Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

I don't think I can commit to the time that an actual positoin on the council would take (at least the amount of time I would want to put into it) however perhaps a position as an advisor might work.

 

Well, with some considerable help from the other rogues and particularly Admiral Takao, I've been tackling the idea of our naval production plans. Based on the earlier 250,000 ton figure and suggestions received I revised my initial production as follows:


3xCV 81000 (repeat Shokaku)
10xDD 20000 (repeat Yugumo)
10xDDAA 27000 (repeat Akizuki)
2xCA 22000 (repeat Tone)
20xDE 30000 (TBD)
10xSS 25000 (repeat B)

With the remaining tonnage I had thought to work on conversions. I'd thought I'd like to see at least 4 CLAA conversions underway and perhaps also Chitose.

Here's the problem I'm running into. While what we have building presently is fairly modest, our building program is quite ambitions and space on slipways and in graving docks is limited. I believe the numbers above are achievable, but at a significant cost in merchant hulls. Here's where I'm running into the problem:

[TABLE="width: 529"]
[TR]
[TD]Yard[/TD]
[TD]Name/No.[/TD]
[TD]Length[/TD]
[TD]Project[/TD]
[TD]Pos. Next[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kure[/TD]
[TD]Dock 4[/TD]
[TD]750[/TD]
[TD]Oyodo[/TD]
[TD]CLAA Conv[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kure[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]Shokaku 4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kure[/TD]
[TD]Dock 3[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]Yamato 4[/TD]
[TD]Shokaku 5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kure[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]1200[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD]Tatsuta CLAA Conv.[/TD]
[TD]CLAA Conv[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Dock 3[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD]Tenryu CLAA Conv.[/TD]
[TD]CLAA Conv[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 5 (Niizuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD]Agano[/TD]
[TD]CLAA Conv[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 4 (Hatsuzuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Dock 5[/TD]
[TD]900[/TD]
[TD]Chitose Conversion[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Dock 6[/TD]
[TD]900[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sasebo[/TD]
[TD]Dock 4[/TD]
[TD]1200[/TD]
[TD]Kuma CLAA Conv. and Tama CLAA Conv.[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Dock 3[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Slip 4[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 4[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Dock 4[/TD]
[TD]750[/TD]
[TD]Ryuho[/TD]
[TD]Chiyoda Conversion[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]750[/TD]
[TD]Agano 2 (Noshiro)[/TD]
[TD]CLAA Conv[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Dock 5[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]Shinano[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Dock 6[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yokasuka[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]Shokaku 3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maizuru[/TD]
[TD]Dock 3[/TD]
[TD]250[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maizuru[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maizuru[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maizuru[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo 12 (Hayanami)[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maizuru[/TD]
[TD]Dock 4[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maizuru[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 1[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KSB Kob.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 4[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KSB Kob.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 3[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KSB Kob.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]Taiho[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KSB Kob.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 3[/TD]
[TD]250[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 5[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 2 (Teruzuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 6[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 3 (Suzutsuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 6 (Wakatsuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 4[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 7 (Shimotsuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]750[/TD]
[TD]Tone 3[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Nag.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]750[/TD]
[TD]Tone 4[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Yok.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Yok.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Yok.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Yok.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki 8 (Fuyuzuki)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Yok.[/TD]
[TD]Slip 4[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MHI Yok.[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]F Niigata[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo 8 (Tamanami)[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]F Niigata[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo 11 (Fujinami)[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harima[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harima[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harima[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harima[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harima[/TD]
[TD]Slip 4[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ishikawa[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ishikawa[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ishikawa[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Drock 3[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Slip 5[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Slip 6[/TD]
[TD]450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Slip 4[/TD]
[TD]500[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mitsui[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Slip 1[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Slip 4[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Slip 5[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Slip 6[/TD]
[TD]300[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Dock 1[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo 10 (Suzunami)[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Dock 2[/TD]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Slip 2[/TD]
[TD]600[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo 7 (Takanami)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uraga[/TD]
[TD]Slip 3[/TD]
[TD]600
[/TD]
[TD]Yugumo 9 (Kiyonami)[/TD]
[TD]Akizuki[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]





