Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Big THREE?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The Big THREE? Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/29/2011 5:57:48 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
OK, I think that I have come up with an acceptable "history" of the naval treaties and their effect on vessel availability in this alternative timeline. I apologize for the length of this post.

Washington Naval Conference
At this treaty the Japanese negotiated the retention of the Tosa and Kaga and an increase in relative tonnage to 68% from the Americans offer of 60%. This combined with the restriction on the improvement of fortifications meant that the Japanese fleet would be able to maintain their 2/3 ratio against a single enemy that they felt was necessary for a successful engagement in the western Pacific.

Here are the ships retained by the three nations that we are concerned with...

United States
Florida
Utah
Wyoming
Arkansas
New York
Texas
Nevada
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Arizona
New Mexico
Mississippi
Idaho
Tennessee
California
Maryland
Colorado
West Virginia
Washington

Total Tonnage: 558,480 tons

UK
Centurion
King George V
Iron Duke
Emperor of India
Benbow
Marlborough
Royal Sovereign
Royal Oak
Revenge
Resolution
Ramilies
Queen Elizabeth
Warspite
Barham
Valiant
Malaya
Renown
Repulse
Hood
Rodney
Nelson

Total Tonnage: 576,450 tons
*Note: Britain had been authorized to complete a third ship of the Nelson-class, but due to budgetary restrictions retained the Centurion and King George V in its place.

Japan
Kongo
Hiei
Haruna
Kirishima
Yamashiro
Fuso
Ise
Hyuga
Nagato
Mutsu
Kaga
Tosa

Total Tonnage: 381,120 tons


London Naval Conference
At this conference, the US and UK each agreed to demilitarize two battleships and Japan the Hiei. This would maintain the relative tonnages between the powers. Unfortunately, when the Japanese government agreed to this, it angered the military that felt that Japan should be stronger compared to the two western powers. This led to increasing militarism within the Japanese government.

Here are the ships retained by the three powers that we are concerned with...

United States
Wyoming
Arkansas
New York
Texas
Nevada
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Arizona
New Mexico
Mississippi
Idaho
Tennessee
California
Maryland
Colorado
West Virginia
Washington

Total Tonnage: 514,800 tons

UK
Iron Duke
Emperor of India
Benbow
Marlborough
Royal Sovereign
Royal Oak
Revenge
Resolution
Ramilies
Queen Elizabeth
Warspite
Barham
Valiant
Malaya
Renown
Repulse
Hood
Rodney
Nelson

Total Tonnage: 530,450 tons

Japan
Kongo
Haruna
Kirishima
Yamashiro
Fuso
Ise
Hyuga
Nagato
Mutsu
Kaga
Tosa

Total Tonnage: 353,620 tons

I'll go into the histories of the ships that are different to the timeline later.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 661
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 11/29/2011 7:17:28 PM   
icepharmy

 

Posts: 264
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

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?



quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

MARK III Version: I went through to last few pages of Posting and think I've got everything to this point.

FRENCH
1. Add a STF of 1 CA, 1 CL, 4 DD, 4 SS to New Caledonia or Tahiti.

2. AS Jules Verne and a US Lead-Lease AKE serve as Depot Ships.

3. Legionairre Rgt at NC or Tahiti, and a BF at each location

4. Move the French DD already in the game to join these units.

5. Add some shipping to New Caledonia and Tahiti.

6. Add about 70 French aircraft to bases and set them to upgrade into US Lend Lease Models.





Fascinating theories, I keep on reading these posts and ideas more then playing the game itself

For the French forces, while a complete collapse of the African front might be a bit of stretch, however the surrender of the forces in Syria during 1941 could have happened intact instead of piecemeal. In that case a quite interesting airforce could be added ( TOE of French Army d 'Air and Aeronavale in Syria can be found here : http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/941FFAA.pdf The Latécoère 298 is a fascinating seaplane/torpedo bomber ( http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/ww2/late298.htm ), the Glenn-Martin 167 is the famed patrol/recon Martin Maryland (of Taranto fame),the Potez 650 a usable transport, the Loire 130 an okay flying boat, and of course the D520 is a good fighter (and the morane 406 a decent one). There were also two Guepard class DDs (Guepard and Valmy based there) and the French regiment could be the foreign legion's 6 REI

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 662
RE: WW1-era British Battleshipz - 11/30/2011 7:47:36 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
Here is my vision of the service lives of the additional British battleships that survived in this alternative timeline...

