A New Set of BTS, RA, and Treaty Mods

[ny59giants]

With this new mod, what are your thoughts on IJN aircraft? The Judy & Jill should become available sooner, like Midway time frame.

[John 3rd]

With this new mod, what are your thoughts on IJN aircraft? The Judy & Jill should become available sooner, like Midway time frame.

I have been reading up on the issues with Judy and Jill. Seems that Judy certainly could be moved up. Am reading on Jill right now.

[1EyedJacks]

Thanks for the context regarding aircraft production and scenario versions. I still have problems visualizing Japan's production of engines and airframes in a cottage-like industry. Do you have any book titles/websites you can share? I'd like to read up on that.

[John 3rd]

OK. Thinking about next generation aircraft....

JILL could be moved forward six months simply to them having the tailhook correct on the initial design.

Similar arguments could be made if the designer got the wing flutter and spar issues correct in the pre-production prototypes. This is why SORYU carried two Judy at Midway. Since they were not engaged in actual DB, they were fine for recon work. Well...if the wing issues were OK to start with...

Production Dates
Judy
04-43 Real Life
12-42 BTS
09-42 BTS--Air???

Jill
05-43 Real Life
02-43 BTS
11-42 BTS--Air???

We already have established skipping over the JACK so the ZERO design team can go directly to SAM so that is handled. For those who don't know the Mods, SAM comes in a year earlier but as the A7M1. IT is underpowered but does have good maneuverability and--most importantly--armor. The hypothetical A7M1a comes out six month later and is better. The final, actually historical SAM comes out on time as the A7M2.

Thoughts on JUDY and JILL?

SOURCE: Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War

[John 3rd]

Thanks for the context regarding aircraft production and scenario versions. I still have problems visualizing Japan's production of engines and airframes in a cottage-like industry. Do you have any book titles/websites you can share? I'd like to read up on that.

Didn't see your note until I just posted on the JUDY/JILL. Francillon is the best source. Have a couple of others...let me see...hang on...Newdick's Japanese Aircraft of World War Two and Mondey's Axis Aircraft of World War Two are OK but not near as useful.

You want to be schooled in Japanese Naval Air--good and bad--read Peattie's highly detailed Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Airpower: 1909-1941

[John 3rd]

Comments regarding a CLAA???

Could we look at an 8,000T cruiser with 8 twin turrets: 2 superimposed on the Bow and Stern and then two pairs amidships? In a radical departure from Japan's leanings, there might be NO Long Lances. Could have light armor and solid speed to operate with the CTF. Cruising range would need to be at least 7-8,000NM so it isn't a fuel hog.

Could all that be achieved on 8,000T?

[RangerJoe]

Comments regarding a CLAA???

Could we look at an 8,000T cruiser with 8 twin turrets: 2 superimposed on the Bow and Stern and then two pairs amidships? In a radical departure from Japan's leanings, there might be NO Long Lances. Could have light armor and solid speed to operate with the CTF. Cruising range would need to be at least 7-8,000NM so it isn't a fuel hog.

Could all that be achieved on 8,000T?

I think that three fore and aft would be better unless the superstructure would be cut way down or the center guns would very high which could cause stability problems. The center guns if lower down would not be able to fire forwards or rearwards without difficulties. I don't know if 3 gun turrets would be feasible unless similar sized cruisers had 3 gun turrets, I am referring to the beam and not overall tonnage. A wider beam could also slow the ship down. This ship could also have 40mm AA guns as well. Light armour should not be a problem for this ship since it should not be used in fleet actions.

Since it is supposed to the an AA escort for aircraft carriers and not used to lead destroyers in torpedo attacks, then it could be conceivable that there would be no torpedoes. Also, as an escort, shouldn't it have good air search radar as well as a decent ASW capability? Even just two depth charge racks with the depth charges being type 2 or upgradeable to type 2.

The biggest issue may be would this ship fit into the IJN doctrine that the aircraft carriers did not have close AA escorts?

[John 3rd]

That is a good thinking and certainly makes sense regarding specs and design. The whole Japanese doctrine of spreading everything out is OPPOSITE of the USN, it is not even funny. Good point there.

Historically speaking, the only ships close to a CV was their plane-guarding DDs. I could see where tucking a Moon-Class DD right next to a carrier would be advantageous. Could you do something like that with a CLAA? Hmmm...

[John 3rd]

In BTS we postulate the Japanese changing their Carrier Divisions into THREE ship units with 2 CV and 1 CVL acting as a CAP carrier. This is why the Aso-CVL has 36 planes but fully 30 of them are Fighters. The CVs pack the Strike Package while the CVL helps with the CAP. This was the Japanese plan implemented after Midway. It is a sound, good idea.

Perhaps we take that thinking and add a dedicated Close-In escort to protect the carrier trio? The CLAA's job is to directly protect the Japanese carriers from air attack. The rest of the screen spreads out, like in doctrine, while the CLAA's as well as Moon-Class DDs stay close for direct protection.

[RangerJoe]

That is a good thinking and certainly makes sense regarding specs and design. The whole Japanese doctrine of spreading everything out is OPPOSITE of the USN, it is not even funny. Good point there.

Historically speaking, the only ships close to a CV was their plane-guarding DDs. I could see where tucking a Moon-Class DD right next to a carrier would be advantageous. Could you do something like that with a CLAA? Hmmm...

