Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922

 
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 >> RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 2:29:29 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Come on guys, I have seen numerous threads were folks will argue adnasuem about manveurability ratings for the Zero, and other dreaded topics like Zero versus F4F Wildcat.  Find it hard to believe that such a fine group of opinionated fellows have nothing to say about the durability stat (or how it is derived) or coming up with range for these 'what if' ships.  Likewise how to you take belt and deck armor and convert it to a meaningfull number within the database.

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/10/2006 2:31:03 PM >

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 31
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 2:32:20 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The armour ratings in the database are in millimeters. One inch = 25.4 milimeters.

As for durability, I've never had that conclusively explained to me, so I've gone the route of compare-to-a-similar-ship-and-go-from-there. It's taken a few subsequent adjustments, but generally I'm happy with my choices.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 32
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 2:43:03 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The armour ratings in the database are in millimeters. One inch = 25.4 milimeters.

As for durability, I've never had that conclusively explained to me, so I've gone the route of compare-to-a-similar-ship-and-go-from-there. It's taken a few subsequent adjustments, but generally I'm happy with my choices.


Thank you, if you care to elaborate further on anything you may know regarding the durability variable I would appreciate it. For some reason I recall that there was correllation between displacement and durability, but at the same time I think Iowa class had a greater durability than the Yamato, which would rule out a pure displacement basis. Right now my mod, is limited to an excel spreadsheet of value. My gaming PC is down for the count, and it will be that way for a while, consequently I cannot even get into the editor, to refresh my own memory. So I will have to be forgiven for anything that I have misstated.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 33
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 2:46:39 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Durability is not based 100% on displacement, but also on whether or not we're talking a military or a civilian ship, what sort of watertight integrity it has, etc. At least that's the way I look at it.


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 34
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 2:49:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		As for the Yamato and Iowa, their Durability ratings are 185 and 190, respectively. Not enough, in my opinion, to be significant.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 35
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 2:59:45 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Regarding the No. 13, here's my take on her as of 12/7/41:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 36
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 3:12:55 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Another interesting variable, is manueverability, the number 13 class, is 900', which is longer than the Yamato.  I have yet to find any sources that give any indication of the number of screws that she would have, which would also have a big impact on manueverability.  I seem to recall that for the US, the Lexington and Saratoga were very difficult to manuever, in particular with regard to turning radius.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 37
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/10/2006 3:46:23 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Hmm, good point. The site where I found my data for the No. 13 ( http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/s_index.htm ), states that it was to have had 4 shafts and 150,000 shp, i.e. similar to the Yamato, but of course a bit longer, and almost 20,000 tons lighter.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/10/2006 3:48:16 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 38
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:18:21 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I have thought about some of RETIRED's comments, and things certainly would not have happened in a vacuum, in terms of Japan forging ahead with additional ships during the 'battleship' holiday.  I have been thinking about having some Lexington class battlecruiser's built, go with historical scenario of Lexington and Saratoga converted to CV's, and have Constellation, Constituition, Ranger (may go with a name change on this) and United States built as battle cruisers.

Have the following artwork, may need to find a gifted accomplices to convert these to WitP graphics.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/11/2006 7:20:07 PM >

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 39
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:20:49 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Here are is another version, without the tripod mast.  Note this is not my artwork.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/11/2006 7:22:45 PM >

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 40
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:25:18 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Here is another of the CC-6 USS United States, in black and white, easier to see the secondary armament.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/11/2006 7:26:01 PM >

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 41
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:30:19 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		I would like to get a consensus on what everyone thinks is the better looking ship.  Also, I have to figure out how the British will react to all of this.  I found this snipet from Wikipedia to be interesting

HMS Vanguard was a "Fully Armoured Battlecruiser" of the Royal Navy. She was the biggest and last battleship to be built for the Royal Navy.

Early in 1939, the Admiralty decided to build a new battleship that would use four spare twin 15-inch mountings originally used by HM ships Courageous and Glorious during World War I; thus giving rise to the nickname "battleship with her great aunt's teeth".

A design for a 40,000-ton battleship was produced, intended to be the core of a Far East Fleet, where her high speed and armament would be a match for Japanese warships. At the outbreak of World War II the Admiralty decided to concentrate the limited shipbuilding resources on vessels that could come into service quickly rather than larger or more powerful ships that might be too late. As a result the planned Lion class was cancelled. It was suggested that the turrets and mountings from the two battlecruisers be utilized in a modified Lion design for speedy construction. The plan was approved and the ship built.