I have this all plugged into a spreadsheet, of course. The numbers and sizes are from two sources: the postwar U.S. maps to which Takao sent us the link some time ago, and from contemporary satellite images when I couldn't find the yards in the period maps. Kure and Kawasaki Kobe were noticeably absent. The other navy yards had remained largely unchanged, so I suspect the information on Kure is correct. However, civilian shipyards had changed considerably. Small yards near Tokyo have been paved under in the growing sprawl. (Only in Japan do cities "sprawl" into the bay quite like that.) Even some larger ones, like Yokahama Docks are completely absorbed in "reclaimed" land. (Though at the site of the former Ishikawajima Shipbuilding and Engineering yard outside Toyko the No. 2 dock has been retained as a water feature in what appears to be an office park. But I digress.)

I haven't included the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Kobe docks in the list, though perhaps I should. Their warship production during the war appears to have been quite minimal, but their extant slips and docks are quite large indeed, capable of building the largest warships of the WWII era, so I suspect they've been expanded. (Currently it appears that they have 3 1000' graving docks, 1 1000' slipway, and a couple of 200' slipways.)

All dock sizes are approximate, of course, but they should be pretty close. The restrictions imposed by this plant feel about right, causing me to revise my best construction hopes downward. For instance, I have some reservations about building five large fleet carriers simultaneously. To wit: we would have Taiho, Shokakus 3, 4, and 5, and possibly Shinano on the ways at the same time. We seem to have have 9 docks and slips of 1000' or more (unless we add MHI Kobe). I'd like to retain at least a third of our graving docks in any class empty for emergency repair and overhaul. Since the need for AA escorts is great, I've suggested plugging Sasebo 4 with a pair of Kumas. One hopes this won't take too long. If the 15 CLs can be converted adequately without changes to the hull that would free up dock space.

You will see that there's quite a bit of empty space on the list, which is by no means all inclusive. The navy yards are fairly well utilized, since they're best adapted to warship construction anyway. I've not utilized the full capacity of the civilian yards, since I'd like to use them as much as possible for auxiliaries and merchant vessels. That said, we truly do have something of a shortage of building slips if this comes to a building race. If we can avoid war with the U.S. as long as possible, perhaps our best course is to forgo construction of small warships for now and concentrate instead on bottoms for our merchant fleet. Even if the U.S. does not attack us, they are extremely unlikely to ship tonnage for us and we are, if memory serves, facing a deficit of nearly 30%.

I look forward to the thoughts of the august council.

Sincerely,
Admiral Noka

 

I'd gladly send the spreadsheet to anyone who wants to manipulate it, though I may have to do so backchannel, as I can't find a way to attach it here. Additionally, if there were a way to resize graphics, I'd prefer to paste the plan into the post in a more attactive and legible way. It tends to get rather garbled in transition.

Lastly, this may be obvious, but current projects to be continued are in green, those awaiting final decision of the council (Shinano) are in yellow, those to be scrapped (Yamato 4) are in red.

 

