Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/23/2009 4:53:52 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
With AE around the corner, I thought it would be worth making a thread about an AH scenario I'm planning to create, and get some opinions about what you think would have happened in such a reality in the years leading up to the war.

The premise of the AH lies in 3 changes to the historic WNT, in addition to the 1923 Kanto earthquake being much less severe than historically.

The changes to the treaty are;

1) The Capital Ship tonnage for the UK and US is 610,000tons in lieu of the historical 525,000tons.
2) The Carrier tonnage is 140,000tons rather than 135,000tons as historic.
3) Japan is given a 3.5/5 rather than 3/5 parity for tonnage. This is also the case for carrier tonnage. This means their Capital tonnage is 427,000tons, and Carrier tonnage is 98,000tons.


In addition, because of the various large ships in construction, it is agreed to allow use of two for conversion to carriers with a 33,000ton limit (as historic - carrier size limit was 27,000tons otherwise), in addition to allow another 2 to be completed as capital ships in excess of the 35,000ton limit, but not exceeding 43,000tons.

The US presses for the South Dakotas, but has to compromise for the Lexingtons, settled with an extra clause that they may be reconstructed for 6,000tons rather than the 3,000tons allowed for other ships.

Because of these changes, the results of the treaty are as follows;

United States
-The 4th Colorado class battleship, BB-47 Washington, is completed in addition to her 3 historic sisters.
-The Lexington class battlecruisers Lexington and Saratoga are completed as CC-1 and CC-2. They are allowed twice the normal reconstruction tonnage.
-The Lexington class battlecruisers Constitution and Constellation are completed as CV-2 and CV-3.
-Utah and Florida must be scrapped in addition to the historic North Dakota and Delaware.

United Kingdom
-As they do not have two ships in excess of the treaty under construction, they are allowed to build two up to 41,000ton ships. This must be done within the next 4 years or otherwise it is void. The RN settles for a slightly downsized G3 class, still capable of 30kts. The two ships will be Invincible and Indomitable.
-In addition to scrapping Thunderer, King George V, Ajax and Centurion, they are require to scrap 3 of the Iron Duke class.
-After this, the UK is left with a little over 60,000tons for more new construction. How this is to be used is up for debate. (My own thoughts are two 32,000ton battlecruisers based on the G3, with 6x16in for main battery, the same speed and similar protection - this gives the RN a new post-jutland battlecruiser squadron.)

Japan
-The Amagi class battlecruisers Amagi and Akagi are to be converted to aircraft carriers.
-The Tosa class battleships Tosa and Kaga are to be completed as planned.
-The Amagi class battlecruiser Takao is used for tests in lieu of the historic Tosa.
-The rest of the 8-8 plan is cancelled as historically.
-After this, the IJN is left with 50,000tons to use for new construction. Again, this is up for debate. (My own thoughts are reduced Kongos, with 8x14in and lesser armour protection, but better speed. They would be rebuilt as the Kongos were.)

France and Italy
-Have an extra 30,000tons to play with. As historically, they reserve the right to use their tonnage in whatever way they want, as long as it does not break the individual ships limits of the treaty.

Some other events that follow from this in my timeline are as follows;

-The USN rebuilds the Lexington class with its increased allowance in the early 30's. By WW2 these displace a little over 46,000tons, and can still make 33+kts thanks to renovated machinery. The USN does what it can to fix their horrid protection, but it is still only slightly better than on the Kongos.
-Japan builds its two 25,000ton battlecruisers with its tonnage. By WW2 these are closer to 29,000tons, and have been designated as the fast escorts for the Kidou Butai.
-UK builds two 32,000ton battlecruisers with its tonnage.

-The historic Hiryu and Soryu are called Shokaku and Zuikaku, and are built 3 years earlier, and are somewhat larger at 20,000tons.