Since it mentions a design to form the core of a Far East Fleet, of course I find it puzzling that they mention HMS Vanguard as a battle cruiser.  I was thinking of having a Vanguard class with the following:

HMS Vanguard, HMS Collingwood, HMS Tiger, and HMS Audacious (may have to go with a different name). 

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/11/2006 7:31:23 PM >

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 42
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:33:24 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Thing about the US battlecruisers is that Alikchi already did 'em for his Iron Storm 2 mod, with shipsides by Cobra...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 43
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:35:08 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		As for the Vanguard, they call it a "Fully Armoured Battlecruiser". That's what I'd call a "fast battleship". Remember that Kongo, Haruna, Kirishima and Hiei were all originally battlecruisers before they were rerated as BB's.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 44
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:41:37 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Wikipedia is a mixed blessing. It accepts inputs from registered members, with very little to no fact checking by the owners of the site.

I remember hearing about some member posting several paragraphs about Imperial Japanese war crimes in Manchuria, in a description page that was supposed to be devoted to the specifications of an early war single engine bomber. (He was describing operational use, in inflamatory language. Not engine specs and so on...)

In short: Take what you see on Wikipedia with care. Verify through other scources.

I suspect the "battle cruiser" label on the Vanguard was an error. They may have meant to say "Fast Battleship".

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 45
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 7:54:57 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Thing about the US battlecruisers is that Alikchi already did 'em for his Iron Storm 2 mod, with shipsides by Cobra...


How much resemblance does Cobra's work bear to the drawing by Abram Joslin, that I posted above? I really like the look of it for a Constellation Class of BCs. When I get a chance I will take a look at the Iron Storm 2 mod.

Also supposing that HMS Vanguard is built earlier, what type of AAA layout? The formidable battery of 40mm bofors guns, would not have been available if the class had under gone construction earlier, would it be arrangement similar to KGV class? Does anyone have information on what the AAA layout would have been on the Lion class. Lastly, since Vanguard was built due to having a surplus of 15" guns, how many 15" guns did the RN have in reserve?


< Message edited by ladner -- 8/11/2006 8:08:54 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 46
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 8:12:21 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		First, here's Cobra's US battlecruiser (converted from .bmp to .jpg, so quality probably suffers):






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 47
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 8:14:51 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Second, this is my take on the Lion class, as of 12/41. In my mod, the KG's aren't built, and the Lions take their place, being started in 1937 instead of 1939. The Lion is in Singapore instead of the Prince of Wales.

The number of guns is correct, per the sources I could find. The layout of AAA is my interpretation of the drawing I found.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/11/2006 8:17:06 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 48
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 8:21:58 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Third, regarding the Vanguard, her main battery would have been 15in, secondary 5.25in. Primary AA would most likely have been 2pdr pom-poms instead of Bofors, probably 30-40 of them, supplemented by secondary AA in the form of Oerlikons and .50 cal AAMG's.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/11/2006 8:36:23 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 49
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 9:33:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The post-WWI British definition for "Battlecruiser" was a fast battleship.

_____________________________


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 50
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 10:03:27 PM   
ladner

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Nik -

you don't by chance have any idea of how many 15" guns the RN had in reserve, also were the entire turrents salvaged or did Vanguard use a new turrent design?

Terminus in your mod you have the Lion class being built in 1937 in lieu of the KGV class.  Historically when exactly did the design of the Lion class take place?  I want to hash out a timeline since the Vanguard was a relative of the Lion Class.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 51
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 10:05:43 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		@ work right now so not sure how many barrels they had off the top of my head in reserve but the turrets and guns were both utilized from Fisher's follies. (The Couragious class of WWI)

Given that the reliable Mark I had been around since before WWI, they probably had a few lying around. (Reminds me....on my visit to the London War museum, two of them stand out front......bloody marvelous sight. (think they were salvaged from Revenge or another R class.



< Message edited by Nikademus -- 8/11/2006 10:06:13 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ladner)
Post #: 52
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 10:09:56 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I saw somewhere that the guns on the Vanguard weren't in fact from Fisher's Follies. I'll try digging that reference up.

