54s (on a 2:1 ratio - due partly to weight of metal and floorspace - but mainly due to engine requirements). Or more "pure" C-47s and fewer "combinations" of gliders and tugs - or vice versa?

Another option might be more (or fewer) two engine bombers vs four engine bombers (again, on a 2:1 ratio - for the same reasons). Or more (or fewer) two engine fighters vs single engine fighters (on a 1:2 ratio - for the same reasons).
Or possibly more (or fewer) transports vs fighters, or more (or fewer) bombers vs fighters - on a engine based ratio (1:1, 2:1 or 4:1, as appropriate). Yet another way to go might be more (or fewer) carrier planes vs landplanes - on a 1:1 ratio - rather than ramping both up as much as 50%.

What option(s) would produce more operational Allied power?

I think at least in the sense that the Japanese navy produces more carriers in EEO that the allied response would be more not less carrier aircraft. The ability to strike at the enemy and also to rapidly react to a Japanese offensive would have carried the day at any planning sessions. With the great distances of the Pacific coupled with the need for an escort fighter in both Europe and the Pacific, would not the allies increase or speed up the introduction of long range fighter aircraft? More P-38's and quicker inplementation of the P-51 would be in order given the direction of Japanese war materials expansion.

[el cid again]

Interestingly, the perception that Japan produces more carriers in EOS family is not correct. It produces more carriers in CVO, the strictly historical mod. What Japan produces more of is fighting carriers and navy escort carriers. Seaplane carriers are produced in CVL form as well. The real change is the IJA does NOT produce any carriers at all.

In RHSCVO (and RHSRAO) Japan gets 45 carriers of all types.

In RHSBBO (and RHSRPO and RHSPPO) Japan gets 38 carriers of all types.

In RHSEOS (and RHSAIO) Japan gets even fewer: 34 carriers of all types.

In RHSEEO Japan gets 44 carriers.

See the MS Excel spreadsheet RHS Aircraft Carriers for details.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Interestingly, the perception that Japan produces more carriers in EOS family is not correct. It produces more carriers in CVO, the strictly historical mod. What Japan produces more of is fighting carriers and navy escort carriers. Seaplane carriers are produced in CVL form as well. The real change is the IJA does NOT produce any carriers at all.

In RHSCVO (and RHSRAO) Japan gets 45 carriers of all types.

In RHSBBO (and RHSRPO and RHSPPO) Japan gets 38 carriers of all types.

In RHSEOS (and RHSAIO) Japan gets even fewer: 34 carriers of all types.

In RHSEEO Japan gets 44 carriers.

See the MS Excel spreadsheet RHS Aircraft Carriers for details.

My bad on the stats but the reasoning still holds, the allies should be modeled to respond to changes in Japanese strategy within the allies production limits.

[ny59giants]

I haven't looked directly at the EEO scenario, but as an Allied player, I liked the increase in production of various models of P-40's that are found in Big B's mod. With EEO, the Allies should be able to increase production of this aircraft as an example as so many of the squadrons have 50% or less in them (In RHSRAO and CHS). An earlier version of the P-38 was nice in CHS. For the Allies, my early war problems are lack of fighters and aviation support. Thus, an slight increase in these two areas would help create more play balance, IMO.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Interestingly, the perception that Japan produces more carriers in EOS family is not correct. It produces more carriers in CVO, the strictly historical mod. What Japan produces more of is fighting carriers and navy escort carriers. Seaplane carriers are produced in CVL form as well. The real change is the IJA does NOT produce any carriers at all.

In RHSCVO (and RHSRAO) Japan gets 45 carriers of all types.

In RHSBBO (and RHSRPO and RHSPPO) Japan gets 38 carriers of all types.

In RHSEOS (and RHSAIO) Japan gets even fewer: 34 carriers of all types.

In RHSEEO Japan gets 44 carriers.

See the MS Excel spreadsheet RHS Aircraft Carriers for details.

My bad on the stats but the reasoning still holds, the allies should be modeled to respond to changes in Japanese strategy within the allies production limits.

I don't think that is said quite right:

First off, the Allies don't know in any world (real or fictional) what the Japanese strategy is

Second, they certainly don't know it is "different" than in some other world - a parallel universe sort of thing - with total isolation between them

Third, we have by simple scale up given the Allies more of all aircraft that were not already too committed to PTO to permit scale up (e.g. all of them go already). So what you are asking for is what is already programmed. If that is not confused - then you are voting to keep things as they are and NOT to change the ratio of planes.

I think the Allies have way too many planes - and that you are going to eventually see many aircraft build up large pools which eventually AI starts to take away - due to non use. But certain types of planes at certain times are in short supply - and some of them hardly seem adequate to the number of air units supported. Where other similar aircraft exist in pools, human players can and will convert over to them (which may be an unfair advantage, but it also may indicate what should have been done). By increasing the numbers of planes, it surely will mitigate the cases where there were too few: doubly so as types already not used fully will also grow and air units may convert to them. This should permit attrition warfare - which does seem very like Allied concepts of the period.

My query was more general: for example would a focus on heavy bombers (or some other type) be an advantage?

I am not really looking for different kinds of aircraft. Many reviews have settled we have a pretty good set - and the things to add (and which we did add) are pretty marginal. I will think about that - but what I want here is more a matter of change the ratio of existing aircraft? I won't give you any more aluminum or engines (having already done this, possibly too much so) - but I will recast it. But recast it how? Are long range transports better than medium transports?
Are there TOO MANY fighters? That sort of thing.

[Ol_Dog]

I always like more B-24s
[:)]

[el cid again]

There are more B-24s - aside from scale up - there are fewer given to the Navy as PB4Ys - so the B-24s make up the difference. We could give you fewer C-87s and still more B-24s.