-The 1st LNT is mostly as historical, except that Japan gets 4/5 parity rather than 3/5. The number of CAs for US/UK/IJ is 20/18/16 rather than 18/16/12 as historical. The total destroyer tonnage is 180,000tons rather than 150,000tons. Total submarine tonnage is 60,000tons instead of historical 52,000tons, but Japan accepts 3/5 parity concedes than the 5/5 historically.

-The 2nd LNT occurs as historical, with alterations for the changes 1st LNT. There is no 14in gun limitation.


After this there are a couple of possible timelines, one with Japan focusing on naval aviation, the other one on a more mixed approach as historical. Each of these will also have a 'super' variant, for a tougher and more advanced Japanese side.

The plan is to develop a couple of scenarios from this, but I have some general topic I'd like feedback on, in addition to the general idea;

1) What does the UK do with its ~65,000tons of leftover capital tonnage?
2) What does Japan do with its ~50,000tons of leftover capital tonnage?

3) The USN now has a 16in/50 gun in service on the Lexingtons - when it comes time to build more ships as WW2 approaches, will the new USN battleships go straight to a redesigned 16in/50, or will they still settle on a 16in/45 as historic?

4) As the 2nd LNT does not limit capital ships to 14in, what will the KGV equivalent look like? Will the RN go for a new 15in, or go with 9x16in? If they do build the 6x16in 32,000ton battlecruisers after the WNT, they will also have a 16in twin turret already in service. Is a 3-2-X-3 setup with 16in guns a worthwhile consideration?

5) How does Japan use its greater CA/CL tonnage?

6) How does the availability of 2 (or 4) new fast battleships / battlecruisers affect the refit schedule of the RN? Might Hood have time to rotate into reconstruction and thus possibly survive Denmark strait? Would the germans even commission the Bismarck class with the Invincibles around?

7) What is likely to be deployed by the UK in the Far East in late 1941? Assuming the war kicks off around the same time for arguments sake.



Sorry if this is long winded, I've been waiting for AEs release to get closer before I posted this, and as it now looks like itll be out by the end of summer at the latest, I felt it was worth bringing this up.

I'd really welcome opinions and comments on this, as I know theres a lot of you with much better knowledge of this era and naval warfare than myself, so anything you could contribute would be very welcome.

Thank you.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/23/2009 9:49:41 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios
Post #: 1
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 4:46:57 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Hi Juan,

your topic of an AE alt WTN got me interested. I've done some preliminary work with Gary Chlidress, I guess we could combine our efforts or share some resources to tweak thing to our liking. So let me know if You're interested, I'm definitely interested in yours.

I'll send my e-mail in a PM.

Cheers,

PS - I'll put in some feedback for your Qs a bit later here

< Message edited by csatahajos -- 5/24/2009 4:49:31 PM >


_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 2
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 7:00:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
What the Royal Navy might deploy to Singapore depends largely on whether or not there's a European war and how it progresses before the Japs attack.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 3
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 8:28:23 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What the Royal Navy might deploy to Singapore depends largely on whether or not there's a European war and how it progresses before the Japs attack.


Obviously, one of the assumptions is that history follows largely what happened in reality, in other words these changes in the naval composition of the treaty signatories does not adversely affect politics or the land war in europe before the start of the pacific war.

The exception to this rule is the doctrine shift for the japanese in the naval aviation variant, which would occur sometime when they decide to break from the treaty, and would affect the pre war buildup somewhat.

This is why 6) is rather relevant, as we do have to consider what germany might have done in this scenario? Would the presence of 40,000+ ton british fast battleships have dissuaded them from even trying to break out with surface raiders the size of Bismarck, or would they have gone an built something even bigger? This of course influences the Far East fleet for britian on 12/41.


This is exactly why I posted this, as I would like more opinions than my own on what would occur.

If your interested in my own view, I'm planning to post a list of all the changes from OTL 12/41 based on my current 'main' scenario, where the Japanese take a more carrier based post-treaty approach.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/24/2009 8:33:18 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 8:36:49 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
There's also the psychology to consider. Do the British still consider the Japs little yellow men who'll be intimidated by a "show of force" of two battleships?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 5
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 8:44:42 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

There's also the psychology to consider. Do the British still consider the Japs little yellow men who'll be intimidated by a "show of force" of two battleships?


