Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nemo???

 
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 >> Nemo??? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nemo??? - 9/1/2008 10:36:08 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This is all great stuff!

Dili--Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if we could recreate the additional building into something coherant that could be added into the build list for many choices and a lot of fun for the JFB out there? 

I know Nemo designed some Japanese AA cruisers in his Empire Ablaze Mod.  Maybe they could serve as a model to add here?

Nemo---You out there???

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 31
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/1/2008 10:37:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

@Mike;

Thanks. A lot of those agree with what Ive got, but there seems to be some differences in the later DDs. Maybe some of these are from the other subsidiary circle 5 programs?

As for the Ibukis, like I said its just speculation, as I could find nothing more on these '13,000t CAs' mentioned in the circle 4 amendments. Was just trying to tie these into the Ibukis we know which were introduced in the 1941 program.

As for the 'Oyodos' you mention...the numbers seem right, but my sources state them as an 'improved agano class', with 2,000t more standard displacement, which makes them a tad heavier than the Oyodos. Weaponry is 4xIIx6in/50 and 4xIIx3in/65. Speed of 38kt.


@Terminus;

The displacments match the Katoris at 5,800t, but the weaponry is definately intended as AA with 4xIIx3.9in/65. Nothing mentioned about speed, maybe the loss of some of the guns actually meant they could travel at ~30kts. Its also noted they were to be equivalents to USNs Atlanta class. Who knows.


That sort of speed increase would have required a big, big investment in machinery and boilers, and the Katori design wasn't up to it. And eight 10cm guns are not equivalent to 12 5in guns.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)
Post #: 32
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/1/2008 10:39:31 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		As for CLAA's, in my mod I've refit all the old IJN CL's to CLAA's with the 12cm guns. More realistic, since the Japs were incapable/unwilling to produce the 10cm guns in large numbers.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 33
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/1/2008 11:17:09 PM   
Elouda

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Thats why I dont think they were based on the Katoris, but on a new design alltogeather. Getting ~30 kts out of a 6,000t cruiser isnt exactly difficult as far as naval designs go, and that would be enough to make a decent AA escort. I have no idea why the armanament on it is so light, its basically equivalent to an Akizuki DD. Search '815号型軽巡洋艦', and thats what you get. If anyones seen any other references to a dedicated class of CLAA, would be nice to know.

As for the 3.9in/65, its questionable if they were incapable/unwilling, or if they instead decided not to since most of the designs (More Oyodos, Taihos, Shinano and later Yamatos) that were intended to use it were clearly not going to be finished. We know they produced them in some reasonable quantity for the Akizukis, so its not impossible.

Last point about the refit of Mayas No.3 gun for more AA - I could see this being done to other Takao or maybe Nachi class CAs, as the firing arcs for the No.3 gun were pretty bad. However, if the Ibukis were to be based off the Mogami/Suzuya design, Id argue that this most likely would not have been done as the firings arcs were much less restricted on these designs.


Edit; Heres a nice listing of all of the programs, including the ones that werent on the wiki - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=91750

Another intresting tidbit on upgraded Shimakaze class, and the improved Agano class I mentioned - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Shimakaze_class_destroyer

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/1/2008 11:31:42 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 34
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/1/2008 11:28:25 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Well, several written sources lump the 815s in with the Katoris, so they were probably batch 2 of that class. Not a good basis for further development, building a larger number of Akizukis would have been better.

That's the reasoning behind my CLAA conversions in my personal mod. Feed the limited number of 10cm gun mounts into the Akizukis, and give the older CLs the more common 12cm guns. The Japs are on a severe shipbuilding budget.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/1/2008 11:33:24 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)
Post #: 35
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/1/2008 11:35:17 PM   
Elouda

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Thats fair enough, but its hard to believe they would consider basing them on the same design when they even cancelled the 4th Katori once war started. Maybe they were an improved hull, and the reason for the incredibly light weaponry is precisely that all that weight was needed for machinery.

