Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

I agree with Carronade, the fore and aft triple 6.1" turrents could prove useful. They have a fairly good rate of fire and would probably be usefull against fast moving cruisers and destroyers. There is ample deck space and displacement to support a very substantial AA suite. I originally proposed the early conversions, post#470-

and provided some line drawings.
http://www.ww2f.com/war-pacific/54788-anyone-interested-some-intellectual-exercise-20.html post#478. I had suggested going with an armament of 3.9" turrets and 40mm bofors twin mounts. Someone and I'm not sure who, but I think it was MikeBatzel brought up the fact that she already had 5" guns so why mix. I personally like the 3.9" because it outperforms the 5"/40, but he has a valid point that it might be smarter to just add 5" mounts.
3.9"AAA gun:Japanese 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98 We could probably mount 6 x twin turrets per side with gun directors (if the 5" turrets were removed for a total of 24 tubes vs 20 on the North Carolinas, SoDaks and Iowas). We'd still have room for numerous 40mm mounts and I'd ship as many 20mm Oerlikons as space/stability allowed.

 

Ah Field Marshal, I may need to sctutize that link.....For Intelligence reasons of course, you understand I'm sure. Work, Work, Work

 

Not a topographical map, but it's the one I am using in the intelligence summary that I'm working on at the Prime Minister's request. It's located here, blow it up it has good river and rail location information.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/collections/nc/ww2/ChineseCivilWar04.png

 

From what I've read the period ones weren't very good. I read an account of a pilot flying somewhere in China. They were going over some mountains/hills and the weather was suppose to be cloudy do they set their altitude several thousand feet over the listed altitude. There was a break in the clouds during his flight and he was admiring the beauty of the country side when he realised he could distinguish leaves on the trees. Not something he could do from several thousand feet. He promply gained a bit more altitude before the clouds closed in again.

 

According to Japanese 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98 they weren't operational until 42. You might get them out earlier but at some risk and cost.
(noticed we've linked to the same site so you probably were aware of that.)
On DD's the 3.9 represent a very flexable platform for allocating these guns. The short barrel life means that only a DD needs to be pulled out of service to replace the barrels rather than a capital ship. If you could produce unlimited numbers going with them might be a good idea but I'd personally give DD's a higher priority for them.

 

Thank you lwd! That is really not exact!!! The reason why i want such a map is to know where swampy areas are and to see where some former main roads and railway routes were. I have a newr map from the Army, but i think its useless because it won´t contain the older roads and tracks.

BTW interested to jump in? there are some nice jobs to have?!

 

I would hope we can maintain our production at something close to our peak levels for the duration of the war. We will need to if we hope to win. I'd plan 250,000 tons/year knowing that we probably won't quite reach that figure.

2xCV approx. 54.000t (modified Shokaku)
2xCVL approx. 22.000t (modified Zuiho)
2xCA approx. 22.000t (repeat Tone)
8xCLAA approx. 56.000t (roughly an Oyodo tweaked to fleet air defense without the aviation facilities)
20xDD approx. 40.000t (repeat Yugumo)
20xDE approx. 30.000t (roughly Matsu class)
10xSS approx. 25.000t (repeat B type)

I would consider repeat Takaos, but I think for now our need for AA and scouting assets outweighs our need for surface gunnery.

This is strictly new construction. The bulk of our conversion can be done in civilian yards, since most of our conversions will have roughly merchant scantlings anyway. we're going to need tankers and fleet oilers above virtually all other types, I'd guess. I'd like to see us develop replenishment and aircraft transportation types so that we can increase the time that we could keep attack groups on station. We have considered a type of aircraft carrier support: Ashizuri class combat support ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAshizuri ClassSunosaki class combat support ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSunosaki Class
We should go ahead with production of this or something like it as quickly as possible. I'd also like to speed up production of additional repair ships.

I'd guess we could produce merchants and auxiliaries in something like these proportions

60% AO
25% AK/AKA (Freighter/Attack Freighter)
10% AP/APA (Transport/Attack Transport)
5% Everything else

This is just a rough guess, but since our supply lines for oil are so much longer we'll need more bottoms for that. After this we'll have the greatest need for bulk transport of ores and raw materials from the continent.

 

This may seem a bit silly with all the changes and conversions we're discussing, but I would like to keep things simple where possible, including retaining the existing 5"/40s on Y&M and making additional guns the same caliber. We'll be putting plenty of 3.9s into service on various platforms.

According to Japanese 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98 they weren't operational until 42. You might get them out earlier but at some risk and cost.

Chicken or egg? Might just be because the first ships designed to carry them, the Akizukis, only became operational in 1942. I don't see us deploying them any sooner, though it appears we may eventually have a good number of them.