What do you think?

The british possess the two most powerful ships as a result of the altered treaty, the Invincibles. Do they station one of these at Ceylon or Singapore? Its also worth considering that the americans now obviously also have a stronger fleet (including two 33+kts battlecruisers), can this be counted on the balance the japanese?

The allies both have 85,000tons more than in OTL (to japans 112,000tons more), and more newer ships because of the increased number of old ships scrapped in the treaty.

Where does the balance lie? I'd be inclined to think if it was histoically thought that PoW and Repulse could offset the japanese in this region, then maybe here PoW (perhaps a 9x15 or 8x16 ship), along with either one of the Invincibles or perhaps both Repulse and Renown?

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 6
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 8:51:54 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I think the situation would be far beyond the "show of force" level, even if the British might still not think so. The Japs presumably WANT war, so the only question would be how big the RN Eastern Fleet threat would be. If it's big enough, the Kido Butai could be steaming off Malaya on 12/7 instead of off Hawaii.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 5/24/2009 8:52:01 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 7
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 9:04:56 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think the situation would be far beyond the "show of force" level, even if the British might still not think so. The Japs presumably WANT war, so the only question would be how big the RN Eastern Fleet threat would be. If it's big enough, the Kido Butai could be steaming off Malaya on 12/7 instead of off Hawaii.


Interesting possibility. What sort of consequences that would have on the US entry to the war in interesting too. I wonder how big the force would have to be for this to be considered - both Invicibles would be a very tempting target, leaving the Japanese with nothing from the pre-treaty era to oppose the Tosa class on even ground - Well, the Colorados might do decently - better than the Lexingtons at any rate.

In the carrier variant scenario, the Japanese start with 8 fleet carriers in the current setup - the two Amagis, the 2 Shokakus (~larger Soryu equivalent) and 4 Hiryu class (~Shokaku equivalent). In this case the two older carriers heading to Malaya with the remaining 6 hitting Hawaii isnt out of the question.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/24/2009 9:08:37 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 8
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 9:07:15 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The Japs couldn't really avoid going to war with the United States, what with the Philippines being situated on their main SLOCs from the Southern Resource Area.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 9
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 9:14:31 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Japs couldn't really avoid going to war with the United States, what with the Philippines being situated on their main SLOCs from the Southern Resource Area.


But would the USA declare war instantly? Or would it buy the Japanese a week or so, before they officially declare war, to reposition the KB to Truk to intercept whatever the USN is going to throw at them, and cut off the PI?

In all the current scenarios the USN has 7 fleet carriers, of which 4 to 6 would be in the pacific. These are the 2 Lexington conversions, 2 Wasps (larger equivalent of Ranger in OTL, this time large enough to work out reasonbly well), and 3 Yorktowns (pretty much as historical, slightly larger).

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/24/2009 9:28:39 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 10
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 9:53:56 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Hi Juan!

As promised some reflections:
WT changes USN:

Why mess with the Lex-Sara and Connie-Constitution changes? USN badly wanted the big carriers with or without WT so it would seem more logical to get the two most advanced ships as CV conversions to ge them ASAP. Though later, less completed ships might offer better, more through conversion.

RN: might I suggest F3 design for this?

F3 design

For the 60k tons you might go with one of the H3 designs (H3a seems to be the most logical, though that one is with 18" guns IIRC but on a greater displ.)

Japan: why expend a high -value ships in gunnery trials if you have to scrap some old ones anyways? FOr that 50k tons I'd complete at least one of the Amagis as BCs. They were pretty much the best the Japanese could have wished for back then. On 25k tons you would be very hard pressed to get a decent 8X14" ships with high speed even if you settle for Kongo level protection.

