Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RHS OoB Errata

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS OoB Errata Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 6:09:30 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		More like of a compilation, most of these were mentioned before:

1. Class 1580 (Kirov):
a) should be named Maxim Gorkiy. Far East fleet ships were of modified design (project 26bis).
b) should have 180mm guns, not 181mm. NEVER seen any metric system based source which would give incorrect size of 181mm. Find data about guns, you will see their name also gives hint about their calliber.

3. Class 1581 (Leningrad) are lacking of their depth charges (they had total 70-80 DCs)

4. Class 1582 (Ognevoy) should be deleted, as only one ship was completed during the war, and it was Black Sea ship. Next ship of this class wass comissioned 29.09.1947. (for example Vnushitelny 29.12.1947).

5. Class 1583 (Gnevyni):
a) Misspelling of class name, it should be of course Gnevnyi.
b) Of course they are lacking of their DCs (30 in total).
c) Wrong configuration of main guns - should be 2xF 2xR.

6. Class 1584 (Leninet):
a) Name should be changed to Leninets (as last cyryllic sign in their name is in English transcribed as ts), or even better "L (proj. XI/XIII)"
b) To few torpedo tubes, ships of "L class proj. II" had 6 torpedo tubes, proj. XI and XIII had 8 torpedo tubes (6xF 2xR). There is no need for averaging them as all Far East ships were of 2 latter subclasses.
c) They were capable of carrying 20 mines, not 28 as in RHS.
d) Are you sure that they should have better manuv. than S-class? These were large and not so new minelayers...

7. Class 1588 (Stalinets):
a) Name should be changed to Srednaya, or even better "S (proj. IX-bis)". Since later names of types were no longer named after ships but after its size (Srednaya means medium) and name Stalinets was already used by ship of another class (L2), thus it was NOT POSSIBLE to name this class Stalinetz.
b) Wrong number of torpedo tubes. Should have only 6 (4xF 2xR).

8. Class 1583 (Gavril): lacking of depth charges (2xDCT). Only Jakov Sverdlov and Frunze didnt have these.

9. Ship 3895 Raztoropny:
a) Should be named Rastoropny.
b) Was commisioned 400105 not 421206 as in RHS

10. Ship 3817 Baku: she was on Far East from commisioning (401211) until leaving to North fleet in late 1942. Its arriving date (420915) in not correct.

11. Ship 4088 Rezki: her arrival date (421206) seems a little bit too late to her commissioning date (420816)

12. Ship 4108 Revnostny: her arrival date (421206) seems a little bit too late to her commissioning date (411214)

13. Ship 4117 Razyartny: I have no idea what this name is. Maybe Razyarenny? Razyashchy? Both these already are in database, so I have no clue.

14. Ship 4210 Rekordny: her arrival date (421206) seems a little bit too late to her commissioning date (410109)

15. Ship 4227 Vnushitelnyi: delete it, it was commisioned 471229.

16. Ship 4235 Radyashtchi: Whats that? Razyashchy? If yes her arrival date (421206) seems a little bit too late to her commissioning date (401220). And its name needs to be corrected.

17. Ship 4322 Razyaryonny: her arrival date (421206) seems a little bit too late to her commissioning date (411214)

18. Ship 5844 L3: delete it, it was Baltic Fleet ship, you should put L7 instead.

19. Ship 5872 L4: delete it, it was Black Fleet ship, you should put L17 instead.

19. Ship 5888 L5: delete it, it was Black Fleet ship, you should put L18 instead.

20. Ship 5905 L6: delete it, it was Black Fleet ship, you should put L19 instead.

21. Ship 6347 T111: Minesweepers were designated by letters TShch (tralshchik = minesweeper) or BTShch (bolshoy tralshchik = big minesweeper). So, it should be named TShch-111.

22. Ship 6366 T112: Should be named TShch-112.

23. Ship 6386 T113: Should be named TShch-113.

24. Ship 6394 T114: Should be named TShch-114.

25. Ship 6408 B201: Not sure about which ship you have on your mind but subchasers were designated by letters BO (bolshoy okhotnik - big subchaser) or MO (malenkiy okhotnik - small or tiny subchaser). So, should be named BO-201.

