I can answer this. I provided figures on numbers, capacity, hulls in service and building, top speed, cruise speed, range, fuel efficiency and fuel per ton of cargo moved in two general categories, cargo/transport and oiler/tanker. We agreed to standardize on a few specific classes and to incorporate time saving construction methods such as having particular yards specialize in a specific type/design, modular construction, etc. We at present have a good surplus in the cargo/transport category but they tend to be less efficient types. We will need more oilers/tankers and should concentrate a larger percentage of our capacity there. The council pretty much left the specifics up to me and then when I suggested we place you in charge of our shipbuilding, they agreed. Prior to doing so I had settled upon the Yusen S type cargo vessel. It is our fastest type (important for submarine defense) and most fuel efficient per ton of cargo moved (by a large margin). We were to continue building only those other designs that had already been laid down. We would complete the design modifications necessary to streamline production and start laying down the standardized type. We would produce an AKA, APA and AKE version, the incorporation of the daihatsus and specialized cargo handling equipment in these types to allow for faster loading/unloading in areas where we will have limited port facilities and should not negatively impact cargo movement in ports with good/excellent facilities. The tanker/oiler question was more complicated and would require more types. We would standardize on the Tonan Whaler type TK. It is the most fuel efficient per ton of oil/fuel moved but only has a 15kt top speed/13kt cruise, it also has a small dry cargo carrying capacity (2170t) in addition to its 13340t oil/fuel carrying capacity. I felt that in addition to its fuel efficiency this would prove valuable for carrying supplies or materials on the return voyage which with most of the other types would be made empty. It would be the hull of choice due to its overall capacity and fuel economy per ton of oil/fuel moved, and should be the type used in areas where the risk of submarines is not high. There is a plan in place to produce 29 additional Type 2-TL and 30 Type 1-TM types. I recommend cancelling those hulls not already laid down. We have eight Type N-TL tankers with plans to build no more. I recommend we build more of this type because it is the most fuel efficient of the high speed types with a 19kt top speed and 15kt cruise. These will be needed in high submarine risk areas, the higher speed making interception and attack harder on the enemy. Another aspect I have not gone into in depth is range. I feel long range is important because we are more efficient if we fuel at the source location and whenever possible not at the destination point. By doing this we net more oil/fuel at the end point. Before turning this duty over to you I was looking at convoy routing, fuel/oil production and requirements, distances and port capacities in order to determine how much capacity we needed. I would suggest that you look at this first, then build in a 10-15% excess carrying capacity (to account for repairs/yard times) and build to that requirement. Then we can lay down new hulls on a two for one basis when we lose a ship (two new for each lost). Since we restarted by discussing strategy, I think it important that we consider this logistical problem when we allocate attack resources and determine the timing of our attacks. It is obvious that we would wish to capture the oil fields intact, but capturing the refining capacity intact could provide a huge boost to our effort, even if it means idling some of our Home Island refineries. By shipping refined fuel instead of oil to be refined, we gain about 10%, (the difference between crude oil in and refined products out) inversely we can get by with 10% fewer tankers for a given fuel requirement. Let me give you an example: Point A produces oil and has refineries. Point B has a 100,000 ton per day fuel requirement for industry and naval operations, and also has an oil refining capability. Point A is a two day trip from point B. In order to keep point B supplied using 10,000t capacity tankers, and shipping fuel, you'd need 40 ships to maintain continuous supply. 10 loading at point A, 10 halfway to point B, 10 unloading at point B and 10 halfway back from point B. If shipping oil instead you'd need 44 ships, an extra 10,000t at each point to account for the 10% loss between raw crude in and refined fuel out. To illustrate the range factor, let's say the two points are 720 nautical miles apart. If your tankers only have a range of 800 nautical miles you would need to add additional shipping to provide the additional fuel at point B. If the ships had a 1500 ktm range they could do all their refueling at point A and you save that logistical burden at point B. To illustrate the fuel efficiency aspect, lets say you use a tanker that is 10% more fuel efficient. Every ten days you'd gain enough additional fuel to support the operation for an additional day. Over a years time you save enough fuel to supply the operation for an additional 36 days! Or ship 3.65 million tons of fuel basically for free.