Questions:

1-2: see above

3: good question, probably depends on the exact time and what gets accomplished in the meantiome with the Mark 2s. Since there was no big difference in gun weight the 16/50 Mark 7 seems to be a better choice if available.

4: depends a lot on what the others build. Certainly the RN wouldn'T want to lag behind in gun caliber so most probably they go for 9X16" as well. Problem with the 3-2-X-3 arrangement is again that you need two turret designs (as was the case with the historical design) so you loose a lot of time for very little gain in weight - better to trim off a bit of armour here and there IMHO, or just simply shorten the citadel as much as possible (see USN BB1937 - SoDak).

5: historical path would dictate more Mogami like ships (Ibuki class); on the other hand they would be better of with 9 gun Oyodos as modern CLs to lead their DDs and build a lot of Akizuki class DDs. Forget the various training cruisers and other off-springs.

6: no idea, depends a lot on what happens in the European war.

7: Those H3a derived ships with the F3s seem to be a good proposition with 1-2 armour deck CVs



_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 11
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/24/2009 10:17:12 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

WT changes USN:

Why mess with the Lex-Sara and Connie-Constitution changes? USN badly wanted the big carriers with or without WT so it would seem more logical to get the two most advanced ships as CV conversions to ge them ASAP. Though later, less completed ships might offer better, more through conversion.


I simply thought if they were forced to choose two for completion as carriers and two as battlecruisers, they would choose the less completed Constellation and Constrution for this as it allows for a better conversion. Sadly though I only have figures of % completion for them, so I cant really tell how far along they were and how easy it would be to alter them.

quote:


RN: might I suggest F3 design for this?

F3 design

For the 60k tons you might go with one of the H3 designs (H3a seems to be the most logical, though that one is with 18" guns IIRC but on a greater displ.)


I think you got slightly mixed up here, the RN can build two up to 41,000ton ships and another two up to 33,000ton ones. This means that a slightly reduced G3 design can be done for the 41,000ton allowance.

I have looked at that topic and the F2/3 design over the course of my research, but find myself thinking an adapted version with 16in instead of 15in is likely if the G3-like ships are built for the 41,000t ships. The interesting question is does the F3-adaption get built, with the same turrets as the 41,000t class, or do they get a new twin turret as an F2-adaption? This connects to the KGV question as if this happens (twins for 33,000t class), they already have designs for a triple and a twin.


quote:

Japan: why expend a high -value ships in gunnery trials if you have to scrap some old ones anyways? FOr that 50k tons I'd complete at least one of the Amagis as BCs. They were pretty much the best the Japanese could have wished for back then. On 25k tons you would be very hard pressed to get a decent 8X14" ships with high speed even if you settle for Kongo level protection.


Why not build an Amagi? Because theyre 5,000tons over the allowed size. Thus the Japanese face some pretty tough choices as to what to do with that tonnage. The reason for expending Takao is because its the most complete of the 8-8 ships not already used for conversion or completetion, and I can see the japanese wanting to test the validity of their designs. With no 1923 quake, semi-finishing and sinking it shouldnt put too much strain on their economy.

The Kongos were only 27,500t originally, as I could see Japan managing to get away with officially '25,000t' battlecruisers with pretty much the same specifications as the Kongos, except a little less armour. They would probably be closer to 27,000tons really.

Or they could build two 'Renown' like battlecruisers with 6x14, and reasonable protections.

Or they could build another Nagato, and leave the remaining 15,000t to experiment with a Super Cruiser.

quote:

5: historical path would dictate more Mogami like ships (Ibuki class); on the other hand they would be better of with 9 gun Oyodos as modern CLs to lead their DDs and build a lot of Akizuki class DDs. Forget the various training cruisers and other off-springs.


I agree with the CA constrution. I think its unlikely they would have gone for triple turrets either.