General Nishio,
I know it seems that our discussions about China have taken a back seat to our naval, air, logistical and resource issues, but there is a very good reason! It is a dichotomy we face, China is the source of of most of our problems and the reason we find ourselves in our current situation, but in order to be able to solve the China problem we have to find a solution to the problems China has caused us.
1.) Oil/Fuel-This powers our ships, aircraft, military vehicles and industry. We must have an adequate supply of it in order to give you the tools you need to solve the China problem. Offensive operations use large quantities of materials, we need fuel to get them to you. Aircraft need fuel to fly and if we are going to allow you the type of air support you want we need to have the fuel. Building aircraft, armored vehicles, and weapons your troops need, requires an adequate supply of fuel to the factories that will build them. The pilots that fly your aircraft need to be trained and that too requires fuel. The riverine naval assets you'd like require fuel also.
2.) Time-You need time to solve the China situation. We have to be able to give you that time. The US will sooner or later intervene. We have vast ocean areas between us and America. It will require a powerful naval and air component to keep the United States off your back. Distance also equals time, if we expand eastward, but not too far eastward, we can trade this space for time.
3.) Enemy supply lines-Britain is allowing western supplies to transit their territory to supply and equip your opponent. China has an almost inexhaustable manpower supply. As long as Chaing and Mao can fall back, rest and regroup, then come again, we will never beat them. We can win battles forever but as long as they can rebuild and continue on, we will not win. IMO, we need to cut their supplies to isolate them. Pick one force or the other, (Chicom or Nationalist) and concentrate on them until they are destroyed, all the while holding and increasing security in areas we control. We can use limited offensives/probing attacks to keep the Chinese pinned in areas where we are not focussing our main effort.
4.) Training and reorganization-We need to recruit and train sufficient non-Japanese troops to secure relatively safe areas
Chinese, Malayan, Thai, Korean, Indonesian, Indo-Chinese, etc. We need to reorganize our own units to make them more mobile. While we are more mobile than most western forces, we are less mobile than many of the Chinese formations we face. They use their numbers to advantage. Huge numbers of light infantry allow for mobility and sufficient firepower. We rely on fewer, better trained soldiers, backed up by heavy weapons. We need to increase both the firepower and mobility of our infantry. If you look at most of the defeats we have suffered at the hands of the Chinese, it's because they've maneuvered against us, and have cut our supply lines. We need to be mobile enough to seize and retain the initiative. They need to be reacting to our maneuvers instead of moving against our weak areas. When we do beat them they use strategic withdrawl to pull back and avoid destruction. We need to be quick enough that when we grab ahold of them we can keep hanging on, until we fix them and destroy them completely. If we don't they will just pull back, rebuild and re-engage. A cycle that our enemies can repeat continually unless they run out of manpower and supply.

 

Noka san,
Outstanding work on the production plan. Thanks.

 

I appreciate the research of Symphonic Poet, Takao, and USMCPrice into our naval production program. Hopefully it is all achievable. The two heavy cruisers seem to be an addition to what my research indicates we could expect to complete by 1944. Do we particularly want more Tone type ships, or is that just suggested as the currently available design? Realistically they only carry one or two more aircraft than a normal cruiser. Since we don't seem to have plans for the remaining Mogami-class 155mm turrets - indeed we've discussed taking two each out of Yamato and Musashi - we might economize by reusing them in a Suzuya hull, that is to say the first improvement over the original Mogami design. Alternatively a twelve-gun ship might be a more balanced design.

If it's not too late, we might reconsider the conversion of the submarine support ship Taigei to a carrier (Ryuho). This is a particularly inefficient conversion since it calls for the entire engineering plant to be replaced. If we wish to tear up and reconstruct existing ships, I suggest the 29-knot seaplane carriers. Nisshin is just finishing construction and Chitose and Chiyoda were designed to be reasonably easy to convert. If Taigei is not needed in her original role, she could be used with minimal modifications as a transport and support ship for amphibious operations - especially if ships like Nisshin are no longer available.

It has also been suggested to convert Mizuho to a carrier, and I suggest that some of us who have not voiced opinions previously help make this decision. IMO a 22-knot aircraft carrier is of significantly less value than a faster ship; and it we do want 22-knot carriers, we can convert ships like liners which are not already operating useful aircraft for us.

I suggested earlier converting the Kuma, Nagara, and Sendai class light cruisers to AA configurations; Yubari is also a candidate and has the best arrangement of gun postions for the AA role. Tatsuta and Tenryu have the least potential for improvement; it might be just as well to leave them as they are. We can use a few small ships like them, the Katori class, and minelayers like Okinoshima for support of amphibious operations and the like.

