Jap Reinforcements

[Mike Carroll]

Looking at the reinforcement schedule for the Japanese. It seems to me they are a little light on ship replacements. Not sure I would give them 10 Battleships or anything. But it seems to me that they would be able to continue to build destroyers and light cruisers at least.

With the absence of a real strategic war interdiction capability on the allied side; the Japs would be able to ship in resources from Manchuria and other places and continue to build through out the war. That is until the US was able to recapture the Philippines and enact a blockade of Japan. Such a blockade would probably be able to choke off major production but that would be late war.

[Rysyonok]

A couple quotes from http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

- Japan, an island empire totally dependent on maintaining open sea lanes to ensure her raw material imports, managed to build just sixty-three DDs (some twenty or so of which would have been classified by the Allies as DEs) and an unspecified (and by my unofficial count, relatively small) number of 'escort' vessels. In the same time span (1941-1945), the US put some eight hundred forty-seven antisubmarine capable craft in the water! And that total doesn't even cover the little stuff like the armed yachts and subchasers we used off our Eastern seaboard against the German U-Boats.

- The United States built more merchant shipping in the first four and a half months of 1943 than Japan put in the water in seven years. The other really interesting thing is that there was really no noticeable increase in Japanese merchant vessel building until 1943, by which time it was already way too late to stop the bleeding. Just as with their escort building programs, the Japanese were operating under a tragically flawed national strategy that dictated that the war with the United States would be a short one.

The page has several nice tables. Check it out

[Mike Carroll]

Oh I agree there is no way they can outproduce the US. I am merely stating that there will be some minimal level of production in 1922 and 1926. There is no strategic bombing campaign nor air dominance nor long range subs to really close down the shipping lanes. At least not until the US has captured a base closer to Japan.

Maybe the reinforcements in the scenario are "realistic" I just do not know. Japan had a decent shipbuilding capability and if they had the resources they can build the ships. Without the strategic warfare campaign to cut-off Japan I do not see why they could not.

In my "Terrible Swift Sword" game against Helpless, he has already lost more destroyers than he will get as replacements during the entire course of 4.5 years of war. Somehow that does not seem right. With the time and resources it takes to build a major unit, perhaps that production rate is accurate, but destroyers and light cruisers are significantly easier to build. I would not be surprised if there are games near the end where both sides are fighting it out with Commerce Raiders.

[Helpless]

ORIGINAL: Mike Carroll
I would not be surprised if there are games near the end where both sides are fighting it out with Commerce Raiders.

You mean Japan fighting it out with Commerce Raiders [;)]...

[String]

Respawning for jap DD's? [:D]

[Rysyonok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Carroll

Oh I agree there is no way they can outproduce the US. I am merely stating that there will be some minimal level of production in 1922 and 1926. There is no strategic bombing campaign nor air dominance nor long range subs to really close down the shipping lanes. At least not until the US has captured a base closer to Japan.

Maybe the reinforcements in the scenario are "realistic" I just do not know. Japan had a decent shipbuilding capability and if they had the resources they can build the ships. Without the strategic warfare campaign to cut-off Japan I do not see why they could not.

In my "Terrible Swift Sword" game against Helpless, he has already lost more destroyers than he will get as replacements during the entire course of 4.5 years of war. Somehow that does not seem right. With the time and resources it takes to build a major unit, perhaps that production rate is accurate, but destroyers and light cruisers are significantly easier to build. I would not be surprised if there are games near the end where both sides are fighting it out with Commerce Raiders.

Well, we're going to see what it's like once someone actually makes it to 1926/1930. After that it's scenario editing 101 I believe it's all in the player. A cautious one will retain more ships regardless of reinforcements and vice versa.

I believe Japanese reinforcements to be very realistic. Once US starts to attack, once it's battling Japanese at its home bases, losing ship after ship on the long voyage home after being torpedoed... I predict the endgame loss ratios to be 1 Japanese ship for 2-3 American ones...

Anyways, a bit more data.

From what I was able to gather, in 1920s Japan built...

12 x Mutsuki-class DD (1926-1927)
20 x Fubuki-class DD (1928-1931)
5 x Kuma-class CL (1920-1921)
6 x Nagara-class CL (1922-1925)
3 x Naka-class CL (1924-1925)
CL Yubari (1923)
4 x Furutaka-class CA (1926)
4 x Myoko-class CA (1928-1929)

I'm sure there were more DDs before 1925 but the data still points out to:

Japan was producing on average 10 middle-size ships a year

And the game is more generous than that, no?

[Rysyonok]

And even more data.

Japan entered WW1 with 50 DD and built 27 during the war while losing only 1.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyJapanese.htm

[Helpless]

For example in SD PBEM scen. (1926) all Jap DD do fit in one screen - 18 DDs in 4.5 year... it starts with 98 DDs

Of cause japanese shortage on DD in our game is mainly due to bad assets management....

[Mike Carroll]

That is good data on ship construction rates. TankerAce said he would design a scenario bringing the Jap production system back in. I think this is critical to play out the "Strategic War"

Again you are talking from data, I am talking more from a gut-feel. If the Japs loose destroyers they would tend to try to replace them, maybe some sort of reorganization of priorities. Also a naval war would cause some sort of rearrangement of production. Maybe that is already built in.