USMCPrice, thanks for the information on the 3.9; I'd give you a like but it seems a bit egotistical for me to like a post that starts with "I agree with Carronade" I particularly liked the information on the Oyodo/Taiho mount - recall we discussed rearming the 5500-ton cruisers with AA weapons? That type 3.9" mount appears to be easier to retrofit in place of the 5.5s than the enclosed (Akizuki) version. It might depend a bit on whether we continue to use the ships as destroyer squadron flagships, the 5" would still be better for the surface half of DP.

 

Thank you very much, Roger! The source is great and i have to move my Landing zone a few miles upwards the point i´ve wanted to set it up for to much swampy area! Sorry that i can give only a Like to you, but my Salutes are gone for today!

 

I know this is stupid but what exactly do I do?

 

Thats your Army that you will command. Japanese Northern China Area Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look that it is combat ready, well trained and equipped and watch out for their moral. And help me win the war in China. The details will Col. Bobimoto provide to you, Sam.

 

I notice that the 53rd army wasn't created until the end of the war does it mean it won't be under my command? Also does any one know of the 2nd independent mixed brigade? Im not having luck in google.

 

Not silly at all! You position makes sense. If we get too conversion crazy weapons availabilty may slow things down, and we'll have hulls completed, awaiting the weapons for completion. As for conversions/changes, I think most of our changes are aimed at reducing types and standardization. For example the follow-on carrier classes, I think we pick the class that may not be the best in any certain area, but gives us the best value where functionality, cost and build time/complexity are concerned. As for conversions I think we've decided only on the Yamatos with increased AA fit (historical but sooner), the conversion of the 5 Kuma's to AA type CL's (they weren't very valuable ships historically and two were actually converted to make them something like super torpedo boats), and light carrier conversion (actually occurred). I really think this is just a reflection that we're placing emphasis on the CV as the major fleet unit in place of the capital ship. Japanese doctrine seemed to stress the need to engage in a climactic and decisive fleet engagement involving the big gun ships. We're just more aviation minded. In the naval armament area we're looking towards replacing the 25mm, which was a flawed and less than effective choice for an AA mount. The US did the same with the 1.1" which had its own issues. We'll go with the 40mm bofors (in use in Germany and Japan capture some British bofors in Singapore in 1942 and produced with changes as the Type 5. The Japanese version never perfected.) and 20mm Oerlikon (also used by Japan).

You're correct on your speculation based upon what I've read.

Well, I took care of the "like". I "liked" your post because it was good! As for arming the 5500t Kuma class CL's, it really doesn't matter to me which we use. Either would be better than what we have on them now and we're wasting decent hulls when we could really use everything we have. We need AA escorts and I think they could fill the bill quickly by being converted. That would also free up a little more production capacity for ASW types which we shouldn't wait on. Historically, 55% of all Japanese shipping losses were the result of submarines.

 

Never hurts to bring the Prime Minister a nice cup of tea

 

The stupid question is the one that is not asked. You now have a job and you'll be working with/for Ulrich. Your main theater of operations will be China. Research, think and discuss your ideas for how it could have been done better. We will soon be using our other thread to make decisions that will be run through the game for probable outcomes. If you go back through you will see the type of aircraft that you would prefer has been discussed, the use of riverine forces, etc. You are free and urged to let your mind run free, as long as it could have occurred historically. (we won't equip your forces with AH1-W Cobra, helicopter gunships)
You can suggest different unit organization, the production of different weapons types, the modification of existing types, different doctrine, political moves, whatever you'd like to try. Just remember we are constrained by real world manufacturing and logistics issues. Units take time to move, supplies need to be stockpiled, transports need to be allocated for naval movement, etc.

 

If that's the case is it possible to reorganize most of my army in to a more mechanized army? Considering the ccurrencies in china.

 

Shinano/Niyodo Conversion

I have 3 criteria for favoring conversion of hulls 110/111 to Fleet CV's,

1) They must be capable of effectively operating a minimum of 70 aircraft at the same time (Strike-CAP-Search)

2) They must be completable within 2 months time it would take of any follow on class we choose, factoring in any time lost clearing away the slipway and starting a completely new hull.

3) They must cost us no more than 10% more than a follow class ship. (not overall cost, just what it costs us from this point)

If these prove to be exceptionally good in one area, and flawed in another (say 100 aircraft, but costs 20% more as an example), then we further debate if the trade off's balance out.


Warship Construction

Using Col. Bobimoto's provided data, and averaging out the total I get an average of 291,000 tons per year. As we are intent to provide a greater level of resource material reaching the Home Islands that previous planning allowed for, the higher figure would seem possible and possibly exceeding that figure until a year or more after hostilities with the US.