For light cruisers I currently have 4 main new CL classes for the IJN - a 3.9in CLAA, a 3xII 6.1in Agano like CL, a 4xII 6.1in Kai-Agano like CL, and and 3xIII 6.1in Oyodo like CL. Why the IJN did NOT use the 6.1in inplace of the obsolete 6in for new ships is completely beyond me. A little bit of prior planning in the late 30s could have helped a lot here.

One interesting thought I had was Japan regunning the Furutaka class CA with the 6.1in triples around the time the Mogamis get upgunned to 8in.

For destroyers I could see an expansion of the later Fubuki variants (Akatsuki), meaning more destroyers of that class with decent DP weapons in the Type B mount rather than the Type A/C mounted on some of the earlier ships. I cant see them putting a 3.9in destroyer into production before 1940 to be honest. However, in the carrier variant I could see them realising the weaknesses with the Type A/B/C mounts and introducing a Type D fully DP capable mount as early as the Kageros.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/24/2009 10:36:43 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to csatahajos)
Post #: 12
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 2:19:39 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

There's also the psychology to consider. Do the British still consider the Japs little yellow men who'll be intimidated by a "show of force" of two battleships?



That doesn't really seem to have been the perception in the Admiralty. The RN spent most of the 1921-1935 period planning for a war with Japan.

With greater tonnage, though, and assuming that the actual defence budgets for the interwar period were much greater (presumably via sorcery), the RN would likely have scrapped Hermes (and Argus and Eagle, probably, but that's outside the scope of this) and built more carriers; in 1923, the RN was looking at designs for 16,500 and 25,000 ton carriers capable of 34.5 knots and carrying something like 32 or 42 aircraft. If you have a copy of Friedman's British Carrier Aviation, the information is in there. Anyhoo, if those had been built (and one 16,500 ton ship was actually ordered before the election), it's likely that either one of those carriers would have been on station instead of Hermes.

A large factor in interwar Fleet Air Arm development was the struggle between the Royal Navy and the RAF for control of carrier aircraft. If there was less of a budget crunch---and to build all of these large ships, there would have had to be less of one---the Fleet Air Arm might have had more and more modern aircraft; a major problem for them, procurement-wise, was that because of how few planes they needed to fill out their carrier air groups, larger firms wouldn't work with them, and the firms that could and did work with them moved slowly. Had this not been the case, the FAA might have had the Barracuda and Firefly by the start of the war in the Pacific (the Barracuda was designed in 1937!), instead of Swordfish and Albacores.

As for battlecruisers strength, the British might have gone with the proposed J3 sketch; it displaced 43,100 tons and would have carried 9 x 15-inch guns at a speed of 32 knots. Raven and Roberts have the info in British Battleships of World War II.

Another thought. If all of this occurs, the old R-Class is not likely to be retained.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 13
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 2:52:55 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

There's also the psychology to consider. Do the British still consider the Japs little yellow men who'll be intimidated by a "show of force" of two battleships?


While Churchill hoped that the prsence of POW and Repulse would deter the Japanese from declaring war, neither the admiralty nor Churchill were thinking that they could intimidate the Japanese with just two battleships.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 14
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 3:18:17 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
That's not my interpretation of my readings on the subject.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 15
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 3:31:57 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's not my interpretation of my readings on the subject.


Fair enough; I'm going off of Churchill and the Admirals by Roskill, Old Friends, New Enemies by Marder, and Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East by Field.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 3:38:25 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

With greater tonnage, though, and assuming that the actual defence budgets for the interwar period were much greater (presumably via sorcery), the RN would likely have scrapped Hermes (and Argus and Eagle, probably, but that's outside the scope of this) and built more carriers; in 1923, the RN was looking at designs for 16,500 and 25,000 ton carriers capable of 34.5 knots and carrying something like 32 or 42 aircraft. If you have a copy of Friedman's British Carrier Aviation, the information is in there. Anyhoo, if those had been built (and one 16,500 ton ship was actually ordered before the election), it's likely that either one of those carriers would have been on station instead of Hermes.