Iron Duke-class battleships
Iron Duke
Benbow
Marlborough
Emperor of India


These four ships were underutilized in the period between the wars, but oil-fired machinery was fitted to keep them compatible with the rest of the battlefleet. Starting in 1931 they were given limited modernization to allow them to compete with the older American and Japanese battleships. Bulges, AA batteries, increased elevation for the main battery and detail improvements to the design were accomplished. These modernizations resulted in the following stats...

Displacement: 29,000 tons
Main Battery: 10x13.5"/45 Mk. V(H) (Elevation increased to 30° for a range of 29k yards firing 1,400 lb shell)
Sec. Battery: 12x6.0"/45 BL Mk. VII
AA Battery: 8x4.0"/45 QF Mk. XVI HA
AA Battery: 24x2lb Mk. VIII (3x8 mounts)
Speed: 21 kts
Range: 7000nm@10 kts

Iron Duke - Employed in the Mediterranean for most of the war. Operations off Crete Jun 41 where damaged by bombs. Repaired in Durban, S.A. until Nov 41. Transferred to the Indian Ocean as guardship for Columbo, Ceylon Jan 42-Dec 42. Covered invasion of Sicily Jul 43. Covered invasion of Normandy Jun 44. Assigned to Eastern Fleet Dec 45 for amphibious operations. Scrapped post-war.

Benbow - Employed as Iron Duke to Jun 41. Covered invasion of Sicily Jul 43. Damaged by German Glide Bomb off Sicily. Sunk as breakwater off Normandy Jun 44.

Marlborough - Sunk off Crete Jun 41 by German submarine.

Emperor of India - Convoy duty in North Atlantic. Covered invasion of Normandy Jun 44. Assigned to Eastern Fleet Dec 45 for amphibious operations. Scrapped post-war.


Tiger-class battlecruiser
Tiger

Serving as the a gunnery training ship until the Hood completed her major refit in 1931. Tiger started a major reconstruction in 1935 as a counter to the upgraded Kongo-class battlecruisers. Given a tower superstructure similar to the Renown, new dual-purpose AA battery, bulges, new machinery and improved AA batteries. This reconstruction resulted in the following stats...

Displacement: 31,500 tons
Main Battery: 8x13.5"/45 Mk. V(H) (Elevation increased to 30° for a range of 29k yards firing 1,400 lb shell)
Sec. Battery: 12x4.5"/45 QF Mk. I
AA Battery: 24x2lb Mk. VIII (3x8 mounts)
Belt Armor: 9.0"
Deck Armor: 4.5"
Speed: 27 kts
Range: 7000nm@18 kts

Tiger- Carrier escort in Mediterranean. Damaged off Crete during evacuation of British troops Jun 41. Repaired Portsmouth Dockyard. Transferred to Indian Ocean with Indomitable Jan 42. Withdrawn with Indomitable Jul 42. Covered invasion of Sicily Jul 43. Redeployed to Indian Ocean May 44. Participated in operations in DEI Jan 45. Scrapped post-war.

< Message edited by MateDow -- 12/1/2011 1:18:23 PM >

(in reply to icepharmy)
Post #: 663
RE: WW1-era British Battleshipz - 12/1/2011 12:06:05 AM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1647
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
I'll chime back in here again, after reading while waiting for turns to come back. 

I've been reading the books Silent Victory by Clay Blair with a new interest because my allied subs are so ineffective.  Pretty solid books on the sub side of the war.  Turns out the game has the effectiveness modeled pretty well.  The biggest thing I found (chapter 4 I think, from memory), the MK14 was suspected DAYS after the Asiatic boats started shooting.  By the time they had been pushed back to Java, Washington had sent a so-called expert out to Surabaya to investigate.

This expert tore a mk14 apart, and put it back together prior to a controlled test.  He then turned to his counterparts on the sub doing the controlled shoot, and pronounced it ready to fire.  The Torpedo officer then reached passed this expert, in front of the entire command crew, pulled the exploder out, turned it 180 degrees, and reinserted it.  The manual on it showed that a reversed detonator was known to cause circular runs.  The torpedo man explained that he didn’t want to have this run sink the boat.  The test failed, but the embarrassed expert wrote a scathing report blaming the boat crew & maintenance to ward off expected criticism.

I’m at work, no details, but I can find them easily enough if needed. 