26. Ship 6422 B202: Should be named BO-202.

27. Ship 6439 B203: Should be named BO-203.

28. Ship 6475 B204: Should be named BO-204.


< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 3/30/2006 7:20:31 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
Post #: 1
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:45:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

1. Class 1580 (Kirov):
a) should be named Maxim Gorkiy. Far East fleet ships were of modified design (project 26bis).
b) should have 180mm guns, not 181mm. NEVER seen any metric system based source which would give incorrect size of 181mm. Find data about guns, you will see their name also gives hint about their calliber.


I believe this may be correct about a sub class - I dimly remember reading that in Russian somewhere. Naval Weapons of World War Two - which I use because it has common standards for all nations - gives the caliber as 181mm. It has been challenged before, and there is a set of these on display, so I had them measured: it appears they really are 181mm. But if you have some difinitive data (the ammunition is different than the bore?) I am listening.

Since almost everyone has heard of Kirov - a fine class - is it not better to use that - since they really are Kirov dirivitives? Opinion requested.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 2
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:46:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

3. Class 1581 (Leningrad) are lacking of their depth charges (they had total 70-80 DCs)


Not exactly. They were designed - as almost all Soviet ships were - as minelayers. They got DCs later. Perhaps I should have it upgrade?

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 3
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:47:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

4. Class 1582 (Ognevoy) should be deleted, as only one ship was completed during the war, and it was Black Sea ship. Next ship of this class wass comissioned 29.09.1947. (for example Vnushitelny 29.12.1947).


This is incorrect - I used Soviet data. I went ship by ship. It is very hard to get this right - sources do differe and many are wrong. But I used materials written AFTER the archives were opened.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 4
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:50:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

5. Class 1583 (Gnevyni):
a) Misspelling of class name, it should be of course Gnevnyi.
b) Of course they are lacking of their DCs (30 in total).
c) Wrong configuration of main guns - should be 2xF 2xR.


I don't know this class. Will investigate. Seems likely it is another case where the "DCs" were originally mines. Also likely the guns are given as actually mounted vice as designed. This might happen if the twins were not available.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 5
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:52:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

6. Class 1584 (Leninet):
a) Name should be changed to Leninets (as last cyryllic sign in their name is in English transcribed as ts), or even better "L (proj. XI/XIII)"
b) To few torpedo tubes, ships of "L class proj. II" had 6 torpedo tubes, proj. XI and XIII had 8 torpedo tubes (6xF 2xR). There is no need for averaging them as all Far East ships were of 2 latter subclasses.
c) They were capable of carrying 20 mines, not 28 as in RHS.
d) Are you sure that they should have better manuv. than S-class? These were large and not so new minelayers...


Will review. This class has significantly different data in different listings. It is indeed old, and possibly some of the published data is from times when people in the west were guessing. It is amazing the things we had wrong about Soviet subs. HEN (Hotel, Echo, November) were not known to have two nuclear reactors for a long time, for example. It isn't how we did it.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 6
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:53:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

7. Class 1588 (Stalinets):
a) Name should be changed to Srednaya, or even better "S (proj. IX-bis)". Since later names of types were no longer named after ships but after its size (Srednaya means medium) and name Stalinets was already used by ship of another class (L2), thus it was NOT POSSIBLE to name this class Stalinetz.
b) Wrong number of torpedo tubes. Should have only 6 (4xF 2xR).


Will review. Same comment as above.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 7
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:55:19 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

9. Ship 3895 Raztoropny:
a) Should be named Rastoropny.
b) Was commisioned 400105 not 421206 as in RHS


421206 is not a commissioning date. It simply means "commissioned before the game begins and available on the first day of the game." This is NORMAL for most ships at start. Even WWI (and PRE WWI) era ships are mostly listed as 421206!

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 8
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:56:53 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

13. Ship 4117 Razyartny: I have no idea what this name is. Maybe Razyarenny? Razyashchy? Both these already are in database, so I have no clue.