While I havent finished with the British carriers yet, the assumption is that apart from the treaty changes and the larger budget for maintenance and the new construction because of the treaty (including increased tonnages in other catergories), the budgets are not much greater. Any changes though are indeed via sorcery - to ensure we dont break the timeline too badly.

I do not have a copy of that book, but Im pretty sure I can get my hands on one. Thanks for the reference, it should help as British CV design is one field Im not too familiar with.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/25/2009 3:39:10 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 17
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 3:54:26 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
It was always my impression that Churchill bullied the Admiralty to deploy the tiny Force Z, under the delusion that it would be enough to deter Jap aggression. It certainly wouldn't be the first time he did something like that. Suppose I could be wrong.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 18
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 5:01:30 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It was always my impression that Churchill bullied the Admiralty to deploy the tiny Force Z, under the delusion that it would be enough to deter Jap aggression. It certainly wouldn't be the first time he did something like that. Suppose I could be wrong.



That's pretty much how it went down. The Admiralty was not sanguine about the potential effect.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 19
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 6:54:54 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Which is why I didn't quite understand yours and Kereguelen's previous posts, but that's neither here nor there. My point was that the Japs had decided on war before Prince of Wales and Repulse steamed into Singapore, so the time for "show of force" was looooooong past.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 20
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 7:12:08 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Which is why I didn't quite understand yours and Kereguelen's previous posts, but that's neither here nor there. My point was that the Japs had decided on war before Prince of Wales and Repulse steamed into Singapore, so the time for "show of force" was looooooong past.


Which I think the Admiralty had recognized, and Churchill had not---he had actually been quite dismissive of war planning against Japan in the 1920s. So it actually sounds like we both agree!

Anyway, ships.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 21
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 7:14:45 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yah, ships. I'm not familiar with the J3 class; got any more specific info on them?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 22
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 7:29:58 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
The J3 point sound interesting....with new 15in guns, and the K2/3 design for the remaining tonnage, the RN would be standardized completely on a 15in main battery, meaning the new construction in the late 30s would almost certainly be using 15in too.

I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

I would also appreciate more info if you have it, otherwise I'll have to wait till next later this week to get my hands on some proper refence materials.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/25/2009 7:33:11 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 23
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 8:39:05 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

The J3 point sound interesting....with new 15in guns, and the K2/3 design for the remaining tonnage, the RN would be standardized completely on a 15in main battery, meaning the new construction in the late 30s would almost certainly be using 15in too.

I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

I would also appreciate more info if you have it, otherwise I'll have to wait till next later this week to get my hands on some proper refence materials.



Happy to help!

The J3 would have been 810 feet long pp, 860 pp, with a beam of 104 feet. Her maximum draught was 30 ft. Estimated displacement was 43,100 tons. She was to have generated 151,000 shp for 32 knots, with 3895 tons of fuel. Armament was to have been 9 x 15-inch (3 x triple turrets, two forwards, one aft), 16 x 6-inch (presumably though not explicitly stated to be in eight twin mountings), 6 x 4.7-inch (in six single HA mountings), and four pom-poms. As designed, they were to have two torpedo tubes.

Armor belt was 12 inches with 12-inch bulkheads, 12-inch turret barbettes, and 15-inch turret facings with 12-inch sides and 8-inch roofs. Conning tower was to be armored, with 10, 12, and 15 inch plating, depending on the area, and an 8-inch thick armored roof. Deck armor was between 1.25-4 inches thick.

British Battleships of WWII has a sketch on p/ 96; she looks a little like Renown, with a smaller superstructure.

Any use?

_____________________________


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 24
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 8:44:32 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
You don't think the 6-inchers would have been casemated? When was the J3 designed?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 25
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 8:51:34 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It was always my impression that Churchill bullied the Admiralty to deploy the tiny Force Z, under the delusion that it would be enough to deter Jap aggression. It certainly wouldn't be the first time he did something like that. Suppose I could be wrong.