I’m not advocating working torpedoes, as the mk14 had other problems as well.  But if this so called expert had a clue, and had done his job correctly, most of the problems with the mk14 would (or perhaps should) have been corrected within 14 months, as manufacturing had ramped up.  And we already have a pretty good idea, that with more reliable torpedoes, the war would have gone a much different way.

Anywho, something to ponder.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 664
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 12:30:03 AM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo


Speaking of which, you'll probably need art for the Jean Bart:




Pointy bugger...



I'd love to see Dunkerque and Strasbourg make it in. I always thought that they were the prettiest ships that were built. They had a symmetry to them that the Richelieu-class didn't have.

< Message edited by MateDow -- 12/1/2011 1:19:14 PM >

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 665
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 2:17:18 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Yeah, I'm actually working on art for those right now (we have them in-game already) - bit fiddly as the scale is different and I'm less than great at the altered shading side of things.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 666
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 3:06:25 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Well, it's close enough.





< Message edited by kfsgo -- 12/1/2011 4:10:41 AM >

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 667
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 4:25:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11268
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That looks nice.

kfsgo: What is you status with your projects? From what you Posted earlier it looks pretty promising.

FatR: Ditto for you. I emailed you a couple days ago without hearing back. Hope all is well.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 668
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 5:22:37 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

Yeah, I'm actually working on art for those right now (we have them in-game already) - bit fiddly as the scale is different and I'm less than great at the altered shading side of things.


Are they going to make an appearance late-45 in this scenario, or has something happened to them in this alternative timeline as well?

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 669
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 5:40:46 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

Yeah, I'm actually working on art for those right now (we have them in-game already) - bit fiddly as the scale is different and I'm less than great at the altered shading side of things.


Are they going to make an appearance late-45 in this scenario, or has something happened to them in this alternative timeline as well?


Not my area of responsibility, but at the moment they're showing up April 29 1942 at Panama.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 670
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 5:43:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11268
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That is a touch by Skyland. Allies get several 'gifts' early in this scenario!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 671
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 6:00:51 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is a touch by Skyland. Allies get several 'gifts' early in this scenario!



I'll say. I would have been happy to get them late in the war after Germany was defeated.


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 672
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 6:14:44 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
As far as where I am - currently, trying to number out and disable the Chinese army appropriately. It's going to take a little while, especially as I have a lot of other things to do at the moment that involve me not being at home. Once that's done, I'd like to:

- Do work on the Australian Army (figuring out if and how they're going to use their 'extra' manpower) & the RAN as elaborated earlier in the thread - that is, the coastal forces and a reevaluation of shipbuilding.

- Consolidate at least some if not all UK, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian aircraft production to a single 'Commonwealth' pool. This isn't a very long job - maybe a few hours. This is debatably appropriate in that you have the potential for some silly business regarding repeated aircraft type switching across oceans, but then you have that anyway if you move nationalities around the map, so I think it's worth doing to ensure these forces can meet their needs where there are gaps in aircraft availability.

- Once that's done, if there are no objections, go to town on the CW & USAAF aircraft system particularly in the 1941-1943 period; with the reoriented situation in the Med aircraft demands in Europe are going to be very different (as elaborated a few days ago somewhere - basically, MTO aircraft needs will skew towards longer-ranged aircraft than is usual in this period), so the PTO will be left with what's left over from that. I don't know where this will go - I haven't thought it through fully yet - but I can imagine us seeing a lot of aircraft we don't in the stock game...some we'll be glad to see, and some we'll wish we didn't.

- Once THAT'S done, put together a "post-A-bomb" package for the US - stuff that arrives around Xmas 1945/early 1946 as a fudge for the inability to pull out all the stops on Pacific-focused developments in the event of the PTO situation deteriorating badly. IE - the players will only see these things if the war has gone catastrophically badly for the Allies, justifying their presence through that lens.

Lots to do...

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 673
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 6:24:08 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is a touch by Skyland. Allies get several 'gifts' early in this scenario!



I'll say. I would have been happy to get them late in the war after Germany was defeated.




