|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 7, 2020 10:04:52 GMT
There are three ships and they are laid up in Hudson Bay postwar.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 7, 2020 11:35:03 GMT
It is simply a consequence of where it is in the battle; the full discussion of it will come in the American section. The salient information in the last snippet is the differing IJN strategy and the use of two fleets, in addition to land based bombers and submarines. Victory disease finished earlier and Japan is somewhat better positioned. The Combined Fleet (16 BB, 4 CV, 4 CVL, 30 CA, 96 DD) is mainly based between Manila, Hong Kong and Tainan, with the forward fleet at Truk (8 BB, 4 CV, 4 BC, 27 CA, 72 DD) and older units assigned to the China Area Fleet and Japan. The disparity in numbers id starting to cause some worry considering the loss of 15 cruisers and 42 destroyers to July 1942 and the limits on how much Japan can build. The commissioning of the two Taiho class CVs and the three auxiliary carriers can’t come quickly enough. 1943 is a fair year, but then construction lessens markedly. After the losses taken by the old 15” battleships in the Coral Sea, there are proposals to convert the remaining 5 ships to aircraft carriers.
That sounds like the forward force at Truk might be vulnerable to being lured into a battle by the USN before it can be reinforced by the Combined Fleet, or possibly being subject to attacks if the US can get air units in range. Specialised anti-shipping a/c as well as possibly subs and mine layers operating near the base, although of course the USN would need to sort out their torpedoes 1st. Possibly also if they have somewhere in range that's where the US strategic bomber force might be useful as they hopefully, provided they locate it, could attack an island and damage a lot of facilities there. [Going by your discussion with Lordroel I could see the USAAF wanted a role in that game so possibly pushing for it. Of course depending on whether they have somewhere in range large enough and a suitable supported base being available].
I think that like OTL conversion of some of the old BBs to half carriers those 5BBs are going to be a considerable waste of resources. Going to be a huge task to convert them to full carriers and probably not more effective than the Shinano was OTL. Plus by the time their completed will they have a/c and trained a/c to operate from?
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 7, 2020 11:47:53 GMT
Steve
The forward force at Truk is a rotational one that will be built up as time goes by and is, for the next 12-18 months, out of range of US aircraft - it is 2087 miles from Guadalcanal to Truk and 1789 miles from Kwajalein to Truk. It is 3 days from Truk to Rabaul at 15 knots. Submarine patrols are a threat, but the IJN is not going to be quite the same opponent in that respect.
The conversions of the old BBs is costly, but will render 25 knot ships capable of carrying 36-40 aircraft, which isn't anything to sneeze at. For another power, it would be suboptimal, but the Japanese are trying to maximise every opportunity they can get. Japanese aircraft production will continue for some time; trained crew will decrease markedly, but they are slightly, slightly better off in that measure.
Simon
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 13, 2020 7:02:35 GMT
Steve The conversions of the old BBs is costly, but will render 25 knot ships capable of carrying 36-40 aircraft, which isn't anything to sneeze at. For another power, it would be suboptimal, but the Japanese are trying to maximise every opportunity they can get. Japanese aircraft production will continue for some time; trained crew will decrease markedly, but they are slightly, slightly better off in that measure. Simon So carriers ore will the be battlecarriers. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2020 10:19:50 GMT
Steve The conversions of the old BBs is costly, but will render 25 knot ships capable of carrying 36-40 aircraft, which isn't anything to sneeze at. For another power, it would be suboptimal, but the Japanese are trying to maximise every opportunity they can get. Japanese aircraft production will continue for some time; trained crew will decrease markedly, but they are slightly, slightly better off in that measure. Simon So carriers ore will the be battlecarriers.
Actually its fairly elderly and slow BBs becoming carriers.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 13, 2020 10:22:36 GMT
So carriers ore will the be battlecarriers. Actually its fairly elderly and slow BBs becoming carriers.
Are carriers not meant to be fast instead of slow. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2020 10:43:00 GMT
Actually its fairly elderly and slow BBs becoming carriers.
Are carriers not meant to be fast instead of slow.
Its preferable. Greatly helps both in launching and landing a/c and also in both tactical and strategic mobility. Being able to dodge torpedoes and also being where they need to be in time for a battle.
I say slow as 25kts is rather slow for a carrier but then with guns and possibly some of their armour being removed the converts might go a bit faster.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 13, 2020 10:48:06 GMT
Are carriers not meant to be fast instead of slow. Its preferable. Greatly helps both in launching and landing a/c and also in both tactical and strategic mobility. Being able to dodge torpedoes and also being where they need to be in time for a battle.
I say slow as 25kts is rather slow for a carrier but then with guns and possibly some of their armour being removed the converts might go a bit faster.