If it were maneuverable enough, the CLAA could be the plane guard ship. If there were two Moon class DDs or other AA destroyers at 45 degrees in front (the 1:30 and 10:30) positions, those could also thwart torpedo planes in their anvil and hammer attacks. Since that is what the IJN feared, for the purpose build CVs I could see one CLAA and two AA destroyers as close escort ships positioned accordingly if the CVs were to maneuver separately while under aerial attack. Or even two CLAAs and one AA destroyer as a plane guard or some combination thereof. If the CLAASs were in front in the positions described, then the 40mm AA guns would then be very important for the CV defense. Or flechette or behive rounds for the main guns . . .

[RangerJoe]

In BTS we postulate the Japanese changing their Carrier Divisions into THREE ship units with 2 CV and 1 CVL acting as a CAP carrier. This is why the Aso-CVL has 36 planes but fully 30 of them are Fighters. The CVs pack the Strike Package while the CVL helps with the CAP. This was the Japanese plan implemented after Midway. It is a sound, good idea.

Perhaps we take that thinking and add a dedicated Close-In escort to protect the carrier trio? The CLAA's job is to directly protect the Japanese carriers from air attack. The rest of the screen spreads out, like in doctrine, while the CLAA's as well as Moon-Class DDs stay close for direct protection.

Then maybe the CVL should have the dedicated Judy recon air unit as well, leaving the CVs with only fighters and strike aircraft.

[John 3rd]

In BTS we postulate the Japanese changing their Carrier Divisions into THREE ship units with 2 CV and 1 CVL acting as a CAP carrier. This is why the Aso-CVL has 36 planes but fully 30 of them are Fighters. The CVs pack the Strike Package while the CVL helps with the CAP. This was the Japanese plan implemented after Midway. It is a sound, good idea.

Perhaps we take that thinking and add a dedicated Close-In escort to protect the carrier trio? The CLAA's job is to directly protect the Japanese carriers from air attack. The rest of the screen spreads out, like in doctrine, while the CLAA's as well as Moon-Class DDs stay close for direct protection.

Then maybe the CVL should have the dedicated Judy recon air unit as well, leaving the CVs with only fighters and strike aircraft.

That is funny Ranger Joe. The complement of an Aso-Class CVL is 30 F and 6 Judy-Recon. NICE!

[John 3rd]

First stab at the Teshio-Class CLAA.

Take a look and PLEASE comment.

Teshio-Class.jpg (189.57 KiB) Viewed 724 times

[RangerJoe]

In BTS we postulate the Japanese changing their Carrier Divisions into THREE ship units with 2 CV and 1 CVL acting as a CAP carrier. This is why the Aso-CVL has 36 planes but fully 30 of them are Fighters. The CVs pack the Strike Package while the CVL helps with the CAP. This was the Japanese plan implemented after Midway. It is a sound, good idea.

Perhaps we take that thinking and add a dedicated Close-In escort to protect the carrier trio? The CLAA's job is to directly protect the Japanese carriers from air attack. The rest of the screen spreads out, like in doctrine, while the CLAA's as well as Moon-Class DDs stay close for direct protection.

Then maybe the CVL should have the dedicated Judy recon air unit as well, leaving the CVs with only fighters and strike aircraft.

That is funny Ranger Joe. The complement of an Aso-Class CVL is 30 F and 6 Judy-Recon. NICE!

Well, considering that I don't have your current mods downloaded . . .

[RangerJoe]

First stab at the Teshio-Class CLAA.

Take a look and PLEASE comment.
Teshio-Class.jpg

Considering that it is supposed to be a CLAA for escorting the CVs, maybe have some of those 25mm AA guns either 40mm or even 37mm AA guns. At least as a conversion after they capture some British/Dutch/American AA guns and note their effectiveness in shooting down aircraft before they drop their ordinance instead of the 25mm guns which just punish the aircraft after their attack. They could also have noted such effectiveness from the Germans and Italians as well so those could even be done before Pearl Harbor.

[ny59giants]

What was the AA guns used in the German Navy? Since Japan got lots of designs from them, maybe they use their AA guns here too.

[1EyedJacks]

What was the AA guns used in the German Navy? Since Japan got lots of designs from them, maybe they use their AA guns here too.

Are you talking about the 88 Flak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... of_Germany

A question regarding naval doctrine for Japan: Does the game penalize Japanese Air Combat TFs when under attack for opening up the screen VS allied TFs bunching together to concentrate firepower? I thought the game just modeled the ship/crew stats VS pilot stats plus a handful of luck rolls.

[RangerJoe]

What was the AA guns used in the German Navy? Since Japan got lots of designs from them, maybe they use their AA guns here too.

Are you talking about the 88 Flak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... of_Germany

A question regarding naval doctrine for Japan: Does the game penalize Japanese Air Combat TFs when under attack for opening up the screen VS allied TFs bunching together to concentrate firepower? I thought the game just modeled the ship/crew stats VS pilot stats plus a handful of luck rolls.

I was thinking of this weapon or the navalized version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Flak_18/36/37

The heavier AA guns would provide overall task force defense while the light autocannons and machine guns would provide ship defense although the autocannons would also target the torpedo bombers within range even if the torpedo bombers were not actually targeting that ship. I do not know how well the latter is modeled in the game. If the gunners weren't careful, they would sometimes hit ships in their own task force.

[John 3rd]

Is the 3.7CM in the Editor? Will take a look.

[RangerJoe]

Is the 3.7CM in the Editor? Will take a look.

I don't know but you can check on those mods that include the Kriegsmarine.

Also, Krupp purchased 1/3 of Bofors in the later 1920s and/or early 1930s time frame so there could be a source for the blueprints of the 40mm Bofors there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40 ... c_Gun_L/60