I guess it depends what the Med situation is. The presumption I have been working on in doing everything is - and noone's taken the time to say 'no, that's not right', at least - that the French govt zips off to Algiers, so Libya is pressed on two sides and goes to pieces relatively quickly (40-41), Greece is a similar mess to historical but Crete is probably held, East Africa maybe goes a little more quickly, after which the Italians basically have to sit back and prepare to be boarded. So - you have a situation where the RM is likely reluctant to be drawn out (so you can release ships to the PTO in the 1942 period) but that demands a more significant commitment to operations against Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Italy etc in the 1943 period. So - through that lens - f.e Dunkerque/Strasbourg should probably be available in 42 (since there's nothing for them to do that older ships can't) but would be recalled to the MTO for spring-autumn 1943.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 674
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 6:52:06 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

I guess it depends what the Med situation is. The presumption I have been working on in doing everything is - and noone's taken the time to say 'no, that's not right', at least - that the French govt zips off to Algiers, so Libya is pressed on two sides and goes to pieces relatively quickly (40-41), Greece is a similar mess to historical but Crete is probably held, East Africa maybe goes a little more quickly, after which the Italians basically have to sit back and prepare to be boarded. So - you have a situation where the RM is likely reluctant to be drawn out (so you can release ships to the PTO in the 1942 period) but that demands a more significant commitment to operations against Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Italy etc in the 1943 period. So - through that lens - f.e Dunkerque/Strasbourg should probably be available in 42 (since there's nothing for them to do that older ships can't) but would be recalled to the MTO for spring-autumn 1943.


They should at least be available in France until March 42. I doubt that France would release them until at least the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had left Breast (11 Feb 42). There would have probably been some refit time to ensure that their machinery was in good shape and their hulls were clean before the deployment. This would have been done on the US East Coast I am guessing. That might be a good place for them to start.

They would probably be back in the Mediterranean for the 1943 operations against Italy with the assumption that there would have been a French contribution to those operations, plus a greater emphasis on the southern France invasion.

As for Crete, not that it makes a real difference here, I can't see that the British would have been able to do anything differently to prevent the German invasion from succeeding. The Royal Navy would still be exposed to German land-based airpower, and would still have had the same command and control problems that they had historically. Just my thoughts on the "history."

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 675
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/1/2011 7:47:44 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


They should at least be available in France until March 42. I doubt that France would release them until at least the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had left Breast (11 Feb 42). There would have probably been some refit time to ensure that their machinery was in good shape and their hulls were clean before the deployment. This would have been done on the US East Coast I am guessing. That might be a good place for them to start.


Well, showing up at Panama some weeks later is functionally the same - it's only a couple of days from one to the other.

quote:

As for Crete, not that it makes a real difference here, I can't see that the British would have been able to do anything differently to prevent the German invasion from succeeding. The Royal Navy would still be exposed to German land-based airpower, and would still have had the same command and control problems that they had historically. Just my thoughts on the "history."


Crete certainly does make a real difference - the island itself is a shield to shipping off the coast of Egypt, and as you develop things up to the point of being able to operate aircraft from it effectively the ability to stop off there cuts about 450 miles off the Egypt/Libya-Romania round-trip. Terribly attractive if you're a strategic bombing-obsessed military planner - that aircraft so used are liable to be aircraft that won't reach the PTO is just one of those unfortunate details...

Anyway - because you retain France from June 1940 onwards, you kinda have to think:

- What CW (or French - they'll be around, after all) forces does that put into Greece in early 1941? More, because Libya is wrapped up? Less, because the army's beating down the doors of Tripoli? I don't know - who knows how long it'd take. Of course, it's only 400 miles from Tunis to Tripoli...bit less than 1200 from Tripoli to Alexandria, and there's a railway for the first half of the trip.

- How long does it take the Germans to work through that campaign? More, less? Do they feel threatened and start things in the Balkans earlier? Might not be possible due to weather...

- How many CW/FR troops evacuate to Crete afterwards, and how many are sent to Crete in the first place? I would suspect both numbers would be greater than historical - 7th Australian Div and 6th Brit Div were available to invade Syria just a week after the fall of Crete, so troops are likely available if reinforcement is considered worth the shipping...

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 676
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/2/2011 4:50:32 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2266
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I am going to disagree here Kfsgo, Crete is not important because you (allies) could not support the island. It would become a big prison camp. My theory about the theater is this;

France falls summer of 40. There are 150k French troops in western Africa, and around 100k Brits to the east of Libya. In December of 40 the Brits/French push into Libya and around 3 months later the Italians are kicked out. The way I come up with that is IRL, OConner with around 38k of troops pushed almost half way thru Libya in 3 months. Greece/Crete are now a side show with the Allies looking across to Sicily March 41. The expedition into Greece was at Churchill's insistence over the arguments of his generals. Now with the potential to knock Italy out of the war I think his generals would win the argument. December 41 the US enters the war and instead of Torch to North Africa, Torch goes into Sicily.