I do not know, but would catamaran aircraft carriers be faster and also be larger than regular carriers, also could they be build in the 1940s. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2020 12:29:57 GMT
Its preferable. Greatly helps both in launching and landing a/c and also in both tactical and strategic mobility. Being able to dodge torpedoes and also being where they need to be in time for a battle.
I say slow as 25kts is rather slow for a carrier but then with guns and possibly some of their armour being removed the converts might go a bit faster.
I do not know, but would catamaran aircraft carriers be faster and also be larger than regular carriers, also could they be build in the 1940s.
Not knowledgeable enough to tell but that does mean two hulls and a much wider ship, which would be a problem for a large ship such as a fleet carrier. Also since a/c. supplies etc would be stored in the hulls and hence need two sets of lifts and the like it might be more complex. Plus I think part of the advantage of catamaran designs is that the hulls are quite slim which for a warship means not only less room for such materials, as well as crew quarters and the like, but also for protection such as torpedo defence.
A cat would give a markedly wider top but don't think that is of that much use to a carrier as its the length needed more for a heavier a/c to take off successfully. Might help with being able to park a/c off to one side while others were landing/taking off, so could enable launching and receiving a strike of a/c quicker. However not sure if that would be enough of a benefit.
Plus not sure if the technology would be up to such a large design having a double hull at this time. Don't know of any plans for any sort of cat, even for a relatively small ship so suspect there would have been problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 14, 2020 0:37:05 GMT
No. Just no.
Catarmarans in the 1940s were confined to a few novel sailing boats.
After the war, which is currently raging.
There were no catamaran transport ferries built until the very late 70s.
No such ships have been seriously proposed, and I count the silliness about the Russian carrier replacement project in that - which comes down to one completely vapourware design among several being mooted before the proper design process begins, isn’t actually a catamaran at all and got spread around the fanboy Internet courtesy of a single breathless article - and there are very, very good reasons for that.
Whilst Dark Earth has bits of whimsy, too much both wouldn’t be tonally proper nor would it be logical.
As for the Japanese conversions:
A.) They would simply be carriers, not battlecarriers or any such convoluted nomenclature.
B.) 25 knot carriers are sufficient for many purposes - see Argus, Eagle, Hermes et al, not to mention the Colossus/Majestic CVLs!
C.) The Japanese want more hulls in the water as numbers do count
D.) As battleships, they are less than useless, taking away crews from frontline units
E.) As carriers, there is something to be salvaged from them, even in a second line or escort carrier role
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 9:43:46 GMT
No. Just no. Catarmarans in the 1940s were confined to a few novel sailing boats. After the war, which is currently raging. There were no catamaran transport ferries built until the very late 70s. No such ships have been seriously proposed, and I count the silliness about the Russian carrier replacement project in that - which comes down to one completely vapourware design among several being mooted before the proper design process begins, isn’t actually a catamaran at all and got spread around the fanboy Internet courtesy of a single breathless article - and there are very, very good reasons for that. Whilst Dark Earth has bits of whimsy, too much both wouldn’t be tonally proper nor would it be logical. As for the Japanese conversions: A.) They would simply be carriers, not battlecarriers or any such convoluted nomenclature. B.) 25 knot carriers are sufficient for many purposes - see Argus, Eagle, Hermes et al, not to mention the Colossus/Majestic CVLs! C.) The Japanese want more hulls in the water as numbers do count D.) As battleships, they are less than useless, taking away crews from frontline units E.) As carriers, there is something to be salvaged from them, even in a second line or escort carrier role Was USS Sable (IX-81) also build like OTL. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 14, 2020 10:48:44 GMT
That would be revealing details from the USN aircraft carrier section. There are some differences and some similarities.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 10:50:01 GMT
That would be revealing details from the USN aircraft carrier section. There are some differences and some similarities. Well i can always try, do not assume the British have a freshwater, coal-fired, side paddle-wheel aircraft carrier in service. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 14, 2020 11:19:37 GMT
The largest question is why would they need one? There are quite a few auxiliary carriers, growing numbers of escort carriers, old carriers and more. Just because something was used by the US in very particular and highly individual circumstances (no other major state has the Great Lakes, for example) doesn’t mean that it will occur in the USA of Dark Earth; it certainly wouldn’t be used by Britain and the only other major carrier power at this point is Japan.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2020 12:06:34 GMT
The largest question is why would they need one? There are quite a few auxiliary carriers, growing numbers of escort carriers, old carriers and more. Just because something was used by the US in very particular and highly individual circumstances (no other major state has the Great Lakes, for example) doesn’t mean that it will occur in the USA of Dark Earth; it certainly wouldn’t be used by Britain and the only other major carrier power at this point is Japan.
Well technical another carrier power does have the option as Canada also has access to the Great Lakes.  However I doubt they would bother. |
|
However I doubt they would bother.