Admiral Halsey
Banned
For navy you can just go with OTL late-war USN replacing the subs with XXI's. I saw the I-201 class proposed above but with the exception of the underwater speed the XXI was the better boat.
Since Japan didn't surrender until September 2nd I don't see the issue with the IS-3 to be honest.I'm curious: why not the PPSh-41? It did have a much higher ROF.
Afaik, the T-44 never saw combat, the IS-3 barelly came out in time for the Berlin victory parade and the Ho-Ri never made it past prototype. So... not sure they should be in these lists...
For navy you can just go with OTL late-war USN replacing the subs with XXI's. I saw the I-201 class proposed above but with the exception of the underwater speed the XXI was the better boat.
Yes about the same range on the surface but at a faster average speed.(6 knots for the 201s VS 10 for the XXIs) Also the XXI's while slower underwater had a much longer max range and a faster speed for that max range.(135nm at 3 knots for the 201s VS 340 at 5 for the XXIs) Plus the XXI's were much better built for the crew though given the 201s ended up having to hold 50 in a space built for 30 that wasn't hard. Also by the wars end the Long Lance wasn't the all pro world beater it used to be with the US having fixed the kings in the Mark 14 and the Germans with the homing torps.I chose the I-201s because they had better torpedoes, were faster, and had about the same range. The practical differences were fairly small and the best submarines to have a measurable impact on the war were probably the Gato class.
Why are you bringing up the Long Lance when you're talking about subs? The Long Lance (or Type 93 as it's designation was) was a surface ship torpedo.Yes about the same range on the surface but at a faster average speed.(6 knots for the 201s VS 10 for the XXIs) Also the XXI's while slower underwater had a much longer max range and a faster speed for that max range.(135nm at 3 knots for the 201s VS 340 at 5 for the XXIs) Plus the XXI's were much better built for the crew though given the 201s ended up having to hold 50 in a space built for 30 that wasn't hard. Also by the wars end the Long Lance wasn't the all pro world beater it used to be with the US having fixed the kings in the Mark 14 and the Germans with the homing torps.
Mainly because I've always considered the Type 95 to be just a Long Lance variant.Why are you bringing up the Long Lance when you're talking about subs? The Long Lance (or Type 93 as it's designation was) was a surface ship torpedo.
You shouldn't, primarily beacuse it causes confusion since those of us that prefer accuracy don't. While the Type 95 (submarine version) was developed from the Type 93, the Type 95 wasn't the only japanese submarine launched torpedo.Mainly because I've always considered the Type 95 to be just a Long Lance variant.
Still in referring to the 201s it was the main torp it was going to use. I'd take a late war Mark 14 or properly built German Torp over the 95 any day.You shouldn't, primarily beacuse it causes confusion since those of us that prefer accuracy don't. While the Type 95 (submarine version) was developed from the Type 93, the Type 95 wasn't the only japanese submarine launched torpedo.
I wouldn't, but I would take a Mk. 16 over a Type 95.Still in referring to the 201s it was the main torp it was going to use. I'd take a late war Mark 14 or properly built German Torp over the 95 any day.
German doctrine (the pure non nazi influenced one)
US production capacity
Russian Manpower
French girls
Winston Churchill