I cant find out much about them at all. It could be they were only intended to make 25kts or so, enough to keep pace with the older BBs? Just speculating...its not like we need a CLAA with weaponry like that, Id much rather build more Akizukis.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 36
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/1/2008 11:40:37 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		A 25-knot speed for a CLAA is as useless as an 18-knot speed.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)
Post #: 37
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 1:59:45 AM   
Lameduck

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/6/2008
Status: offline 		For what it's worth, the second Ibuki (Job No. 301) was laid down on 1 June 1942 with the work suspended in July 1942. It looks like it would have had ten 8" guns.

It looks like that there were another six of the Oyodo's (Nos. 810-810 and Nos. 5037-5038) projected under the 1942 program, but they were never actually ordered. Niyodo was canceled before it was laid down.

Another Katori, the Kashiwara, was laid down 23 June 1941 but work was stopped on 6 November 1941. Another three were projected under the 1942 program, but never started.

I don't see anything about more Agano's planned.

This is from Warships of the Imperial Navy, 1869-1945.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 38
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 2:08:48 AM   
Elouda

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Numbers 810-814 and 5037-5038 are labelled as the redesigned 'Kai-Agano', according to a variety of sources, notably Nihon junyokan monogatari (Fukui Shizuo chosakushu) - Collection of writings by Sizuo Fukui Vol.4, Stories of Japanese Cruisers.

Also, it was originally 5, but was reduced to 2 in the modified (post midway) 1942 program.

However, its entirely possibly that theres some confusion as to this as theyre larger than the original Aganos and more comparable to the Oyodos in terms of size.

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/2/2008 2:17:36 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Lameduck)
Post #: 39
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 3:36:06 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		How would those CLs have differed from the Agano-Class?  I've always felt that those CLs were really nice ships and pretty well balanced with speed, 6" guns, and Long Lances.  They didn't compare with the American Brooklyn's but...

If they displaced more then what was there planned armament?



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Elouda)
Post #: 40
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 6:36:19 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Tiornu--What is L&W?

Lacroix & Wells, Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Possibly the best warship reference ever published. Except mine, of course.
Hey, I just published a new 40-page booklet. Brand new, I haven't even gotten my copies yet. It's called In the Shadow of the Battleship, a trio of essays on the subject of WWII cruisers and the misconceptions surrounding them. It should be there on Amazon, reasonably cheap.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 41
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 7:27:42 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Last point about the refit of Mayas No.3 gun for more AA - I could see this being done to other Takao or maybe Nachi class CAs, as the firing arcs for the No.3 gun were pretty bad. However, if the Ibukis were to be based off the Mogami/Suzuya design, Id argue that this most likely would not have been done as the firings arcs were much less restricted on these designs.


I think AA was the priority for japanese at that time (late 43-44). They could replace the second turret in Suzuyas that while didn't had so bad firing angle wasn't in a good perfect either.


quote:

Well, several written sources lump the 815s in with the Katoris, so they were probably batch 2 of that class. Not a good basis for further development, building a larger number of Akizukis would have been better.


To do escorting(i am thinking of them as convoy escort flag) they might be cheaper ships than akizukis. They don't need the speed. Didn't they had a sort of mixed propulsion system also?


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 42
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 9:36:17 AM   
Elouda

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		@John

The initial designs called for 8,500t standard displacement, with a speed of 37.5kts. Weaponry would have been 4xII 6in/50, 4xII 3in/65, 3xIIIx25mm and 2xIV 610mm TT (1 reload).

They would have been 20m longer, and 1m beamier, with a draft ~30cm deeper. Range of 6,000nm at 18kts. Two floatplanes.

Basically they were meant to be to a CL equivalent for the Shimakaze, and I believe intended to use the same high pressure steam turbine.


@Dili

Fair point about Suzuyas No.2 gun. However, the question is if the japanese would have done so given their mentality concerning the 'importance' of surface warfare.

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/2/2008 9:49:48 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 43
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 12:07:27 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		They did it to most of their destroyers...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)
Post #: 44
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 12:34:39 PM   
Elouda

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Thats true, but it might be because they saw torpedoes as being more important to a destroyers combat capability than a single turret.