I didn't realize how much influence he had after WW I on the make up of the Middle East, for better or worse. I just finished a book about the Middle East and how it changed from WW I to present and his role in parts of it.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 26
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 8:57:08 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 851
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

The J3 point sound interesting....with new 15in guns, and the K2/3 design for the remaining tonnage, the RN would be standardized completely on a 15in main battery, meaning the new construction in the late 30s would almost certainly be using 15in too.

I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

I would also appreciate more info if you have it, otherwise I'll have to wait till next later this week to get my hands on some proper refence materials.



Happy to help!

The J3 would have been 810 feet long pp, 860 pp, with a beam of 104 feet. Her maximum draught was 30 ft. Estimated displacement was 43,100 tons. She was to have generated 151,000 shp for 32 knots, with 3895 tons of fuel. Armament was to have been 9 x 15-inch (3 x triple turrets, two forwards, one aft), 16 x 6-inch (presumably though not explicitly stated to be in eight twin mountings), 6 x 4.7-inch (in six single HA mountings), and four pom-poms. As designed, they were to have two torpedo tubes.

Armor belt was 12 inches with 12-inch bulkheads, 12-inch turret barbettes, and 15-inch turret facings with 12-inch sides and 8-inch roofs. Conning tower was to be armored, with 10, 12, and 15 inch plating, depending on the area, and an 8-inch thick armored roof. Deck armor was between 1.25-4 inches thick.

British Battleships of WWII has a sketch on p/ 96; she looks a little like Renown, with a smaller superstructure.

Any use?


Thank you very much. As I said I'll get my hands on that book later this week, but that gives a good overview for now.

Were the 15in to be of a new design or of the same 15in/42 Mk I as in the preceding ships?

Any idea on the range with that bunkerage?

Are the secondaries arranged on the sides all at deck level, or are the center ones superfiring over the extreme ones?

quote:

You don't think the 6-inchers would have been casemated? When was the J3 designed?


Given that almost all of the contemporary designs to the G3/N3 ect including the Nelsons featured turreted secondaries, I dont find this at all strange.



Anyone have anything else to add with regards to the original questions? #3 in particular has me wondering. If the USN does mount a 16in/50 on the treaty BBs, do the escalator clause BBs get a 16in/52 or 16in/55? Would there even be an Iowa-like fast BB with the two Lexingtons in service as carrier escorts?

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/25/2009 9:00:29 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 27
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 8:58:11 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.



My understanding is that the turret issues with the KGVs delayed them about nine months in the design and ordering phase; this would likely mean the first three would have been in a position to complete by early-mid 1940, if you don't assume that time was saved by not dickering over the guns and mountings to be used to begin with---my feeling is that KGV could have been ready by the end of 1939 in this scenario.

This also means that Anson and Howe could have gone to sea with their original names: Jellicoe and Beatty.

_____________________________


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 28
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 8:58:42 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, if the J3 is contemporary with G3, N3 and the other -3s, then obviously, this is true.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 29
RE: A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion - 5/25/2009 9:11:16 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You don't think the 6-inchers would have been casemated? When was the J3 designed?



1923, but as both the G3 and the Nelsons were contemporary designs, and their 6-inchers were in twin turrets, it seems quite plausible to me. The RN had developed a low opinion of casemates during the Great War.

quote:

Were the 15in to be of a new design or of the same 15in/42 Mk I as in the preceding ships?


A new 15-inch 50 caliber gun firing either a 1690-lb or a 1920-lb shell. The hope was that it could penetrate 15-inch side armor or 7-inch deck armor, and elevation was to be 40 or 45 degrees.

quote:

Any idea on the range with that bunkerage?


Supposedly 7,000 nm at 16 knots.

quote:

Are the secondaries arranged on the sides all at deck level, or are the center ones superfiring over the extreme ones?


Four turrets (three to a side) appear to be forward and immediately abaft B turret, all at deck level, with four more (two to a side) amidships and one deck higher, with a pretty clear field of fire aft. It's hard to tell, because only the main turrets and general superstructure is shown in the sketch.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180