I would probably faver exchanging 'poets 2 CVL's and 1 CA for a 3rd CV. We will never have as many escorts as we want and more hulls will use more fuel and expand the area needing CAP/ASW protection. Otherwise I have no problems with his ratio. Any excess tonnage available should go to ASW/Escort production.


Merchant Construction

Again using provided data, I get 940,000 tons per year. Augmented ASW escorts, plus restricted hostilities in the near term should allow us to retain a greater amount of tonnage already available.


Warship AA Conversion

It would be pointless to keep a ship in the yard until the best concievable weapons become available. Simply employ the best we have at the time they are in the yards. Otherwise conversions should be done either when they need major overhauls or spaced out to avoid shortages of needed ships.

 

I believe we already have a general aggreement to make improvements in North China forces in the matter of Armor, Guns and motor transport. Unfortunately it will never aproach the level of say a German Panzer Group like those employed in Russia currently. Most likely the best we can achieve is something similar to Motorized Divisions with perhaps a Medium Tank Battalion attached to each. We will also push hard for a man portable Anti-Tank weapon to be fielded in great numbers both for your forces and the rest of the Army.

Our biggest bottle neck is oil, and to take and protect it we need ships and planes. I suspect that the biggest piece of pie will have to go to the Navy, followed by the Airforce (Navy and Army) with the Army Ground forces taking last position. I do not know what the historical percentages are, but it is our hope that with better objective planning, redistribution and reorganization of ground forces and coupled with more resources reaching the factories, it will enable an overall larger pie from which to draw. If we succeed then we should be better able to find both the resources and right technological improvements that permit the Japanese Army to make significant material upgrades.

We will have to make hard choices about what we absolutely need and what we will have to accept and hope it will do the job. Taking a tank design as an example it will almost surely max out with a 75mm gun with half to 2/3rds being some form of self propelled anti-tank/assault gun platform. Good for defense, but limited for massed tank assaults. Considering they will not be fielded until 1943 or later in numbers and we will likely on the dfensive then or using them offensively against Chinese forces which could not compete with us, it would the most economical and tactical sense.

PM

 

I salute SP for his proposed program, although as it happens I disagree with a lot of it, but he's right that we need to establish our construction plans.

I continue to think the Unryu class our best carrier investment. They are not perfect, but they have almost as many aircraft as the larger and more costly Shokaku or Taiho types. If feasible I would concur with reducing belt armor in favor of deck protection; the essence of carrier operations is to avoid surface gunnery actions. A larger number of flight decks will enhance operational flexibility. In that same context I recommend against deliberate construction of light carriers in the 30-aircraft range. We will already have around 6-7 of these through conversions which we would probably not have undertaken - or built the ships in their original configurations - but for artificial treaty limits. We have enough variation, especially if we transform Shinano into another one-of-a-kind carrier; we should standardize on our most effective design.

We should complete the 19 Yugumo class destroyers currently programmed (and Shimakaze, already under construction) and the Akizukis, but will probably want to give priority to the latter type going forward.

The Matsu class destroyers are attractive ships, but we might consider as an alternative a simpler AA escort ship of perhaps half the horsepower, about 21 knots, and with 40mm automatic weapons rather than torpedo tubes (or the option to mount one or the other). This ship would also mount 3.9" AA guns and our best (Type 94) DP gunfire control system.

We seem to have agreement on more C/D type kaibokan escort ships, although we need to put a number to them. We also need to consider our need for unspectacular types like minesweepers, fast transports, or landing ships.

Cruisers seem to be a category where our resources run up against more urgent needs. If we have resources to invest in new AA cruisers, I still think we will be better off with more Akizuki class destroyers (which were apparently concieved as small AA cruisers although destroyer turns out to be a better classification).

For conventional gun cruisers, we might first consider reusing those surplus Mogami triple 6.1" turrets, say four per ship for 2-3 cruisers with the otherwise standard AA armament, torpedos, aircraft, etc. (it might seem a bit silly to put recently removed cruiser turrets back into 9000-ton or so cruisers, but blame our predecessors for that). I'm not particularly fond of the Tone type, realistically they only have a couple more aircraft than normal cruisers. If our goal is to provide more air capacity, we can get another 18,000-ton Unryu for little more investment than a 13,000-ton 152,000hp cruiser.

One minor note, we actually have fourteen 5500-ton cruisers, Kuma, Nagara, and Sendai classes. Oi and Kitikami were recently converted to torpedo cruisers with 32-40 tubes and are usually attached to the battle fleet; we should leave them as is and hope they can make a valutable contribution.