I believe we were also in agreement to increase production of antisubmarine escort ships, completing the Etorofu and Mikura class ships presently under construction, then transitioning to the smaller type C/D. We also discussed building wooden submarine chasers and minesweepers. I don't believe we ever had a clear decision on AA escort ships. We could defer actual construction of these until circumstances warrant, but we should make a policy decision.

 

So sorry to trouble Bobimoto-san again, but is it possible to get a comparison of the production cost of completing Shinano as an aircraft carrier to compare with building a new one? To further complicate matters, I suggest not considering the single-hangar, heavy armored flight deck concept; that seems sure to produce a less valuable ship than an Unryu or Shokaku. I appears that a single hangar on Shinano's hull could accommodate about 42 operational aircraft, plus spares. This is not inconsistent with carriers like Kaga or Shokaku which operate 72 aircraft i.e. 36/hangar, plus spares. Thus a dual hangar Shinano might accomodate an air group of around 84. She should certainly have at least three elevators, including one amidships which usually has to be omitted from armored-deck carriers.

If we have to make a decision without solid information, I would go with scrapping Shinano and reusing materials as much as possible.

 

I don't believe that this is at all correct, and I'd be interested to see your source for this.

The US was not supplying oil to the USSR before July 1941. They did not supply that much to the UK, as British, Dutch colonies (& oil concessions) were able to supply what was needed. It wasn't until later in 42, when tanker losses (and the loss of DEI & Borneo) that the UK needed more US oil.

There was a huge surplus of oil in the US before 1942, in fact the oil companies had a major problem of oversupply and low prices. There was NEVER a shortage of oil in the US during 1939 - 1942, however gasoline was rationed after Pearl Harbor, not to save oil, but to save rubber.

The British & Dutch also have no shortage of iron or oil in the Far East, their available resources far exceeded their shipping capacity.

Here are some facts: Germany produced about 7.3 million tons in 1941, or 0.6 million tons per month. for the entire war effort.
Japan's needs were not more than that.
</title> </head> <body bgcolor="#f5f5f5" text="#000000" link="#2f4f4f" alink="#2f4f4f" vlink="#2f4f4f"><script type="text/javascript"> ////// Compete ///////////////////// __compete_code = '667f89f26d96c30e99728fe6a608804d'; (function () { var s = do

Meanwhile, the US surplus oil production (not production, surplus production) was 1 million tons PER WEEK

(7 barrels = about 1 ton; 7 million barrels/week = 1 million tons/week )

Read more: Oil and world power - Oil http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Oil-and-world-power.html#ixzz1qVUKUpiR

Oil is available in abundance in both the DEI and British colonies, iron is available in Africa, India, and Australia, provided they are willing to sell it to Japan. There won't really be a price war, as they can't ship it all to the UK anyway, so it would be in their interests to sell in for ca$h if possible.

 

Dear Colonel Bobimoto-san,

thank you for your opinion on that matter! It is as always very well thought and written. There is nothing i can´t agree with! The problem is that it seems tha some of the Staff will see more advantage in capturing lots of islands out in the ocean. Some for good reasons, some for maybe it nice to have that island. My concerns are about the same fact that Hitler´s should be. Overexpanding the frontlines and the supply lines. That is a point where some may say that exactly this will happen at China. Yes and no! Yes if we want to get the whole country and no if we are able to cut down their supply lines and capture only that areas with the industrial plants, the resources and the main traffic points. Other than to sit in well made concrete bunkers on a island where i need to have a strong Navy to secure my supply lines and any single bombing attack on a Airfiled will keep it usless for us for hours up to days. It is important to have some strategic good islands but not all of the ones some may like to have. So for me the main interest for the first actions are on China!