I will check the Soviet listing. Unless it is an error on my part, there should be a separate vessel involved. I don't recognize this name from memory.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 9
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:57:04 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		On all drawings I had ships have BOTH minelaying racks (on boards) and depth charge racks (on center of the stern). All Soviet DDs were designed as multirole ship. Even more roles than comparable western DD. So, all of them heavy armed, but with only minor reserve of displacement to upgrades, and poor hull endurance.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:58:22 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

15. Ship 4227 Vnushitelnyi: delete it, it was commisioned 471229.


While this is correct, I show it when it COULD HAVE commissioned. I had the data, so for destroyer and above I reviewed hull by hull the building situation. Sometimes real events were not likely events and should not be imposed on a "probable" simulation.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 11
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 7:59:27 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

18. Ship 5844 L3: delete it, it was Baltic Fleet ship, you should put L7 instead.

19. Ship 5872 L4: delete it, it was Black Fleet ship, you should put L17 instead.

19. Ship 5888 L5: delete it, it was Black Fleet ship, you should put L18 instead.

20. Ship 5905 L6: delete it, it was Black Fleet ship, you should put L19 instead.



Thanks. I ONLY knew the number of hulls - not their specific numbers. So I made them up from the correct series.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 12
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 8:00:12 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

[quote421206 is not a commissioning date. It simply means "commissioned before the game begins and available on the first day of the game." This is NORMAL for most ships at start. Even WWI (and PRE WWI) era ships are mostly listed as 421206!


You mean 411206 ? :))))


_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 13
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 8:03:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

21. Ship 6347 T111: Minesweepers were designated by letters TShch (tralshchik = minesweeper) or BTShch (bolshoy tralshchik = big minesweeper). So, it should be named TShch-111.

22. Ship 6366 T112: Should be named TShch-112.

23. Ship 6386 T113: Should be named TShch-113.

24. Ship 6394 T114: Should be named TShch-114.

25. Ship 6408 B201: Not sure about which ship you have on your mind but subchasers were designated by letters BO (bolshoy okhotnik - big subchaser) or MO (malenkiy okhotnik - small or tiny subchaser). So, should be named BO-201.

26. Ship 6422 B202: Should be named BO-202.

27. Ship 6439 B203: Should be named BO-203.

28. Ship 6475 B204: Should be named BO-204.


Thanks. I followed Conway on the smaller vessels - my materials don't cover them in Russian - and I think you are right. The vessels intended are American transfers - and may not use the standard Russian nomenclature. This was meant to be generic - WITP defines all SC and MS as identical functionally. It meant I didn't need to do a lot of work creating classes for these types.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 14
RE: RHS OoB Errata - 3/30/2006 8:29:53 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		29 . Ship 6269 Shch-103: I remember that I actually argued with Subchaser to add this ship :) Since then I found info she was lost in accident before war. As it seems she wasnt refloated I propose to exchange her for Shch-105.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
Request for data (Montor) - 3/31/2006 12:46:50 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Edit: During lunch I studies vessels of the first Five Year Plan - and found a designation pattern. Shch assigned to the Pacific Fleet were numbered 101 to 125 (for those ordered up to 1933). [The first four were ordered as 11, 12, 13 and 14 but they were changed to 101, 102, 103 and 104]. I am assuming those ordered after 1933 continued this designation trend, presumably through 134 or so. Is this correct? Were any lost creating gaps in the series?

Similarly I found a series M-1 to M-28 in the Pacific Fleet. But M-29 and M-30 were Baltic Sea Fleet - so that series is not complete. I need about nine more numbers for Pacific Fleet.

I found another source claiming the 18 cm guns were really 181mm - Soviet Warship Development by Sigfried Breyer - he is a German naval architect and authority on Soviet ships. I don't think he is likely to make a conversion error like a British or American author might.