No idea when the Lions were designed, but since they were up-armed KG's, I'd say somewhere between 1937 and 1939, when the Lion and Temeraire were laid down.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 53
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/11/2006 10:13:17 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Here's that reference to the Vanguard. It's a bit spurious, what with lack of source references, but there it is:

http://www.bobhenneman.info/vanguard.htm

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 54
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/12/2006 12:35:59 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

saw somewhere that the guns on the Vanguard weren't in fact from Fisher's Follies. I'll try digging that reference up.


quote:

Lastly, since Vanguard was built due to having a surplus of 15" guns, how many 15" guns did the RN have in reserve?


Not enough to warrant more ships of the same class, apparently. (Unless you postualte the decommisioning of the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes, too.)

From "British Battleships" by Oscar Parkes, pg 687:

quote:

In December 1939 the DNC Sir Stanley Goodall suggested that the 15-inch guns with their mountings and turrets which had been landed from the Courageous and Glorious on their conversion to carriers, could be used to arm a battleship which might be rushed to completion before the Lion class. As the time taken to design and produce her gun mountings usually determines the construction rate of a battleship, this proposal was welcomed by the First Lord as an expedient for increasing our strength in armoured ships during the probable duration of hostilities.


Ship was ordered in March '41, after work on the Lionclass had been abandoned. Laid down Oct '41, Launched Nov '44, completed April '46.

Protection similar to the KGV class, with the extra weight due to a longer belt.

quote:

No idea when the Lions were designed, but since they were up-armed KG's, I'd say somewhere between 1937 and 1939, when the Lion and Temeraire were laid down.


Two units ordered in Feb '39, 2 more in Aug '39. Only 2 laid down (June and July '39). I'd say the scetches were worked on in '38...

quote:

Also supposing that HMS Vanguard is built earlier, what type of AAA layout? The formidable battery of 40mm bofors guns, would not have been available if the class had under gone construction earlier, would it be arrangement similar to KGV class?


Your speculation is as good as mine here. I would say yes.

quote:

Does anyone have information on what the AAA layout would have been on the Lion class?


The scource I mentioned above states 16 5.25-inch DP in twin gunned turrets. The 5.25 was introduced in the KGV class, but wartime experience showed that the rate of fire was a tad too low to be considered effective.

Wartime upgrades would probably include 20 and 40mm additions, radar upgrades.

< Message edited by mlees -- 8/12/2006 12:36:06 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 55
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/12/2006 2:24:01 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		1942 design requirement for the Lion class armament wise were:

9 x 16inch/45
16 x 5.25/50
76 x 2pdr pom poms octupled (40mm)

For a late war setting, going with the KGV upgrades is probably best though it varied from ship to ship

mid 44:(Duke of York)

44 x 20mm
16 x twin 20mm
6 x 8-barrel 2pdr (40mm)






_____________________________


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 56
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/12/2006 2:31:10 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Erm, you can't actually divided 76 by 8 and get a whole number. That would give 9,5 mounts... Now 72 I'd buy, that's nine mounts.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 57
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/12/2006 2:31:44 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I saw somewhere that the guns on the Vanguard weren't in fact from Fisher's Follies. I'll try digging that reference up.

No idea when the Lions were designed, but since they were up-armed KG's, I'd say somewhere between 1937 and 1939, when the Lion and Temeraire were laid down.


1938

you might be right about the guns. The gun mounts were definately from Couragious and Glorious, though given the time frame the 15inch barrels would likely have been used for spares for refitted battleships during the 30's. In answer to the question of spares though, there couldn't have been many (if any left by that time) because Gazarke mentions that a 2nd ship along the lines of Vanguard was preposed early on that would have been made possible by using the existing 15 inch guns and turrets of R class battleships decommissioned for that purpose.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 58
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/12/2006 2:33:02 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Erm, you can't actually divided 76 by 8 and get a whole number. That would give 9,5 mounts... Now 72 I'd buy, that's nine mounts.


4 x 19 = 76



_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 59
RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - 8/12/2006 2:33:57 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Yes, but that's not what you said:

quote:

9 x 16inch/45
16 x 5.25/50
76 x 2pdr pom poms octupled (40mm)



_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: What if regarding Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.688