Sincerely

General

Nishio

 

It is great to say we just need to beat the Chinese to win, but we have been beating them for years now and they still wont quit. The reality is that China is too big for us to occupy. Even if there had been no embargo and no war with the West, Japan was still never going to force Chiang to negotiate. Even if we happen to reach Chungking how are we going to occupy all that territory. The more we occupy the easier it is for guerrilla forces to operate in our rear.

 

Interesting question: In 1940 the British (&US) were supplying Japan with iron & raw materials and the Burma road was closed, if the Burma road remained closed in 1941 and there was no embargo, is there a better strategy that could make significant progress in China?

 

A Japan could not occupy all of China. B the Japanese treatment of the Chinese meant there was no incentive to cooperate with the Japanese. C. Japan was not gaining anything from their continual war with China. The only way Japan could have gotten peace is by offering something to the Chinese.

 

Thank you. My real aim is to get a clearer handle on what we can build. I think it is all achievable and possibly more besides, so long as we understand the costs and risks. The spreadsheet, when it is complete, should be a useful tool to help us ration our precious dockyard space. (I am inclined to think it's even more important to us than steel right now. Not so important as oil, perhaps, but maybe even more than steel.) It has been quite eye opening to see just how difficult it is to fit what seemed, at first, a very modest construction proposal into the available slips. I'm now almost surprised that it's even possible to squeeze 250,000 tons a year from the plant we have available.

From my own reading and exercises I've become enamored of using cruiser seaplanes (Jakes in particular) for our primary search role. The cruiser seaplane carriers seem a very nice fit with the fleet carriers: they have the displacement to carry a useful AA battery, the speed and endurance to accompany the fleet, and certain of our seaplane types have the range and endurance to make quite excellent scouts. That said, I am quite open to the possibility of building a "seaplane cruiser" with a 6" primary armament and an improved AA suite. It could well be much more useful than a simple repeat Tone. All of my suggestions are very approximate and represent only role and size intended, and not necessarily a specific recommended design. (Though repeats might be preferred when possible to speed construction.)

I fully support converting some of the other "shadow" carriers as well. I have set aside dock space for one additional such, though after further consideration, Chiyoda might be a more ideal candidate, since we've less need of midget submarines than seaplanes. Some of Chiyoda's modifications in her role as a midget submarine carrier could be useful for a fast amphibious support ship and could be applied to Ryuho/Taigei if she can be retained as an auxiliary.

The same roles that would work well for Ryuho/Taigei should work for Mizuho with roughly similar work. If we continue conversion of Ryuho into a carrier, we could rebuild Mizuho for a role in amphibious operations. Or we could simply retain her as a seaplane carrier.

I fail to see what advantage the two Tenryus have for amphibious operations over other cruisers. In fact, I'd be inclined to think most of our destroyers would be better in the role. The Tenryus have the same 5.5"/50 cal main armament as our other older light cruisers. Their displacement is less, to be sure, but this means we can do the work in smaller docks. (Assuming of course we need to use docks at all) I should think we could substitute 8 DP guns of about 4" quite adequately for the 5.5s, and this would give us cruisers with teeth. The Kumas and later cruisers will certainly work better, but all will require larger docks. This will depend on whether replacing the main armament on a 2 for 1 basis with smaller DP guns adds too much topweight, which will require us to add bulges (and thus use docks.) I'm guessing that it will, in fact. But my real question is this: why not convert them?

I certainly wish to increase our ASW escort capacity in the long run, but this competes more directly with merchant bottoms, since they'll most likely be built in private docks. Do we need them yet? Escorts can build much more quickly than most other types. This is one area of construction where we could conceivably respond after the fact.

I certainly favor using wooden escorts when and where we can. Saves needed resources and they might just beat magnetic fuses. (Even magnetic fuses that actually work.)

Again, the spreadsheet is a tool to help us better rationalize our building. The important thing in my list is our dock capacity, not the ships I've suggested tying it up with. You make some valid points well worth further consideration.

Does my thought that we should retain at least 1/3 of our graving dock capacity for repairs and maintenance make sense? Is this too much? Too little? I'm just guessing, but that feels about right to me. (1/2 to 1/3.)