As far as changes to where the LR planes go, there could be an arguement made that with the changes to events in NA, maybe the 9th(?) AF composition is changed to have another wing or two of heavy bombers. I am just not sure where you would get them from. The wings assigned to Hawaii are pretty much frozen and would take almost an act of congress to move them to the Med. The few MacArthur have are being used for Nav Search and bombing and I doubt you could get those away from him.

_____________________________


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 677
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/2/2011 4:58:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11268
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I am going to disagree here Kfsgo, Crete is not important because you (allies) could not support the island. It would become a big prison camp. My theory about the theater is this;

France falls summer of 40. There are 150k French troops in western Africa, and around 100k Brits to the east of Libya. In December of 40 the Brits/French push into Libya and around 3 months later the Italians are kicked out. The way I come up with that is IRL, OConner with around 38k of troops pushed almost half way thru Libya in 3 months. Greece/Crete are now a side show with the Allies looking across to Sicily March 41. The expedition into Greece was at Churchill's insistence over the arguments of his generals. Now with the potential to knock Italy out of the war I think his generals would win the argument. December 41 the US enters the war and instead of Torch to North Africa, Torch goes into Sicily.

As far as changes to where the LR planes go, there could be an arguement made that with the changes to events in NA, maybe the 9th(?) AF composition is changed to have another wing or two of heavy bombers. I am just not sure where you would get them from. The wings assigned to Hawaii are pretty much frozen and would take almost an act of congress to move them to the Med. The few MacArthur have are being used for Nav Search and bombing and I doubt you could get those away from him.


Oldman has a good point here with his alternate history. Churchill FORCED the diversion of troops into Greece just at a time when the Brits had a true chance of ending it. If you add the French attacking from the west, I could easily see North Africa clear before the Germans can rush in to aid their 'allie.' This then would leave Germany in a tough situation in early-41. One might argue that they move more quickly into the Balkans and place some troops in Sicily to help hold it from the resurgent Allies.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 678
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/2/2011 7:25:21 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I am going to disagree here Kfsgo, Crete is not important because you (allies) could not support the island. It would become a big prison camp. My theory about the theater is this;


That doesn't mean it's not important, though; it just means that holding it (if you do) doesn't accomplish much until such a point as supply movements to it become less dangerous. Remember Crete has had a Brit occupation force from November 1940, though not a large one - they moved in after the Italian invasion to free up Greek troops to resist that. What are they going to be doing in this period?

Also probably disagree that it can't be supplied (with the caveat that I don't know what the shipping situation actually is beyond that supporting Greece seems to have been considered doable, if only just); in reality in June 1941 the nearest CW airfields are on the Egyptian border, which is about 300 miles each way; if the Italians aren't in Libya there's a whole infrastructure around Darnah and Benghazi available that cuts that down to 200. Not perfect, but it's a significant improvement - and of course it means aircover can be provided for more of the trip. Add to that the decreased need for aircraft carriers in support of Malta, decreased need for shipping in support of Malta, decreased need for aircraft in support of ground forces...you can build up a buffer in seven months, and Crete does have a military infrastructure up to a point - there are ports, airfields etc.

Hanging over all this of course is the spectre of Russia; that invasion starts June 22nd...or should.


quote:

France falls summer of 40. There are 150k French troops in western Africa, and around 100k Brits to the east of Libya. In December of 40 the Brits/French push into Libya and around 3 months later the Italians are kicked out. The way I come up with that is IRL, OConner with around 38k of troops pushed almost half way thru Libya in 3 months. Greece/Crete are now a side show with the Allies looking across to Sicily March 41. The expedition into Greece was at Churchill's insistence over the arguments of his generals. Now with the potential to knock Italy out of the war I think his generals would win the argument.


So Libya is over by March (or probably sooner, since I expect the French can get to Tripoli before Compass can get to El Agheila...). Conveniently that's exactly when the major CW force goes to Greece historically - there's no need to hold back insurance against the French in Syria (hell, they might send a few over themselves), so that can expand up to the availability of shipping to carry it, which is itself greater. What then? The Germans are going to take longer to get down to the Athens area, more troops are going to be evacuating Greece (and it seems sensible to send them to Crete rather than back to Egypt), so you've got a later start to a parachute-amphibious operation that was already pretty dodgy (and considered pretty dodgy) as is, now going up against a larger number of better-equipped troops. Very dubious - I'm not sure they'd risk it with Russia on the way. It'd make a great wargame scenario...

