The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

[oldman45]

They might have retained another Colorado class. The Colorado's appear to be a better ship than the Tosa.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

I would love to see some Morane-Saulnier 406s. Maybe a squadron or two could get some Dewoitine 520s sometime? The Bloch 170s and Amiot 350 series weren't bad 2E light bombers either.

Didn't the French have a nice naval dive bomber? A Loire-Nieuport?

Loire-Nieuport LN 401

[John 3rd]

That is a very nice side view!

[oldman45]

I think we have the same book in our library's. [8D]

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.

This is correct. The Japanese argue successfully at Washington for a ratio of 5:5:3.5 as they hoped for. Essentially figure a failed codebreaking situation OR Secretary Hughes showing flexibility (as he did IRL) to get the Treaty completed.

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.

This is correct. The Japanese argue successfully at Washington for a ratio of 5:5:3.5 as they hoped for. Essentially figure a failed codebreaking situation OR Secretary Hughes showing flexibility (as he did IRL) to get the Treaty completed.

I guess I would have said that they keep the Kawachi-class battleships as their additional two, or even Satsuma-class. That is a more likely outcome from the US and UK point of view. It still maintains the numerical ratio that the Japanese were looking for, achieves the financial savings that the Japanese government needed, and doesn't put two ships out there that (on paper) are stronger than their foreign counterparts.

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Skyland: How are things coming along?

I have sent a pm to FatR : navy things are done. I have yet to add the air stuff.
It may be ok for this week end.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think we have the same book in our library's. [8D]

Actually, though I could have scanned it from one of my mags or books, this came from the Virtual Aircraft Museum.

See: http://www.aviastar.org/index2.html

[DOCUP]

Is anyone else getting itchy to play this besides me.

[oldman45]

Great link, thanks!

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Is anyone else getting itchy to play this besides me.

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Skyland: How are things coming along?

I have sent a pm to FatR : navy things are done. I have yet to add the air stuff.
It may be ok for this week end.

Sounds like solid progress! Are you happy with the work at this point?

[khyberbill]

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.

Count me in!

[John 3rd]

Does that mean at some point we are abandoning our 3.0 in favor the new Scenario?

[khyberbill]

I am not planning of that.

[AdmNelson]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.

Looking forward to testing the beast. I am getting new toys, correct. Like Starship Enterprise. Maybe I can use the old toys, raid on Tokyo sounds good.

[AdmNelson]

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.

Count me in!

Fit another one in?

[John 3rd]

No. I think RA 3.0 with Bill and a Perfect War with Lew is PLENTY!

[kfsgo]

Uh-oh. Long post coming:

ORIGINAL: xwraith

I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:

• Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
• Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
• Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
• Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
• Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific

Some potential (a)historical justifications:

Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

I've been thinking about what you might do with Australia particularly - there seem to have been a lot of grand plans for shipbuilding put together over various decades, but invariably delays in shipping fiddly bits from the UK meant they didn't work out so well in wartime - HMAS Adelaide took seven years to complete (1915-1922) against HMAS Brisbane (a similar ship, but 1913-1916) To get something more out of Australian domestic production you really need to start early - in reality the money and inclination weren't made available, but Australia is going to be far more alarmed than the UK proper by any expanded Japanese capabilities, and since we've got freedom of hindsight...

- The in-game RAN adds a few major ships through the 1930s and 1940s:

Cruisers, built in the UK:

- HMAS Sydney (1935) [sunk by 7/12/41]
- HMAS Hobart (1938)
- HMAS Perth (1939)

- HM/AS Shropshire (1943, to replace Canberra)

Destroyers, built in Australia:

- HMAS Arunta &
- HMAS Warramunga (1942)
- HMAS Bataan (1945)

Destroyers, built in the UK:

- HMAS Waterhen [sunk by 7/12/41]
- HMAS Vampire &
- HMAS Stuart &
- HMAS Vendetta &
- HMAS Voyager (1930s)

- HMAS Nizam &
- HMAS Nestor &
- HMAS Norman &
- HMAS Napier &
- HMAS Napier (1941-42)