 

Also: I simply hadn't gone into detail on anything smaller than a destroyer in that first draft. (Was even considering adding destroyers.)

I'd ultimately like to get a better handle on what additional civilian docks we have for merchant hulls, so we don't spend all our capacity building warships when we really need to move oil. I'd also like to better understand how much steel we have on hand for building, and how quickly we will exhaust that supply if we don't improve our sources. I can estimate build times on the ships we have thus far, based on historic construction and prewar times in periods of ample supply, but shortages will slow us down. To really nail our building plan down we will need to know how long hulls will fill a dock or slip before they can be launched and sent down the quay to the shipfitters.

 

They can if they recruit forces allied to Japan

So maybe dial back the brutality?

China has vast resources, which Japan needs

Peace is not required - only control.
Given some encouragement, the Chinese Civil war could keep the KMT & CPC occupied and unable to contest Japanese domination.

 

IMO any work on Tenryu and Tatsuta is a waste of effort, they are quite useful as training cruisers as they are and we need to train lots of men for our expansion programme, it may mean removing some guns for more accomodation but that would make them decent command ships for an anphibious force if it comes to a point we need every possible hull in the front line. Shinano looks too advanced to waste but having a huge fuel guzzling ship with less capability than Kaga looks bad, I would actually continue her with the original BB though in the 6 * 155 and more AA configuration, we still need a credible surface force for deterrence and she woul allow usto scrap a couple of the older BBs when she enters service.
SimphonicPoet you can't attach an xls but you can attach a zip file with xls in it! that's what I'm going to do when I resume my work on naval aviation losses in the 1941 - 1942 battles. The only hassle is removing the old attachment when you have an upgraded version as AFAIK you can't replace an attachment.

 

The Japanese had neither the intention or the capability of directly administering China. Their goal was to set up friendly puppet governments that would be favorable to Japanese interests. However, the brutality of the Japanese made the governments that they did set up very unpopular, and the Japanese refused to negotiate with either Kuomintang or the Communists, which could have brought popularity.
Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) - major invasion of eastern China by Japan
We cannt very well negotiate with Chinese if we are fighting them which is why I say we need to negotiate a peace treaty with Chiang. The problem with control as I keep trying to point out is that Japan does not have the manpower to occupy the parts of China we have as it is. The Shanghai and Nanning operations required 200,000 men alone and that is just a part. I would guess based on my game that at least half of the Japanese forces were involved in occupation.

 

My history fact book estimates that one fourth of Japans casualties came from China. of about 1.5 million dead in the army almost 400k. To compare apx 210k Japanese died in SE and almost 700k in the Pacific, this total army and navy.
http://www.japanww2.com/wt17.htm
the above is a table that shows a breakdown of Japanese deaths in battle in China. another page shows that Japan did lose quite a few battles against the Chinese through out the war and before the American entry.

 

Re: Peace with China

I am against making any peace with China for the purposes of this exercise. As I understand it, besides learning in a controlled environment the difficulties Japan faced in prosecuting the war, as well as exploring possible alternatives in conducting the war. A peace with China would in effect remove the reasons for going to war. The embargo and Japanese need for materials to continue the war against China. This would leave us with only a possible war against the Soviets in support of our German allies a possibility. However I believe that to begin a war against the soviets, after giving up the resources and rich agricultural land in China would be a grave mistake. We are already having problems at home over food shortages.

Since the Soviets are a much better equipped and trained force then the Chinese, it is conceivable that we would require larger commitments of men and material to this front. No doubt we will still be facing off against the western allies regardless of whether we fight China or the Soviets.

 

I have no problem with holding resource areas, but my issue is what are we gaining from the constant fighting. essentiallystayingthe course commits us to a two front war that we cant sustain. What I propose is allowing us a reprive from the fighting, allow the Chinese to fight each other while we have peace to build up our infrastructure and forces.