I wonder at the suggestion that L-7 should substitute for the L-3. There are only six of the original Leninets class - L-1 to L-6 - all of them also have names. One is Pacific Fleet. Cannot be 1, 2, 3, or 6 - because of specific data putting them at Neva, Keri Island, Murmansk and Constanta, respectively. That would imply 4 or 5. I didn't have L-7 data to look at today, but it appears to be a different class.

We appear in harmony on the Leningrad class.

I did find the data on Gavril class destroyers and confirmed two in Pacific Fleet. They appear to have been old ships refitted in the 1923 to 1937 time period. "...the modifications seem to have been mainly concerned with the installation of AA weapons and fire control equipment" - no mention of ASW capability in this period. They are listed as having 4x102mm single mounts, no shields; 2x45mm K-21 AA single mounts, 2x20 mm AA, 3x12.7mm AAMG (single mounts), 60 M-12 mines,

and lo there it is - 15 M-1 plus 10 B-1 depth charges. OK - got it.






At the start of the war for the Soviet Union - 21 June 1941 - there were (using US Naval classification):

13 Leninetz class
1 Stalinetz class
34 Shchuka class
37 Malodki class

submarines in the Pacific Fleet.

I only put 4 each of the latter two classes (and also 4 of the minesweepers, 4 PT boats and 4 sub chasers) in the CHS file set - due to limited slots. I intend to open slots in RHS -

can you identify the real pennant numbers of the "missing" 30 Shch type
and the "missing" 33 Malodki type?

Submarines are not in my primary reference materials, so I am using (for OB vessel count)

Soviet Submarines: Design, Development and Tactics,
by Jan Breemer published by Janes

For details of each class I am following

Submarines of World War Two
Erminio Bagnasco by Naval Institute Press.

The rules of the CHS/RHS world require our work be verifiable in English sources and they should be published and recognized rather than just web based - although web published scholarly material which is also actually published counts. Nevertheless, when I get good information from any source, I can usually run it down in English somewhere. And some things are not available at all - in this case we have numbers of vessels by class but not the vessle identities. For major warships we are in better shape - and we have records by vessel name and/or order number.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/31/2006 11:43:43 AM >

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 16
RE: Request for data (Montor) - 3/31/2006 4:54:13 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		L class proj. XI : L-7/Voroshilovets, L-8/Dzerzhynets, L-9, L-10, L-11, L-12
L class proj. XIII: L-13, L-14, L-15*, L-16*, L-17, L-18, L-19
S class proj. IX-bis: S-51*(411130), S-52(430609), S-53(430130), S-54*, S-55*(410725), S-56*(411020), maybe S-57(? - doubtful)
Shch class proj. V: Shch-101/Losos, Shch-102, Shch-104, Shch-105, Shch-106, Shch-107, Shch-108, Shch-109, Shch-110, Shch-111, Shch-112
Shch class proj. V-bis: Shch-113/Styerlad', Shch-114, Shch-115, Shch-116, Shch-117/Makrel, Shch-118/Kefal, Shch-119/Beluga, Shch-120, Shch-121/Zubatka, Shch-122/Saida, Shch-123/Ugor', Shch-124, Shch-125
Shch class proj. X: Shch-126, Shch-127, Shch-128, Shch-129, Shch-130, Shch-131, Shch-132, Shch-133, Shch-134, maybe Shch-140, maybe Shch-141, maybe Shch-423**
Shch class proj. X-bis: Shch-135(410913), Shch-136(410907), Shch-137(411201), Shch-136(420108)
M class proj. VI: M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7, M-8, M-9, M-10, M-11, M-12, M-13, M-14, M-15, M-16, M-17, M-18, M-19, M-20, M-21, M-22, M-23***, M-24***, M-25***, M-26***, M-27***, M-28***
M class proj. VI-bis: M-43, M-44, M-45, M-46, M-47, M-48
M class proj. XII: M-30***(but maybe was of proj.VI or VI-bis), maybe M-63
M class proj. XII-bis: M-49(sunk Aug41), M-114***(411112), M-115***(411001), M-116***

* - left (or was killed trying) to Northern Fleet during 1942/1943
** - possible that 401008 transferred from North Fleet, 420417 name changed to Shch-139
*** - in 1944 moved to Black Sea
(xxxxxx) - date of commissioning if after or near 411206.