- HMAS Quiberon &
- HMAS Quickmatch (1943)


Further militarisation of Japan at sea is liable to focus minds in Canberra if it doesn't elsewhere - relatively speaking, anyway - particularly if the RAN is included in UK tonnage quotas. The 1933 order for three cruisers can't be grown - LNT #2 is still in force - but on expiration I would expect a supplementary order. This has to be something that won't disrupt shipbuilding in the UK too much; no battleships, or anything with 5.25in guns, or anything demanding much HAA guidance equipment. The Arethusa (5000t, 6x6in, 32kts) type cruisers appear ideal; small enough not to be too awkward to build in Australian shipyards, but still modern, useful ships. Main Australian shipbuilding facilities seem to be:

BHP, Whyalla [10,000t+, but merchant standards; from 1940]
Cockatoo Dock, Sydney [~10,000t]
HM Australian Dockyard, Melbourne [~5000t]
Mort's, Sydney [?, at least ~2000t]
New South Wales State Dockyard, Newcastle [~2500t, from 1943]
Evans Deakin, Brisbane [~2000t]
Walkers, Maryborough [~2000t]

So - practically, any cruisers have to come out of Cockatoo; Melbourne could do a smaller light cruiser along the lines of Tromp, but is just a little too small (in length) for Arethusas. Given the timescale that really only allows one ship by the outbreak of the war; starting a second is liable to end up with it taking years. Alternatively, you could just have the Sydney not get itself sunk, heh.

Destroyers can be built anywhere, but are limited by high-power engine availability; if anything, I would say cancel the third Tribal and build something more practical in its place. Older destroyers can be obtained from the UK pre-war; conveniently, 5 V/W class destroyers were scrapped in 1936-37; I would suspect some interest in taking these on; they'd probably be in the Med at game start, though.

Sloops are useful, but not flashy - not the sort of thing to get attention from modmakers! There is certainly scope for construction of a few ships along the lines of the French Bougainvilles, with the advantage that they can use old guns and effectively do double duty as mini-monitors. 2-4 ships, ~2000t at 18kts, with 5.5in guns?




Minecraft - the RAN has about a dozen Bathurst & similar minesweepers available 7/12/41; the total ends up around 60, I think, if you include the RIN ships built in Australia. There's nothing particularly wrong with them per se, but they're very short-ranged - 1200 miles doesn't get you very far on Pacific scales. Growing the design by 100t or so should accomodate about twice the range for minimal extra cost, even if you do nothing with the armament fit, making them much more useful as mid-range escort ships. A couple of ships should also probably be moved due to the near-universal capture of their 'arrival' bases:

- HMAS Bundaberg [9400]; built at Brisbane, but enters the game at Darwin in 9/42
- HMAS Gympie [9414]; built at Brisbane, but enters the game at Derby in 11/42

Coastal forces - There are a very small number of Fairmile launches etc in-game; in reality there seem to have been a lot more. The Australian flotilla seems be as follows:

- HMAS Koopa [Straits Small AG, Class #2746], Brisbane 9/42

Admiralty HDML, Class #198:

HDML 1074, 10/42
HDML 1125, 1/43
HDML 1129, 11/42
HDML 1161, 1/43
HDML 1321, Hobart 11/43
HDML 1322, Hobart 1/44
HDML 1323, Adelaide 1/44
HDML 1324, Adelaide 6/44
HDML 1325, Launceston 11/43
HDML 1326, Launceston 1/44
HDML 1327, Adelaide 5/44
HDML 1328, Adelaide 1/45
HDML 1329, Adelaide 6/44
HDML 1338, 9/44
HDML 1339, 9/44
HDML 1340, 8/44
HDML 1341, 3/45
HDML 1342, 10/44
HDML 1343, 1/45
HDML 1344, 12/45
HDML 1345, 8/45
HDML 1346, 4/45
HDML 1347, 3/45
HDML 1352, 8/44
HDML 1353, 1/45
HDML 1354, 3/45
HDML 1355, 3/45
HDML 1356, 3/45
HDML 1357, 2/45
HDML 1358, 1/45
HDML 1359, 12/44

Most seem to have been built in the US; arrival dates include 3 months for transit as deck cargo. This stuff is all from http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?lang ... trida=1456 , which I have no idea of the reliability of, but it ain't like there's much else out there and they definitely did exist, so it's a reasonable approximation if nothing else.