Don't agree that invasion of Italy is considered practical without the US involved - not in 1941. 1942, absent anything else to do...well, maybe, but 1941 dubious, especially with the armies Germany and Italy haven't just burned up in 1941-43 Libya and Tunisia available. Rather, I expect attention would have shifted to the Dodecanese - lots of opportunities to be 'busy' and try to draw Italian attention without risking too much.

quote:

December 41 the US enters the war and instead of Torch to North Africa, Torch goes into Sicily.


I can see that happening (assuming the urge to go straight into France can be resisted) - but it does mean the Med will cease to be an active theatre much sooner, with ship transfers consequent to that. Do we want that, rather than stringing things out a little longer?

quote:


As far as changes to where the LR planes go, there could be an arguement made that with the changes to events in NA, maybe the 9th(?) AF composition is changed to have another wing or two of heavy bombers. I am just not sure where you would get them from. The wings assigned to Hawaii are pretty much frozen and would take almost an act of congress to move them to the Med. The few MacArthur have are being used for Nav Search and bombing and I doubt you could get those away from him.


Well, the point is that it doesn't take much of a reduction to have an impact in this period (3/42-4/43, say) - slow down the B-17 replacement rates, delay B-24 arrivals by a few months, do both for P-38, whatever - the impact on the Allies' ability to defend places is pretty minimal but it reduces their offensive options. Remember the Japanese aren't starting from a 'Scenario 2' point here - so they've got (relative to what that gives them) a bit of a cross to bear, and another in the scenario being based off DBB with consequent reductions to supply production, support, engineers etc, and another in the French being involved etc - something has to give somewhere along the line or we're going to have some pretty short wars!

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 679
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/2/2011 11:47:56 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2266
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Your last point makes sense, had not thought of it in that light. I would have to think about what planes would be effected. The B-17's were pulled out because the B-24 had superior range. The B-26 squadrons left because of maintenance issues. Perhaps the P-38's is a fair trade. I do agree there is a possibilty of front loading the allies too much for the Japanese to overcome early on.

You do bring up a good point, Russia. I talked about the alternate history in the med with a buddy of mine and his first response was I guess the Russians loose. I almost dropped the phone. His thought was, if there is not a meat grinder in North Africa, all the troops that were lost there are split between Sicily and Russia. The invasion of Sicily can't really happen before the US shows up so there is almost 18 months for the Axis to prepare. Kesserling has more troops to hold Sicily with but more importantly you have Rommel going to Russia and a couple of hundred thousand troops going with him. Made for an interesting topic which in the end I decided we just needed to leave a little of reality in this

On a side note, with the African campaign over so soon there won't be the famous LRDG, but we will see the SBS more active

_____________________________


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 680
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/3/2011 1:15:48 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11268
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I echo the last comment within kfsgo's note. My concern is that we have made the Allies WAY TOO powerful.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 681
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/3/2011 2:14:00 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I echo the last comment within kfsgo's note. My concern is that we have made the Allies WAY TOO powerful.


Speaking as someone who has basically never touched Japan and probably never will in any serious way - it's hard to say without actually playing through the scenario, but yes, possibly. The thing is that our story is at odds with our ends, I guess - so there is a need to create some resource drains to accommodate that. MTO operations are one, Russia is another, and of course you can twist other things. Thinking about those two alone for a few seconds, you can probably say:

- Cutting out Libya is going to have some interesting knock-on effects for the RAF/RAAF/RNZAF - you're not getting that education in coordinating air and ground forces that was put together there, so you're not going to have the usual thing of squadrons showing up full of experienced pilots - they're going to need training just like the Americans. There'll be more of them, and on pure numbers they'll have more aircraft, but losses will be higher.

- Russia is just...unknowable, really. I suspect the extra German commitment doesn't amount to much in practice initially - the North Africa lot were never all that numerous until later, Germany is pretty logistically stretched as it is, and remember that they have to garrison France from the beginning now - but as you move into the later war Germany is less brittle; it's not that they'll win, but they'll lose slower - and the Russian Far East forces will be drawn on further, antagonism with Japan or not. Could be a tempting target...and of course they'll be screaming for every bit of kit they can get through Iran etc, triply so if the F.E is invaded. Hope you're ok with Hurricanes instead of P-39s for a while.