Again in my current game I have sunk 33 Japs and he has sunk 63 of mine (with another in danger of going down). Our game appears to be a fairly cautious game. We are in Aug 26 and so far our major units have not yet engaged. I think we are both aware that if we loose our major units we are in real trouble. So we being very cautious. So we will see how it plays out late game. Maybe the Japs should have some more smaller escorts.

[Rysyonok]

But what are your DDs dying from? The US losses seem to be too high for this early in the game. That's what, 3/4 of his DDs?

[Helpless]

33/63 this is overall loses. DD loss ratio is almost 1:1. Most of them I lost during PI invasion in naval actions. Subs were also quite dangerous.

[orabera]

Has anyone looked at American production?

I just finished War Plan Orange by Edward S. Miller, and according to the 1928 version of the plan, the US could expect to have just over 200 destroyers in action after six months once all of the Clemsons had been taken out of mothballs, and at the twelve month mark could expect an ever increasing number of new construction DD's and Subs, eventually more than doubling the number in commission for both. The plan was based on a two year war and no new big ship additions were expected. I just did a quick count of all US destroyers for the 26 campaign and only came up with 184.

They planned on 12 new aircraft carriers after a year, primarily conversions of passenger liners, a conversion that was not very optimal.

They expected to deploy over 1400 aircraft of all types during the first year at which time new units would begin to appear, US aircraft production would exceed 18,000 a year and deployments would average 500 aircraft a month. Expected loss rate for aviationunits was 25% a month.

Side note: In order to keep the Army happy with the plan, the Navy committed to a Marine Corps strength of no more than 40,000, about 4 brigades worth.

[Rysyonok]

Wow.

If they planned so much, how come they built only 64 DD in WW1 =)

[Rysyonok]

349 in WW2

[orabera]

Must of the WWI construction was completed post war, most Clemson's went staight from the construction yard to mothballs.

[orabera]

From 1913-1917 the USN built 6 classes of 1000-tonner destroyers, all capable of approximately 30 knots, 32 ships total. DD-43 through DD-74.

From 1918-1919 the USN started construction of 5 classes of 1000-tonner destroyers, all capable of 35 knots, 267 ships total were completed. DD-75 through DD-347, with a few cancellations. All were ordered during WWI, at the time no thought of preparing to cancel the orders if the war were to end.

By 1921 the USN would have had 299 kind of modern DD's, most armed with between 8 to 12 torpedo tubes and 4 x 4" guns, many mothballed.

Due to this glut of new DD's, Congress did not approve the construction of new DD's until 1934, by which time all were years past obsolescence.

The USS Clemson was laid down in May 1918, Launched in September 1918, but not commissioned until December 1919, and then placed in reserve in June 1920. If the war had continued, it could been placed in commission far sooner. The US was capable of incredible naval construction even in 1918. In the 20's in could have duplicated the 267 new DD's in two to two and a half years easily. These were very simple and small DD's, closer to DE's of WWII.

http://www.destroyers.org/ShipList/DD-CL.htm

[Iridium]

I think the biggest problem in quoting production records of WWI in reference to Japanese shipbuilding is that Japan did not really do much in that war. I get the impression that they did not hurry production or increase it for the war. Also, since this is an alternate history one could make almost any arguement to either increasing or decreasing Japan's production abilities.

It's not that I favor increasing or decreasing it's ship building plans. I just think that many things occured after the Washington Conference in RL that changed all nation's actual building programs. Making any quote to reality in this case only gives us a general idea of what they did, not what they could have done.

[Mike Carroll]

I guess my basic stance would be that with the Washington Naval talks failed. Both sides would build up to a war. There would probably be an increase on both sides. Also with ships like destroyers there would be an increase in production to at least try to cover war losses.

I guess if the production system is turned back on then it is an easy thing to add additional production and let the Jap player modify what gets built with the available resources.

In our Terrible Swift Sword game I think we have been playing fairly conservatively. There have not been the massive suicide runs etc. But just normal battles and attrition from ASW operations. So far the Japs have lost 22 Destroyers (by Aug 26) and the Allies 16. The Japs only receive 18 Destroyers (I think) during the course of the 4.5 years of war. So already after 2.5 months of war they have lost more destroyers than they will be able to replace. Something just seems wrong with this.

Again it will be a Commerce Raider War in 1928[:D]

[Rysyonok]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

I think the biggest problem in quoting production records of WWI in reference to Japanese shipbuilding is that Japan did not really do much in that war. I get the impression that they did not hurry production or increase it for the war. Also, since this is an alternate history one could make almost any arguement to either increasing or decreasing Japan's production abilities.

It's not that I favor increasing or decreasing it's ship building plans. I just think that many things occured after the Washington Conference in RL that changed all nation's actual building programs. Making any quote to reality in this case only gives us a general idea of what they did, not what they could have done.

Japan could mass-produce ships if it really needed them, yes. Let's recall Asakaze DDs, laid during Russo-Japanese war. 32 in 4 years!

But the basic truth is, the country was bankrupt.

So was UK - almost.

I doubt Japan and UK could have had bigger fleets without Washington Treaty. USA is a totally different matter though.

[Helpless]

But the basic truth is, the country was bankrupt.

Who cares about the money if you can bring gaijins to the sea's bottom ...

[:)]