Fairmile B Motor Launch, Class #187:

No. 424, Sydney 1/43
No. 425, Sydney 2/43
No. 426, Sydney 3/43
No. 427, Sydney 3/43
No. 428, Sydney 3/43
No. 429, Sydney 4/45
No. 430, Sydney 5/43
No. 431, Sydney 5/43
No. 801, Sydney 5/43
No. 802, Sydney 6/43
No. 803, Sydney 7/43
No. 804, Sydney 7/43
No. 805, Sydney 8/43
No. 806, Sydney 9/43
No. 807, Sydney 9/43
No. 808, Sydney 9/43
No. 809, Sydney 10/43
No. 810, Sydney 10/43
No. 811, Brisbane 11/43
No. 812, Brisbane 12/43
No. 813, Sydney 11/43
No. 814, Sydney 1/43
No. 815, Brisbane 1/43
No. 816, Brisbane 6/43
No. 817, Sydney 2/43
No. 818, Sydney 3/43
No. 819, Sydney 5/43
No. 820, Sydney 6/43
No. 821, Sydney 7/43
No. 822, Sydney 8/43
No. 823, Sydney 9/43
No. 824, Sydney 11/43
No. 825, Sydney 2/44
No. 826, Brisbane 1/44
No. 827, Brisbane 4/44

Same source, same disclaimer.

There were also New Zealand Fairmiles:

No. 400 - No. 411 inclusive, Class #188, Auckland 12/43

So - you might top up the RAN with:

- Addition of the non-represented coastal forces;

- Acceleration of the NSW State Dockyard project; bring the shipbuilding facility into service 1940 instead of 1942. Possible - the equipment was available - just not a priority until later. Add a 3000t repair shipyard to Newcastle [Base #944]

- HMAS Brisbane [Class #045 Arethusa CL; arrival Aden 02/42]

- HMAS Valkyrie [Class #124 Admiralty Leader; arrival Aden 02/42 - in reality scrapped 1936]
- HMAS Vectis, Venturous, Violent [Class #122 Admiralty 'V' DD; arrival Aden 02/42 - in reality scrapped 1936-37]

- Remove Tribal DD HMAS Bataan [ship #3684]; replace with Hunt class DEs, on the principle that they require about 40% the engine power and have equipment that's locally built, and so you can probably knock out more in less time:

- HMAS Bataan [Class #120 Hunt Type III DE; arrival Sydney 9/43]
- HMAS Flinders [Class #120; arrival Sydney 9/44]
- HMAS Simpson [Class #120; arrival Sydney 5/45]
- HMAS Selwyn [Class #120; arrival Sydney 12/45]

- 2-4 pre-war 5.5in sloops; 50% in Australian waters, 50% at Aden.

- HMAS Kurnell [Class #178 Bathurst AM; arrival Newcastle 4/42; new, using NSW State Dock]
- HMAS Bundabah [Class #178; arrival Newcastle 3/43; new, using NSW State Dock]

- HMAS Condamine [Class #203 River PF; arrival Newcastle 2/44; NSW State Dock, completed postwar and so not included in base game]
- HMAS Murchison [Class #204; arrival Newcastle 1/45; NSW State Dock, actually built by Evans Deakin and completed postwar]

- Accelerate ships #9229-9236, the remaining RAN River PFs, by ~1 month each; with more pre-war shipbuilding things are likely to go a little more smoothly.

Or you might not. It's something to think about, anyway.

[John 3rd]

Nice thoughts and I greatly appreciate the time to research and write them out.

What do people have to say about this?