Note that some ships were commisioned after German attack on Soviet Union. Word maybe meand that data is taken from internet site (which gives a lot of commisioning dates) but actually existance or existance in theatre is not confirmed by my books.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 3/31/2006 5:01:57 AM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 3/31/2006 11:49:58 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		If I put in all the real subs, I fear it may grossly exaggerate the Soviet capability. The USSR entered WWII with the world's largest submarine fleet. It ended WWII with the worlds least productive combattant submarine force. It may be more accurate simulation to give them no boats than any! The ONLY technical reasons this may not be an issue in WITP (which more or less treats all subs the same) are:

1) The Russian torpedo has little range

2) They have no radar or snorkels, and this engine tends to kill subs without one or the other

Even so, it is unlikely any player at all will keep these subs in port and do other things like the real Russians did. Are they likely to be too effective?

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 18
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 3/31/2006 1:52:28 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It ended WWII with the worlds least productive combattant submarine force.

I am curious about sources of your conclussion. Could you say more about this?

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 3/31/2006 2:52:24 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It ended WWII with the worlds least productive combattant submarine force.

I am curious about sources of your conclussion. Could you say more about this?


Soviet submarines have an astonishingly small success rate. Very few targets were damaged or destroyed. Partly this is geographic: The Finnish mine barrage bottled up the Baltic Fleet until 1945. There was nothing for the Northern Fleet to shoot at - not much for the Black Sea fleet to shoot at - and the Pacific Fleet was only active a few days.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 20
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 3/31/2006 2:59:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have added depth charges to all Soviet Destroyers. Seems Conways fails to list depth charges. There are two kinds - one not in the game - too small. But the way the game works I can substitute half as many larger ones. The larger Soviet DC is exactly the same as one of our game devices. The number of charges is small. These ships won't be very effective.

My only destroyer disagreement is re the Ognevoy class - I show two ships built in the Far East launching in 1944 - Vnushitelnyi and Vnimatelnyi. However, there is some doubt about the latter - a ? appears by the launch date. The first was "completed by the end of hositilities" and - given our longer game scenario - I believe the other one might have been.

Subs are going to be a problem. The names for the big classes I got - but what slots to give them? And the small classes - I am not sure what they are? Western materials and Russian materials seem so different one must guess.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 21
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 1:15:37 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Most notably difference between subclasses are their range. Also number of small AA guns and machineguns (but this could change even for units in one class).

Look here at excellent Czech site for their data: http://warships.web4u.cz/tridy.php?language=E&stat=SOV&typ=SS
You will notice that there were differences even bettween same subclass but operating within different fleets!
So your 6000nm of range for Shch class seems actually like a round up of ranges of subclasses (3000-9600nm).

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 1:59:30 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		You are right about naming scheme for Shch type. Next vessels continued that pattern. Shch-103 was lost before war, and Shch-138 during (but before declaring war on Japan, raised not repaired scrapped). But there were transfers - ships transferred eventually changed their names, but not immediately - already mentioned Shch-423 renamed Shch-139 two years after tranfer! That change is the only one which interest us (in sense of Far East).
M-class submarines didnt had any pattern in naming. Exact names I already gave you.

L-class:
proj. II - 3 vessels ordered for Baltic (L-1/Leninets, L-2/Stalinets, L-3/Frunzovets) and 3 for Black Sea (L-4/Garibaldiyets, L-5/Tchartist - not sure if transcription is correct, L-6/Karbonariy). For Far East: 0
proj. XI - 6 vessels (L-7 - L-12) for Far East
proj. XIII - 7 vessels (L-13 - L19) for Far East
proj. XIII-bis - 2 for Arctic (L-20, L-22), 1 for Baltic (L-21) and 3 for Black Sea (L-23, L-24, L-25 possibly not completed before end of war)
L-3 cannot be at Murmansk, she under command of ltcdr P.D.Grytsenko during summer 1942 on Baltic Sea sunk AP with 1500 troops and layed mines which caused sinking of 2 merchants.