Whatever the case, evidence suggests they were atleast laid down as 5 gun ships, so atleast in early 1942 there was clearly no plans to modify them that way. Well, never know aobut 1943, as Ibuki was being mutilated into a CVL by then...

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 45
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 12:55:33 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Losing two guns on a cruiser with plenty of torpedoes probably wouldn't put the Japs off by that much.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)
Post #: 46
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 2:38:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I agree with Terminus.  I think keeping the Torps would have been a far higher priority to the Japanese on their DDs as well as cruisers.

@Elouda--that would be a solid fast CL (8 6" guns and 8 Long Lance Torps w/reloads).

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 47
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 3:30:26 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		If I may, this is my take on a realistic IJN CLAA, available at the outbreak of hostilities. The Japs had plans to turn all their old CLs into CLAA's (like the RN had done), but never got around to it pre-war.

My Kuma is the most powerful of the CLAA modifications; the Tamas and Sendais have fewer 12.7cm turrets and the Kitakamis are not converted from their torpedo cruiser configurations:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 48
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 5:19:37 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Terminus--That looks REALLY nice!  What did its AA firepower end up at?  Did you create these to be converted by the Japanese when the STARTS or are they converted prior to hostilities?  Would be great to allow the choice of conversion...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 49
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 6:42:41 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		They begin converted. Once it gets time to AE'ify my mod, I'll probably set them up as conversion options. AA rating is 522 for the Kumas, 420 and 472 for the other two classes.

The Japs have plenty of stuff that they need their slipways for once the fighting starts anyway.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/2/2008 6:55:05 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 50
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/2/2008 10:36:03 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Sounds good to me.  Thanks for the thoughts with all this.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 51
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/4/2008 7:36:16 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		John,

I doubt that the CLAAs and most especially the CAAAs would fit into this sort of a mod for a variety of reasons.

1. They are very much "what if" ships designed with the typical Japanese fanaticism of creating a ship which was "best in the world" at one thing and most other capabilities and seakeeping be-damned.

2. In order to be "best in the world" at AAA I made the CLAAs incredibly fragile. They are basically quite large DDs with almost no armour and no ability to stand up to any Allied ships in a surface fight and limited ability to survive damaging hits. The CAAAs are tough, tough ships but, again, they have an achilles heel in that they are ruinously expensie ( 2/3rds of the cost of a main gunline BB for Japan ) and have almost no surface combat capability to fight anything larger than a DD.

3. I also made various upgrades to existing DD, CL etc designs which may be of benefit to this mod but, again, I reasoned that the IJN would have to gie up something in order to fit in all those extra AAA guns and radar. So, I removed the Long Lances and went back 1 generation in torpedo technology. The R&D and production which went into Long Lances now went into radar and AAA and thus the upgrades are justified.

In my mod the IJN is a significantly weaker daytime surface combat force and slightly weaker at night-time, its ASW is unchanged but its anti-aircraft ability is massively enhanced. This is because one of the key bases of my mod is that sometime in the mid-30s the IJN decided that aircraft would be the decisive weapon in the next war and thus decided that CV airgroup attacks and friendly CV defence would determine who won the next war. They abandoned the view that the decisive battle would be a surface battle and, instead, focussed on creating the planes and strike groups they would need to sink the USN battleline with airstrikes ( whilst surviving the counter-blow ).

Without this background I think that only portions of the third tranche of changes make sense in your mod. If I might suggest something for someone looking to improve AAA defence without changing too much.

1. Consider changing all 5 inch mounts to the 5 inch DP mount - the IJN could easily have done this.

2. Consider upgrading all 12.7mm and 20mm to 40mm Bofors.

3. Consider swapping out 40mm Bofors for a small 2 gun 3.9 inch mount.

Japan had all these mounts and none of those changes would effect seakeeping too much ( the 3.9 inch mounts for 40mm Bofors would be the biggest effect and so is the most questionable ). I you make the 5 inch DP and upgrade the 12.7 and 20mm to 40mm Bofors ( and even forget about the 3.9 inch mounts on anything smaller than a CL ) I think you'll still see a major improvement in survivability using only mounts they COULD have emplaced relatively quickly without having to cut torpedo tubes.