Ultimately it probably won't be a shorter war in practice in the PTO, if only because the actual ending of it is kinda contingent on the arrival of ground forces, the Americans aren't going to get going any quicker on that front, and most players seem to lose the will to live by late 1944 anyway, but I can imagine the war in Europe ending sooner and those end-war redeployments taking place earlier.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 682
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/3/2011 3:15:22 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I echo the last comment within kfsgo's note. My concern is that we have made the Allies WAY TOO powerful.


I know my goal was to add most of the British battleships in 1945 where they will contribute to a general Allied tsunami.

There were some random appearances in 1942, but those can be removed if they are too unbalancing.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 683
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/9/2011 9:38:53 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
The discussion over on the regular Perfect War side about the US liner conversions, should probably be moved over here.

I found more information in Friedman's book US Aircraft Carriers
quote:

ORIGINAL: Friedman
The XCV program did survive, but only on paper. As of 1941, conversions were to provide space for seventy-two aircraft (four squadrons of fighters and bombers), although complements were sized for sixty. The last revision of WPL-10 (September 1941) noted that since conversion would require about a year, it was unlikely to be ordered. However, plans had been distributed for four classes: the two Manhattans, the two Presidents, the three Mariposas, and the three Uruguays (ex-Californias), which together would have provided a total of ten ships.


I recognize some of these ships (Mariposas and Manhattans) but don't know if the others are in the game. The one-year conversion would require a long term commitment, but would be similar to that required by the Japanese for their liner and seaplane tender conversions.

The question is, would most players just convert them ahistorically to gain extra carriers in January 1943, which based on AARs that I have read, tends to be a "carrier sparse" time for Allied players in PBEM games? Or would they wait until they have suffered losses.

There is a large part of me that wants to have them there for choice and flavor sake, but I also don't want them to be unbalancing.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 684
RE: The Big THREE? - 12/9/2011 10:02:00 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I recognize some of these ships (Mariposas and Manhattans) but don't know if the others are in the game. The one-year conversion would require a long term commitment, but would be similar to that required by the Japanese for their liner and seaplane tender conversions.



One of the Presidents is presumably President Coolidge (ship #10754); the other I don't know, but there are at least two other ships of the "same" class in-game (Hermitage, ship #10755 and Monticello, ship #10756). Uruguays are SS Uruguay/Argentina/Brazil which aren't in-game as themselves, I think.

quote:

The question is, would most players just convert them ahistorically to gain extra carriers in January 1943, which based on AARs that I have read, tends to be a "carrier sparse" time for Allied players in PBEM games? Or would they wait until they have suffered losses.


Well, why wouldn't they? It costs nothing but time; the fast liners are useful, but they're not critical, war-winning things like carriers. I like the idea too, but I'm not sure it's really justified - if we really need more carriers, the RN can probably kick an extra one over for a while...chances are Ark Royal is still afloat, after all.


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 685
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 12/9/2011 10:21:15 PM   
hbrsvl

 

Posts: 1120
Joined: 10/2/2002
Status: offline
John 3rd- I've just become aware of this mod. Is there a link that shows me what is involved in this mod, without my going thru 600+ posts? I.e Are there scenarios as in WITP? Is it only PBEM?

I'd love to play an AE game starting 5/1/42 or other dates. Looking at some of the posts, does this have a 1936 or 1938 or 1939 start? Is there Allied production?

I guess what I'm asking, is this an AE version of the Hearts of Iron series? Which would be great as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks, Hugh Browne

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 686
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 12/9/2011 11:00:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11268
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hi Sir. This CAN be run against the AI but I don't recommend it. We are nowhere near finished with it right now though.

Biasedly, I would happily recommend Reluctant Admiral as a plausible 'what if.' Go to that thread. It has a good description and the download available right there.

Keep up with this one as we make progress!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 687
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 12/9/2011 11:38:09 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2266
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I don't believe it would imbalance anything if you don't assign air-groups to them. Pickup the Marine squadrons that are on the west coast.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 688
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 12/10/2011 4:17:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11268
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The Marines are quite usable...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 689
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 12/10/2011 3:02:03 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I don't believe it would imbalance anything if you don't assign air-groups to them. Pickup the Marine squadrons that are on the west coast.


Could you assign air groups to them? I wasn't sure that you could assign an airgroup to something that comes about through conversion.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 690
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The Big THREE? Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   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

0.134