Back to Soviet submarine force capability: did you know that K-21 heavy damaged Tirpitz?

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 23
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 3:25:56 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have added depth charges to all Soviet Destroyers. Seems Conways fails to list depth charges. There are two kinds - one not in the game - too small. But the way the game works I can substitute half as many larger ones. The larger Soviet DC is exactly the same as one of our game devices. The number of charges is small. These ships won't be very effective.

My only destroyer disagreement is re the Ognevoy class - I show two ships built in the Far East launching in 1944 - Vnushitelnyi and Vnimatelnyi. However, there is some doubt about the latter - a ? appears by the launch date. The first was "completed by the end of hositilities" and - given our longer game scenario - I believe the other one might have been.

Subs are going to be a problem. The names for the big classes I got - but what slots to give them? And the small classes - I am not sure what they are? Western materials and Russian materials seem so different one must guess.


I think the DC totals need to be redone since the model now deals with individual DCs. Also, seeing this is the case, perhaps the number of rails be increased by the total number of charges dropped per rail. To make clear, at the moment eack K/Y gun fires 1 DC and each rail fires 1 DC. The rails dropped multiple DCs per pattern so to work with the model, the number of rails should be multiplied by the number of DCs dropped each pattern. X3, X4, x5 perhaps? And divede the rail ammo between the total. eg. if a DD has 2xDC rail and 4 DCs are dropped per rack per patter, then the rail total should be 8.


< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 4/1/2006 3:27:57 AM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 24
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 6:39:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Back to Soviet submarine force capability: did you know that K-21 heavy damaged Tirpitz?


No - where is this described

I did find the second five year plan continued essentially the same L class - but
I cannot confirm your armament - all sources give the same - the one I used.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 25
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 6:40:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I think the DC totals need to be redone since the model now deals with individual DCs. Also, seeing this is the case, perhaps the number of rails be increased by the total number of charges dropped per rail. To make clear, at the moment eack K/Y gun fires 1 DC and each rail fires 1 DC. The rails dropped multiple DCs per pattern so to work with the model, the number of rails should be multiplied by the number of DCs dropped each pattern. X3, X4, x5 perhaps? And divede the rail ammo between the total. eg. if a DD has 2xDC rail and 4 DCs are dropped per rack per patter, then the rail total should be 8.


I think the model only drops one charge per launcher because that is how the data is entered. IF you put different numbers in the "mount" field they will fire simultaneously. Will test. It may be we need to increase BOTH number of launchers AND number per mount to get the salvo right.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/1/2006 6:41:50 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 26
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 10:11:40 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Tirpitz was hit by K-21 after her attempt to attack PQ-17 convoy, while he was returning home. It was July the 5th, 1942.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 27
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 11:59:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Tirpitz was hit by K-21 after her attempt to attack PQ-17 convoy, while he was returning home. It was July the 5th, 1942.


Sounds vaguely familiar at that.

And also sounds RUSSIAN! That is, referring to a ship as "he." In English ships are "she"!!


(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 28
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/1/2006 12:31:02 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		I know, but sometimes I forget. Of course in Polish ship (both warship and civilian) is always "he".

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 29
RE: Soviet Submarine (in) effectiveness - 4/13/2006 6:22:54 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		I found at http://www.world-war.co.uk/ quite interesting info about differences between Kirov and Maksim Gorkiy classes.

K - Kirov ; MG - Maksim Gorkiy
You have provided data for Kirov class, but Maksim Gorkiys were quite different. At some points Far East ships were even more different:
On Gorkiys max belt armour was thickened to 70mm. Endurance was different for every ship, Maksim Gorkiy and Molotov had more, but Far East ships had actually fewer: 3100nm. Secondary armament also differed on Far East ships (but not on Maksim Gorkiy itself and Molotov): 8x85mm instead of 6x100mm. Also number of small AA guns increased from 6 to 9 (later modified), and Kaganovich and Kalinin actually held 10x37mm + 6xMGs.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS OoB Errata Page: [1] 2   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

0.922