Really the stuff I put in is good in the AAA role but only because it is pretty useless at everything else ( except maybe ASW ). It is the end result of saying "Well, if the IJN could be so battle-line centric throughout the whole war what if the "young turks" had gotten into power in the mid-30s, assasinated all the battleline guys and taken things in a completely different direction with AT LEAST as much fanaticism as the "decisive battle in the dark of midnight" bunch. "   Your assumptions are different so my outcomes ( designs ) aren't really suitable, except for some of the early conversions ( 1942 and 43 ).

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 52
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/4/2008 7:44:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks for jumping in Nemo.  I will read this and think on it some! 

I like replacing the 5" DP guns with the 3.9" guns.  Do you think that could have been done on the secondary armament of Japanese CA, BB, and CV? 


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 53
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/4/2008 7:46:09 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Eh, just FYI, the IJN 10cm twin mount weighed 40 tons including the weapons, while the dual 40mm mount AT MOST weighed 6.2 tons. It would be completely impossible to exchange one for the other without significant modification.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 54
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/4/2008 8:07:13 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thanks for jumping in Nemo. I will read this and think on it some!

I like replacing the 5" DP guns with the 3.9" guns. Do you think that could have been done on the secondary armament of Japanese CA, BB, and CV?



Definitely a possibility, the mounts were almost identical in size. The second batch of Yamatos were meant to have 10cm mounts instead of 12.7cm.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/4/2008 8:15:39 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 55
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/5/2008 1:39:54 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks Terminus.  I will play around with this some and figure out HOW to Mod and then wait for AE to seriously test it.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 56
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/5/2008 1:52:41 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		re: 5 inch DPs ad 3.9 inch... Umm, I didn't talk about swapping 5 inch DPs for 3.9inchs. I talke about swapping single-use 5 inchers or dual purpose 5 inchers.


As to the 40mm being swapped for  3.9 inch. Well, you can't do it on a 1:1 ratio UNLESS you save topweight elsewhere but you can get around this two ways:
1. Swap a few 40mm Bofors for a smaller number of 3.9 inch mounts and/or
2. Swap them 1 for 1 but save a lot of weight elsewhere ( e.g. Move to 21 inch torpedoes and do away with the at-sea reloading gear --- That saves more than enough weight, and is, mostly, the option I went with ).

As always it is about the trade-offs. You can't get everything you want but if you prioritise better AAA then you can upgrade stuff easily enough E.g. You COULD if you wanted to be pretty radical swap 5 inch and 40mm for 3.9 inch DPs trading off the weight savings by downgrading the 5 inchers to upgrade some of the Bofors. Shae a couple of knots off to account for the additional weight since I doubt the 5inchers removed will balance all the weight added and "hey presto" you've got something which just might hae been possible if the will had been there.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 57
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/5/2008 10:39:40 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Sorry, don't agree with that at all.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 58
RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/7/2008 12:00:47 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I was thinking about Terminus's Japanese designs Thread and decided that a more realistic work for Yamamoto's vision would be to cancel the Shinano and add two more Shokaku Class CVs.  These CVs would probably cost as much as the BB and be much more useful. 

Keeping in mind that Shinano would have been completed earlier if not for the conversion, when would a REASONABLE time been to expect two CVs to join the Fleet?  If they were laid down in 1940 (Circle Four) then would they be completed sometime in 1943 if they weren't accelerated?  Could they have been built slightly faster since they builders had already produced the first pair?

Since the designers would have built them as improvements over the original pair, what sort of reasonable improvement could have been made to make them more effective?  Would the Japanese have replaced the 5" DP mounts with Taiho's/Akatsuki's 3.9" AA guns?

Just brainstorming here...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 59
RE: Nemo??? - 9/7/2008 12:03:01 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The Japs had constant problems producing enough 10cm guns, so there might be issues finding enough to arm a pair of batch 2 Shokakus. I'm sure they'd like to do so, however...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
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 >> Nemo??? 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

1.203